Abstract
Joint interviews are a qualitative data collection method conducted by one researcher with two or more participants who share a pre-existing relationship and a common experience. This paper examines critically the application of joint interviews with families, using, as example, my doctoral study, which explored the construction of coloured women’s identities in Cape Town, South Africa. While the research explored coloured identities, the primary focus in this paper is on the methodological insights gained through joint interviews with family members. Positioning the study in the existing academic discourse on joint interviews, this paper highlights their potential to uncover relational dynamics, co-constructed meanings, and collective storytelling in family units. In this paper, I provide a sense of how a researcher might experience and engage with the process subjectively. I argue that joint interviews can offer valuable information about how families co-construct meaning and share experiences. Key methodological findings demonstrate that joint interviews can elicit rich, multi-voiced stories that reveal practices and processes through which histories, generations, and identities are shared (or not) jointly. Challenges are addressed in managing dominant voices, group dynamics, and ethical issues. This paper contributes to qualitative research by expanding the scope of joint interviews beyond couples to family members, providing insight into their strengths and limitations, and practical tips for their use. These practical tips are especially beneficial in studies with marginalised communities and complex social identities, equipping researchers with the necessary tools to navigate the challenges and complexities of joint interviews.
Introduction
The pre-existing relationships among participants characterise joint interviews and offer a unique methodological approach to studying shared narratives and interpersonal dynamics (Morgan et al., 2013; Polak & Green, 2016; Voltelen et al., 2018). Joint interviews allow various formats, including pair (or dyadic), small-group, family, and relationship-based configurations, each offering distinct advantages in capturing the complexities of social interactions (Voltelen et al., 2018). This paper demonstrates how joint interviews were applied to uncover the complex processes of identity negotiation and co-construction in coloured families, where the influence of shared history, socio-cultural norms, and family dynamics shape the negotiation of coloured identities.
While existing literature has predominantly concentrated on health-related issues, relational dynamics between couples, and methodological considerations (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018; Morgan et al., 2013; Polak & Green, 2016; Sakellariou et al., 2013), joint interviews have begun to reveal insights into unspoken communication, power struggles, and identity formations within family relationships (Campbell, 2021; Herzog et al., 2019). This study continues this application by investigating identity development and negotiation processes in coloured families, a long-marginalised segment of South African society whose identity has been shaped by colonial and apartheid race classification systems. The term ‘coloured’ and its socio-political implications will be further unpacked in the research context section of this paper.
Voltelen et al. (2018) define families as groups with strong emotional bonds, shared responsibilities, and a common sense of identity. Joint interviews can capitalise on these family dynamics, enabling participants to engage with, confirm, or reconsider each other’s views in real time (Riley, 2014; Van Parys et al., 2017). This process is particularly valuable when studying marginalised communities, where intergenerational narratives and socio-cultural orderings play a central role in understanding how cultural identities are negotiated collectively (Sullivan & Stevens, 2010). In this paper, I argue that joint interviews assist in exploring coloured identities, especially within family contexts, where identity formation is often negotiated in shared spaces.
This study applies joint interviews to explore the negotiation of coloured identities within families, focusing on how these identities are co-constructed in response to shared histories, social expectations, and personal experiences. The paper will demonstrate how joint interviews allow for exploring family dynamics, intergenerational conversations, and identities and how they provide a multifaceted view of identity formation beyond individual interviews.
In the following sections, I will discuss the application of joint interviews in the social sciences, particularly for studying identity and family dynamics. I will also address the research design, sample size, data collection process and analysis, and practical challenges in working with marginalised communities. By exploring these elements, this paper will illustrate how joint interviews can be applied to explore social identities within families, particularly in communities where historical and cultural factors influence the negotiation of those identities.
Application in Social Sciences Research
Joint interviews are a valuable methodological data collection tool in social science research, particularly for exploring identity. These interviews enable direct observation of how participants respond to each other’s stories, revealing implicit rules, power structures, and emotional patterns (Blake et al., 2021; Morgan et al., 2013). Joint interviews can amplify women’s voices, particularly in gendered contexts where they might be silenced (Seale et al., 2008). However, these effects are context-dependent (Pini, 2005), highlighting the potential for joint interviews to surface perspectives that might not emerge in individual settings.
Despite their strengths, joint interviews come with challenges, such as the influence of participants on each other’s responses, the avoidance of sensitive issues, and constraints due to group power dynamics (Riley, 2014; Voltelen et al., 2018). These challenges emphasise the importance of thoughtful design and researcher awareness, especially in marginalised communities where trauma and identity intersect (Campbell, 2021).
Several studies demonstrate how joint interviews can deepen understanding of identity in family-based research, and I showcase a few below:
Rossetti et al. (2020) used dyadic interviews to explore sibling relationships and how relational narratives shape emotional roles and support structures.
Eggenberger and Nelms (2007) found that joint interviews fostered therapeutic reflection, particularly in communities where collective storytelling is culturally significant.
Voltelen et al. (2018) showed how cultural values and family roles converge in joint interviews, shaping identity.
Herzog et al. (2019) highlighted how moral tension and hidden conflict emerge, offering insights into family power dynamics and contested identities.
By interviewing multiple family members, researchers gain a multifaceted view of shared experiences, especially on sensitive topics, offering deeper insight into social identity within its cultural and historical context (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Voltelen et al., 2018). The work of both Eggenberger and Nelms (2007) and Herzog et al. (2019) stress the importance of ethical sensitivity to avoid harm, particularly in communities of colour where historical trauma and collective identity are intertwined.
In my doctoral study on coloured women’s identities in Cape Town, joint interviews naturally emerged when participants preferred to include family members. These interviews sparked intergenerational conversations, rich with emotion, contradiction, and shared memory. The depth and complexity of these encounters inspired this paper, which advocates for joint interviews as a powerful data collection tool to explore identity in family contexts.
This paper argues the need to expand joint interviews beyond dyadic relationships to include broader contexts, such as research on social identities, including coloured identities. In the next section, I will address the practical challenges of working with participants from marginalised communities, setting the stage for how joint interviews were applied in this study, and detailing the research design, sample size, data collection, and analysis.
Practical Considerations and Real Challenges in Working With Marginalised Communities
Research with historically marginalised communities, such as coloured communities in South Africa, requires a sensitive understanding of socio-historical contexts, cultural norms, and community belief systems. Western ethical frameworks, which focus on individualism, often clash with African communal philosophies, such as ubuntu (Lutz, 2009; Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2023). These differences underscore the importance of culturally relevant ethical practices in research with marginalised communities.
Power dynamics and community norms significantly influence participation in joint interviews, especially in family settings. For example, Mavhandu-Mudzusi (2023) noted that an elder was present during interviews with young women to ensure adherence to community norms. This illustrates how community practices govern participation and reinforce collective values. Respecting community structures is, therefore, critical in conducting effective joint interviews.
Ethical reflexivity plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the research process. Researchers working with historically misrepresented communities must prioritise respect, justice, and beneficence. The retracted Stellenbosch University study on the cognitive functioning of coloured women (Pijoos, 2019) serves as a cautionary example, demonstrating the dangers of reinforcing stereotypes and ignoring the socio-political context. This highlights the necessity for cultural sensitivity and ethical rigour when working with marginalised groups.
Effective community engagement is essential for building trust and ensuring participation. Researchers must foster strong local partnerships, participate in cultural events, and maintain open communication channels (Dietrich et al., 2022; Mthembu & Chimbari, 2024; Omobowale et al., 2024). Culturally appropriate recruitment, such as conducting interviews in participants’ homes, helps overcome logistical barriers and builds credibility within the community (García et al., 2017; Roosa et al., 2008). Financial incentives must be handled carefully to avoid biasing the data, especially considering the socio-economic realities of participants, many of whom may be vulnerable (Seshibedi, 2021).
In joint interviews, managing power imbalances is crucial. Techniques such as open-ended questions and redirection encourage less vocal participants to contribute (Riley, 2014; Voltelen et al., 2018). This is especially important in coloured communities, where historical inequalities stemming from apartheid and ongoing structural challenges can affect participants’ willingness to engage. Actively challenging stereotypes and addressing historical misrepresentation is necessary to create a safe environment where participants feel empowered to share their experiences (Adonis, 2018, 2024; Alessi & Kahn, 2023).
Given the sensitive nature of the topics discussed, a trauma-informed approach is essential to safeguard participants’ well-being. This approach involves providing clear confidentiality protocols and ensuring that participants can withdraw from the interview at any time without consequence (Adonis, 2015, 2024; Sikweyiya & Jewkes, 2012).
The insider/outsider dilemma also presents challenges, particularly when the researcher shares a similar identity with participants. While shared identity can foster trust, it also risks biasing the research process. Researchers must remain critically reflective, ensuring their personal experiences do not overshadow participants’ stories (Berger, 2015; Pillow, 2003). Reflexivity helps ensure that the participants’ voices remain central to the data collection process.
Joint interviews offer valuable insights into how family members negotiate identities in relation to one another. In communities, where kinship is central, joint interviews uncover the interpersonal dynamics that shape collective identity. These interactions provide a deeper understanding of how race, gender, and class intersect within family structures, revealing shared and divergent experiences.
Research Context
This study forms part of my doctoral thesis, Understanding the Construction of Coloured Women’s Identities in the City of Cape Town: A Decolonial Perspective, which examines the complexities of coloured identities in post-apartheid South Africa, specifically among women in Cape Town. The aim of the doctoral study was twofold. First, I explored the narratives of what it means to be a coloured woman in a democratised South Africa. Second, I explored how these women experience their coloured identities and the meanings they give to the notion of the category ‘coloured’.
Coloured identity is multifaceted and shaped by historical, social, and geographic contexts. In South Africa, it commonly refers to individuals of mixed-race heritage (Hendricks, 2005). However, its meaning varies across different cultural landscapes (Erasmus, 2017; Kometsi, 2007; Nimako, 2011). A critical distinction exists between self-identification as coloured and being labelled as such – while the former represents personal agency, the latter is a societal imposition (Long, 2021). This distinction highlights the complexity of coloured identity, which is further influenced by factors such as place, history, language, and religion (Long, 2021).
Cape Town was chosen as the research site owing to its historically significant role in shaping coloured identities. The city’s social fabric has been affected profoundly by slavery, colonialism, and apartheid. Before democracy, the Western Cape 1 was inhabited predominantly by coloured communities, a demographic reality shaped by apartheid-era influx control policies and the designation of the region as a ‘coloured labour preference area’ (Baldwin, 1975; Trotter, 2009).
The Group Areas Act of 1950 played a pivotal role in the racial segregation of urban and rural spaces in Cape Town (Yarwood, 2011). African populations were relocated forcibly to remote areas to accommodate the expansion of white suburbs (South African History Online, 2019). Infrastructural divisions such as railway lines further reinforced racialised urban planning, demarcating certain areas as ‘whites only’ (South African History Online, 2019). These policies entrenched racial and class distinctions, displacing communities by force to the peripheries of the city.
The formal end of apartheid granted new freedoms of movement, yet Cape Town, where apartheid-era racial categories persist, remains one of the least integrated cities in South Africa (Yarwood, 2011). Stereotypes continue to be invoked, particularly during election campaigns, reinforcing apartheid-era racial categories. It is for this reason that I acknowledge the complexities of what it means to be and to ‘perform’ colouredness in South Africa. The geographical location where one is based plays a critical role in how one makes meaning of their everyday encounters. By situating coloured identity within Cape Town’s historical and socio-political landscape, the research explored the ways that coloured identities are constructed among coloured women residing in Cape Town. Building on this contextual foundation, the following section outlines the study’s methodological approach, detailing the interpretivist paradigm, theoretical frameworks, and narrative inquiry methods employed to explore the lived experiences of coloured women in Cape Town.
The research questions for the doctoral study were: (1) How do the stories of women who identify as coloured highlight the ways in which coloniality plays out in their lives? (2) How do the stories of women who identify as coloured show evidence of resistance to colonial expectations and discourses?
Method
Research Design
The research questions used in this study are both exploratory and descriptive in nature and are consistent with qualitative research methodologies in an interpretive paradigm. The research is conducted in an interpretivist paradigm that acknowledges the subjective nature of reality that arises through social interactions along with specific experiences and histories of individuals (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) assert that methodologies in this paradigm emphasise the means by which individuals assign meaning to social and contextual situations. This perspective is consistent with the research aims, since the realities of individuals are constructed through the specific experiences and the contexts surrounding them.
The interpretivist paradigm guides the understanding and analysis of information towards the process by which individuals assign meaning to the events that occur to them. This method emphasises the importance of understanding these subjective realities in specific social, cultural, and historical contexts.
To explore such subjective realities, the research draws on two foundational theory frameworks: intersectionality theory by Crenshaw (1989, 1999) and decolonial feminism theory by Lugones (1987, 2007, 2010). The intersectionality theory by Crenshaw examines the intersectional social categories like race, gender, and class that affect the lives of individuals in relation to both privilege and oppression. The theory provides a framework to understand how women of colour negotiate life along these intersecting axes.
Additionally, the current research draws on the theory provided by Lugones to explore the gender dynamics that are shaped by the effects of colonialism. The framework of the colonial/modern gender system provided by Lugones (2007) challenges the prevailing gender norms, highlighting the legacies of colonialism that continue to shape gendered lives. Her concept of the coloniality of gender, specifically through the analysis of the ‘light and dark sides of coloniality’ and the concept of ‘historicising gender’ provides the crucial framework to understand gender as a construct that has been shaped through the legacies of colonialism (Lugones, 2007). This analysis supports the necessity of intersectionality, calling for the integration of gender in the discourses of race, sexuality, and class, while highlighting the historical aspects that underpin these analyses. Combining these two frameworks, the research offers a complex analysis of the lives of coloured women and how their lives are constructed through the workings of colonialism. Together, the frameworks represent the interpretivist paradigm that gives prominence to the construction of subjective realities and the role played by meaning in specific historical and social contexts.
The qualitative narrative research approach was chosen for this study because it allows for a comprehensive analysis of participants’ lived experiences, offering rich, in-depth insights into how individuals construct meaning (rather than ‘truth’) from their experiences (Andrews et al., 2013; Riessman, 2005; Smith & Sparkes, 2006). This approach is particularly suited to exploring the complexities of identity by examining how coloured women’s identities are formed through personal narratives and shared family histories (Andrews et al., 2013; Smith & Sparkes, 2006). Additionally, the narrative approach facilitates understanding how stories shape personal and collective identity (Czarniawska, 2004; Polkinghorne, 2007). It allows for a nuanced understanding of how race, gender, and history intersect in the lived experiences of coloured women in Cape Town (De Vos et al., 2005).
Owing to the emerging application of joint interviews in understanding the construction of identities and the limited existing research, it was essential to utilise established theoretical and methodological frameworks. This assisted in gaining insights from joint interviews with family members when exploring coloured women’s identities.
Participants
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The study’s inclusion criteria focused on women identifying as coloured, ensuring that their narratives remained central to the research rather than being shaped by external interpretations. To participate, individuals had to be 18 years or older, as this age requirement ensured their ability to provide informed consent and to reflect meaningfully on their experiences of growing up as coloured women. Furthermore, the participants must have resided in Cape Town. Based on this inclusion criterion, participants are key informants in a study on the construction of coloured women’s identities in Cape Town, giving them in-depth knowledge to provide rich insights.
As a result, the exclusion criteria for the study were those who did not identify as coloured, were younger than 18, and resided outside Cape Town.
Sampling Techniques
Snowball and purposive sampling were used to recruit participants. Purposive sampling is a non-probability technique used in qualitative and quantitative research where the participants are selected based on predefined criteria that suit the research aims (Campbell et al., 2020; Tongco, 2007). This method enhances study rigour and data trustworthiness by improving the match between the sample and the research aims (Campbell et al., 2020). In this study, purposive sampling was used to align with the inclusion criteria in order to answer the research questions.
Snowball sampling is also a non-probability technique, but it is specifically useful to study hidden or hard-to-reach populations through social networks and recommendations (Browne, 2005; Johnson, 2014; Waters, 2015). Snowball sampling was employed by allowing existing participants and acquaintances to refer others, thereby expanding the participant pool through personal networks.
I acknowledge the possibility of bias with snowball sampling, where individuals may recommend others similar to themselves for the study, resulting in the sample becoming homogenous. This situation may produce an overabundance of specific characteristics, like the possibility that the participants are highly educated (Parker & Geddes, 2019).
While this could limit diversity, it was less of a concern in this study owing to the focus on understanding the construction of coloured women’s identities. The insights generated from this study still remain valuable, as they reflect the perspectives of this group, even if the sample may not be fully representative of all coloured women. Therefore, although the sample may be less diverse, it remains relevant and provides rich, in-depth data consistent with the study’s aims.
Participant Recruitment and Access
To reach potential participants, a recruitment flyer detailing the study’s purpose and selection criteria was developed. The flyer was distributed through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. A key recruitment channel was the Facebook page ‘Coloured Kleurling’, later renamed ‘Coloured South Africa’ when permission was obtained from the page administrator to post the flyer, ensuring targeted outreach. In addition, the flyer was emailed to acquaintances I met at local conferences, encouraging them to participate or to share the invitation with potential candidates.
Sample Size
Skånland and Fuhr (2024) posit that the number of participants should be kept small if the focus is to explore relational dynamics. Thus, the increased number of participants in an interview may align more closely with the criteria for focus group discussions rather than for joint interviews. For example, focus group discussions can hold any number of participants from three to 21, with an average of 10 participants (Nyumba et al., 2018) and a total of four to eight focus group discussions (Guest et al., 2017; Hennink & Kaiser, 2021). However, this is all dependent on the research context and aims.
Joint interviews are distinct from focus groups, requiring a pre-existing relationship and/or a shared experience among participants. Unlike focus groups, which often bring together individuals without prior connections, joint interviews emphasise relational dynamics, allowing participants to confirm, challenge, and extend the narratives of one another. This distinction influences the depth of discussion and interaction significantly, since joint interviews inherently account for the ongoing relational considerations between participants, which focus group discussions typically do not.
The literature demonstrates that the sample sizes of joint interviews vary (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Herzog et al., 2019; Rossetti et al., 2020; Voltelen et al., 2018). There is no universal standard regarding the number of participants per interview or the total number of interviews required. Instead, researchers should aim for data saturation, ensuring new interviews no longer yield novel insights (Naeem et al., 2024). This can be determined systematically using approaches such as specifying an initial analysis sample and applying a stopping criterion (Francis et al., 2010). Adopting this methodological approach ensures that the data collected are rich and comprehensive while maintaining feasibility in the execution of the study.
A total of 15 responses were obtained, showing interest in the study, when people contacted me by email and social media (such as Facebook). However, one individual was from another province, rendering them excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, while another participant indicated no longer being interested in participating. The study recruited 13 participants, rendering 10 interviews, given that the other three participants wanted to be interviewed together with family members. The participation of family members during the interviews will be further explained under the data collection.
Beyond the initial 15 responses, no further interest was expressed in the study, reinforcing that the sample size was appropriate for the timeframe of the study. Also, data sufficiency was determined based on thematic saturation, that is, data collection ceased when no new themes emerged from the interviews (Naeem et al., 2024). After conducting 10 interviews with 13 participants, the same themes began recurring, suggesting that further data collection would not add significant new insights. Given that the research focused on the lived experiences of coloured women, and not on statistical generalisability, the sample was sufficient to provide deep, meaningful engagement with the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2021).
Participant Demographics
Measures of Trustworthiness
While Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness framework is applied widely in individual qualitative interviews, it also extends to joint interviews, albeit with specific considerations. In this study, I ensured trustworthiness in joint interviews through the following strategies:
Credibility
The co-construction of narratives in joint interviews enhances credibility since participants can affirm, expand, or challenge each other’s accounts, reducing the likelihood of misinterpretation. Member checking was applied to ensure that participants felt accurately represented by giving them their transcripts after transcription to verify the accuracy of the recorded data. Additionally, the study’s findings were shared with the participants once the analysis was completed, allowing them to reflect on the interpretation of their stories and ensure that their voices were represented accurately.
An independent co-coder reviewed the codes which helped to refine themes. While traditional inter-coder reliability measures such as Cohen’s Kappa were not applied owing to the interpretivist nature of the study. An independent co-coder was beneficial in reducing potential researcher bias and ensuring analytic consistency.
Dependability
While joint interviews introduce variability owing to participant interactions, dependability was ensured through structured but flexible interview guides to maintain consistency across sessions. ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software facilitated systematic coding and ensured that emerging themes were identified consistently across interviews. Audit trails documented how interactional influences shaped the findings to account for the joint interview setting.
Confirmability
Using direct participant quotes preserved participant voices and minimised researcher bias. Joint interviews inherently provide a naturalistic form of triangulation, as multiple perspectives emerge from the same interview. Reflexive notes acknowledged my role in moderating discussions, ensuring that findings remained participant driven.
Transferability
Thick descriptions of joint interview dynamics allow readers to assess how findings might apply to other contexts. The interactive nature of joint interviews provides insights into how identity and experience are co-constructed in relational contexts, making findings more applicable to studies on family dynamics, community identity, and shared lived experiences.
While these trustworthiness measures enhanced the study’s rigour significantly, it is important to note that the absence of formal inter-coder reliability limits the generalisability of some interpretations. However, focusing on reflexivity, independent consultation, and systematic documentation mitigates this limitation by ensuring that findings are grounded robustly in participants’ voices. The interactive benefits of co-constructed narratives in enhancing credibility and confirmability are advantages for joint interviews.
Data Collection
Researcher Positionality
At the time of data collection, I had no personal relationships with participants. As a self-identified coloured woman with a background in psychology, and pursuing a doctoral degree, I acknowledged my insider-outsider position and how this shaped interactions and the co-construction of narratives. Furthermore, I have experience conducting qualitative interviews and attended a workshop on unstructured narrative interviewing.
Unstructured Narrative Interviews
I chose unstructured narrative interviews to access participants’ lived experiences from their perspectives (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). This approach allowed for rich, in-depth accounts of womanhood and coloured identity in Cape Town. The six-step framework by Jovchelovitch and Bauer (2000) guided the interview process, allowing flexibility and responsiveness to participants’ narratives. I will outline below how I conducted the joint interviews using an unstructured narrative approach.
Five Practical Steps for Conducting Joint Interviews (Riley, 2014; Voltelen et al., 2018): (1) Pre-Interview Preparation: Before interviews, I conducted a literature review to inform a set of ‘exmanent’ questions derived from research aims. These questions helped participants to engage meaningfully while leaving space for new insights to emerge (Muylaert et al., 2014). My supervisor (a professor in the field of psychology with extensive experience in qualitative research) reviewed the interview guide to ensure it aligned with research goals and narrative methods. Although a guide was used, question order varied based on participant responses. Some themes were addressed without prompting, and I adapted by avoiding repetition and probing further. In early interviews, there were structural challenges, which led me to adjust questions to include reflections on resilience and cultural strength. (2) Setting: All 13 participants provided written consent, but this paper focuses on the two joint interviews conducted with families. The interviews were face-to-face, fostering a more comfortable environment to build rapport and ensure a richer dialogue. Although the participants were bilingual (English and Afrikaans), all interviews were conducted in English, with occasional Afrikaans phrases. As I speak both languages, no translator was required. Interview arrangements were made via email or phone, helping to establish rapport and reduce anxiety. Although a neutral venue was offered, participants preferred to be interviewed at home, which created a familiar and comfortable setting. Interview lengths varied for interview one (2 h 4 min 0 sec) and interview two (48 min 44 sec). Only the participants and I were present, and I conducted the interviews alone to maintain focus. All participants consented to the audio recording. (3) Facilitation: During the interviews, I used open-ended questions to guide the conversation, allowing participants to narrate their stories without rigid constraints. This method ensured that they could freely explore their experiences while allowing me to steer the conversation toward key themes aligned with the research aims. The interview followed the six-step framework (Jovchelovitch & Bauer, 2000), which includes: • Preparation: Using an interview guide as mentioned above in the Pre-Interview Preparation. Rather than conducting preliminary interviews, I used the first two interviews to assess the clarity of my interview questions and identify any gaps or areas for improvement. This iterative approach allowed me to adjust the interview process in real time, particularly refining the interview’s opening to emphasise how upbringing, family, and environment shape identities. • Initialisation: I formulated the initial topic for narration, helping participants begin reflecting on their family experiences and identity. • Main Narration: I allowed participants to share their stories with minimal interruption, encouraging them to reflect on how family, history, and culture shaped their identities. • Questioning Phase: The ‘exmanent’ questions were used to delve deeper into key themes related to identity and experiences. These questions were designed to guide the conversation, ensuring the research aims were addressed, while leaving room for new insights to emerge based on participants’ responses. The interview question order varied based on participant responses. This meant that some themes emerged without prompting, and I adapted questions accordingly to maintain the interview flow. • Reflection Phase: In this step, I created space for participants to reflect on the meanings behind their narratives, allowing them to revisit key events or thoughts from their stories. Herzog et al. (2019) caution that interviewers should not remain passive observers but engage actively in moral discourse. To ensure preparedness for ethical engagement, I developed flexible yet sensitive questions, reflected on power dynamics before each session, and remained attuned to moments requiring empathy, redirection, or silence. A trauma-informed approach was adopted, especially considering participants’ experiences of apartheid-era displacement and ongoing racialised inequalities. This approach informed how emotional risks were managed, ensuring participants’ well-being during interviews. In emotionally intense moments—such as Jane’s recollection of forced removals—I allowed silence and gentle pacing to support participant wellbeing. When participants asked for my opinion or reassurance, I reflected on the tension of occupying an expert role and redirected the conversation back to them. These interactions reminded me of the co-constructed nature of qualitative interviews and the importance of remaining attuned to relational dynamics. • Concluding Talk: The final phase of the interview involved summarising key points and ensuring that participants felt heard and respected. I debriefed participants collectively, allowing them to reflect as a group. While individual debriefing sessions were not conducted, I maintained post-interview contact with participants throughout the duration of the study to monitor their wellbeing and ensure continued rapport. Although the literature encourages individual debriefings to assess personal emotional responses (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018), I found that collective debriefings, coupled with sustained informal check-ins, provided sufficient emotional closure and support for participants in this study. Follow-up interviews were not necessary, as participants did not indicate a need for further discussion, and the narratives were sufficiently rich. However, this sustained engagement still allowed for ethical responsiveness and upheld relational continuity (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018; Sakellariou et al., 2013). (4) Post-Interview Reflection: After each joint interview, I reflected on the interaction patterns and group dynamics. I paid particular attention to group dynamics, ensuring that each participant had an opportunity to speak. Dominant voices were gently redirected, and quieter participants were encouraged to share their perspectives. This helped to create a balanced dialogue and capture a range of experiences. In the first joint interview, a family of three women—Jane (mother) and her daughters Sarah and Zoe—shared stories of their past and present lives. The second interview involved two sisters, Ruth and Elaine, who reflected on various elements involved in coloured identities. While having an observer may have provided additional insights into non-verbal dynamics (Knott et al., 2022), researchers are also cautioned that an observer may influence the natural flow of conversation in joint interviews. I relied on detailed field notes in this study to ensure rich contextual understanding without disrupting the participants’ interaction. In my field notes, I, captured non-verbal cues, group dynamics, and emotional reactions that contributed to a richer understanding of the participants’ experiences. These observations were not used as a separate, supplementary method but were integrated into the data analysis process to provide additional context and deepen the interpretation of the interview interactions. While these observations were not coded independently, they did inform the coding process by highlighting moments of tension, collaboration, and contradiction, which were important for understanding how participants negotiated their identities. Drawing on Riley’s (2014) typology of interaction types, I noted instances of collaboration, contradiction, and affirmation during the joint interviews. These were documented for later analysis. (5) Analysis of Responses: The data from the joint interviews were considered both at the individual level and as a group interaction. A more detailed analysis of these responses will be presented in the Data Analysis, where I discuss the thematic coding and interpretive processes.
Data Analysis
I conducted a thematic narrative analysis of the interview transcripts (Fraser, 2004), which is particularly suitable for exploring how participants construct meaning through stories. Thematic narrative analysis was chosen because it aligns with the aims of the study, which sought to explore the construction of identities, particularly how race and gender intersect to shape the lived experiences of the participants. This method enabled an in-depth exploration of common themes across participants’ stories, with emphasis on the content of their speech and the meaning they attribute to their experiences (Riessman, 2005). Guided by intersectionality (Crenshaw) and decolonial feminism (Lugones), this analysis examined how colonial legacies, race, gender, and class intersect in participants’ stories. These frameworks shaped the coding and interpretation process.
Seven phases were outlined by Fraser (2004) and provided a structured approach while allowing for flexibility in adapting to the evolving data:
Phase One involved immersion in the narratives, including multiple readings of transcripts and reflexive journaling to track emotional and intellectual responses. Particular attention was paid to the relational dynamics that emerged in the joint interviews.
During this phase, the collaborative storytelling in the first joint interview—with Sarah, Jane, and Zoe—powerfully illustrated the intergenerational transmission of trauma and resilience (Polak & Green, 2016; Riley, 2014). Zoe’s reflections on the dop system and racial hierarchies revealed a deep awareness of historical pain and empathy for Black South Africans. I allowed the exchange to unfold naturally, stepping in only when needed to guide the discussion or prompt quieter voices. The emotional intensity of Jane’s recollections, followed by her joy in later sharing the interview with visiting relatives, highlighted the interview as a space not only of data generation, but of meaning-making and affirmation (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007; Herzog et al., 2019; Voltelen et al., 2018). These moments required bracketing and heightened sensitivity, reinforcing my role not just as researcher, but as listener and witness (Adonis, 2024; Campbell, 2021). These reflections informed early coding decisions around intergenerational memory, relational resilience, and racialised belonging.
Phase Two included verbatim transcription of the interviews (Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999), with the first transcribed by me and the remainder transcribed by an independent transcriber, ensuring consistency and accuracy in transcription. The independent transcriber signed a non-disclosure agreement. I reviewed all transcripts and checked them against the original audio recordings for quality assurance.
Phase Three involved coding the data line-by-line (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The purpose of this exercise was to organise the data into categories that share characteristics (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The codes were developed both inductively and deductively, informed by the theoretical frameworks of intersectionality and decolonial feminism. For example, themes related to racialised experiences, gendered experiences, and the impact of colonial legacies were drawn from these frameworks and used as guiding codes. I employed ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis program, to manage the data and to ensure consistency and rigour in the coding process (Gupta, 2024). This phase involved determining the types and directions of the stories and identifying any contradictions. A total of 107 codes were coded. I consulted an independent coder to review the list of codes generated by the analysis. This review served as a quality assurance process and pointed to any duplication of codes and their definitions, which, in turn, enhanced the credibility of my research. The independent coder did not sign a non-disclosure form because no documentation containing participants’ details were provided. During the consultation session, the consultant highlighted that I had to look at the groundedness of the code. Groundedness of the code refers to the number of times a particular code was referenced. This gave me an indication of particular codes that I wanted to discard or to merge with a similar code that has a higher code groundedness with the same contextual meaning. After the consultation, the codes were reworked and renamed. I managed to reduce the number of codes to 50, which were rich in description.
Phase Four focused on identifying plots and key narrative elements that emerged in the stories. In this phase of the analysis, I looked for plots in the participants’ narratives and found three aspects in terms of how they framed their experiences, namely, their interpersonal relationships, cultural practices, and structural challenges. These were categorised and connected to broader themes that emerged from the codes. Interpersonal involvement of other people and cultural and structural aspects were pursued. To elaborate, the interpersonal involvement of people refers to how the participants interacted with others. This included the participants’ interaction with members of the community and family members in ways that feed into their identities. Cultural aspects often refer to larger groups of people and sets of cultural conventions (Fraser, 2004). In the current study, cultural aspects include the cultural practices performed and celebrated by the participants. Structural aspects overlap with other aspects of the participants’ stories but are often distinct in how they talk about public policies and social systems (Fraser, 2004). I began to connect codes to plots, events, and themes. These were subsequently clustered for further analysis, creating meta-narratives.
Phase Five focused on analysing dominant discourses, language use, and metaphors to surface implicit ideologies and values shaping participants’ narratives. Drawing on Riley’s (2014) six interaction types in joint interviews, I examined moments of collaboration, confirmation, and conflict as key discursive moves. For example, Zoe built on Jane’s memory of District Six while Sarah playfully interrupted to challenge her mother’s account. These dynamics offered additional layers of meaning and highlighted how participants negotiated shared memories and co-constructed relational identities. Riley’s framework thus provided an important lens to understand how identity was relationally and emotionally constructed in situ (refer to Appendix A).
Phase Six compared and contrasted the themes across participants, paying attention to differences in how each individual expressed their experiences of race and gender. The coding was revisited, reorganised, and refined to form a coherent synthesis of the data. There were 19 codes, which resulted in 10 themes, which were further grouped into three main categories.
Phase Seven: The final phase of analysis involved developing three meta-narratives that reflected the complexities of coloured women’s identities. Meta-narrative one: Neither In nor Out but Somewhere in Between – captured the ambiguity of racial positioning and belonging. It reflects how coloured identity has historically been constructed as ‘in-between’ black and white, shaped by the racial classifications of apartheid and the legacy of colonial hierarchies. Participants’ expressions of uncertainty and ambivalence illuminate how racialised identities are continually negotiated in response to structural exclusion and the desire for recognition and belonging.
Meta-narrative two: The Social Self – highlighted how identity is shaped through family and community narratives. It underscores the importance of relational identity within coloured families and how cultural knowledge is transmitted across generations. These dynamics point to how colonial value systems—often embedded in institutions like education, religion, and language, continue to influence how individuals see themselves and relate to others.
Meta-narrative three: Social Structural Violence and Inequalities – focused on how systemic oppression continues to affect lived experiences. Participants described how racialised and gendered inequalities manifest in media representations, policing, and everyday assumptions. These accounts illustrate the enduring effects of colonial power structures and the intersections of race, class, and gender that constrain opportunities and social mobility.
Ethical Clearance
Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from the University of South Africa’s Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No: PERC-16025). Participants provided informed consent, with clear explanations regarding the study’s purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Ethical principles relating to confidentiality and anonymity were detailed in the relevant sections under data collection.
Findings and Discussion
Table 2 provides a summary of the meta-narratives, themes and subthemes that emerged from the study (refer to Appendix B). While these themes are relevant, it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the findings in depth. Instead, this paper focuses primarily on how joint interviews facilitated the co-construction of these narratives.
Joint Interviews as a Site for Identity Negotiation
One of the central insights from using joint interviews was how identity was co-constructed through interaction rather than being a fixed, individualised narrative. Participants often negotiated their own understandings of coloured identity in their family settings, sometimes aligning with or challenging each other’s perspectives. This dynamic allowed for a more nuanced exploration of how identity is shaped in social contexts.
The joint interviews provided a unique opportunity for participants to build on, modify, or even contest each other’s stories in real-time. Instead of presenting coloured identity as a singular, static experience, the conversations revealed how participants negotiated their positioning actively in racial, gendered, and social hierarchies.
For example, when discussing Afrikaans as the language of coloured people, the following exchange occurred between Elaine and Ruth: Elaine: I get it a lot in Jo’burg. In Jo’burg, I get it a lot where the black people in Jo’burg will tell me ‘but you’re not coloured but’ – Ruth: But Indian because they think Aldo’s coloured is – [CROSSTALK] Elaine: Bushies. You not bushy, you not coloured. Ruth: I remember, when I was still working, these sales people from Jo’burg came down to Stellenbosch and I was…I talk to these people every day over the phone and they English speaking and I speak it and we have arguments, we have discussions, we have meetings, everything. So then, finally, I get to meet these people face-to-face and they like ‘but you so cute and you so small’ and then we talking and we talking and then I turn around and I speak to one of my admin people and I speak Afrikaans and they like ‘What? That’s not right. Indian people can’t speak Afrikaans in Jo’burg’. So I’m like ‘I’m not Indian and I’m not from Jo’burg; I am from Cape Town’ [Laughter]. And they found it totally fascinating that I can speak Afrikaans so fluently and just switch over from English to Afrikaans without any… It’s like, ‘no, that can’t be’. Picture and sound does [sic] not fit together here. But I think it’s because people wants to put you – [CROSSTALK] Ruth: … in one specific little box and that is what they expect to get there and now you twisting it a little bit and now it’s not like [CROSSTALK] –
This interaction highlights how racial identity is externally imposed, with coloured individuals often having to justify their identity based on linguistic ability. Ruth and Elaine both describe misrecognition, where people struggle to reconcile their appearance with their Afrikaans fluency. The phrase “picture and sound does not fit together” illustrates how racialised expectations are disrupted when language does not align with assumed identity. This exchange also reveals how coloured identity is fluid and context dependent, with different meanings attached depending on location (e.g., Cape Town vs. Johannesburg). Code-switching is a key feature of coloured identity, reflecting historical and social hybridity. Here, Elaine and Ruth illustrate how racial identity is shaped by external perceptions, but it is through their joint discussion that the layered experience of coloured identity across different geographical contexts is made visible. Had these been individual interviews, these validating and contrasting perspectives may not have emerged as clearly. The bilingual nature of the interviews, with participants shifting seamlessly between English and Afrikaans, provided rich insights into how language both unites and differentiates members of the coloured community. Code-switching was not merely a practical communication tool but a symbolic act, revealing participants’ situational identity negotiation – a crucial marker of their racialised and social hybridity.
Power and Hierarchies in Joint Interviews
Joint interviews also highlighted power dynamics within family structures, particularly in terms of who speaks first, who validates or dismisses certain experiences, and how narratives unfold over time. Gendered and generational hierarchies were especially evident and had an influence on storytelling.
Women, particularly mothers and older sisters, often took on the role of narrators, structuring the conversation and guiding the collective memory. This was evident in how participants referred back to family histories and childhood experiences. Below is an excerpt of how Sarah recalls childhood stories and Zoe recalls stories told by her mother, Jane. Sarah: But what I want to say is, I… My son is from a white man, right. Because we were told… they read all these fairy tales that the man will come in, the white man… riding on a horse and all of that. [Laughter] So a lot of coloured ladies [Giggles] wanted to get out of Bonteheuwel [Giggles] and the only way is if you see a white man [claps hand], there’s your ticket, girlfriend. [Laughter] No, it is. I’m not funny. You were taught that we… I still read my fairy tales [Giggles]. The man’s going to come in, die wit ridder [the white knight]. [Laughter] Zoe: Because of my mom. That time there wasn’t TV, so my mom used to tell us stories. And up until today, I still … [Laughter]. This is a joke, hey. Up till today [Giggles], I still think the royal family, we’re related somehow [Laughter]. When I tell them, my colleagues at work, they say ‘Yes, Zoe, you look like Lady Di’ [Laughter] but I don’t know, I just got this thing [Laughter] that we… [Laughter] because the way mom used to tell us stories I used to think, yes. So I will say my mommy… my cousin’s child, William [Laughter] and then our bosses used to go to London because I main head office is in the UK. Now I will always tell whoever, be it the HR director, I will say ‘Give the queen my regards” [Laughter]. Then she will come back and she’ll say “The queen sends her regards and she hopes that one day you will have to come and have sandwiches with her on the balcony.’ [Laughter]. So I still… I don’t know…And I just want to visit London. I don’t know what it is, Lynn. Maybe… I don’t know, my forefathers… [Laughter]
This exchange demonstrates how joint interviews facilitated reflection on generational shifts in language perception, showing both continuity and contestation in identity narratives.
Emotional and Reflexive Moments in Joint Interviews
The joint setting often evoked strong emotions as participants revisited personal and collective histories. Laughter, discomfort, and moments of silence played a key role in shaping how certain topics were addressed or avoided. In some cases, participants corrected or elaborated on each other’s accounts, revealing how memory is relational rather than individual. Below, Jane and Sarah reflect on how they hate Bonteheuwel, whereas Zoe provided a positive account of the place. Jane: Now they say it’s the white man that put us out. But now who gave him the authority? Who was over him? You understand…? Because up till today, you know I cried – I cried – and to go into that because here you got children… we used to walking up the road after we know we can’t walk in that road. And then my husband could only get a place in Bonteheuwel. But we did not know that there was still a place in Walmer Estate. We would have been so lucky to get a place there. So he said ‘well we just have to take it because of our children’. But can I be honest with you? I hated it. I hated it. They can tell you if I’m telling a lie. I used to complain to my husband ‘Please get me out of this sick place!’ We had no road! We had sand! And we had no street lights! Everything was dark. It was just a shame to see. When I send my children to the shop, I would stand where I can see them. One shop on the field. I would stand where I can see them coming out of it. Then when my daughter had to go to school, I would stand where I can see her going into the class, see her when she comes out, I wait for her and walk home with her. Opposite us was a field. The trees was [sic] so high. It was so dense, you couldn’t even see through it. And I used to wait till my children would come home from school. I used to stand there. And I’m not lying to you, my dear… I used to get my husband, you know? ‘Why you put me in this God-forsaken place?’ And you couldn’t trust yourself to go to the shop. You couldn’t even send your children. Sarah: Because I also know like when we grew up in Bonteheuwel. I hated Bonteheuwel, but not because it was so poor. I hated Bonteheuwel because we were not given freedom to go out in the street because of the gangsterism. And my father said ‘those guys are crazy and you don’ not associate with them’. We couldn’t even go to the library after school. So, in a way, I felt like that community kept us more back than any apartheid thing or anything like that. Because…we were called like wit rotte [white rats] and it was just a horrible… and we used to be more inside the house and more in each other’s space. And you couldn’t really just go out there and like take a walk or be fit and be healthy. So, to me, like living in a place like this, is the best thing that God could have done. Because I think if you interviewed us and we were sitting in the Bonteheuwel place, I probably would have been crying and said ‘just get them out of this place’. Because that’s… that’s when I decided as soon as I have an education I must get out of here. Zoe: So, of course, the neighbours, you know… they grow up then. Of course, we could never… It’s not like my dad didn’t want us to play with the other children but I suppose for safety sake and my dad always said, ‘You’ve got enough sisters and brothers to play with’, so we were allowed to play[ed] in the yard. And when my mom stands at the gate, then we could obviously play in front. But we were– even in Bonteheuwel in the township people looked out for each other, looked out for each other’s children, whereas now I find now as grown woman living in suburbs, people don’t look out for you. Like I live in a block…I live in a complex where there is a hundred and eight families. And you hardly see people... you don’t… you hardly hear people. You don’t know if there is something happening in that person’s house… you know, so it’s very sad although it’s very nice living in the Southern suburbs. And then as I grew older, I always… It’s not like I had something against Bonteheuwel. I did not. I’m always grateful for the roof over my head but I always wanted to get out of the place because…
In this instance, Jane’s correction of Sarah’s memory highlights how different family members may have contrasting experiences of the same historical events, and the joint interview setting brings these discrepancies into focus.
While some discussions were serious and reflective, others revealed the role of humour and irony in identity negotiation. This is depicted when Elaine and Ruth discussed their siblings going to a former white school, whereas Elaine was the only one who did not. Ruth: Not really because my other sister, [mentions name], she’s two years older than me, she was with me at the same school. So, although we weren’t in the same friendship circles or hanging out with the same people or similar people, it…no, it didn’t feel funny. I didn’t have…but the age gap between [mentions name] and myself and even my brother and myself was quite big. So – Elaine: But he was also at a model C school. Ruth: Oh, ja, he was also at a model C school. I was the only one – [CROSSTALK] Interviewer: How many siblings–? Ruth: We four. Elaine: I was the only one – Ruth: Underprivileged, my arme groot suster. [Laughter] Later in the interview, Elaine reflected on her daughter, who attends a former white school. Elaine: She wanted to go there. She said to me, from the beginning, ‘I’m not going to this gam school’. [Laughter] She said to me ‘I don’t like these children, they don’t respect the teachers, and they rude. So, mommy, you can do what you like, I’m not going to that gam school.’
This moment of humour provided levity and functioned as a subtle critique of economic disparities and cultural expectations around schooling. The reference to “gam school” reveals how social hierarchies can be internalised, rejecting schools perceived as less prestigious owing to their association with working-class coloured communities. This exchange demonstrates how joint interviews facilitate agreement and contestation in identity narratives, revealing the relational nature of memory. Such exchanges highlight how identity is performed and reaffirmed in joint storytelling moments.
Furthermore, collective reflection on deeply emotional experiences, such as memories of discrimination or cultural pride, brought participants closer together, facilitating a therapeutic dimension where they could process shared pain or pride openly (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007). For example, emotional moments, like the shared sadness over the limitations placed on them during apartheid, illustrated how joint interviews can create an environment where participants feel safe to explore vulnerable aspects of their identity with their family and not feel alone.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations in Joint Interviews
Despite the advantages of joint interviews, several challenges emerged, particularly regarding silencing, self-editing, and the ethical implications of collective storytelling. In some cases, participants became visibly hesitant to disclose personal experiences in the presence of family members. Here Jane reflects on her relationship with her deceased husband, who was also Sarah and Zoe’s father. Jane: But, uh, the night before he died, he said this to me, he said, ‘I prayed every day that God must take me away before he takes you away. Because I wouldn’t know what to do.’ And then he thanked me for being the mother of his children. What is this man trying to do to me? You know. And I never had love for him. I didn’t know what love was all about. And I liked him, yes. And, uh, I could never tell him I love him. I’m sorry to say it in front of my children but I could never tell him I loved him because I didn’t have... I didn’t know what it was all about. Until God had to show me what it was all about. Love is not only about your word spoken. Love is suffering. Take Jesus, suffering. Take love, suffering. That is how I learned. Today I’m not ashamed I can tell my children ‘I love you’. You know? I don’t have to… [Gestures struggling to get out the words] can I tell them ‘I love you’? I don’t have that.
Here, Jane apologises for saying in front of her two daughters that she never loved their father. The presence of family members may have influenced how much she was willing to share, demonstrating how joint interviews can sometimes inhibit disclosures about sensitive topics. Having more pre-interview rapport-building could have helped with disclosure. Also, offering participants the option of individual interviews afterwards can provide a fuller picture.
It was impossible to tell how the presence of family members shaped responses compared to if they were interviewed individually. If individual interviews were conducted as well, one could then have detected whether there were moments when certain narratives seemed to shift depending on who was in the room. This would have been indicative of the socially constructed nature of identity, as people may feel the need to present a particular version of their experiences when speaking in front of family members. Conducting joint and individual interviews should be considered in future research when it comes to social identities. Future research could compare how coloured identity is expressed in joint versus individual interviews to examine further the relational nature of memory and identity negotiation.
The findings from this study highlight the rich, dynamic, and sometimes contested nature of storytelling in joint interviews. Through real-time interaction, participants co-constructed narratives, negotiated their identities, and revealed tensions that may not have surfaced in individual interviews. The research method offered insight into relational aspects of identity, particularly how family members influence, validate, and sometimes challenge each other’s understandings of race, gender, and history.
At the same time, the study underscores some limitations of joint interviews, including the potential for self-censorship, power imbalances, and the ethical complexity of co-produced narratives. Despite these challenges, joint interviews remain an essential methodological approach for researchers studying relational identity processes, family storytelling, and racialised experiences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper highlights the role of joint interviews as a qualitative data collection method for exploring the nuanced experiences of coloured identities in Cape Town, South Africa. By centring the voices of families with pre-existing relationships, joint interviews facilitate a deeper understanding of identity formation and the complexities surrounding coloured identities shaped by historical and socio-political contexts.
The key lessons from this research centre on two main aspects when it comes to joint interviews with family members from marginalised backgrounds. First, joint interviews allow for the co-construction of narratives and enable participants to reflect on their shared histories and experiences in a supportive environment. This method is particularly beneficial in discussing sensitive topics, as it encourages dialogue and validation among family members. The relational and dynamic aspects captured in family contexts show how shared histories, generational differences, and family dynamics contribute to social identity formation in meaningful ways.
Second, there are potential challenges associated with joint interviews, such as the risk of silencing individual voices and the dynamics of interaction that can influence the storytelling process (Eggenberger & Nelms, 2007). Ethical considerations remain paramount, ensuring that participants feel respected and valued throughout the research process. The interviewer should be skilled in bringing in other participants who may have been unable to offer their accounts.
While this paper focused narrowly on joint interviews with two families, the insights extend more broadly to how joint interviews can be used as a methodological tool, particularly in marginalised communities. By incorporating joint interviews into future research on racialised and marginalised communities, scholars can capture the complexity of identity formation in ways that traditional methods may overlook, deepening our understanding of the lived experiences of families in post-apartheid South Africa.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Using Joint Interviews With Family Members as Key Informants on Shared Social Identities: A Case of Coloured Identities
Supplemental Material for Using Joint Interviews With Family Members as Key Informants on Shared Social Identities: A Case of Coloured Identities by Errolyn L. Gordon in International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank mentors such as Prof Martin Terre Blanche and Dr. Angelo Fynn for their academic advice and guidance. The author also thanks the School of Social Sciences for offering the space to conceptualise the paper.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Contributions
The author contributed fully to the manuscript. This entailed conceptualisation, reading, and writing up the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Note
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
