In this article, we address negotiating interactions with hesitant participants who are public figures, yet do not traditionally fit within the category of the advantaged. We target new field researchers and rusty veterans by offering an applied approach to: (1) preparing for the field; (2) managing interactions with hesitant participants via finding common ground while drawing lines, connecting with key informants, and expanding on public information; and (3) working through failed interviews. We discuss the importance of power relationships, positionality, and ethical standards, particularly in relation to negotiating similarities and differences between researchers and participants.
AdlerPAAdlerP (2003) The reluctant respondent. In: HolsteinJAGubriumJF (eds) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. London: Sage, 153–174.
2.
AnthonyAK (2012) Racialized authentication: constructing representations of the Florida Highwaymen. The Sociological Quarterly53(3): 394–421.
3.
AnthonyAKSchrockD (2014) Maintaining art-world membership: self-taught identity work of the Florida Highwaymen. Social Currents1(1): 174–190.
4.
ArendellT (1997) Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: a woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology20(3): 341–368.
5.
BabbieE (2010) Ethical issues in social research. In: BabbieE (ed.) The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 62–80.
6.
BartonB (2011) My auto/ethnographic dilemma: who owns the story?Qualitative Sociology34(3): 431–445.
7.
BeckerHS (1967) Whose side are we on?Social Problems14: 239–247.
8.
BeckerHS (1998) Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BeckerHSGeerB (1978) Participant observation and interviewing: a comparison. In:Symbolic Interaction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 76–82.
10.
BelurJ (2014) Status, gender, and geography: power negotiations in police research. Qualitative Research14(2): 184–200.
11.
BestAL (2003) Doing race in the context of feminist interviewing: constructing whiteness through talk. Qualitative Inquiry9(6): 895–914.
12.
BleeKM (2003) Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
13.
BlumerH (1986) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
14.
BondyC (2013) How did I get here? The social process of accessing field sites. Qualitative Research13(5): 578–590.
15.
BroomAHandKToveyP (2009) The role of gender, environment, and individual biography in shaping qualitative interview data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology12(1): 51–65.
16.
ButeraKJ (2005) Manhunt: the challenge of enticing men to participate in a study on friendship. Qualitative Inquiry12(6): 1262–1282.
17.
CarterJ (2004) Research note: reflections on interviewing across the ethnic divide. International Journal of Social Research Methodology7(4): 345–353.
18.
CeglowskiD (2000) Research as relationship. Qualitative Inquiry6(1): 88–103.
19.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
20.
CoffeyA (1999) The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
CrowleyJE (2007) Friend or foe? Self- expansion, stigmatized groups, and the researcher–participant relationship. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography36(6): 603–630.
22.
DanaherWFRoscignoVJ (2004) Cultural Production, Media, and Meaning: Hillbilly Music and the Southern Textile Mills, Poetics31(1): 51–71.
23.
Del BussoL (2007) Embodying feminist politics in the research interview: material bodies and reflexivity. Feminism and Psychology17(3): 309–315.
24.
DeVaultML (1990) Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems37(1): 96–116.
EmersonR (1988) Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
27.
EnguixB (2014) Negotiating the field: rethinking ethnographic authority, experience and the frontiers of research. Qualitative Research14(1): 79–94.
28.
FontanaAFreyJH (1994) Interviewing: the art of science. In: DenzinNLincolnY (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 361–367.
29.
GlaserBStraussA (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
30.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
31.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
32.
GrayS (1980) Exchange and access in field work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography9(3): 309–331.
33.
HawKF (1996) Exploring the educational experiences of Muslim girls: tales told to tourists – should the white researcher stay at home?British Educational Research Journal22(23): 319–330.
34.
HerodA (1999) Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: praxis, positionality, validity, and the cult of the insider. Geoforum30(4): 313–327.
35.
HertzR (1997) Reflexivity and Voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
HillML (2006) Representin(g): negotiating multiple roles and identities in the field and behind the desk. Qualitative Inquiry12(5): 926–949.
37.
JärvinenM (2001) Accounting for trouble: identity negotiations in qualitative interviews with alcoholics. Symbolic Interaction24(3): 263–284.
38.
KatzC (1996) The expeditions of conjurers: ethnography, power, and pretense. In: WolfDL (ed.) Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 170–184.
39.
KillianCJohnsonC (2006) ‘I’m not an immigrant!’ Resistance, redefinition, and the role of resources in identity work. Social Psychology Quarterly69(1): 60–80.
40.
KleinmanSCoppM (1993) Emotions and Fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
KleinmanSKolbK (2011) Traps on the path of analysis. Symbolic Interaction34(4): 425–446.
42.
KnappNF (1997) Interviewing Joshua: on the importance of leaving room for serendipity. Qualitative Inquiry3(3): 326–342.
43.
LareauA (1996) Common problems in field work: a personal essay. In: LareauAShultzJ (eds) Journeys through Ethnography. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 195–236.
44.
LehnererM (1996) Caring, information control, and emotionality: fieldwork trade-offs. Qualitative Inquiry2(3): 337–350.
45.
LoflandJSnowDAndersonL. (2006) Analyzing social settings (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
46.
McCallM (1980) Who and where are the artists? In: ShaffirWBStebbinsRATurowetzA (eds) Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative Approaches to Social Research. New York: St. Martin’s, 145–158.
47.
Mertkan-ÖzünlüS (2007) Reflexive accounts about qualitative interviewing within the context of educational policy in North Cyprus. Qualitative Research7(4): 447–459.
Minh-HaT (1997) Not you/like you: postcolonial women and the interlocking questions of identity and difference. In: McClintockAMuftiAShohatE (eds) Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 415–420.
50.
MonahanTFisherJ (2010) Benefits of ‘observer effects’: lessons from the field. Qualitative Research10(3): 357–376.
51.
OakleyA (1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: RobertsH (ed.) Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 30–61.
52.
ObasiC (2014) Negotiating the insider/outsider continua: a Black female hearing perspective on research with Deaf women and Black women. Qualitative Research14(1): 61–78. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112465632.
53.
OstranderSA (1993) ‘Surely you’re not in this just to be helpful’: access, rapport, and interviews in three studies of elites. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography22(1): 7–27.
54.
PeekLFothergillA (2009) Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. Qualitative Research9(1): 31–59.
55.
PresserL (2004) Violent offenders, moral selves: constructing identities and accounts in the research interview. Social Problems51(1): 82–101.
RiveraSWKozyrevaPMSarovskiiEG (2002) Interviewing political elites: lessons from Russia, PS: Political Science & Politics35(4): 683-688.
58.
RobertsH (2013) Doing Feminist Research. New York: Routledge.
59.
RoscignoVRDanaherWF (2004) The Voice of Southern Labor: Radio, Music, and Textile Strikes, 1929–1934. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
60.
RoscignoVJDanaherWFSummers-EfflerE (2002) Music, Culture, and Social Movements: Song and Southern Textile Worker Mobilization, 1929–1934. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy22: (1/2/3): 141–174.
61.
SabotEC (1999) Dr Jekyl, Mr H(i)de: the contrasting face of elites at interview. Geoforum30(4): 329–335.
62.
SalleeMWHarrisF (2011) Gender performance in qualitative studies of masculinities. Qualitative Research11(4): 409–429.
63.
SchwalbeMWolkomirM (2001) The masculine self as problem and resource in interview studies of men. Men and Masculinities4(1): 90–103.
64.
ScottS (2004) Researching shyness: a contradiction in terms?Qualitative Research4(1): 91–105.
65.
ScottSHinton-SmithTHärmäV. (2012) The reluctant researcher: shyness in the field. Qualitative Research12(6): 715–734.
66.
ShawIGouldN (2001) Qualitative Research in Social Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
SherifB (2001) The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: establishing rapport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative Inquiry7(4): 436–447.
68.
SpectorM (1980) Learning to study public figures. In: ShaffirWBStebbinsRATurowetzA (eds) Fieldwork Experience: Qualitative Approaches to Social Research. New York: St. Martin’s, 98–109.
69.
StephensN (2007) Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: telephone and face-to-face interviews with macroeconomists. Qualitative Research7(2): 203–216.
70.
TurnerVW (1967) The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndemby ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
71.
Van GennepA (1909) The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.
72.
WeissmanKH (1997) Hidden treasures: stories of coal in ethnography and ethnohistory. PhD Dissertation, University of Virginia, USA.
73.
WolfDL (1996) Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
74.
YanosTHopperK (2008) On ‘false, collusive objectification’: becoming attuned to self-censorship, performance and interviewer biases in qualitative interviewing. International Journal of Social Research Methodology11(3): 229–237.
