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.

Instructional texts such as Bryman (2010) provide a range of advice regarding qualitative data collection such as how to construct interview questions, select the participants and gain consent. However, no guidance is available with regard to selecting an interview location (the place where information is exchanged between the interviewer and the research participant), and specifically, how the social power dynamics of different places can affect the interview and data collection (Elwood and Martin, 2000). The little information that is provided simply states the location should be quiet, private and easy to find for the participant. Most texts assume power dynamics are absent in certain locations as they only suggest a “neutral” place should be found to conduct the interview. So how should researchers go about selecting an appropriate location to conduct the qualitative interviews necessary for their work?

Two main issues need to be considered when selecting an interview location (Elwood and Martin, 2000). The practicalities need to be assessed such as accessibility to the location, a location that is appropriate for conversation, quiet, in a cool area, private and away from other people and distractions. Secondly, concerns regarding power relations between the participant and interviewer should be considered. For example, choosing a university office as the interview location would portray the interviewer as the “expert”, making the participant uncomfortable and this may affect and restrict the answers they give to the research question, therefore minimising the usefulness of the data.

Feminist geographers have conceptualised power and place in the research process and highlight the power hierarchies which are present between the researcher and the participant (Bryman, 2008 and Elwood and Martin, 2000). These may include differences in gender, race, class, ethnicity and other dimensions of social differentiation, in addition to the inequalities between the developed and developing worlds (Elwood and Martin, 2000). The interview location chosen can emphasise these differences, therefore creating an unbalanced power relation and impacting the data collected. In an ideal situation, the relationship between the interviewer and the participant would be non-hierarchical (Bryman, 2008). The location of the interview reflects the relationship of the interviewer and participant, the relationship of the participant with the site and the broader sociocultural context of the location that affects the researcher, participant and results collected (Elwood and Martin, 2000). These three relationships need to be considered when selecting an ideal interview location.

For example, Berik (1996) conducted research investigating the gender system in rural areas of Turkey: whilst conducting interviews she faced the challenge of power imbalance between the genders in the community: this affected the locations in which interviews could be conducted. Whilst interviewing women, she had to select an interview location away from men as their presence would have affected the women’s responses to the research questions and may have stopped them answering some entirely. Whilst interviewing men, the location had to be appropriate for a man and woman to be alone together there (Berik, 1996). The power imbalance of gender relations seen here affected the relationship between the researcher and participant and the participant and location as Elwood and Martin (2000) acknowledge.

In reality, research sites may be chosen by the researcher, participant or other actors who affect the research such as a gatekeeper to the community. Participants who have chosen the research site may feel more empowered and liberated so may give fuller answers during the questioning.

When conducting our interviews in Totope, the location was selected by the participant. The interview location was under a tree in the open space in the centre of the community: it was in the sun so was uncomfortable for participant, interviewer and assistant. Additionally, there was the noise of TV football coverage in the background which was distracting and may have affected the quality of the voice recording. During the interview, other members of the community came very close to see what was happening, including one quite senior man talking very loudly on his phone very close behind the interviewee. This affected our concentration and the flow of the interview and therefore may have affected the data collected as the participant’s answers may have been inaccurate or biased when the other man was close by. Additionally, I was concerned for the ethical implications of another person being around as he may have overheard therefore breeching anonymity and confidentiality.

On the plus side we had adequate seating so the interviewer, assistant and interviewee were all at the same eye level and were within a good closeness of each other to be comfortable, build rapport and have a good conversation. However, as we were in a clear area in the centre of the village, when it came to the end of the interview it was difficult to ask the participant to leave, as he didn’t really have anywhere else to go. We ended up with a gathering of people around us, and even with the second participant ready to begin, it was difficult to get the rest of the crowd to disperse.

Overall, when choosing the interview location the researcher must consider: What is the role of the site in the community? Who is also around? How will participants’ and researchers’ roles, identities and positions be constructed in this particular place?. If it is out of their control, the researcher can reflect on how these questions affected the research and data collected.

Daisy Lavington

References

Berik, G. (1996) Understanding the gender system in rural Turkey: Fieldwork dilemmas of conformity and intervention. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, ed. Wolf, D., 56-71, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, 3^rd Ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elwood, S. and Martin, D. (2000) “Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research, Professional Geographer, 52(4):649-657.

There are many obstacles that are likely to prevent data from being of a high quality when conducting primary research in the field, and arguably even more arise when researching in a developing society (Bulmer, 1993), but why is this the case? It is argued that one of the reasons for the experience of increased difficulty relates to language. This essay discusses the theoretical detrimental effects of linguistic barriers on interview situations, according to existing literature, and the extent to which these have been applicable to a recent experience of interviewing in Totope, Ghana.

Primarily, language presents challenges when there is a differential between the capacities of the interviewer and the interviewee (Oliver, 2010). In Totope, difficulties became apparent early on in data collection as the sampling methodology was affected. Owing to the language barrier, there was inevitable reliance on a native-speaking gatekeeper in order to obtain permission to enter and research within the community, as well as recruit and motivate participants for the study. Despite the fact that translation did not constitute part of the duties for this gatekeeper, literature demonstrates that results can still be greatly affected as a result of their actions. According to Campbell et al. (2006), the likelihood of gaining voluntary participation may have been reduced as ethical conduct of the gatekeeper could not be guaranteed during the recruitment stage. Interviewees may have been influenced, or even coerced, by the gatekeeper in an attempt to increase participation rates, but the interviewer remains ignorant if communication is predominantly in the native language. In Totope, the language barrier ultimately caused interview results to suffer in terms of reliability and bias. More specifically, due to the requirement for English-speaking participants, the gatekeeper was forced to select individuals based on this criterion. This meant that the mode of sampling was not random as each participant did not have an equal chance of being selected (Bryman, 2012). Selected individuals were more likely to be young, male and English-speaking, which meant that elderly and female cohorts were underrepresented in the sample and their responses were missed; and due to the requirement for bilingual participants, it was likely that those with greater educational attainment were overrepresented. These issues demonstrate large sampling bias, and thus contributed towards biased results. However, despite the aforementioned difficulties, it must be noted that the role of the gatekeeper was crucial to the successful completion of the interviews in Totope.

Oliver (2010) states that during interviews themselves, poor linguistic proficiencies also compromise the accuracy of results through power imbalances. From the type of language and tone used, to facial expressions, posture, emotions and even reactions to the answers given by interviewees, the interviewer can greatly affect the results of the study. Power imbalances are directly linked to the characteristics of the interviewer and can be furthered cultures are dissimilar (Bryman, 2012). When formal language of the interviewer is contrasted by colloquial language of the interviewee for instance, misunderstandings and inappropriate responses are likely outcomes (Oliver, 2010). Not only is invalid data a potential result of these power imbalances, but the establishment of rapport may become difficult due to a sense of intimidation. It is argued that the interviewer can sometimes be seen as an ‘intruder’ (Oliver, 2010, p.53), which is a particular issue when the interviewer is assumed to be representing an institution or organisation. The risks to the study’s results can be greater still if the interviewer is guilty of ethnocentrism (Oliver, 2010), or if they are ignorant towards culture-specific mannerisms. If the feeling of intrusion applies, the richness of the results will be limited as rapport – a vital component of a successful in-depth-interview – is likely to be weak (Bryman, 2012). In practise, despite efforts to minimise the effect of power imbalances, including appropriate dress, friendly demeanour and becoming aware of culture-specific handshakes, it is likely that the interviews in Totope were affected to some extent due to lack of interviewing experience. In reflection, the sensitivity of the interviewee to implicit power imbalances and interviewer characteristics is greater than initially assumed. This highlights the importance of prior planning and training, to ensure the interviewer is adequately equipped to build rapport and minimise challenges in the field.

As with the issues described above, the misinterpretation of data can also occur through what Bulmer (1993, p.12) terms: ‘linguistic equivalence’. This refers to the tendency for responses to vary by language, as literal translations differ depending on the context. Consequently, vital data such as colloquial terms may be missed; terms that may be distinctive features of a particular ethnicity, and may add great depth to research findings. This issue does not apply directly to the Totope interviews because English-speaking participants were selected. Although, these interviews could indeed have benefitted from the presence of a translator to help ensure that responses were interpreted correctly, and that results were as accurate as possible. It would have also allowed for increased participation rates and better representation of the population, as native speakers – including female and elderly cohorts – would then be eligible for interviewing.

Through discussing existing theory on the difficulties associated with conducting in-depth-interviews in developing societies and experiencing these difficulties directly, it is clear that many challenges may arise; some of which will remain unforeseen until in the field. It is also clear that whatever the research objective, extensive planning should be undertaken in order to attempt to mitigate the aforementioned challenges as best as possible. It is also implied in the literature that higher quality results are produced by an open-minded and approachable attitude. Often a successful interview, as discovered in Totope, begins with something as simple as a smile and a well-practised local handshake.

Bradley Tombleson

References

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oliver, P. (2010) The student’s guide to research ethics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bulmer, M. (1993) General introduction IN: Bulmer, M. and Warwick D. (eds.) Social Research in Developing Countries: Surveys and Censuses in the Third World. London: Routledge, 3-26.

Campbell, L., Gray, N., Meletis, Z. Abbott, J. and Silver, J. (2006) Gatekeepers and keymasters: dynamic relationships of access in geographical fieldwork. Geographical Review, 96 (1), 97-121.

During our time in Ghana we met Davida who has an MA in Population Studies from RIPS and for the last few years has been working as a Research Assistant at the School of Public Health, University of Ghana  on a joint project with the University of Southampton to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality.

Davida was involved with the collection of the EDULINK data when she was a student so she was there to support us at RIPS and during the tour through Ga Mashie. One thing I learnt about her is that she loves to read and listen to traditional Ghanaian music. Her sister also made some of us clothes using traditional fabric, like the trousers Davida is wearing in the picture below. We really appreciated her taking the time to spend with us.

Davida on James Town lighthouse