SAGE Research Methods Cases

SAGE Research Methods Cases Using In-Depth Interviews to Research Taboo Issues, Stigmatized Conditions and Marginalized Populations: Lessons Learned from the Caribbean Masculinities Project

Contributors: David Plummer & Joel Earl Simpson Book Title: SAGE Research Methods Cases Chapter Title: "Using In-Depth Interviews to Research Taboo Issues, Stigmatized Conditions and Marginalized Populations: Lessons Learned from the Caribbean Masculinities Project" Pub. Date: 20140512 Access Date: September 16, 2014 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

City: London Print ISBN: Online ISBN: 9781446273050 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014534171 ©2014 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

SAGE AUTHORS ©2014 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014534171

Using In-Depth Interviews to Research Taboo Issues, Stigmatized Conditions and Marginalized Populations: Lessons Learned from the Caribbean Masculinities Project Link to the Research Output •

•

•

•

•

Plummer, D., & Simpson, J. (2007). HIV/AIDS and Caribbean masculinities. In Commonwealth Secretariat (Ed.), Financing gender equality (pp. 68–71). London, England: Nexus. Plummer, D. (2007). Chapter 3: Masculinity – How male gender roles affect learning and learning spaces and impact on vulnerability to HIV. In: ! UNAIDS Inter Agency Task Team on Education (Ed.), Tailoring the education message: a diversity of settings and needs. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development. Plummer, D. (2009). How risk and vulnerability become ‘socially embedded’: Insights into the resilient gap between awareness and safety in HIV. In C. Barrow, ed. , M. de Bruin, ed. & R. Carr (Eds.), Sexuality, social exclusion & human rights: Vulnerability in the Caribbean context of HIV. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D. (2010a). Chapter 2: HIV in Caribbean schools: The role of HIV education in the second most severely affected region in the world. In M. Morrissey, ed. , M. Bernard, ed. & D. Bundy (Eds.), Challenging HIV & AIDS: a new role for Caribbean education. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D. (2010b). Chapter 10: Is learning becoming taboo for Caribbean boys? In M. Morrissey, ed. , M. Bernard, ed. & D. Bundy (Eds.), Challenging

Page 3 of 24

SAGE Research Methods Cases: Using In-Depth Interviews to Research Taboo Issues, Stigmatized Conditions and Marginalized Populations: Lessons Learned from the Caribbean Masculinities Project


•

•

•

•


HIV & AIDS: a new role for Caribbean education. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D., & Geofroy, S. (2010). When bad is cool: Violence and crime as rites of passage to manhood. Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, 4, 1–17. Retrieved from http://www2.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/february2010/journals/ PlummerGeofory.pdf Plummer, D. (2011). HIV + masculinity = risk: Exploring the relationship between masculinities, education and HIV in the Caribbean. In J. F. Klot, ed. & V-K. Nguyen (Eds.), The fourth wave: Violence, gender, culture and HIV in the 21st century. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. Plummer, D. (2013). Masculinity and risk: How gender constructs drive sexual risks in the Caribbean. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 163–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-013-0116-7 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-013-0116-7 Plummer, D., McLean, A., & Simpson, J. (2008). Has learning become taboo and is risk-taking compulsory for Caribbean boys? Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, 2, 1–14. Retrieved from http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/ september2008/journals/DPlummerAMcleanJSimpson.pdf

The detailed interview is a classic method of qualitative data collection. To be conducted effectively, interviews demand considerable skill and judgment. Nowhere is this more critical than when working with participants from disadvantaged and marginalized populations and when the research examines stigmatized conditions and taboo issues. To explore the techniques involved in researching these issues, this case study unpacks the approach taken for the Caribbean Masculinities Project. The Caribbean Masculinities Project used in-depth interviewing to explore ‘coming of age’ and ‘becoming a man’ among 138 diverse young Caribbean men from eight countries. The practical experiences and the lessons learned are outlined. While the techniques described here can be applied in any interview-based research, they are especially important when working with taboo issues (such as sexuality and gender non-conformity), stigmatized conditions (such as HIV) and marginalized populations (such as young gay black men growing up in homophobic settings).

Page 4 of 24




Learning Outcomes After studying this case, you should have • • •

Improved sensitivity when researching taboo issues, stigmatized conditions and when reaching out to disadvantaged and marginalized populations Greater understanding of the practicalities entailed in conducting fieldwork that examines stigmatized or taboo issues Strengthened skills for conducting in-depth interviews involving difficult topics and with populations who have experienced discrimination

Introduction In-depth interviewing is a core qualitative research technique. Conducting high-quality research interviews requires highly developed skills and a thoughtful, methodical approach. A poorly conducted interview has the potential to sabotage the entire project. Nowhere is this more important than when researching taboo issues and stigmatized conditions, and when working with participants who have experienced discrimination, marginalization and disadvantage. Consider, for example, how you might gain access to hidden, marginalized and other difficult-to-reach populations in order to recruit participants? How do you establish your credibility and gain the trust of people you want to talk to? How might you maximize your chances of participants ‘opening up’ and being given accurate information; of gathering accounts that haven't been ‘sanitized’ for your ears; and of conducting interviews where key details have not been suppressed because of shame, fear or lack of trust? This case study examines lessons learned from the Caribbean Masculinities Project. The project represents an ideal opportunity to explore some of the complexities involved in researching taboo issues, stigmatized conditions and disadvantaged and marginalized populations. The Caribbean Masculinities Project studied the coming-ofage experiences of young, mainly black Caribbean men in eight countries. In many of Page 5 of 24




these countries, HIV is a major problem and is associated with considerable stigma. The transitional period from childhood to manhood is a time of particularly high HIV risk. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, it is commonplace for HIV to be stereotyped as a ‘gay disease’, and many Caribbean countries have a reputation for deep homophobia. The Caribbean Masculinities Project intentionally set out to interview young men from diverse backgrounds, including young, Black, gay and bisexual men and poor men from so-called garrison communities (ghettos) in several countries, including Jamaica. The project is therefore well suited to be a case study of the complexities and nuances involved in researching stigmatized conditions, taboo issues and disadvantaged and marginalized populations.

Project Overview The Caribbean Masculinities Project explores the journey from childhood to manhood and the formation of contemporary gender identities among Caribbean men in the context of their upbringing and relationships in the family, among peers, at school and in the neighbourhood. The approach builds on methods previously used by the lead author (D.P.) to examine Australian masculinities (Plummer, 1999, 2005). Interview techniques are based on Kvale (1996) and subsequent analysis used a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) with adaptations recommended by Layder (1993). Between 2005 and 2008, detailed interviews were conducted with 138 young men in seven independent Caribbean countries (Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago) and one British island territory (Anguilla). Interviews explored prevalent constructions of masculinity in the Anglophone Caribbean, paying particular attention to boys' education, health, risk-taking, violence and crime. The aims of the research are (1) to identify better explanations for the various and shifting gender arrangements found in the Caribbean and (2) to postulate relationships between gender and risk-taking, health, education, violence and crime. The interviews constitute a detailed and highly relevant database that has subsequently been used to explore social trends, to offer explanations for those trends, to draw conclusions about processes underlying changing gender roles and to formulate social policy recommendations aimed at strengthening gender relations. Evidence of the effectiveness of the techniques used in this project includes the wide

Page 6 of 24




range of peer-reviewed publications, many of which are listed in the ‘Further Reading’ section at the end of this case.

Recruitment and Sampling Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants who were in a position to offer concrete observations and informed accounts of the social construction of gender, gender obligations, gender taboos and gender relations. Steps were taken to ensure that the resulting explanatory framework was detailed, meaningful and had broad social relevance. These steps include adding cases until saturation was reached; sampling diverse, variant and negative cases; and reconciling our findings with those of other researchers. Recruitment was undertaken with the generous assistance of key contacts and their associated networks in each country. The ‘Acknowledgments’ section at the end of this article gives an indication of the people who kindly assisted, largely behind the scenes. Contacts were drawn from the University of the West Indies (UWI), which has campuses, study centres and other links in all countries in the study; from agencies including national education and police departments; and from the community, such as through sexual and reproductive rights organizations, HIV support groups and gay groups. The result is a diverse sample encompassing men of different racial backgrounds (principally mixed race, African and East Indian, and to a lesser extent Amerindian and European descent), socio-economic status (poor, working, middle, and uppermiddle class), locale (garrison/ghetto communities, rural/urban, and multiple countries), religious background (Catholic, Protestant, Moslem and Hindu) and education (early school leavers, school completers and tertiary educated). Further demographic and descriptive details can be found in Plummer (2013). While participants provided valuable accounts of their own personal experiences, it is important to note that they also played a vital role as lay field observers. This latter role enabled the research to gather rich accounts of complex processes and social systems, such as villages, communities, schools, peer groups and ‘coming of age’ milestones. Page 7 of 24




This approach of ‘participant-as-field-observer’ had the effect of providing data from a much larger sample that extended well beyond the personal experiences of the original 138 participants and gave the project a largely sociological (rather than a psychological) approach.

Key Issues The aim of this case study is to sensitize the new researcher to issues that arise when conducting research where taboo, stigma, discrimination, marginalization and disadvantage are significant features. The aim is not to provide a fulsome exposition of research interviewing. Nevertheless, the techniques discussed here should help to enhance the sensitivity and skills with which any interview is conducted. Seven main themes underpin the case study: • • • •

• •

accessing hidden, marginalized and otherwise hard-to-reach populations handling awkward, stigmatized or taboo topics taking a respectful approach to people who have experienced discrimination, marginalization and disadvantage taking into account the history, background and context of the issues people face (including colonialism, racial differences, socio-economic disadvantage, cultural variations, gender obligations, sexual taboos and religious beliefs) having a reflexive awareness of the relative status, values and role of the researcher in order to leverage it in helpful ways taking a pragmatic, practical, ethical approach to fieldwork involving the exploration of taboo, stigma, discrimination and marginalization

Preparation and Planning All successful research is underpinned by sound conceptualization. Research involving stigma and taboo is no exception; however, these added ingredients create additional challenges for the conceptualization process.

Page 8 of 24




First, most marginalized groups experience prejudice. Researchers will not have escaped these prejudices even though we may prefer to think of ourselves as open-minded. Such preconceptions might simply manifest as an undue reliance on stereotypes or a patronizing or paternalistic approach to participants. Belonging to a marginalized population yourself (as we both do) neither guarantees that you are free from bias nor makes intrinsically suited to researching marginalization. It is, therefore, important for researchers to take a reflexive approach to our viewpoints and our roles – to accept that these views might, to some degree, reflect unwarranted stereotypes and assumptions. Being reflexive about those views is important for several reasons. Unrecognized prejudices can (1) do an injustice to participants, (2) corrupt the research outcomes, and (3) undermine the quality of the interview because those assumptions and stereotypes will frame the questions being asked and the language being used. Essential elements of the conceptualization phase that help to ground the project and make the researcher more self-aware of assumptions and stereotypes include reading widely around the topic in order to be exposed to a wide range of views, conducting a formal literature review, making a conscientious effort to become sensitized to the issues, being immersed as far as is possible in the culture of the people you are working with, forming partnerships and consulting closely with communities and potential participants, making systematic concrete project plans and subjecting the proposal to ethical review. Gaining access to participants is essential if the project is to be viable. Studies examining taboo, stigma and discrimination will typically want to engage hard-toreach populations. Populations can be hard to reach for a number of reasons. Social marginalization can effectively remove people from paid employment or concentrate them into garrison communities, such as was the case with some of the Jamaican participants in this project. Many stigmatizing characteristics are often not readily apparent and potential participants may opt to reveal these characteristics selectively (such as sexual orientation or HIV status) or go to great lengths to conceal them. In the Caribbean, this is sometimes referred to as being ‘on the down low’ (Allsopp, 1996). Hidden characteristics make purposive sampling more complicated. This is because purposive sampling relies on being able to identify key characteristics ‘on purpose’ in advance. To overcome these difficulties, we needed to seek access to networks and work with them and gain inside assistance. It is also important to reflect on how the Page 9 of 24




status of the researcher influences access. To explore this, let us describe our own situations. The lead author is a White middle-aged Australian. In contrast, the Caribbean Masculinities Project primarily focuses on the experiences of young Caribbean men, many of whom are black and some of whom are also gay or bisexual. On the surface, this combination would appear to have all the ingredients of a doomed project, not least because of the difficulties that arise when researchers try to represent the ‘other’ (see Griffin, 1996). However, two dynamics contributed to the success of the project despite these issues. First, it would be wrong to underestimate the generosity and goodwill of many Caribbean people. To do so would be to succumb to the very stereotypes and prejudices we argued against above. Second, a reflexive awareness of our own status in the Caribbean allowed D.P. to manoeuvre his ‘subject position’ in such a way that on some occasions he was able to be an insider and on other occasions he was able to leverage his outsider status (Coyle, 1996). In both cases, this helped open a dialogue and build trust. It helps that D.P. had long experience of talking about difficult issues with people as a sexual health physician. As a young Caribbean man of African descent, the second author (J.S.) provided vital support for the project. J.S. joined the project after the work had already commenced. At that time, D.P. was conducting the first round of interviews in Guyana, South America. During that early data collection, J.S. expressed an interest in assisting with the project, and funding was secured to employ him. His assistance in organizing fieldwork and accessing networks was invaluable, and he also conducted interviews. Several factors contributed to our ability to manage insider/outsider status: •

•

1. Both authors were employees of the UWI and D.P. was senior academic there. Both were based on the Trinidad and Tobago campus of UWI during the project. The UWI is a respected regional institution with campuses in most of the countries in the study. This institutional base gave vital local legitimacy to the research, an experience contrast sharply with that of Martin and Humphries (1996). 2. Both authors come from Commonwealth countries (Australia and Guyana). With participants from all countries in this study, we had a shared history

Page 10 of 24



• •


of living in countries that had been British colonies (and being cricket enthusiasts), so there was often a sense of common ground that could be brought to the fore (especially because of cricket!). 3. Both authors are male, which could give them personal legitimacy in researching masculinity. 4. Both researchers are gay, and in making contact with Caribbean men who are gay or bisexual, they found a significant sense of brotherhood that transcended racial and national differences. On various occasions, the first author found himself foregrounding one or more of these qualities in order to open lines of communication, join networks and start to establish relationships. It should be noted that these links were more than simply a convenient means of conducting research. After completing the project, both researchers have maintained links into those networks, and the sense of common ground is real and ongoing. J.S. continues to live in Guyana and work periodically elsewhere in the Caribbean and beyond; D.P. has since returned to Australia and maintains ongoing Caribbean links.

While being an insider (in J.S. case) and a semi-insider (D.P.) sometimes made life easier, there were occasions where being an outsider had advantages. Unlike more generic research topics, there were times when it would have been more difficult for young men to open up about embarrassing and taboo personal issues with someone from the same social circles, first, because the fear of loss-of-face could have been more intense with another male from inside the culture, and second, and perhaps more importantly, because it is easier to talk to someone about stigmatized and discrediting characteristics if you don't expect to see them in your local community again in the near future. The advantage both researchers had living in Trinidad is that they would be leaving the external research sites. Since neither the interviewer nor the interview data would remain in the local community, anonymized information would be out of harm's way. Moreover, even in situations where the interviewees were well known to researchers – as happened when both J.S. and D.P. conducted a second round of interviews in Guyana – the stature of the researchers contributed greatly to establishing their credibility with participants. For instance, J.S. is legally trained and a prominent humanrights worker in Guyana. Because of his reputation in the local community for dealing Page 11 of 24




with sensitive matters confidentially, he was also able to gain the trust and candid participation of heterosexual men of varying socio-economic status who shared very private experiences in confidence – sometimes for the first time – of sexual assault, same-sex intimacy and other taboo issues.

Fieldwork Careful preparation and attention to detail is vital prior to commencing fieldwork. Interview data are extremely valuable and it is important not to end up regretting not having collected certain details or made certain arrangements or where data are lost because they weren't collected or backed-up properly. The Caribbean Masculinities Project is a case in point. Data were collected in eight different national jurisdictions – each requiring international travel. The usual necessities such as travel documents, passports, visas, tickets, transfers and accommodation needed to be arranged prior to departure. Additional arrangements specific to the research including managing information on in-country contacts, participants, interview appointment times and booked venues where interviews were to be conducted. Our field equipment included cell phones, digital recorders and a laptop computer. We always tested our equipment to make sure it was in working order before leaving home. Some interview locations did not have a reliable electricity supply. Knowing this, we always made sure our batteries were fully charged and that we were carrying spares and a charger. Digital recorders are ideal. Small recorders are preferable because they appear less intimidating. We always recorded interviews in duplicate as a safeguard against equipment failure. We always placed one recorder between the interviewer and the participant and the other closer to the participant. This was to allow us to crosscheck the second recording if parts of the first recording were indistinct. Participants commonly drop their voice when talking about sensitive issues. It was important to organize a suitable venue in which to conduct the interview. We sought out venues that were private, safe, quiet and comfortable, and had access to bathroom facilities. Comfortable surroundings are more conducive to easy conversations. We did not want the discussion to be constrained because the participant felt that the location was not private and safe. Snacks and soft drinks came Page 12 of 24




in handy, especially when the conversation took longer than planned, as it often did. We learned the importance of avoiding sweets with noisy wrappers as these can obscure the recording. We generally asked participants to turn their cell phones off as these can disrupt the flow of the conversation. Often they were reluctant to do so, so we simply paused the recording when there were interruptions. Pausing the recording, as opposed to stopping it, allowed us to resume using the same file rather than starting a new one, which can lead to confusion later. To ensure the highest quality recording, we monitored background noise levels. Past experience has shown us that it is easy to overlook environmental noise, such as air conditioners or passing traffic, only to find later that these have made key parts of the recording inaudible. We recorded a sample of background noise prior to commencing each interview because software can be used to subtract the background and clean up the recording. Some people have a habit of tapping the table when making an important point. To reduce the impact on sound quality, we had two sponges in our field kit. We put one on the bench under the recorder to dampen tapping and shuffling. We put the other on top of the recorder to act as a baffle when there were overhead fans. One of us (D.P.) had previously had recordings ruined by the rumble of air being blown down onto the recorder by fans that were not noticed at the time. Security for researchers is important. In order to analyse security requirements, LeeTreweek and Linkogle (2000) proposed a framework that divided research security into physical, emotional, ethical and professional elements, all of which are relevant to this study. The subject matter in the Caribbean Masculinities Project included sexual assault, homophobia and violence. While the risks are low and we had no security problems during the project, sensible safety procedures are prudent (Jamieson, 2000). For example, we left names and contact details of participants in a sealed envelope in our office or hotel room prior to going into the field as this could have provided leverage should an awkward situation arise. We destroyed the details once we were safely back at base. We conducted interviews in private but not isolated places. A good option was to interview people in a private facility, such as offices, where other people are not far away, in case we needed to call for assistance. Also, most interviews were conducted during daylight hours, and both researchers worked in fairly close proximity to each Page 13 of 24




other. In his previous research into violence, D.P. routinely dialled the local emergency services telephone number on his cell phone before starting the interview. Then he could simply press the call button should the need arise. Because there are many details that need to be taken into account, we developed a fieldwork kit which consisted of an envelope with a checklist on the front and documents and equipment inside. We always went over the checklist and tested the equipment and replenished supplies prior to going into the field. We expected that interviews would last for about an hour to an hour and a half. In reality, they often went longer. Interviewing is usually more tiring than anticipated, probably because a good interview involves paying careful attention in order to (subtly) manage the interaction. We therefore scheduled only two or three interviews per day. At the end of a session, a number of housekeeping tasks needed to be completed. We always did a preliminary analysis and entered our thoughts in our field notes. The preliminary analysis was the basis for updating the interview guide in light of the information that came to light and the theories we were formulating. The preliminary analysis was also the basis for further purposive sampling decisions. Backing up recordings is important, preferably to a secure off-site server, for example, uploaded to a password-protected email or cloud storage account. We didn't have cloud access, but we did have duplicate recordings and the file from the best one was copied to a laptop computer. At the end of a tiring day, it was important not to forget to recharge our recorders, cell phone and laptop in preparation for the following day.

The Interview Interviews typically progressed through several phases. These phases reflected the need to start gently and to initially concentrate on building trust and to leave the most awkward, specific and taboo questions for last. The following points reflect what we found to work for the Caribbean Masculinities Project.

Page 14 of 24




Phases The first phase is the pre-recording phase, when we first met the participant. This was an opportunity for introductions, a general discussion and establishing an atmosphere of comfort and trust. During this time, engaging in small talk and tasks such as explaining the project and ensuring that informed consent is freely given can help get the conversation rolling. There is usually no need to record this phase, which simply adds to the amount of transcribing to be done. An exception is if the participant is unable to give written consent (due to disability or literacy issues). In such a case, verbal consent can be audio-recorded. It is always possible for participants to give false names, and we actively encouraged them to do so. Pseudonyms provide extra privacy protection and a sense of security that may help the conversation to flow more freely. Moreover, in some jurisdictions, the researcher is obliged to report illegal activities if they become aware of them and courts can always subpoena research records. This is not possible if identifying details are not collected, and it usually makes no difference to the research what names people choose. The second phase of the interview was a convenient time to collect descriptive and demographic details. These details are essential when writing up the research because the sample will need to be described. Of course, all descriptions should be reported in the form of non-identifying/aggregated data to protect privacy, especially important for taboo topics. The process of gathering generic descriptive details provides an opportunity to get the conversation flowing using fairly innocuous questions. During this phase, we exercised care not to unintentionally transform a flowing conversation into a question and answer session more akin to a face-to-face survey. This would be counterproductive for the type of research described here, where unique, un-prompted accounts are especially valuable. The third phase was the main (and most important) part of the interview. This phase used broad open-ended prompts and was free flowing and loosely structured along chronological lines (pre-primary, primary, secondary and post-secondary school years). The participant was asked to tell his story, with particular emphasis on boyhood, the Page 15 of 24




journey to manhood, interactions with boys and girls, any embarrassing memories and memories of special significance, with particular reference to sexuality and gender. The chronological structure was intended to provide a fairly ‘natural’ backdrop against which the conversation could unfold. The time sequencing also helped in the analysis of processes and cause-and-effect. Our role as interviewers was to keep the conversation rolling with as little intervention as possible. We gently guided the discussion if it strayed too far off track and used basic facilitation prompts such as ‘Tell me about that…’ or ‘What happened next?’ The most valuable data are volunteered spontaneously, without prompting. Unprompted accounts avoid suggestions of ‘leading the witness’ and ‘putting words in people's mouths’. Rather than interrupting the flow, we made short notes during the interview that we used when the conversation seemed to have run its course. The participant was also asked to describe the world around him as he grew up, at school, home, on the block, in the settlement and elsewhere. The research was particularly concerned with people's accounts and enduring memories; factual accuracy was much less important than how people reconstructed their world and how they used those reconstructions to understand their own masculinity and the masculinities of the men around them. The fourth phase commenced when the participant's account of the journey to manhood seemed to have run its course. This phase is an opportunity to revisit issues raised earlier in order to obtain clarification and more detail. In addition to the notes taken during the main part of the interview, we had a checklist that participants quickly scanned at the end of the interview to make sure everything of interest had been covered. This checklist was generated initially by what we identified as interesting and important in the literature, and was progressively augmented as the research unfolded based on our preliminary analysis after each interview and as our explanatory theories started taking shape. The last phase of the interview was also a chance for the participants to make statements and to ask questions of us. The final, fifth phase started when the recorders were turned off. A general debriefing conversation usually occurred. It was invariably the case that participants felt that the interview was rewarding and some reported a sense of relief, and that they should have done something like this long ago. In short, an unintended consequence was that the interview was therapeutic. Of course, we were mindful of the importance of maintaining Page 16 of 24




the boundary between research and therapy. The participant was asked whether the interview raised any issues that they might want to follow up further. Where appropriate, we referred people for further support. Sometimes issues arose in the closing phases that were important to put on record. When this happened, we always asked if we could switch the recorder on again to capture what the person said. We learned that the recorder should always be the last item to be packed away.

Language Establishing trust is an essential element of all research interviews, not least when exploring stigmatized conditions, taboo issues and working with populations who have experienced discrimination. Throughout the fieldwork, we embedded numerous small procedural elements that were designed to build relationships and to signal our appreciation for the generosity and trust that people showed when they agreed to participate (Kvale, 1996). The language used by the interviewer and the way the interviewer frames issues are particularly important when establishing a trusting relationship. Moreover, Caribbean English employs many idioms that are unique to the region and vary from island to island. These must be taken into account when conducting, transcribing and interpreting interviews. An invaluable tool for fieldwork was a comprehensive dictionary of the local dialects; we used Allsopp (1999). It should also be borne in mind that people who have experienced discrimination are generally very familiar with the nuances of language and how it reveals the underlying attitudes of the researcher – both good and bad. The interview is a two-way process: The participant is constantly using the interview to assess whether the researcher can be trusted with sensitive information. The use of ‘loaded language’ when more neutral language is available is one way that the interviewer betrays biases. For example, why use the term ‘drug abuser’ when it is just as easy to say ‘drug user’ and avoid any implicit judgment? Likewise, the term ‘AIDS victim’ can invoke discourses about innocent victims and guilty parties; instead, it is easy to say ‘person with HIV’ and thus acknowledge a person's humanity first and foremost.

Page 17 of 24




Other examples of the careful and respectful use of language include the way that questions are framed, such as the following: •

• • •

• •

•

making excessive reference to ‘they’ or ‘them’, thus creating an ‘us-versusthem’ atmosphere that introduces distance and emphasizes ‘otherness’ in the interaction (just as prejudice does in everyday life); appearing excessively voyeuristic regarding marginalized groups [by asking for details that are?] out of proportion to what is needed for the research; relying too heavily on stereotypes (such as statements that assume that all gay men are promiscuous, paedophiles, anti-family and so on); being patronizing (typically this manifests as casting participants in a victim role; not taking a balanced view of both their strengths and weaknesses; and not recognizing that participants might have considerable personal skills, agency and be empowered); failing to recognize people's diversity and attributing identical traits to all members of a particular social grouping; making assumptions about individuals, by, for example, using pronouns that imply that a participant's sexual partner is female, suggesting that the participant is heterosexual, that a gay participant hates or is afraid of women, or even that a religious participant is presumed to be homophobic; and failing to understand that what goes unsaid has major significance. An awkward silence on your behalf can say a lot to the participant. Likewise, the way a participant withholds information reflects on how well the interview has unfolded. When certain facts and conclusions are implied but not stated explicitly, we typically tried to make them explicit by saying, ‘I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but for the benefit of the recording, could you please spell it out?’ The omission of certain obvious details might indicate deeper significance – possibly loss of face). For example, it takes courage for young men to reveal that they were bullied at school for being too ‘girly’ or were sexually assaulted at a young age. Likewise, the fact that a married man doesn't mention male partners does not mean that there are none. On the other hand, if the interview goes well, there will probably be no need to ask about the gender of sexual partners because this will be indicated by the pronouns used. If all else fails towards the end of the interview, we simply said ‘some people find this next question a little unusual, but I need to ask: Have you ever had sex with other men?’

Page 18 of 24




Facilitation Techniques Simple facilitation techniques helped to keep the interview flowing. Choosing a neutral framework (in this case chronological narratives) avoided the impression that the questions were ‘loaded’. The interviewers needed to be patient and ‘pace’ the interview carefully. Too rushed and information will be forced and incomplete. Too slow and the conversation will seem empty and uncomfortable. The ideal is for the interview to flow like an everyday conversation. Having said that, sometimes the best thing to do was to say nothing. Short silences can appear thoughtful and the participant will feel the need to fill the gap and keep talking. On other occasions, all that was required is to echo a few key words that the participant has just said. This invites the participant to elaborate. If all else fails, we used standard invitations such as ‘Tell me more.’, ‘What happened then?’, ‘How did you feel?’ and so on. In our experience, the interviewer sometimes needed to do some gentle ‘defusing’ when awkwardness emerged while we were covering difficult topics. Sometimes there was a quick change of subject, and the interviewer barely noticed that he had just defused a tense moment. The risk is that the interviewer changes the subject too soon, just as a vital point is about to be revealed. It is sometimes best to let the tension persist a little longer and then raise it as a point for discussion. Interviews needed to be carefully structured. Introducing confronting questions prematurely can sabotage the interaction. The most difficult questions were left until last and were introduced by a short preparatory statement such as the one above: ‘some people find this next question a little confronting, but I need to ask…’ In the case of the Caribbean Masculinities Project, the most difficult questions were generally about whether the participant ever had any homosexual experiences. Quality control of interviews is an important part of the research process. We started with a couple of interviews, and then had them transcribed and reviewed by experienced interviewers. This ‘second opinion’ was intended to alert us to problems such as leading the witness, prematurely foreclosing awkward topics, excessive editorializing by the interviewer and so on.

Page 19 of 24




We deliberately did not use focus groups in the Caribbean Masculinities Project. Focus groups have a number of characteristics that limit their usefulness when working with stigmatized conditions and taboo issues. These limitations include that each focus group should be regarded as a public testimony and privacy cannot be guaranteed; participants may be inhibited from personal disclosures on taboo topics in the presence of a group of people, some of whom they may know; and dominant voices commonly emerge and can limit the diversity of experiences that are put on record. Focus groups are good for brainstorming and for reaching consensus about social conventions and practices, but are less useful for personal experiences and taboo issues.

Ethical Conduct Researchers will inevitably confront power asymmetries when researching taboo issues and stigmatized conditions and when engaging populations who have experienced marginalization and discrimination. Obtaining genuine informed consent that is freely given (and freely revoked with no consequences) is essential. While it would be wrong to assume that all participants are poorly educated and universally disempowered, explanations in plain language are intended to ensure that consent is understood by everyone. The Caribbean Masculinities Project compensated participants for the costs they incurred and the time they gave to the project. A reasonable amount for the Caribbean Masculinities Project was felt to be US$20 per person. More might be considered to be an unethical inducement. Less is arguably exploitative. As we have already indicated, various procedures were implemented to safeguard privacy. These included ensuring that interviews were conducted in private, avoiding focus groups, encouraging participants to use pseudonyms, removing identifying details from transcripts, reporting aggregated de-identified descriptive data, replacing participant's names with codes, and storing data on password-protected computer systems. Finally, ethical conduct entails much more than simply adhering to bureaucratic procedures. Indeed, the excessive bureaucratization of ethics has had unfortunate Page 20 of 24




effect of pre-occupying people with paperwork to the extent that sometimes the bureaucracy blocks research with and by the very marginalized and disadvantaged groups who need it most. For us – and we speak as members of so-called vulnerable groups ourselves – ethical conduct is best described as taking a respectful approach to the people who generously agree to participate and to reflect this approach in the design and details of the project and the way it is conducted.

Summary The detailed interview is a classic method of qualitative data collection. Interviews require considerable skill and judgment at the best of times. Nowhere is this more crucial than when working with participants from disadvantaged and marginalized populations and when the research examines stigmatized conditions and taboo issues.

Acknowledgements Thanks to the participants who generously gave their time to assist with this research. Thanks to the University of the West Indies and to the Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO for funding the early stages. Special thanks to Arden McLean, Vidyartha Kissoon, Nigel Mathlin, Egbert Felix (Royal St Lucia Police), Brian-Paul Welsh, the late Robert Carr, Novlet Reid, Ian Mc Knight, Civilla Kentish (Anguilla Education Department), and Kevin Farara for their superb support; and to Sharon Reddock, Cheryl Gomez, Elvis Philip and Dwayne Carruthers for their skilled transcribing. Thanks to the Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Guyana (SASOD), the Grenada Chapter of the Caribbean HIV and AIDS Partnership (GrenCHAP), the St Vincent and the Grenadines Chapter of the Caribbean HIV and AIDS Partnership (VincyCHAP), the St Kitts and Nevis HIV and AIDS Group (SNHAG), the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC), Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL), and Children and Community for Change, Jamaica (CCC).

Page 21 of 24




Exercises and Discussion Questions •

•

•

•

1. Identify a ‘hard-to-reach population’, explain why it is hard to reach, and brainstorm the approach you might use to reach out to that population in order to engage them in research. 2. Identify an awkward or taboo topic that you want to research and describe the approach you will take in order to conduct interviews that explore that topic. 3. Describe how you might take a respectful approach to people who have experienced discrimination, marginalization and disadvantage without being patronizing or exploitative. 4. In practical terms, what do you understand is entailed in having a reflexive awareness of the relative status, values and role of the researcher and how that impacts on the research?

Further Reading Plummer, D., & Simpson, J. (2007). HIV/AIDS and Caribbean masculinities. In Commonwealth Secretariat (Ed.), Financing gender equality (pp 68–71). London, England: Nexus. Plummer, D. (2007). Chapter 3: Masculinity – How male gender roles affect learning and learning spaces and impact on vulnerability to HIV. In UNAIDS Inter Agency Task Team on Education (Ed.), Tailoring the education message: A diversity of settings and needs. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development. Plummer, D. (2009). How risk and vulnerability become ‘socially embedded’: Insights into the resilient gap between awareness and safety in HIV. In C. Barrow, ed. , M. de Bruin, ed. & R. Carr (Eds.), Sexuality, social exclusion & human rights: Vulnerability in the Caribbean context of HIV. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D. (2010a). Chapter 2: HIV in Caribbean schools: The role of HIV education in the second most severely affected region in the world. In M. Morrissey, ed. , M.

Page 22 of 24




Bernard, ed. & D. Bundy (Eds.), Challenging HIV & AIDS: a new role for Caribbean education. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D. (2010b). Chapter 10: Is learning becoming taboo for Caribbean boys? In M. Morrissey, ed. , M. Bernard, ed. & D. Bundy (Eds.), Challenging HIV & AIDS: a new role for Caribbean education. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishing. Plummer, D., & Geofroy, S. (2010). When bad is cool: Violence and crime as rites of passage to manhood. Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, 4, 1–17. Retrieved from http://www2.sta.uwi.edu/crgs/february2010/journals/PlummerGeofory.pdf Plummer, D. (2011). HIV + masculinity = risk: Exploring the relationship between masculinities, education and HIV in the Caribbean. In J. F. Klot, ed. & V.-K. Nguyen (Eds.), The fourth wave: Violence, gender, culture and HIV in the 21st century. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. Plummer, D. (2013). Masculinity and risk: How gender constructs drive sexual risks in the Caribbean. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 163–174. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-013-0116-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13178-013-0116-7 Plummer, D., McLean, A., & Simpson, J. (2008). Has learning become taboo and is risk-taking compulsory for Caribbean boys? Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, 2, 1–14. Retrieved from http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/september2008/journals/ DPlummerAMcleanJSimpson.pdf

References Allsopp, R. (1996). Dictionary of Caribbean English usage. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Coyle, A. (1996). Representing gay men with HIV/AIDS. Feminism & Psychology, 6, 79–85. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353596061011 Glaser, B., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Page 23 of 24




Griffin, C. (1996). ‘See whose face it wears’: Difference, otherness and power. Feminism & Psychology, 6, 185–191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353596062006 Jamieson, J. (2000). Negotiating danger in fieldwork on crime. In S. Linkogle, ed. & G. Lee-Treweek (Eds.), Danger in the field: Ethics and risk in social research (pp. 61–71). Florence, KY: Routledge. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, England: SAGE. Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research: An introduction and guide. London, England: Polity Press. Lee-Treweek, G., & Linkogle, S. (2000). Putting danger in the frame. In: S. Linkogle, ed. & G. Lee-Treweek (Eds.), Danger in the field: Ethics and risk in social research (pp. 8– 25). Florence, KY: Routledge. Martin, M., & Humphries, B. (1996). Representation and difference in cross-cultural research: The impact of institutional structures. Feminism & Psychology, 6, 210–215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353596062010 Plummer, D. (1999). One of the boys: Masculinity, homophobia and modern manhood. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Plummer, D. (2005). Crimes against manhood. In: G. Hawkes, ed. & J. Scott (Eds.), Perspectives in human sexuality (pp. 218–232). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://sta.uwi.edu/crgs/september2008/journals/ DPlummerAMcleanJSimpson.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014534171

Page 24 of 24
