Pop and Geog in Accra 2016

A sample is a subset of the population we use for a study and plays a vital role in any research investigation (Bryman 2008). During our time spent in Ghana we gained an insight into sampling strategies and challenges through our time in Ga Mashie and our first hand experience when conducting interviews in Totope.
When we arrived at Totope we were thrown into an interview and very little was known about the sampling strategies behind our investigation. As the interviews were organised through a gatekeeper we knew very little but the two strategies that seemed most likely were convenience and purposive sampling, both examples of non-probability sampling. The main strategy used out of the two would have been purposive, also known as targeted sampling which was used to overcome the language barrier. The participants involved needed to speak some level of English as we did not have access to translators. I think some degree of convenience sampling would have been involved as the process was fairly informal and persuading friends or people he knew would have been the easiest thing to do. A benefit of sampling in this way means the process was more informative, had we been presented with participants who barely spoke or didn’t speak English it would have been very challenging and we would have gained nothing from the experience.
However, there were clear issues with implementing these strategies, one of which was the demographic of the respondents. It was noticeable the majority of the respondents were young educated males, which may have limited the different views and responses we had. A second challenge was the confusion over the sampling frame, with some participants not being from the town itself, so they may have very little knowledge of how climate change has effected the town over time.
Our tour of Ga Mashie gave me an appreciation for the challenges behind probability sampling. Where I have previously analysed or used data I have just seen them as statistics, but walking through the slum and speaking to RIPS students opened my eyes to some of the many challenges there are in sampling and collecting this data. As we wandered through some of the outskirts of the James Town district, the lack of infrastructure and narrow streets made it incredibly difficult to identify where buildings and streets began and ended. To overcome this challenge we were informed that buildings were coded with a ‘structure’ and a ‘house’ number, with these number being chalked on the side of buildings and houses. The system apparently worked very well but it completely contrasts with the methodology that we would use here, I can’t even begin to imagine what would happen if I walked round writing numbers on people’s houses here!
The constant movement and migration of people was another key problem they faced when collecting and sampling this data. It was a common issue that after one round of data collection the interviewers could return and find different people in a house they have only recently visited. Many of the people in the houses may have had little belongings and opportunities for work could often lead them to be constantly moving around. This makes it difficult to gather representative data as what is collected could be out of date very quickly with the respondents moving on and new residents moving in. The varying residents can cause language problems, with people coming from all over the country as well other parts of West Africa making communication and interviews very difficult. Other slums have similar difficulties, Alves et al (2011) mention the problems they have in Rio and although the slums in Rio are on a much larger scale they found similar difficulties including lack of infrastructure. In terms of sampling methods they used a multistage cluster sample as it was on a much bigger scale and the methods in Ga Mashie wouldn’t have been appropriate.
Overall both of the experiences were very insightful and changed my attitude on sampling. I have realised how hard it can be especially in difficult environments not only with choosing a strategy but some of the physical challenges of sampling, especially in urban slum areas. In the future when I use datasets I will reflect on how the data was collected and using my own experiences think about some of the challenges involved.

Sean Harper
ALVES, Maria Cecilia Goi Porto et al. (2011) Household sampling in slums in surveys. Rev. Saúde Pública  vol.45, n.6 pp.1099-1109
Bryman A (2008) Social Research Methods 3rd edition Oxford: Oxford University

This is the second time I have had the opportunity to assist with the Population and Geography study tour in Accra. This year I took the students on a tour of GaMashie and helped them to develop research questions and run analysis from the EDULINK Wave 1 dataset. I took the students through City Engineers, James Town Lighthouse, Akanmada, Mantse Agbona, Sea Market, Ussher Fort and the Art Gallery, significant landmarks in the community. As I was explaining the EDULINK methodology, economic activities, food habits, food beliefs, religious activities, health challenges of the community to the students, I felt a sense of belonging to the community and its people and realised how much I have learnt as a researcher studying the area for the past 5 years. It is such a joy to go to the field without a target of interviews and questionnaires to complete. The students had research questions about contraceptive use, abortion, women’s empowerment and education. It was a learning and fun experience to guide them through the data and potential research questions the data could answer.

One of the key learning targets whilst in Ghana was to conduct in-depth interviews with locals regarding their experiences with climate change. We had particular interest in if and how climate change affected their everyday lives and livelihoods, as well as whether they needed to adapt their ways to accustom themselves to this problem. In-depth interviews are a key tool in gaining qualitative, first-hand insight into people’s thought process that may otherwise not be able to be gained through other data collection methods. A benefit of using interviews is that it allows the interviewer to respond to and ask further questions related to what has been mentioned to maximise the knowledge gained from the participant (The Wallace Foundation, not dated).
This task took us to a coastal community in the Volta Delta region, called Totope. Residents of Totope had the local language of Dangme and their English skills were varied. With lack of translators, the issue of language barriers was a struggle to overcome. These issues not only limited the amount of information we could gain from participants, but also led to discussions around ethical research guidelines. One issue that arose in particular was with gaining informed consent.
The basis of informed consent is that prospective participants must be given sufficient information about the research in which they may be partaking to decide whether they wish to consent for participation (Crow et al. 2006). To achieve informed consent participants are given a participant information sheet containing the purpose of the research, why they have been chosen to participate and the potential benefits and risks that they will be subjected to. The participant information sheet will involve information regarding who is financing the study and how the results will be used as well as explaining how anonymity and confidentiality will be kept (ESRC, 2015). The sheet will also remind participants of their right to decline participation in the study and right to withdraw at any time without any subsequent consequences (Crow et al. 2006). Reminding subjects of their rights as a participant is important to avoid risk of coercion. Similarly, giving participants information about the study minimises risk of deception, another of the ethical guidelines.

Participants must read all the given information on the participant information sheet and sign to stipulate that they are willing to participate in your interview. In our case the participants had the option of having the participant information sheet read to them, to eliminate issues if they couldn’t read English, or they could read it themselves. Where language issues exist it is possible that a participant could read and sign the sheet but without actually fully understanding what it said. This could breach ethical guidelines as despite giving consent for their participation, it is not necessarily informed consent as desired due to their lack of knowledge about their rights. For example, participants may wish to withdraw during the interview however may not have understood their right to do so. This may lead participants to disclose less information as they want the interview to finish quickly as they feel uncomfortable. This issue could also potentially taint the future participant pool for other scholars, limiting future research and knowledge.
Another issue related to language barriers is the possibility for it to limit the amount of information obtained from participants. The participant may not understand what you are asking or alternatively may not have the language ability to respond in the best manner. This means the interviews are not as useful in gaining as much information as they potentially could. From experience with interviewing, when participants don’t understand the question often the interviewer needs to probe the participant by asking more questions, and this could result in leading questions being asked. This would mean that the conclusions drawn may not be valid as the participant is responding in a manner in which to simply agree with what the interviewer is asking – this may not be their real opinions and can lead to bias. Furthermore, language barriers may lead to miscommunication as the interviewer may interpret something the participant had said in a different way than had been intended. This would limit the validity of the results as they are not accurate to what the participant was trying to portray, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions being drawn.
If this procedure could be redone it could be preferable to use a translator to help overcome the language barriers. Translators require specific training however and would make the process more expensive and time-consuming (Wallace Foundation, not dated). There is also the issue that by having another member there, the participant may feel less comfortable to elicit as much information. A risk with translators is that you are unsure if the translator is truly relaying what the participant feels, or whether they are incorporating their own opinions which would alter your results. Alternatively, the participant information sheet could be translated to ensure the participants fully understand what they are consenting to, then the interview could continue to take place in English. This would minimise ethical issues related to consent but the issues regarding gaining information would still remain.

Claire Cheung

References:
Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S. and Charles, V. 2006 ‘Research Ethics and Data Quality: The Implications of Informed Consent’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 83-95.
The Wallace Foundation. ‘Conducting In-Depth Interviews’, [Online], Available: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/after-school/collecting-and-using-data/Documents/Workbook-E-Indepth-Interviews.pdf [accessed April 12].
ESRC, 2015. ‘Framework for research ethics’, [Online], Available:http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-research-ethics-2015/ [accessed April 14].

Fishing boats at Totope

Qualitative interviews are a commonly used research method to learn about different people’s experiences, knowledge, ideas and motivation, behaviour and values, the list could continue on further (Schostak, 2006). Ethics play a crucial role in how interviews are conducted and the reliability and validity of the results. If research is not ethical it would be disregarded by academics and rendered useless. The main three ethical issues spoken about throughout are informed consent, confidentiality and privacy and then finally intrusiveness and coercion. These issues will be linked to real life qualitative interviews on costal erosion and climate change undertaken for practice and experience in the Ada Foah delta region in Ghana. The purpose of these interviews was to gain knowledge of qualitative date collection and to learn how the different processes work.

Informed consent was established in 1949, and then in 1974 stricter regulations were put into place after various unethical studies which did not fully inform participants on the aims and plan of the study therefore felt that taking part was a requirement (Bryman, 2012). Participants who took part in the interviews in Ada Foah were given an approved participant information sheet which explained the process of the interview and why it was taking place. However, a major obstacle in the effectiveness of this was the participant’s limited English proficiency (LEP), this means that many only had a basic level of English ability (Escobedo, 2007). These language barriers posed the question of whether informed consent had been successfully provided. One of these questions was whether participants understood their rights that they do not have to answer questions and can withdraw at any time, they may have continued with the interview even if they felt uncomfortable and unhappy (Escobedo, 2007). A further issue is that participants may have felt a level of expectation or that something good may come out of the interviews, for example, better and more improved sea defences will be built. Participants may have been unaware or did not understand it was only a training exercise. Therefore, the idea of false expectations may arise, which would lead to disappointment and may prevent further research being able to be conducted in that area. Informed consent could be improved in many ways such as have a translator present or translating the informed consent sheet into the local language. Talking through the participant sheet may have helped their understanding and using less complex language (Escobedo, 2007).

Another ethical issue present was the lack of privacy and confidentiality involved. These are put into place to ensure participants are unidentifiable to reduce the risks of harm, and also to encourage openness (Miller, 2012). The interviews that took place were open and outdoors, this meant that participants could easily be identified by people who live in the village. People would regularly walk passed and distract the interview. This may have caused participants to feel uncomfortable and not open up as much as they could have. It also could put the participants are risk of harm and stigma as other members are the village may not have felt comfortable about them taking part. To rectify this the interviews could have taken place in more private places, such as a building or inside someone’s home. However, this was probably not a practical solution as it could cause the interviewer to feel uncomfortable.

The final ethical issue to mention is intrusiveness and coercion. Intrusion entails interfering with the participants time and space, this may have been more dominate in the practice interviews as a group of highly educated white people have travelled to small costal town in Ada Foah, therefore they may have felt invaded with us being there (Miller, 2012). It could have led to negative feelings towards the interviewers as they did not fully understand the purpose of the research and practice. This links to the issue of coercion as participants interviewed may have not wanted to take part in the interviews, however the gatekeeper and recruiter may have forced participants to be involved in the interviewing. As they spoke the local language, it could not be made clear if this was the case but on a few occasions participants behaviour suggested ideas they were not happy to be involved. The prevention of this may be difficult to achieve because of the language barriers, trust has to be put in the gatekeeper or fellow researcher that they have approached recruitment in an ethical way.

Overall, the interviews had many issues and there were several areas which could be changed to improve on interviews in the future. Ethical issues effect the quality of the study and the results achieved, therefore it is crucial to follow ethical guidelines set out. The issues involved did effect the interviews and there execution because they prevented the interviews from flowing smoothly and effectively. However, many of these issues were hard to prevent due to many factors, such as lack of knowledge of the area and people.

Charlotte Owen

References
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Escobedo, C., Guemero, J., Lujan, G., Ramirez, A. and Serrano, D. (2007). Ethical Issues with Informed Consent. Bio-Ethics. 1.
Lapan, S.D., Quartaroli, M.L.T. and Riemer, F.J. (2012). Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and Designs. Wiley. Chichester.
Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M. and Jessop, J. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research. 2nd Edition. SAGE. London.
Schostak, J. (2006). Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research. 1st Edition. McGraw-Hill. Maidenhead.

On Tuesday the 15th of March, 2016 we visited the Totope community in the Ada Foah region in the Volta Delta where we were to carry out individual in-depth interviews with chosen participants. Our aims were to investigate how climate change and sea level rise has impacted the residents of the Totope community, ways in which they have adapted to this and their considerations on the future of their livelihoods in the context of climate change.
Before arriving at Totope the informed consent document was distributed to us and I was immediately taken aback by the length and detail of it. However, as stated by Bryman (2012) providing adequate informed consent is a key principle of research ethics and as much information as needed should be provided to ensure the participant can make a fully informed decision of whether to take part in the study. We were also given an interview guide providing us with a schedule of open-ended questions giving us some form of direction to follow, but allowing us to prompt and discuss further issues with the participant. Before starting my interview, I took a couple of moments to take in the surroundings and settings for the interview to familiarise myself with the setting for my interview. When being introduced to my interview participant, I tried to create ‘rapport’ as discussed in our prior lectures and by keeping in mind the suggestions by Burgess (2003) by maintaining a relaxed attitude and posture and making eye contact in order to present myself as friendly as possible.
During the interview I found that my participant was very compliant with most of the questions asked and issues discussed, however I took care to immediately recognise when the participant may have been unwilling to discuss a particular issue for example financial problems invoked by climate change. I also kept in mind further suggestions by Burgess (2003) of identifying what kind of ‘silence’ may materialise in the interview, however I did find it challenging to distinguish between a potentially thoughtful silence and a stuck silence therefore I was unsure whether to prompt further or to move on to another topic. I did find it strenuous at times to uphold the interview as a normal conversation with a background purpose as Cloke et al. (2004) suggest an in depth interview should be. However, Legard et al. (2003) discuss that actually this illusion of an in depth interview being likened to a normal everyday conversation is unrealistic and that it is indeed challenging to sustain one as much. I do however think that the way in which an interview unfolds depends on both the interviewer’s own skills and the comfortability of the participant which were both limited in this context.
After the interview I took a moment to collect my immediate thoughts on how the interview transpired. I felt it was extremely insightful and extensively interesting, particularly when the participant gave nuance comments of which I would never have deduced from my own observations. At times I found it difficult to withhold my emotional reactions to the participant’s answers and attempted bring back the focus of the interview when I felt my reactions may have disrupted the interview. It was very visible when the participant was broached with questions and issues that they felt strongly about and were very willing to go into detail in, at which point I sat back for a few moments to allow them elaborate and speak their mind freely. One instance I found particularly encouraging was the extent of my participant’s knowledge of what exactly is causing the localised climate change in Totope. It gave me an extent of hope for the future of this community as by being given the knowledge of climate change through education my participant discussed with me potential solutions for the community and ways in which they can adapt. It became very apparent the impact that education of current global issues can have on small, rural communities such as Totope.

Jenny Hoper

References:
A. Bryman (2012) Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, New York.
J. Burgess (2003) The Art of Interviewing, The Student’s Companion to Geography, 2nd edition, Blackwell, Oxford.
P. Cloke, I. Cook, P. Crang, M. Goodwin, J. Painter & C. Pilo (2004) Practicing Human Geography, London, SAGE publications Ltd.
R. Legard, J. Keegan & K. Ward (2003) In-depth interviews, Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.

The relationship built during an interview can often be a major influential aspect of gaining in-depth, truthful answers for a demographic project. Being one-on-one with a stranger, talking about a pre-determined subject can be quite daunting; particularly if other restrictive issues are involved, such as language barriers. Building rapport is more likely to influence the success of a qualitative interview rather than surveys for example, as interviewing has a greater need for dynamic and descriptive material, therefore the interviewee has to feel open to express their opinion in detail. This technique was very effective during our interviews in the Volta delta in Ghana; not only showing us the relationship between rapport and the responses, but also the issues that can arise when trying to create a rapport.

Before an interview commences, it is beneficial for the interviewer to take some time to introduce themselves and the project to the participant, as well as creating small talk to relieve any nerves before getting into the questions. This allows them to feel more comfortable in this strange environment, so respondents are more likely to provide more illustrative answers which helps to perform in-depth analysis of the results and draw reliable conclusions (Randall and Koppenhaver, 2004).

Rapport was significant to the interviews we conducted in Ghana as it was important for us to sympathise with these respondents as the research topic involved their home and work life. From the interviewer’s point of view, building a relationship with them allowed us to become more involved in the conversation; not just focussed on getting an answer, but developing their opinion to gain depth in the topic. It seemed that as we became more interested in what they were saying, they were more willing to converse.

During the interviews we conducted in Ghana, we found that rapport was hard to build initially. Firstly, we had never spoken to these people before so relating to them was difficult – in the beginning it felt quite false, especially as we were nervous ourselves. However, showing confidence during an interview reflects professionalism and ability, which helps the respondent to feel comforted that you are in control and know what you are doing (Legard et al, 2003). As the interview developed, we gained confidence and we able to adapt questions to react to the respondent’s answer.

A second issue we found with building rapport was the language barrier; as we were not using translators, there was some difficulty in helping the respondent to understand what we were saying. This was evident when comparing the first interview we conducted to the second; the first respondent understood English better than the second, so we were able to build a better relationship with him and ask more in-depth questions. The second seemed very nervous about answering questions, which we found difficult to amend as we were unable to comfort her. This meant the interview was very stiff and unadaptable, so we were not able to gain as much depth in her answers. As we couldn’t relax her through small talk, we tried different methods to build rapport such as eye contact, smiling and hand gestures to help her understand.

The third main issue we came across was time restraints and the trade-off between taking the time to introduce them to the project, and taking their personal time away – Gubrium & Holstein (2001) explain how rapport is not often “quickly achieved”, but may be a dependent factor on a successful interview. As the consent form we gave them stated we would not use more than 45 minutes of their time, we were wary of keeping them too long and taking advantage of their participation. In this way, we had little extra time to be able to talk informally with them and build a relationship – if we had more time, it is possible that they would have told us more personal experiences to do with the project as they confided in us more.

Building rapport is important for all interview situations, especially if the subject is sensitive to the respondent or they seem agitated by the questions. We found one of our greatest obstacles was the language barrier which is going to be a natural factor when conducting interviews in remote foreign locations. Coming up with solutions for problems like this enables the interviewer to feel more experienced and confident for next time – one thing we found is that if you (the interviewer) are relaxed, your respondent is more likely to reflect the same relaxed feeling and the interview will go a lot smoother!

Alice Sanders

References

Legard, R., Keegan, J., Ward, K. ‘In-depth Interviews’ IN: Richie, J., Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage.

Randall, S., Koppenhaver, T. (2004), ‘Qualitative data in demography: The sound of silence and other problems’, Demographic Research. 11(3), p57-94. Rostock: Max Planck Institute.

Gubrium, J., Holstein, J. (2001), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. London: Sage.

The key to a successful research interview is to avoid ‘conducting an interview’. That is to say that there is far more to learn from an interviewee if the interview becomes a natural conversation. Needless to say this can seem like an impossible task and in an unfamiliar location with reluctant participants and barriers such as language and education between the interviewer and interviewee the odds appear stacked against the interviewer. Without building a relationship before and during an interview, it is understandable that an interview may take a turn for the worse and become a more forced game of ‘questions and answers’. Rapport is essential, and the sooner this can be achieved the better (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). The guidelines for how to establish rapport are extensive, but we soon discovered that each interview is unique.
Looking back on our experiences of interviewing in Ghana, it seems prudent to talk about the barriers between ourselves and our interviewees, and between a regimented interview and an insightful conversation. Rapport is created by conveying to an interview that what they are saying is appreciated and fully understood (Hiller and Diluzio, 2004). In this regard there is no doubt that the interviewees’ cooperation and participation was greatly appreciated and highly valued, as we genuinely believed this and aimed to convey our gratitude from the off. However, we did occasionally experience difficulty in understanding, and soon discovered that the language barrier would be problematic. In practice there is a seemingly endless chain of hindrances to the interviewing process when your participants have a more limited (but nonetheless admirable) knowledge of the English language.
Given our own definitive inability to utter a word of the native language, we, supposedly taking the lead in the interview, were entirely reliant on the participants’ ability to speak English. In our first interview our interviewee was a young student who spoke excellent English. We were able to engage in conversation and establish a mutual ground in talking about sports. This held us in good stead for the ‘interview’ that followed, in which he was very open with his responses, and prepared to talk at length. However, our second interviewee was certainly not as fluent. Despite doing our best to use our body language, eye contact and facial expressions to encourage our interviewee, there is only so much that can be achieved in an ‘in-depth’ interview if both parties do not speak the same language.
Much of the difficulty created by the language barrier stems, among other things, from the level of education of an interviewee. In our case, we had two participants with very different educational experiences. Our first participant had completed his studies at a high level at the Regional Maritime University and was currently working for an oil company, while our second participant was a mother who had very little knowledge of the English language and therefore was far less responsive to our tentative enquiries. This lack of education in our second participant was accompanied by an expected level of illiteracy, with the effect that not only was she unable to understand the written agreement we offered her at the beginning of the interview, but she was also unable to understand our attempted explanation as such. Ultimately this created a barrier of education disparity between us that proved immovable, as our interviewee was clearly intimidated by our efforts to explain the process to her. In the end we agreed that in an actual research project we would most likely neglect to use the recording of this interview and possibly even what limited information we gathered, as we could not be certain beyond doubt that our participant was fully aware of what she was agreeing to.
It is also worth noting that the education barrier was not non-existent even in our first interview, despite having a participant with a very high level of education relative to the rest of the local population. While we were able to develop rapport initially through normal conversation, as is recommended, this was brought to an abrupt halt when we asked our interviewee to read his participant information sheet, which he agreed to do. He had many questions and was happy to sign the declaration, but it was clear that he struggled to read some of the more complex aspects of the information sheets, and when we resumed conversation it was as if this had reconstructed a barrier that we believed we had been able to overcome.
However, language and education were not the only factors that made our interviews more difficult than we expected, but also a sense of an invisible and unspoken hierarchy. We felt constantly guilty of exercising power over our interviewees, even though their participation was ‘voluntary’ and we made this perfectly clear. In particular, our second, less educated and female, interviewee gave the distinct impression that she had been told to be there and was not a truly voluntary participant. This drastically affected the content of the interview, as we were reluctant to probe with questions that she did not respond well to as we aimed to avoid exercising any undeserved control over her, and this could have led her to give opinions that were not truly her own. Eventually she gathered the courage to state that she had nothing left to say and we concluded the interview. It is vital in any good interview to establish equal ground between the interviewer and interviewee and in this case we were simply unable to do so.
It is possible that race was a significant contributing factor to this disparity. In both interviews the participants noted the fact that we were white, and in fact seemed to make a connection between ourselves and a corporation that had previously come to build a sea barricade but failed to follow through on their intention of return to provide more aid. This association spawned an apparent hostility towards us, as our first interviewee described them as “white people such as yourselves” and our second interviewee seemed to personally accuse us of not upholding a promise. Given that the village was so isolated, the presence of white people will have been unwelcome to many of the locals who have not travelled. While it is important for us to visit the study area to gain an insight and be able to put our findings into context (Seidman, 2013), we felt as though we were being perceived as imposters. This is not a good basis for rapport.
Our experience of interviewing and building rapport, therefore, was somewhat mixed. We found that it is far more difficult than expected to establish a good relationship and grounds for a relaxed and honest interview when there are obstacles such as language barriers, educational disparities, racial differences, and pre-conceived opinions of one another. We even found, particularly in our second interview, that it was more of a case of ‘doing rapport’ to our interviewees rather than establishing rapport with them, as can be observed in in-depth interviews (Duncombe and Jessop, 2002). While our interviews were still relatively successful, our second interview in particular suffered as a result of these barriers, and it is possible that there would have been far more to learn from our participants in less difficult circumstances. However, we must accept that this is not always possible, and thus we must continue to work to master the art of the successful interview.
Will Knapman

References
DiCicco-Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B.F. (2006) ‘The qualitative research interview’, Medical Education, 40(4), pp. 314–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x.
Duncombe, J. and Jessop, J. (2002) ‘Doing Rapport’ and the Ethics of ‘Faking Friendship’ (pp. 108-121). London: Sage.
Hiller, H.H. and Diluzio, L. (2004) ‘The interviewee and the research interview: Analysing a neglected dimension in research’, Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 41(1), pp. 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-618x.2004.tb02167.x.
Seidman, I. (2013) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. 4th edn. New York: Teachers’ College Press.