Methodological Reflections for Qualitative Research with Older Migrants: Focusing on Chinese-heritage Grandparents in New Zealand

Abstract

Older migrants often constitute a hard-to-reach demographic group for researchers, particularly those who are ethnolinguistic minorities with limited host country language competence. Acknowledging the heterogeneous profiles of older people and their particular life histories, in this article we discuss the methodological challenges in conducting qualitative research with older Chinese migrants. We report on our experience during data collection (recruitment, implementation, and termination) using various methods (questionnaires, interviews, and go-alongs) with 22 participants, as part of a broader project that focused on older migrants’ experience of daily-life language challenges and coping strategies in New Zealand. Successful recruitment relied heavily on trust-building that was facilitated by gatekeepers, given older migrants’ vulnerability to fraud. Pre-talks were used to deepen trust and negotiate practical age-related issues. During research implementation, we demonstrate the benefits of collaborative questionnaire completion, dialogical interviews, and of enabling participants to co-construct the go-along procedure. We emphasize the importance of practical and psychological acknowledgement of participants’ contribution and discuss forms of meeting participants’ expectations for ongoing contact without encouraging dependency. We observed limited evidence of post-research abandonment among participants. We close with recommendations for recruiting this demographic group aimed at future researchers.

Introduction

Older adults are frequently overlooked in academic research in applied language and migration studies. In the disciplinary field of applied language studies, for instance, the experience of older adults as language learners or as users of particular languages is rarely considered. Hindering the focus on older adults are negative stereotypes, doubts about their competence, perceived challenges in involving them as participants and obtaining consent (e.g., Altawalbeh et al., 2020; Jacelon, 2007). The tendency to omit them is also witnessed in research on migrants despite recognition of the increase in older emigrants and ageing migrants (United Nation, Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UN DESA], 2020). The experience of migrants in the host country typically focuses on the working-age generation, and older migrants are often considered “hard to reach” (e.g., Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Shaghaghi et al., 2011; Sin, 2004), a term used to signal various hindrances to research involvement from the researcher perspective that include low social visibility, low levels of involvement in social life, and possible mobility issues. Nevertheless, older migrants are known to experience the ageing process differently from the non-migrant population (e.g., Khvorostianov, 2016; Park et al., 2019) and research that focuses specifically on this demographic is needed.

Older migrants (regardless of ethnicity and race) are a highly heterogeneous group on account of their accumulated life history, their current activities, preferences and aspirations, and socioeconomic status (Bilecen & Fokkema, 2022). For example, international retirement migrants from (predominantly) western countries are often viewed as privileged migrants in the sense they choose to migrate for lifestyle reasons and to avail themselves of particular opportunities (e.g., Benson & O’Reilly, 2009; Hall, 2023). In contrast, other older migrants (e.g., Chinese) may migrate to reunite with family, especially with their adult children, to avail themselves of inter-generational caregiving reciprocity. This arrangement typically entails receiving care and companionship from their adult children as forms of filial piety, and serving as caregivers for the family (e.g., Zhang, 2014a). As illustrated by these disparate groups, differences in ethnolinguistic and cultural backgrounds and migration purpose contribute to post-migration experiences, and for the researcher, they raise different methodological and ethical issues during fieldwork. Previous research has highlighted the need for more nuanced guidance on research with older migrants that is sensitive to their ethnolinguistic profile and other identity-specific factors (Bilecen & Fokkema, 2022; Lörinc et al., 2022).

In this paper, we report on methodological and ethical issues that arose during our research project that investigated language issues and the adaptation of older Chinese migrants to life in Auckland, New Zealand, and that involved older Chinese migrants as research participants. Our objective is to critically examine and discuss research procedures and decisions in fieldwork (particularly concerning research with a longitudinal dimension) with older migrants. We report on three stages of the project: participant recruitment (critically reflecting on our attempts to approach and recruit this demographic group), undertaking fieldwork (involving different forms of data collection), and research termination (acknowledging participants’ contributions and managing the post-research relationship). Three lines of inquiry guide this reflection:

1. What strategies can be employed to recruit participants and establish trust during the pre-research stage?

2. How can a participant-oriented approach during the fieldwork stage contribute to retaining participants?

3. At the post-fieldwork stage, how might the participation of this demographic group best be acknowledged and how can the researcher-participant relationship be managed?

Issues in Conducting Research with Older Adults/Migrants

Although it is widely recognized that the duality of being a migrant and being old has implications for the participation of older migrants in empirical research (see Bilecen & Fokkema, 2022; Ciobanu et al., 2016), little guidance is available to assist researchers who focus on this demographic group. In their overview of methodological and ethical issues Bilecen and Fokkema (2022) identify five primary considerations for researchers, which encompass defining the target group, sampling, question selection, answer validity, and composition of the research team. Here, we follow this sequence of procedural categories and elaborate on methodological issues arising during our work with the older Chinese migrants, and we endeavour to provide a stronger focus on considerations relevant to the participants’ perspective.

Differences may arise with respect to defining the target participant group with respect to age and migration background (e.g., length of residence, migration status). For example, regarding age Bilecen and Fokkema (2022) observe that the threshold of 50 or 55 is common in empirical studies, as age-related health issues may afflict individuals with a migrant background earlier than native-born individuals. Gender-related differences are also possible, when the conceptualization of age is linked to the legal retirement age (Zhang, 2014a). The migration channel (e.g., refugee status, skilled worker or family reunification visa) is an important consideration as it shapes post-migration experiences and leads to different research conclusions, and research may limit participants to a specific migration channel as a participation criterion (e.g., Chen & Buckingham, 2025a). A minimum length of residence in the host country may also be required to enable participants to accumulate sufficient post-migration experience (e.g., Zhang, 2014a).

For participant sampling, techniques such as venue-based advertising, gatekeepers’ referral, snowballing, leaflet and letter distribution and media promotion (as described in e.g., Areán et al., 2003; McHenry et al., 2015; Sin, 2004; Tezcan-Güntekin et al., 2022) may experience varying degrees of success depending on the specific research context. For example, in Areán et al. (2003) the individualized contact through gatekeepers’ referral and face-to-face recruitment was more successful than the more impersonal forms of media recruitment (e.g., local newspapers and radio). Face-to-face recruitment can require considerable time commitment as it depends on individualized contact aimed at trust-building. Researchers may consider whether it can be advantageous to make salient potentially shared identity characteristics such as language, ethnicity and age. In addition to personal characteristics, the physical context, or venue, used to approach potential participants should be considered. Known as venue-sampling, Sin (2004) cautions that this may involve some sampling bias due to the characteristics of the individuals who commonly frequent the venue at particular times. Where a less purposive sampling method is desired, a variety of venues may be included.

During the data collection stage, issues need to be considered that are specific to the method used (i.e., interviews, questionnaire, or other types of fieldwork). Differences between the researcher and participant in terms of life course, experiences and language can lead to the researcher’s lack of resonance with the participants and affect the research depth (Fryer et al., 2012; Lundgren, 2013). Further possible challenges for the researcher include steering the interview and the wording of sensitive topics (e.g., ageism, loneliness), the participants’ reluctance to end the interview, and participants’ requests for help in non-research related matters (e.g., Naughton-Doe et al., 2022; Russell, 1999). In fieldwork that involves mobility, such as walking, additional precautions may be considered such as the inclusion of an accompanying researcher to assist with physical safety, and the researcher’s prior familiarization with the environment or route (Chen & Buckingham, 2025b; Lőrinc et al., 2022).

For longitudinal research or data collection with intervals, participant retention is also challenging. Participants may desist from further participation due to their personal schedules, their transient lifestyle, lack of interest or motivation, confusion about the study procedures, health issues (including death), and unexpected events (e.g., Areán et al., 2003; McHenry et al., 2015). While participant attrition cannot be avoided, the research design should ideally only anticipate modest impositions on participants; continued (modest) interaction with participants during internals may also contribute to lessening the risk of discontinuation (Areán et al., 2003).

Few extant studies mention issues at the post-research stage (termination) other than reimbursement. Some studies mention that some participants may experience a sense of being let down, which some researchers have called “abandonment” (Rallies & Rossman, 2009, p. 278), as well as deception or betrayal, especially where the data collection was prefaced by an extensive period of relationship building (e.g., Tezcan- Güntekin et al., 2022) or where the participants have particular health (physical or psychological) issues (e.g., Naughton-Doe et al., 2022). Existing general practices of closing the research relationship include a letter of appreciation, a follow-up conversation via phone, the provision of medical information or services (especially in clinical studies), monetary acknowledgement and a written report of research findings (e.g., McHenry et al., 2015; Naughton-Doe et al., 2022). Rugkåsa and Canvin (2011) caution that the form of acknowledgment alone should not incentivize participation, as this could constitute a form of purchasing the participants’ narrative. Where potential participants are known to have health issues, for instance related to cognitive or physical functioning, it may be necessary to involve caregivers in the decision concerning participation (e.g., Hancock et al., 2003).

Life-Course Informed Analysis of the Target Group

Knowledge about the ethnolinguistic, cultural and religious heritage of the targeted participants can assist researchers shape their approach to recruitment and inform their interaction with them. We take older Chinese as an example to elaborate on attributes that are potentially relevant to the approach, recruitment and data collection stages, and which concern their life course, migration purpose and the cultural context of their settlement.

The life course, especially the socio-historic events and the culture in which people are raised, shape people’s character and mindset. In the case of older Chinese migrants, it is likely that they experienced the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), which had far-reaching consequences for individuals’ education opportunities, and professional and cultural development. Previous research with older Chinese migrants has indicated that the experience of severe poverty during the Cultural Revolution contributed to the tendency to live very frugally in old age (Fowler et al., 2015). Regarding social and cultural norms, older generations of Chinese tend to be influenced by Confucianist principals (Cheng et al., 2010). A core element of Confucianism in the Chinese migrant ageing context is filial piety, according to which the adult children take responsibility for their elderly parents’ care (e.g., Newendorp, 2017; Zhang, 2014a). It is thus not unusual that the adult children may serve as gatekeepers for their elderly parents, and they may be involved in decisions regarding their parents’ social activities, and they may also decide on their parents’ participation in a research project on their parents’ behalf.

Understanding the migration purposes of older Chinese helps the researcher understand and adjust to their social context and life routines. Some countries possess family reunification schemes, whereby elderly parents can migrate to join their adult children (usually the only child in the family). For adult children, the reunion with parents enables them to perform their care duties towards their parents more easily, and in turn they may benefit from assistance in the household. In some cases, the older migrants become responsible for a wide range of domestic tasks, including contributing to raising the grandchildren (e.g., Chen & Buckingham, 2025a; Newendorp, 2017; Zhang, 2014a). Previous studies also demonstrate that older Chinese migrants face challenges related to social functioning and interpersonal communication, particularly related to their activities outside the home, which results in narrow social networks, limited social engagement, and constrained routines (e.g., Ip et al., 2007; Park et al., 2019). Contact opportunities with older Chinese migrants can be limited due to these restrictive lifestyles.

In countries where migrants have access to subsidized language courses, these language schools can become venues where potential participants may be approached. Older Chinese migrants in New Zealand, for example, generally have low host country language competence (HCLC) (see Park et al., 2019; Ran & Liu, 2021) and they are encouraged to take courses at specific authorized language learning schools (Chen & Buckingham, 2024; Xu & Buckingham, 2024). Similar programs exist in Canada (e.g., Da & Garcia, 2015) and Australia (e.g., Ip et al., 2007). The venue-sampling approach may also be applied to community centers, religious institutions, and retail outlets that are frequented by individuals with a specific ethnolinguistic profile. In Auckland, for instance, numerous suburbs have a high proportion of speakers of Mandarin and Cantonese (Buckingham, 2024) and publicly accessible venues in these locations (such as the aforementioned) may be frequented at particular times by older migrants.

Management of Participants

In our examination of the methodological approach and ethical issues that we experienced during this project, we report specifically on the procedures of participant management, including how we recruited, established rapport, maintained contact, and handled the post-research relationship with participants. We generated reflections at each stage which were transferred to Nvivo 12 for analysis using a combination of thematic analysis and inductive coding. An initial coding framework was developed based on themes previously reported in relevant published studies. We then focused on the themes at each sequential stage of the project, namely the pre-research stage, main research, stage and post-research stage, to report the reflections. The longitudinal nature of the study (extending over 16 months) enabled us to have prolonged engagement with participants for further interaction (as additional data) and member checking, which can contribute to a higher level of credibility (Rallies & Rossman, 2009).

The project aimed to recruit participants meeting the following four criteria: (1) 60 years and older; (2) migrants from China (including mainland, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Macao SAR, and Taiwan province); (3) New Zealand citizens or holders of a permanent residence visa; and (4) little or no English skills. We secured the participation of 22 individuals who met these criteria. We also experienced seven cases where we failed to recruit individuals who had initially expressed interest and with whom we had engaged in an initial conversation about the study. We report here on the main study. The in-person fieldwork was conducted by the first author who has native-speaker competence in the most widely spoken Chinese dialects in New Zealand (Mandarin and Cantonese).

Throughout the research, we addressed issues related to researcher positionality. The first author navigated a dual insider-outsider role in relation to the target participants, which is a multi-layered negotiation process (Liu, 2020). This duality stemmed from natural attributes (e.g., age, gender, language, ethnicity) and acquired attributes (e.g., religion, educational background) (Liu & Buckingham, 2023). While the first author shares key insider attributes—such as ethnicity, residential experiences (having lived in China before relocating to New Zealand), and language/dialect—two significant outsider attributes were identified. Age is the most prominent outsider attribute. In his 30s, the first author is considerably younger than the participants. The age gap may give rise to generational differences in aspects such as language use, values, and experience. The second outsider attribute is visa status. As a student visa holder, the first author’s lived experiences and knowledge of New Zealand differed in some respects from the participants, who are permanent residents. We took measures to address these outsider qualities. Prior to the main study, we undertook an initial pilot study and conducted in-depth interviews with seven participants aged 60+ who had migration experience. This practical experience allowed the first author to refine his approach to engaging with older participants, particularly with regard to creating a mutual dialogue and identifying common ground, and empathetic, attentive listening to issues that were beyond his direct experience. The researcher observed that this attentive and interactive listener role contributed to a co-created atmosphere of reciprocal sharing and trust. This initial fieldwork experience enabled the researcher to build and strengthen his communication skills with this demographic group; one participant commented spontaneously “you are young in age but old [i.e., mature] in how you talk.” Unprompted, other participants commented at the end that they had enjoyed the “talk” describing it in words such as comfortable, friendly, and feeling no age gap. The second measure entailed the first author deepening his knowledge of the societal system and immigration policies of New Zealand through additional reading of immigration-related documents, and through pre-talks (elaborated on in section 4.1) and ongoing communication with the participants throughout the research. These measures strengthened the first author’s ability to position himself flexibly and contextually (Chavez, 2008).

Our approach to the management of participants depended on the stage of research as the activities and type of contact, and consequently the fieldwork challenges that arose, differed accordingly. These stages and the respective tasks are detailed in Table 1. We elaborate on the methodological and ethical challenges experienced during each stage in the following sections.

Table 1.

The research stages and researchers’ tasks.

Research stage	Researchers’ tasks
Pre-research	Promoting research, approaching potential participants; conducting pre-talks, including notifying participants of their responsibilities and rights (e.g., right to discontinue research participation without reasons) and scheduling research activities
In-research	Complementing research activities; maintaining relationships with participants during intervals (retention)
Post-research	Providing a token of appreciation, coping with post-research relationship with participants (e.g., addressing research abandonment, fulfilling participants’ expectations)

Pre-research Stage

Research Promotion and Approaching Participants

The primary task at this stage is to promote the research and approach potential participants; however, this stage is not independent of the initial trust building stage, as the participants’ experience of recruitment can influence their level of commitment to the study, and it also influences their immediate family members’ perceptions of their involvement.

The initial trust-building approach to recruitment involved simply being present at locations which we had previously assessed as being frequented by people who met our participant profile criteria. These locations comprised shopping precincts, and the public spaces around community centres, and religious institutions. This approach was intended to be minimally intrusive as it depended on interested individuals initiating contact. For this to occur, we needed to communicate clearly the study design and purpose, and confidence in the project and to justify with some confidence the project’s rationale and potential for broadly applicable outcomes from the study. We displayed visuals (text and images), and the researcher positioned himself nearby with additional information prepared in Chinese and English and his university identification visible. This approach was informed by the recruitment procedures outlined in Liu and Buckingham (2023), whereby the researcher was positioned at key locations with study information displayed in a visually interesting manner, and by Muhib et al. (2001), who describe the approach to venue-based time-space sampling, which aims to promote the study to potential participants at times when they are likely to frequent the location.

Although this less intrusive approach raised some awareness of the study, as some older Chinese people did stop to read the information or talk briefly to the researcher in Chinese, this strategy unfortunately did not result in the recruitment of participants. In later conversations with other participants about how they learned about the study, they explained that they would either refuse or avoid such invitations to participate in a public space as they perceive older Chinese like themselves as being vulnerable to fraud, especially in a foreign land. This sense of vulnerability is expressed by Lan in Example 1. Another participant pointed out that assuming strangers’ identity (e.g., being old, migrant, and a certain ethnic group) was deemed rude. Owing to our lack of success and the very time-consuming nature of the task, we ceased this method of recruiting. On reflection we discerned that whereas recruitment in Liu and Buckingham (2023) had taken place on a gated university campus, the (comparatively) unprotected nature of public space at the locations we had selected was not conducive to trust building with the individuals we had hoped to attract. Despite our extensive initial fieldwork dedicated to identifying locations frequented by older Chinese migrants at particular times of day, our strategy was unsuccessful and we decided to adjust our plan.

Example 1

If I saw you on the street showing information about something like participating in a study, I definitely wouldn’t respond to you. Nowadays, there are so many fraudulent people who target us older people and it’s hard to distinguish between what is real and what’s not. This is a self-protective mechanism. You need a broker between us to build a bridge so that we get to know each other, and so that we can feel at ease and participate. [Lan, interview, 20th Oct 2022]

The amended approach involved the collaboration of an intermediary or broker (i.e., a person in a leadership position) from selected institutions that older Chinese migrants were known to frequent (language teaching schools, religious institutions, and community centres) to circulate or display the study information. These brokers served as gatekeepers who, from the participants’ perspective, appeared to strengthen the credentials of the researchers (and alleviate participants’ fears of fraud) and endorse the overall research topic. This approach was more successful and resulted in interested responses from 17 individuals, and the eventual participation of 14. We nevertheless note that the initial in-person approach had occurred at some institutions where we later secured the collaboration of brokers. It is possible that some of the eventual participants had previously been exposed to the study at the in-person stage and their ultimate decision to participate was influenced by the combination of both efforts.

Other than brokers affiliated with institutions, more informal brokers constituted the participants themselves and the family members of potential participants. Most of the participants we recruited used WeChat to communicate with other older Chinese migrants in their social circle. Although we had not requested chain referral, considering that it implied additional work for participants beyond their participation, the participants talked about their involvement in the study as part of their routine exchange of daily-life information. We found this “friend-to-friend” method served as an influential brokering method to convey trustworthiness and interest to other potential participants. We received seven inquiries from individuals who learned about the study from a friend which resulted in the participation of six. As outlined in Tezcan-Güntekin et al. (2022), this form of mediated recruitment could present ethical dilemmas if the participants provide consent based on their perception of the need to oblige the mediator. We followed Tezcan-Güntekin et al.’s (2022) approach in adding an additional assurance to the consent form that stated that no one (apart from the researchers) would be informed of their decision to participate.

Unlike the peer or institutional brokering, the brokering of potential participants’ adult children did not lead to eventual recruitment. We experienced two cases where older individuals (both aged over 85) had expressed their initial interest, but their respective adult children intervened to decline their parents’ involvement on account of their perceptions of their parents’ frailty and vulnerability. In these cases, we reflected on how we could provide information tailored to the adult children, especially in the case of individuals who would fall into the oldest old category according to Escourrou et al.’s review (2020). As this was not possible to address within the time constraints of the study, we did not produce a revised set of study information documents.

Pre-talks (Familiarizing Talks)

Prior to main research procedures, we followed McHenry et al.’s (2015) guidance on conducting pre-talks with the potential participants. These served to double-check the suitability of the participants, confirm the research responsibilities and rights and follow-up schedules, and alleviate the researcher’s outsiderness (i.e., with respect to his age and university affiliation) and establish (or strengthen) initial trust with the participants. We conducted this step by telephone or face-to-face, depending on the individuals’ preference. As described also in Liu (2020), these talks were relatively unstructured with respect to topics and turn-taking, but they required the research team to disclose information about themselves and clarify transparently the research procedures and purpose. At times, these talks could extend to over 30 min, as the individual talked spontaneously about different aspects of their life and experience. These pre-talks proved to be indispensable as we had to decline the participation of four participants due to ineligibility, sometimes after an extensive pre-talk, as they had not attended to the eligibility criteria on the initial (Chinese-language) information sheet.

The pre-talks also helped to communicate the researchers’ adherence to the ethical standards established by our university in a participant-centred manner. This involved framing aspects of the project in ways that were more likely to align with the individuals’ daily-life experiences. For instance, this involved referring to the researchers as people who teach young adults subjects related to language learning and teaching, which was more likely to be part of the individuals’ life experience. We explained the interview as a conversation covering certain questions about the main topic, and we explained the walking-interview, as conversations while following typical walking routes. We also talked through the (Chinese-language) consent form at this stage to ensure that opportunities for questions and feedback were available. We did not ask the individuals to sign the form at this stage; rather we encouraged them to think through this initial conversation and to contact us within the next five days to communicate their decision.

In the pre-research stage, our experiences underscore the importance of addressing the vulnerabilities and susceptibility to fraud faced by older migrants, arising from their dual identity of being older and a migrant, and investing in relationships and trust-building with individuals and institutions that would be likely to be gatekeepers to the potential recruitment of older participants.

The Main Research Stage

Research Implementation

After participants had signed the consent form, we began the preliminary arrangements for the main research stage. The study design involved different procedures (questionnaire, interviews, walking interview) and we discussed with each participant their daily routine, socialization habits, weather conditions and transport commute, to take these into consideration while planning individual schedules. As advised in Jacelon (2007), we adjusted some of the procedures to respond to participants’ age-related needs. For instance, most participants requested that the initial questionnaire be completed by the researcher through a conversational exchange, as failing eyesight created difficulties for reading through the screen or paper-based information. This approach typically transformed the survey into a richer, interview-like information exchange, as the participants readily started sharing their experiences. Jacelon (2007) notes that older participants often respond better to questions that enable extended, nuanced responses (such as those possible through this verbal completion of the survey), as this better responds to the complexity of their views culminating from extensive life experience. From the participants’ perspective, the completion of the survey was no longer a literacy-intensive task but rather an opportunity for dialogic self-expression.

To capture this (and avoid asking the participant to repeat information in the subsequent interview), we noted the additional information (where relevant to the study) and were able to refer to this while formulating questions in the subsequent interviews. As we had not sought ethics approval for recording participants at this stage, we relied on hand-written notes. The interactive questionnaire-completion process thus contributed to building rapport and providing background information for the subsequent procedures.

In the main interview, we also noted the tendency described by Jacelon (2007, p. 71) of participants to engage in “extraneous conversation”, that is, to extend the interview into areas they wished to converse on, usually reminiscencing. The choice of the Chinese-style of interview, Fangtan, an interview method described in Li (2011), suited this. Similar to an unstructured interview, the Fangtan interview engages both researchers and participants in an egalitarian manner that usually involves an exchange of information and life experiences and caters to participants’ needs for interaction and self-expression, which balances the power dynamics between the interviewees and interviewer. For instance, some participants showed interest in the first author’s perspectives on living in New Zealand. This form of dialogic inquiry can help the researcher ensure that the participants stay focused on the primary subject matter, as the researcher can steer the conversation through their response, for instance through formulations such as “Yes, I have seen that happen also, but if we think about … [leading back to the question or topic]; or more directly through a response stating, “Yes, I was also thinking more specifically about [topic]; why do you think [continuing with a topic-related question]”.

The participants were from a variety of dialectal backgrounds, but all understood Mandarin. The Fangtan interview requires (where possible) the researcher to speak the participant’s vernacular to favour a sense of familiarity and alleviate outsiderness (see also Tezcan-Güntekin et al., 2022). In this study, the first author was able to conduct interviews in Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien and use some Shanghai dialect. For instance, one Cantonese-speaking participant struggled to convey her stories in Mandarin, but when the researcher shifted to Cantonese, she was able to express her ideas spontaneously and expressively. The flexibility of language choice enabled the participant a greater sense of control over the medium of communication.

The second type of interview constituted a walking interview (or go-along). The mobile, dynamic nature of this interview meant safety considerations were vital with older participants. Go-alongs combine the advantages of interviews with observations of the participant in action (Kusenbach, 2003). The use of go-alongs allows us to observe how they perform linguistically in daily life and to capture their in-situ perception of their performance (Chen & Buckingham, 2024). To enable a more natural view of how the participants function in life domains and strengthen participant autonomy, we invited the participants to determine the go-along route, venue, length and time according to their needs on the day (the length of each session ranged from one to six hr). Known as a “trail” go-along, we describe this approach in Chen and Buckingham (2025b). We scheduled multiple go-alongs (usually 3-4) with each participant in order to investigate participants’ language challenges in different places. In total, we conducted 97 go-alongs with the 22 participants (each participant had at least three go-alongs depending on their availability). The unpredictable nature of public space (e.g., uneven sidewalks, cracked tiles, slippery ground, traffic), coupled with the participants’ own mobility issues, can increase the chances of falling or injury (Lörinc et al., 2022; Van Cauwenberg et al., 2012). Following recommendations in Lörinc et al. (2022), we focused on the safety issues of the participants during the excursion, which included being attentive to traffic, potential obstacles or unevenness on the ground, and walking slowly with pauses.

Retention

As the study design envisaged data collection interventions spread over two months, we introduced measures aimed at supporting the participants’ awareness of and interest in the study. During periods between interventions, the researcher maintained contact with participants on WeChat (with their consent) and shared local news items (tailored to the individuals where possible) and chitchatted on recent daily-life encounters. This informal interaction helped maintain a sense of research orientation for the participants and contribute to the rapport between the researcher and participant. For instance, two participants experienced a flood in their home (caused by an unusual storm) and they considered quitting. As contact through WeChat with both of them was already well established, the researcher was able to send empathetic messages, suggest institutional support options, and offer assistance with cleaning. This personal contact through a frequently used channel helped achieve full retention of participants and contributed to the researcher being able to negotiate an adapted participation schedule for these participants which helped them continue their participation.

During the main research stage, our strategies for research implementation and participant retention focused on fostering mutual engagement, promoting participants’ autonomy, and maintaining their interest in continued participation (through chitchatting and information-sharing tailored to participants situations). The success of these strategies lies in reducing participants’ sense of being studied and recognizing them as individuals in real-life contexts rather than solely as research subjects.

Post-research Stage

A longitudinal project usually implies extended contact between researchers and participants. The quite personalized and extensive contact between the researcher and the participants meant that issues related to acknowledging the participants’ contributions, and perceptions of researcher abandonment needed careful consideration. The aim at the post-research stage is thus to provide the conditions for a softer researcher-participant separation. The acknowledgement of participants’ contributions to the study were constricted by the ethics-related guidelines at our university which stipulated that monetary gifts (in the form of gift vouchers) should be modest and not perceived by participants as a form of payment for services or a participation incentive. However, many older participants in this study explicitly expressed their satisfaction upon receiving the gift of $NZ60 in supermarket vouchers (for the three interventions), as this monetary form of appreciation was tailored to their broader life circumstances, which included very modest retirement incomes, frugal lifestyles, and the responsibility of grocery shopping for the household. They felt a sense of self-fulfilment and purpose in that they were able to undertake compensated work again. Most participants were unable to undertake paid work due to age-related factors and their low level of English skills, and they did not qualify for the New Zealand pension; however, they undertook many (unpaid) domestic responsibilities in their adult children’s home. This “payment” was the first experience of remuneration that they had had in the New Zealand context. Fourteen participants explicitly spoke of their satisfaction in having “earned income”, with some describing it in terms of a “salary” obtained through their “hard work,” which demonstrated their skills were still valued in the new country and that they could contribute financially to their household.

The monetary reimbursement did not fully account for our social debt, however, as the participants had in many cases developed a strong relationship with the researcher, owing to the length of the study, the personalized nature of the research topic, and through our tailored interventions and multiple communication channels. While we emphasized at the time of presenting the supermarket vouchers that the study had ended, we also mentioned that the participants could contact the researcher with questions related to the research findings or requests for advice related to the research topic if they wished. Only three participants requested advice. Of these, two live in New Zealand alone (i.e., without their adult children who had migrated to Australia or had remained in China). All three explained that they sought the researcher’s advice to avoid inconveniencing their adult children, because they had a limited social network, and because they felt that the relationship had evolved into a friendship. The three participants maintained intermittent contact with the researcher on WeChat (always initiated by them), which usually involved the occasional question related to local daily-life activities, and social pleasantries. The researcher responded in a manner that was respectful of the participants’ desire for (online) social contact, but which did not encourage further contact.

Two participants who were practicing Christians in a local Chinese-dominant church expressed their wish for the researcher to join their respective religious community (whether through conversion or attendance). The researcher explained his understanding of conversion as a process rather than the acceptance of an invitation, a response which appeared to satisfy the two participants.

Nevertheless, half of the participants demonstrated no interest in maintaining the relationship after finalizing the participant interventions and receiving the remuneration vouchers, and thus did not appear to experience researcher abandonment. These participants responded perfunctorily (some did not respond) to the researcher’s standard new year greeting, sent several months after finalizing fieldwork as a gesture of cultural courtesy. Two participants who had previously signalled their availability for further possible studies even deleted the researcher’s contact information after having fulfilled their participant responsibilities. We thus found only very limited evidence of a sense of researcher abandonment among the older participants in our study; among the participants who appeared to desire continued contact, we navigated expectations in a manner that acknowledged this need but did not encourage dependency.

During the post-research stage, we provided a form of acknowledgement for the participants’ contribution that satisfied their psychological and social needs; though very modest, the monetary payment we offered strengthened participants’ self-esteem and sense of independence, which needs to be understood in the context of the barriers to their working in the host country. Finally, the extended personal contact with participants may result in their forming certain expectations vis-à-vis the researchers with respect to practical life concerns or emotional needs. These need to be navigated respectfully, but without encouraging dependency.

Discussion

In this article, we presented a reflexive, methodological account of the process of participant recruitment and management in the context of research in applied linguistics and migration studies. We discussed challenges regarding the effectiveness of the sampling method, the level of trust from participants, possible participant attrition, and meeting participants’ expectations. Drawing on these experiences, we discuss potential approaches to addressing the challenges and we propose recommendations for recruiting a demographic group such as this.

Recruitment: Considering the Participants’ Perspective and the Researcher’s Positionalities

Venue-based recruitment is often thought to be participant oriented as it acknowledges the daily routines of specific demographic groups, and it foresees opportunities for the researcher to intercept potential participants at locations they habitually frequent (Muhib et al., 2001). However, it failed in this context largely due to our lack of consideration for older migrants’ perception of their own vulnerability and their fear of fraud. As previously noted in Tezcan-Güntekin et al. (2022, p. 828), “sharing aspects of “culture” such as language and place of origin does not equate to understanding a person”; in this case, the participants’ mistrust of the researcher was influenced by the intersectional characteristics of our targeted demographic group: age, migration status, and language background (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015). In acknowledgement of this, we sought the cooperation of the gatekeepers (including the friends of participants), whose screening of the researchers’ attributes (e.g., gender, age) and trustworthiness (e.g., supporting documents, identity) helped convince the participants of the researchers’ credibility (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Rugkåsa & Canvin, 2011).

The use of pre-talks has been previously described primarily as a trust-building opportunity prior to the signing of consent forms (e.g., Li, 2011; Zhang, 2014b). Following insights in Mody et al. (2008), we extended the function of pre-talks to encompass an initial screening of potential participants to assess informally their age-related mobility and comprehension issues, to identify whether participation might constitute a burden (e.g., fatigue, travel expenses, time investment), and to negotiate and verify practical issues (e.g., eligibility, research components, scheduling). This use of comprehensive pre-talks as a formal procedure can, we believe, contribute to participant retention.

Finally, the pre-talks (grounded in principles of reciprocity and mutual engagement as previously described), together with the experience gleaned from the initial pilot study, assisted in alleviating the most significant outsider attribute for researcher positionality in this study: the age difference. Existing literature suggests that age differences can influence the researcher-participant dynamic, and the nature of the information exchanged (Grenier, 2007; Tarrant, 2014), though this issue is yet to be examined empirically (Tarrant, 2014). At times, the generational differences might have been advantageous, as the participants sometimes appeared to explain certain issues in detail (e.g., related to their youth in China or the status of senior citizens in New Zealand), seemingly believing that the researcher was uninformed in these matters. Resultantly, we believe that generational boundaries (and the concomitant outsider quality in the researcher-researched relationship) can at times be beneficial to the research process.

Implementation: Empowering Participants Decision-Making and Autonomy

Previous studies rarely acknowledge the potential physical difficulties involved in completing a survey. In such cases, the researchers may assist by co-completing the survey with the participants. This approach not only addressed participants’ physical challenges, but it also became an opportunity to gain extensive additional insights and the collaborative nature contributed to relationship building that benefited subsequent interviews.

During the interview, a dialogic style of interaction (i.e., the Fangtan interview technique in this context) encourages participants to exercise their power and agency and mitigate their sense of being “studied” (Russell, 1999). The topics for the interviews generally encompass life history-related matters, which helps “structure the interviewee’s stories”, and “communicate differences as well as similarities between the interviewer and interviewee” (Lundgren, 2013, p. 680), and also helps the researcher to steer the direction of the interview. With regard to the go-alongs (walking interviews), we followed the safety guidelines detailed in Lörinc et al. (2022) but also gave participants the autonomy to determine the structure of the event (e.g., walking routes, and time). This participant autonomy can arguably allow the researcher more realistic insights into the walking interview experience.

Termination: Appreciating and Meeting Expectations

The termination of research necessitates actions that both acknowledge the participants’ contributions in a practical manner and manage their expectations (e.g., regarding the relationship, benefit-exchange). Although previous researchers’ concerns that a monetary form of appreciation may be thought as purchasing participants’ stories (Rugkåsa & Canvin, 2011), we found this form held both practical and psychological significance, as it allowed participants to feel a sense of personal contribution, recognition, and value. Previous research has noted the value of participants themselves determining (or selecting) the form of acknowledgement (Liu & Buckingham, 2023), which may also be beneficial for participants of this demographic profile due to their range of needs related to daily-life functioning (e.g., English-language or activity-related needs).

As a longitudinal study, extended contact with participants may blur the boundaries between the researchers and participants (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006), potentially subjecting participants to a sense of deception or abandonment upon completion (e.g., Rallies & Rossman, 2009; Tezcan-Güntekin et al., 2022). We followed the advice in Tezcan-Güntekin et al. (2022) concerning post-research contact to maintain trust and mitigate any sense of abandonment, while endeavoring to avoid the expectation of continued contact. We observed that, overall, participants were able to maintain a clear boundary after research termination either by ceasing further relational development or by limiting their contact to small occasional requests when they felt in need. The few participants who continued contact with the researcher explained this in terms of mutual compatibility and commonalities (e.g., similar worldviews) rather than extended research-related contact. The interest expressed by some participants in sharing their spiritual life with the researcher was an expression of genuine care, and we did not experience this need as inappropriate. We thus found very limited evidence of any post-research abandonment in this study from the information available to us. Meanwhile, we believe the word “abandonment or seduction” may be too strong, and therefore we propose more neutral terms, such as researcher-participant separation.

Conclusion

In this paper we offered life-course-informed reflections on conducting research (particularly longitudinal) with older migrants. We emphasized the brokering and trust-building effects of gatekeepers and pre-talks to address the Chinese migrants’ vulnerability and fear of fraud. We demonstrated methods to empower participants during fieldwork, provide a context-sensitive acknowledgement of their contribution, and guidance on a soft separation from participants after fieldwork.

We offer several implications for researchers conducting studies with older migrants of a specific ethnicity (especially with low host country language competence). First, we underscore the value of a knowledge-informed approach to the target ethnolinguistic group that encompasses various perspectives (e.g., life course, migration status) and developing flexible recruitment strategies based on this understanding. Involving a gatekeeper to establish an initial trust connection may be particularly effective, given the vulnerable nature of this demographic. However, it is crucial for researchers to present relevant documents and articulate the rationale for the research in a formal and explicit manner. This approach should underscore the voluntary nature of participation, and address concerns regarding potential stress or harm to participants. Second, researchers need to maintain on-going communication with the participants throughout different research stages; this contributes to different tasks and goals (e.g., verification, retention, trust-building) and strengthens the likelihood of research retention. Third, researchers should guide the overall direction of research implementation and the necessary safety considerations, while empowering participants to make decisions regarding the specifics (e.g., time, location, duration). Lastly, researchers may consider the forms of appreciation that yield both practical and psychological benefits to participants, and they should consider carefully articulated responses to participants’ requests that exceed researchers’ capabilities.

This study acknowledges three limitations. First, the sample size is relatively small due to the intensive nature of the fieldwork. Our findings may not have immediate relevancy for studies with a larger-scale quantitative design, although many of the principles may also be applied. Second, we were unable to offer insights from a wider range of data collection methods (e.g., photo or music elicitation), which might give rise to additional methodological considerations. Third, due to the specific research objectives of our project, we were unable to explore the appropriateness of these methodological considerations in research with other ethnolinguistic groups. Fourth, participants’ autonomous decisions on the go-alongs resulted in the varying lengths of each session, which may affect the depth and richness of go-along data. Researchers need to strike a balance between participants’ autonomy and data consistency.

Finally, we offer directions for future studies based on limitations we experienced. We found little guidance available to help navigate the controlling role that was often exercised by gatekeepers, whether institutional representatives or family members. While we acknowledge that concerns regarding the research participation of older migrants can be legitimate, we experienced considerable challenges in the process of gaining and maintaining their attention to introduce our study.

We experienced challenges in recruiting participants, as the location-based recruitment did not prove fruitful, and the older migrants’ generally poor eyesight and restricted mobility limited the likelihood of their noticing paper-based advertisements for research participants posted in the community. In hindsight, we recommend including a question at the end of fieldwork that elicits the participants’ own ideas and recommendations regarding how to recruit older research participants. Upon conclusion of the fieldwork, our participants overall spoke very positively about their participation experience, and it is possible that they might have suggested ways to better capture the attention of and communicate the benefits of participation to future potential participants.