Methodological literature dealing with the challenges in sampling, recruiting and engaging research participants for qualitative interviews usually assumes that potential informants are informed. But what happens when the potential informants make it clear that they have little to say because under-informed on the topic? This article explores the challenges in recruiting and engaging under-informed research participants by revisiting my fieldwork experience as a researcher for the ERC-funded project GRASSROOTSMOBILISE – Directions in Religious Pluralism in Europe. The article describes potential interviewees’ claims of under-information as a specific type of reluctance, displaying in both the recruitment and the interview processes, and discusses the potential strategies to overcome this reluctance by paying attention to the role of researchers.
AdamsonSHollowayM (2012) Negotiating sensitivities and grappling with intangibles: experiences from a study of spirituality and funerals. Qualitative Research12(6): 735–752.
2.
AdlerPAAdlerP (2003) The reluctant respondent. In: HolsteinJAGubriumJF (eds) Inside Interviewing. New Lenses, New Concerns. London: Sage, 153–173.
3.
AldridgeJ (2014) Working with vulnerable groups in social research: dilemmas by default and design. Qualitative Research14(1): 112–130.
4.
AnthonyAKDanaherWF (2016) Rules of the road: doing fieldwork and negotiating interactions with hesitant public figures. Qualitative Research16(4): 392–410.
5.
ArmitageJS (2008) Persona non grata: dilemmas of being an outsider researching immigration reform activism. Qualitative Research8(2): 155–177.
6.
BachRLEckmanSDaikelerJ (2020) Misreporting among reluctant respondents. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology8(3): 566–588.
7.
BarrattJMMaddoxA (2016) Active engagement with stigmatised communities through digital ethnography. Qualitative Research16(6): 701–719.
8.
Bengry-HowellAGriffinC (2012) Negotiating access in ethnographic research with ‘hard to reach’ young people: establishing common ground or a process of methodological grooming?International Journal of Social Research Methodology15(5): 403–416.
9.
BengtsonnTTFynboL (2018) Analysing the significance of silence in qualitative interviewing: questioning and shifting power relations. Qualitative Research18(1): 19–35.
10.
BrayeSMcDonnellL (2012) Balancing powers: university researchers thinking critically about participatory research with young fathers. Qualitative Research13(3): 265–284.
11.
ButeraKJ (2006) Manhunt. The Challenge of Enticing Men to Participate in a Study on Friendship, Qualitative Inquiry12(6): 1262–1282.
12.
CarpenterLM (2005) Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. New York: New York University Press.
13.
Castelli GattinaraPMoralesL (2017) The politicization and securitization of migration in Europe: public opinion, political parties and the immigration issue. In: BourbeauP (ed.) Handbook on Migration and Security. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 273–295.
14.
CichowskiR (2006) Courts, rights, and democratic participation. Comparative Political Studies39(3): 50–75.
15.
CichowskiR (2007) The European Court and Civil Society. Litigation, Mobilization and Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ClarkT (2010) On ‘being researched’: why do people engage with qualitative research?Qualitative Research10(4): 399-419.
17.
DenzinN (2012) Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research6(2): 80–88.
18.
DundonTRyanP (2010) Interviewing reluctant respondents: strikes, Henchmen, and Gaelic Games. Organizational Research Methods13(3): 562-581.
19.
EmmelN (2014) Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach. London: SAGE.
20.
FerrariA (2012) La libertà religiosa in Italia. Un percorso incompiuto. Roma: Carocci.
21.
FokasE (2015) Directions in religious pluralism in Europe: mobilizations in the shadow of european court of human rights religious freedom jurisprudence. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion4(1): 54–74.
22.
Fokas (2017) The European Court of Human Rights at the grassroots level: who knows what about religion at the ECtHR and to what effects?Religion, State & Society45(3–4): 249–267.
23.
FokasE (2018) The legal status of religious minorities: exploring the impact of the European Court of Human Rights. Social Compass65(1): 25–42.
24.
FoleyL (2012) Constructing the respondent. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJAMarvastiAB, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (2nd edn) Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 305–315.
25.
GiorgiA (2018) Minoranze religiose tra Europa e Laicità locale. Milano: Mimesis.
26.
GiorgiA (2019) Mediatized Catholicism - minority voices and religious authority in the digital sphere. Religions10(8): 463.
27.
GiorgiAAnnicchinoP (2017) “Genuine” religions and their arena of legitimation in Italy - the role of the ECtHR. Religion, State and Society45(3–4): 284–296.
28.
GiorgiAPiazzaG (2010) Scienze politiche e sociali, ricerche e auto-inchiesta. In: CarusoLGiorgiAMattoniA, et al. (eds) Alla ricerca dell’Onda. I nuovi conflitti nell’istruzione superiore. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 46–61.
29.
GiorgiAVitaleT (2017) Migrants in the public discourse, between media, policies and public opinion. In: MarinoSPenninxRRoosbladJ (eds) Trade Unions, Immigration and Immigrants in Europe in the 21th Century: New Contexts and Challenges in Europe. Cheltenam: ILO-Edward Edgar, 66–89.
30.
GalanterM (1983) The radiating effects of courts. In: BoyumKMatherLBoydC (eds) Empirical Theories about Courts. New York: Longman, 117–142.
31.
GubriumJFHolsteinJA (2012) Narrative practice and the transformation of interview subjectivity. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJAMarvastiAB, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (2nd edn) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 27–43.
32.
HammersleyM (2014) On the ethics of interviewing for discourse analysis. Qualitative Research14(5): 529–541.
33.
KristensenGKRavnMN (2015) The voices heard and the voices silenced: recruitment processes in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Research15(6): 722–737.
34.
LevineTH (2017) Studying teacher collaboration: preparing for and conducting interviews on sensitive topics with reluctant interviewees. SAGE Research Methods Cases. DOI: 10.4135/9781526407405
35.
MarpsatMRazafindratsimaN (2010) Survey methods for hard-to-reach populations: introduction to the special issue. Methodological Innovations5(2): 3–16.
36.
McCannM (2006) Law and social movements: contemporary perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science2(1): 17–38.
37.
McCormackMAdamsAAndersonE (2012) Taking to the streets: the benefit of spontaneous methodological innovation in participant recruitment. Qualitative Research13(2): 228–241.
38.
NilanPDemartotoABroomA. (2014) Indonesian men’s perceptions of violence against women. Violence Against Women20(7): 869–888.
PattonMQ (2002b) Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work1(3): 261–283.
41.
RapleyTJ (2001) The art (fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing interviews. Qualitative Research1(3): 303–323.
42.
RapleyT (2006) Interviews. In: SealeCGoboGGubriumJF, et al. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. Concise Paperback Edition. London: SAGE, 15–33.
43.
RapleyT (2012) The extraordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJAMarvastiA, et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Interview Research (2nd edn) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 541–554.
44.
ReyboldLELammertJDStriblingSM (2012) Participant selection as a conscious research method: thinking forward and the deliberation of ‘Emergent’ findings. Qualitative Research13(6): 699–716.
45.
RieseJ (2019) What is ‘access’ in the context of qualitative research?Qualitative Research19(6): 669–684.
46.
RoulstonK (2011) Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods10(4): 348–366.
47.
ScottS (2004) Researching shyness: a contradiction in terms?Qualitative Research4(1): 91–105.
48.
ScottSHinton-SmithTHärmäV (2012) The reluctant researcher: shyness in the field, Qualitative Research12(6): 715–734.
49.
SilvermanD (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.
50.
SilvermanD (2017) How was it for you? The Interview Society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qualitative Research17(2): 144–158.
51.
ThuesenF (2011) Navigating between dialogue and confrontation: phronesis and emotions in interviewing elites on ethnic discrimination. Qualitative Inquiry17(7): 613–622.
52.
VanhalaL (2018) Is Legal Mobilization for the birds? Legal opportunity structures and environmental non governmental organisations in the United Kingdom, France, Finland and Italy. Comparative Political Studies51(3): 380–412.
53.
VitusK (2008) The agonistic approach: reframing resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry14(3): 466–488.
