‘But why is a Ghanaian studying Liberia?’ Leveraging positionality for online data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

This paper explores the significance of my positionality as a Ghanaian interested in a Liberian identity question and examines how it influenced the dialogical process of research design and online data collection. Emphasising the fluidity of the insider/outsider binary, the study unveils its potential to cultivate positive online interview experiences, augmenting the overall depth and quality of interview data. Notably, my dual status as an outsider, owing to Ghanaian nationality and pandemic-induced physical distance, and as an insider, being a racialised Black African like some participants, significantly influenced unique relationships with study participants, facilitating access and contributing to an enriched data collection experience.

Introduction

This paper explores the implications of my positionality as a Ghanaian researching a Liberian identity question, focusing particularly on its impact on the design and online data collection processes of my doctoral thesis during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I adopt a ‘self-appraisal’ (Berger, 2015) approach to acknowledge and take responsibility for the influence of my positionality on community relations, data collection and subsequent interpretations (Soedirgo & Glas, 2020). Drawing on Berger’s (2015) notion of reflexivity as an ongoing internal dialogue and self-evaluation, I reflect on the circumstances that prompted the transition to online fieldwork, delving into my experiences with online interviews, and the intricacies of negotiating the researcher/researched boundary. Specifically, I examine how my positionality informed the shift from traditional in-person data collection to online fieldwork. The analysis focuses on the strategic use of ‘insider assistants’ (Salmons, 2012) and probes into the dynamics of establishing rapport (or otherwise) with research participants throughout the online data collection process.

The insights shared here exemplify a ‘constraint-based methodological innovation’ (Lee, 2023) that leverages my ability to occupy the space between insider and outsider positions in qualitative research (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). The paper is a reflexive analysis of cultivating mutual trust and respect in a dynamically changing research environment. It aligns with Lee’s (2023) notion that this paper and others in the Special Issue speaks to entrepreneurial research on bricolage, referring to ‘making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities’ (Baker & Nelson, 2005, p. 333). Here, I reflect on ‘making do with whatever is at hand’ to build connections with study participants through social media and networking platforms, to address the methodological constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In analysing how my positionality influenced the dialogical process of the research design and online data collection, the paper explicitly showcases my reflective process, demonstrating the importance of post-research reflection (Berger, 2015; Soedirgo & Glas, 2020). Consistent with arguments about the complexity of researcher positionality and the fact that a researcher is never fully an insider nor an outsider (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009; Hayfield & Huxley, 2015; Milligan, 2016), I observed that my outsider status (specifically my Ghanaian nationality as well as distance from the field due to the pandemic), and my insider status (such as my positioning as a racialised Black African like some participants) played a pivotal role in establishing unique set of relations with study participants. These relationships not only facilitated access to, but also contributed to a positive online interview experience, ultimately enhancing the richness of the data collected.

I also draw from and build on existing literature on the strengths and challenges inherent in internet-mediated research (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Janghorban et al., 2014; Lo Iacono et al., 2016; Padayachee, 2016). Based on my experiences, I agree with arguments suggesting that online interviews can foster a greater sense of comfort among participants regarding the extent to which they disclose personal feelings and experiences to the researcher (Hanna & Mwale, 2017; Howlett, 2022; Melis Cin et al., 2023). When the researcher/researched boundary is built on trust and confidence, the online space provides participants with greater agency, in that, the participants can control the direction of the interview. This can help make them less inhibited and more open to sharing their true feelings about the subject matter. Equally, they can sign off anytime if they are uncomfortable with how the interview is unfolding.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: The next section provides a brief overview of positionality and reflexivity to set the scene for an exploration of the origins of my interest in the Liberian identity question. Then I describe the focus of my research to contextualise the changes in my fieldwork plans amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Following this, I outline the advantages and challenges of internet-mediated interviews, before delving into the strategic use of the insider/outsider boundary to navigate a fruitful ‘online fieldwork’ and achieve a rich data collection experience. In the Discussion and Conclusion section, I synthesise my experiences, highlighting and scrutinising the nuances of the insider/outsider binary.

Conceptualising positionality and reflexivity

Positionality reflects the ways in which differences in social standing and power dynamics contribute to the shaping of individual identities and influence the levels of access individuals have in a given societal context. As noted by Soedirgo and Glas (2020), the epistemological and ontological understanding of positionality is well-established in feminist literature, particularly Black feminist thought, which has documented the intersectionality of identity and power that underpins how different groups and individuals interact with socio-political structures (Carbado, 2013; Crenshaw, 1991; hooks, 2014). In essence, the production of knowledge is shaped by the researcher’s subjective position, which entails the situational context of the researcher’s background, be it social, political, cultural or economic; their personal characteristics (e.g. race, class, age, gender, ideology, etc.), and relationships (Adu-Ampong & Adams, 2020; MacLean, 2013; Muhammad et al., 2015; Mwambari, 2019). As qualitative researchers, our positionality reflects the worldview and standpoint we bring to the research, and it influences what we choose to study, how the research is conducted and our interpretations of the data (Berger, 2015; Denzin & Giardina, 2019; MacLean, 2013, p. 69; Rowe, 2014). Researchers are increasingly expected to recognise the influence of their positionality on research through the practice of ‘active reflexivity’ (Soedirgo & Glas, 2020). This involves a threefold process: continual reflection on their own positionality, consideration of how others are likely to perceive their positionality in research interactions, and reflection of the assumptions underlying their responses to these inquiries (p. 529ff). Engaging in critical reflection on our positionality is crucial for upholding transparency and rigour in research.

As I reflect on my positionality, various factors have shaped my interest in the Liberian identity question. A pivotal moment was in February 2010 when I had the privilege of meeting Her Excellency Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the former President of Liberia, during a seminar at the University of Ghana on Liberia’s post-conflict reconstruction process. The encounter with President Sirleaf made a lasting impression, a sentiment that inadequately conveys the profound significance of that experience. As a burgeoning feminist, her status as the first elected African female President held immense importance. She not only occupied the epicentre of power in an African nation but embodied possibilities that transcended conventional boundaries, symbolising all I could aspire to become and more.

Prior to my encounter with President Sirleaf, my knowledge of Liberia and its people had been predominantly shaped by media narratives, primarily centred on the country’s brutal civil wars and the resultant refugee crisis. I grew up in a relatively peaceful Ghana in the late 1990s to early 2000s, juxtaposed against neighbouring countries besieged by civil conflicts. In those years, you couldn’t turn on the BBC without hearing reports about these wars. Liberia’s protracted and drug-fuelled civil war consistently featured in radio broadcasts, accompanied by commentaries detailing rebel groups seizing control of towns and villages and the war’s other harrowing realities. Moreover, Ghana played a pivotal role as a host to Liberian refugees and actively participated in Liberia’s peace negotiations. Notably, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which marked the official conclusion of the war, was signed by civil and political stakeholders in Accra on August 18, 2003. Against this backdrop, during President Sirleaf’s seminar that late February afternoon, I found myself captivated by the resolute demeanour of this powerful woman, determined to reshape the prevailing warring narrative that had long characterised her homeland. Beyond the immediate impact of her presence, I was intrigued by how her administration would reconcile the diverse factions of Liberian society – diasporas, stayees, returnees, survivors and (former) perpetrators – to garner support for the post-war reconstruction agenda. So, when I had the opportunity to conduct a mini-thesis as part of my MSc. Programme, I focused on diasporas’ direct political engagement in Liberia and their impact on the legitimacy of Sirleaf’s government.

My research interest in Liberia may trace its origins in the mini thesis at Birmingham; however, its evolution is intricately linked to the interplay of my Ghanaian background, situational context and exposure, and personal and professional experiences, notably the emotional connection I developed towards former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Berger, 2015; Soedirgo & Glas, 2020). The following paragraphs expands this discussion to consider how my outsider/insider positions impacted my negotiation of the researcher/research boundary during my doctoral research.

But why Liberia, though? Negotiating my ‘Ghanaianness’ in the studying of Liberia

‘Why is a Ghanaian studying Liberia?’ consistently emerged as a follow-up question when discussing my doctoral research, particularly emphasising the choice of Liberia over Ghana. In response, I presented the PhD as a logical continuation of my mini-thesis at Birmingham, but this explanation was never adequate as the conversation always returned to: ‘But why Liberia, though’? Why is a Ghanaian studying an ‘intimate issue like identity about Liberia’? This got me thinking about how to conceptualise identity in the thesis. I understand identity to be personal and at the core of the source and meaning of our experiences, as well as how we interpret our existence and belongingness (Castells, 1997). Identity is unique but collective at the same time because it binds us to social categories that identify us with certain groups while differentiating us from others (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000; Castells, 1997). However, identity dealings with questions of ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Where do I belong?’ evoke a feeling of personalness despite its collective nature. Thus, I thought the ‘why Liberia?’ question was personal, which made me feel it was perhaps inappropriate for me, a Ghanaian, to research any country other than mine. With time, however, I learned that the question relates to complex queries about my perceived positionality as an outsider and its impact on the research process.

Researchers’ positioning as either an outsider or insider holds significance at the epistemological level, since the nature of the relationship formed with participants directly influences the co-creation of knowledge (Griffith, 1998). As outlined by Berger (2015), a researcher’s positioning could impact the research in three significant ways. First is ‘access to the field’, which could manifest in the willingness of participants to share experiences because they consider the researcher sympathetic to their situation. Second is the ‘researcher-researched relationship’ and how researcher positionality can help make participants comfortable enough to open up and share experiences they would rather not. The third relates to the researcher’s background and how they construct the world, which, in turn, shapes the type of information gathered, its interpretations and the findings and conclusions.

Consequently, I had to (re)define who I am in the research and interrogate the consequences of the different identities or social locations I assumed in interactions with my study participants. Beyond my Ghanaian nationality, I had to contemplate the other dimensions of who I am – a PhD candidate at a Western University, my immigration status and its connection to my political and ideological leanings, an African migrant, a parent to a Black boy, a Black African woman in a biracial marriage and with that, the privileges my closeness to whiteness affords me, my emotional responses to participants experiences, for example (Berger, 2015, p. 220). As a qualitative researcher, I brought ‘a gendered historical self’ to the research process (Denzin & Giardina, 2019, p. 6). In this instance, the self is a set of shifting identities that defines and shapes the dialectic research process, including the research design, data collection and analysis (Denzin & Giardina, 2019). Effectively, how I move within these shifting identities have a tremendous impact not only on accessing study participants but shapes the research process and the resulting findings.

The changing realities of my fieldwork

In qualitative research, interviewing is a prominent method for collecting data on a specific topic or research question (Leonard, 2003; Pinsky, 2015). Traditionally, qualitative interviews are conducted face-to-face offering researchers the opportunity to build rapport and observe participant social and nonverbal cues. Consequently, face-to-face interviews are widely acknowledged as the pinnacle of interviewer-participant encounters (Krouwel et al., 2019), because it fosters trust and helps coordinate the researcher/researched boundary.

I anticipated in-person encounters with study participants in my doctoral research. The thesis focused on diaspora Liberians’ claim for dual citizenship and how Liberians in-country perceived these claims. I was intrigued by Liberia’s contentious dual citizenship debate, in the ways that it transcends the confines of the 1973 Aliens and Nationality Law, which, at that time, prohibited dual citizenship. This entailed the resolve of diaspora Liberians to reinstate their Liberian citizenship vis-à-vis the motivations of opponents, considering international research on diaspora engagement and the Liberian state’s endorsement of dual citizenship as a development strategy (GoL, 2008, 2018). Notably, it is estimated that almost every Liberian household has at least one relative abroad. Therefore, my aim was to understand the underlying fears that shaped both the advocacy for and rejection of dual citizenship in Liberia, and to use that to understand how identity and belonging are being constructed in the post-war era.

To explore these complexities, I was convinced in-person interviews would be the most effective approach to generating in-depth understanding of participants’ social lives and the subjective meanings and interpretations of their Liberian identity (Urrieta & Hatt, 2019, p. 2). Hence, I planned a multisite fieldwork targeting specific cities and localities in Africa, Europe and the Americas to recruit key informants shaping Liberia’s post-conflict identity construction. The plan, aligned with my enthusiasm for travel, seemed feasible and exciting. However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with subsequent travel restrictions and stringent lockdown measures, compelled a comprehensive restructuring of the research design. This restructuring significantly delayed the progress of the thesis, as I grappled with the challenges posed by the pandemic. Much like the broader population, I had to learn to navigate the dual demands of increasing caregiving responsibilities while simultaneously striving to carve out dedicated ‘work’ time and establish a conducive workspace at home.

The strategic shift to an internet-mediated data collection approach, while necessary, exacerbated pre-existing concerns about the potential influence of my Ghanaian nationality on access to study participants. These concerns were further intensified by the COVID-induced geographical and social distancing mandates – I was not only an outsider but was also at a distance from the community. Still, I took comfort in the growing influence of internet-based communication methods in research due to technological advancements (Janghorban et al., 2014; Lo Iacono et al., 2016). Indeed, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had spurred the use of video-conferencing technologies in our daily lives, be it for family, work, learning and research (Oliffe et al., 2021; Owens, 2022; Vidolov, 2022).

Before the shift to online fieldwork, I adopted purposive sampling and snowballing techniques, following Mayan’s (2009, pp. 61–63) deliberative sampling questions. The question of Liberia’s dual citizenship was heavily debated in international and local media, making the initial process of identifying potential participants fairly easy. However, I did not foresee the ease with which many stakeholders would outrightly reject the focus of my research. It later became clear during the interviews that some opponents viewed attempts by the governments of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2006–2017) and George Manneh Weah (2018–2023) to introduce dual citizenship legislation as misguided priorities. At the time, these attempts sparked a contentious debate, creating a division in Liberia between supporters and opponents of dual citizenship and/or non-Black citizenship. It follows then, how some potential participants may connect my research with the perception of misplaced priorities. After all, their understanding of the thesis was primarily based on the email or private message I had sent them. Even then, a number of people responded positively, with some agreeing to a ‘chat’ when I arrived in the field.

Following the shift to online fieldwork, however, I had to rethink the approach to engaging potential participants. The delayed start to the data collection amidst the challenges posed by the COVID-19 caused me to lose relationships with government officials, key stakeholders and other contacts identified as potential study participants. There was a general lack of response from government officials especially, but also other key stakeholders in Liberia, Ghana and the Americas. Several of the people who had already agreed to a ‘chat’ when I was in the field stopped responding to my prompts. Understandably, the initial enthusiasm regarding the topic of dual citizenship waned as the global community grappled with the more pressing challenges posed by the pandemic.

To address the silences, polite Nos and outright refusals to interview requests, I recruited ‘insider assistants’ (Salmons, 2012), who not only facilitated my re-entry into the community, but helped me build trust with potential participants at a particularly challenging time. By endorsing my research, the insider assistants conferred legitimacy, affording me a privileged position in the recruitment process. It is worth noting that while these insider assistants were themselves experiencing the COVID-induced geographical and social distancing, amidst other challenges, they successfully located stakeholders willing to participate in the interviews. The following section discusses how my leveraging of the space between the insider/outsider boundary facilitated a successful ‘online fieldwork’ and a rich data collection experience despite earlier anxieties around my inability to travel to the field.

The Internet as the ‘space’ for engaging study participants

I conducted a brief literature review on internet-mediated research as part of the research design. The benefits of online interviews include limited ecological impact (Hanna, 2012); and effective time use due to absence of travel (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). The spread of communication technologies enables researchers to target participants from all over the world (Lo Iacono et al., 2016), which makes online interviews convenient and cost-effective (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). Further, anonymity for research participants is easily facilitated during online interviews and it also enables participants to partake at any given time (Archibald et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2020; O’Connor & Madge, 2017). However, most of the outlined benefits rely on the researcher and participant having access to high-speed internet and knowing how to use the online platforms. Relatedly, there could be potential technical problems such as poor sound quality and a time-lag in the audio or video (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Janghorban et al., 2014).

Besides these practical technicalities, some studies suggest that online interviews, at times, contain less asymmetrical power relations. This is because it provides participants with greater agency (Hanna & Mwale, 2017), which could make them feel more comfortable (Howlett, 2022; Melis Cin et al., 2023), thereby enhancing confidence in the researcher/researched relationship (Jenner & Myers, 2019; Weller, 2017). In contrast, Deakin and Wakefield (2014) warn that the online setting can impact the researcher’s ability to build rapport and establish meaningful relationships with participants. It could also undermine the researcher’s ability to listen deeply and recognise participants’ body cues and other indirect communication (Hart, 2023). Evidently, the online setting shapes the interview dynamics, affecting rapport building and power relations between the interviewer and interviewees in different and contradicting ways (Prior & Lachover, 2023).

I started my online fieldwork with a deeper understanding of my positionality, which at this point included not just my achieved identities but also a shifting societally ascribed status (Muhammad et al., 2015, p. 1051), as well as an understanding of the technicalities of online synchronous communication technologies and the recognition that potential participants likely possessed prior experience using them for professional and/or personal purposes. This section further explores my collaboration with insider assistants, delving into instances where my shifting identities as outsider and insider facilitated access and connected me more closely (or otherwise) with different sections of my study participants.

Finding ‘insider assistants’ in Chairman Wettee, Sianah and Rachael

In a pivotal development, I cultivated a signi-ficant connection with Emmanuel Wettee, the Eminent Chairman of the All-Liberian Conference on Dual Citizenship (ALCOD). This relationship was a game changer for the data collection. Unlike other potential participants who summarily dismissed my research, Wettee showed a genuine interest, as he recognised the centrality of the identity question to the economic recovery most of the populace believed should be Liberia’s priority. In my initial communication with Chairman Wettee, I highlighted my Ghanaian nationality, doctoral candidacy as well as my interest in his advocacy and my intention to examine the motives and antagonisms inherent in the discourse around dual citizenship in Liberia. Following this transparency, I engaged in numerous exchanges with Chairman Wettee where he generously shared various documents pertaining to ALCOD activities, its affiliated organisations, and their advocacy for dual citizenship. It was apparent in our interactions that the power dynamics between us were shaped by my outsider status as Ghanaian and positionality as a PhD student. He trusted my recognition of his expertise on the topic, leading him to recommend several other potential participants. As an academic himself, he made sure to suggest stakeholders on both sides of the dual citizenship debate whose perspectives he believed would contribute to my comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Remarkably, opponents of dual citizenship showed greater willingness to participate in interviews following an introduction from Chairman Wettee, which to me, confirmed the significant social capital he wielded.

Nonetheless, given the extensive time and effort Chairman Wettee has invested in dual citizenship advocacy, it’s plausible that his support for my research was self-motivated. Possibly, he identified in me a sympathiser, as in our conversations, he often emphasised the freedoms afforded me and my family by Ghana’s dual citizenship policy. I was empathetic to his advocacy due to my personal experiences, especially my son’s ability to access Ghanaian, British, and recently Australian citizenship due to my nationality, his father’s, and our residence in Australia. The connection I forged with Chairman Wettee aligns with Edwards’ (2004) argument on the significance of researchers’ fostering and utilising social capital throughout fieldwork and various dimensions of the research process: ‘People do things for each other in the expectation and trust that, at some time, these actions will be repaid’ (p. 5). Consequently, it can be inferred that Chairman Wettee leveraged his social capital to facilitate my entry into the community, anticipating that my research would offer additional insights to bolster his advocacy.

To extend my reach beyond Chairman Wettee’s sphere of influence in connecting with Liberians crucial to the country’s reconstruction, I sought assistance from Sianah who like me is a Fellow of the Moremi Initiative for Women’s Leadership in Africa (MILEAD). A published novelist, Sianah is a bright and resourceful young woman who grew up in Liberia but lived in the United States during our correspondence. Her access to both in-country and diaspora communities played a vital role in participant recruitment. Sianah’s endorsement in introductory messages conveyed my dedication as a researcher. Additionally, my status as a MILEAD Fellow facilitated an introduction to a former state minister I’m calling Racheal who, having served in Sirleaf’s government, was instrumental in connecting me to key figures leading Liberia’s dual citizenship debate. Leveraging my prior connection with Sianah and Rachael through MILEAD positioned me between insider and outsider roles. As Milligan (2016) observes, researchers constantly navigate varied positions, never entirely insiders or outsiders due to evolving situational contexts. Similarly, I was never fully entrenched in a singular identity. Following Sianah and Rachael’s recommendations, some participants not only offered follow-up sessions but also introduced me to additional participants.

I shared with both Sianah and Rachael the challenges I encountered in re-establishing contact with potential study participants with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our discussions on the comparative impacts and experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic provided the context within which I conveyed the challenges I faced in accessing potential study participants. In their ‘gatekeeper roles’ (Salmons, 2012) within both in-country and diasporic Liberian communities, Sianah and Rachael leveraged their networks and social capital to facilitate my re-engagement with these communities.

In essence, Sianah, Rachael and Chairman Wettee assumed the roles of ‘insider assistants.’ Their collaboration played a pivotal role in not only facilitating access to the community and participant recruitment but also in establishing credibility for the study. Their support encouraged transparency and commitment on the part of interviewees, thus aligning with insights of Salmons (2012, p. 17) regarding the significant impact of such alliances in conducting qualitative research with online interviews. The strategic involvement of these insider assistants contributed not only to overcoming initial challenges in engaging potential participants but also fostered an environment of trust, ensuring a more authentic and insightful representation within the study.

Following introductions by the insider assistants, I reached out to potential participants primarily through email and social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn. In my communication, I offered interview options via Skype, WhatsApp Call, Facebook Messenger Video/Audio Call, Facetime or phone call. Crucially, all these platforms included video functions, enabling observation of participants’ nonverbal and social cues. But as Deakin and Wakefield (2014) rightly acknowledge, the nature of the interviews could be impacted by participants’ familiarity with online communication tools and, in some cases, access to high-speed internet. The challenge of unpredictable power cuts and bandwidth limitations, and the cost of internet data was a genuine worry since these concerns were of paramount significance in some of the locations where I was targeting potential participants. For example, Liberia’s relatively recent history of civil conflict meant that internet and electricity infrastructures were inadequate, especially outside Monrovia, the capital city. And being Ghanaian, I knew from personal experience the difficulty of trying to make sustained and clear WhatsApp or Facebook video calls with family back home. So, I included phone calls as a failsafe for technological challenges.

Most of the participants preferred WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger calls due to familiarity and prior use for personal and professional purposes, with some expressing a desire to use video features. However, the interview process was impacted by the predicted technical challenges including poor sound quality and time-lag in the audio and video feed, causing us to transition to phone calls. I conducted 31 interviews in total. They varied in duration from 50 min to 2.5 hr and followed a semi-structured format. In most cases, after explaining the interview agenda, participants often took the lead in discussions, focusing their responses on issues they deemed crucial to their stories and experiences. Consequently, some interviews evolved into broader ‘barbershop’ talks, covering diverse topics such as ‘internet connectivity in Africa’, ‘concerns about Africa’s stagnating economic development’, ‘the challenges faced by African migrants’ and discussions on ‘Trumpism and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement’ as well as ‘comparative impacts and experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic’, for example. The semi-structured nature of the interviews occasionally required me to redirect participants back to the research themes; however, engaging in broader discussions played a crucial role in building rapport and gaining participants’ confidence. In some cases, I observed the awkward silences in between responses change as participants became more comfortable. In these situations, my shifting identities not only influenced my access to participants and their authentic perspectives but also impacted the likelihood of them referring me to other potential participants. The subsequent section delves into two instances highlighting how my positionality fostered closer connections (or otherwise) with certain study participants.

Self-disclosure with Alfred and John

My positionality as a racialised Black African had a profound impact on the research process, highlighting my positioning in the space between insider and outsider. As an international student and African migrant in a Western country, my status fostered unique set of relationships with various diasporic participants. Notably, the interviews unfolded during Donald Trump’s America, a tumultuous 4-year period (2016–2020) characterised by heightened racial tensions that laid bare profound divisions in American society. The era prompted discussions and mass protests on race, ethnicity, and the enduring impact of such classifications in shaping social divisions and inequalities in American and broader contemporary societies. Consequently, the perspectives of some participants on their sense of belonging (or lack thereof) and my connections with them may have been influenced by these racialised events.

A participant I am calling Alfred, an international development expert is one such participant who exemplifies this sentiment. Having returned to Liberia and worked in the public sector for years after the civil war, our conversations delved into the racialised experiences of Black and Brown people in America and the impact of such experiences on claims for dual citizenship in Liberia. He explains:

As long as I’ve lived in the United States, I’ve never felt so comfortable until I went back to Liberia six years ago. When I got home to where my family lives, I felt relieved that I could do many things without looking over my shoulder to see who would arrest me for just doing some of the dumbest things. That’s a comfort level for me.

When my kids come home from school in the United States, they can’t even leave the house unless I say let’s go to the park. That’s the farthest they can go, and then we are back in the house. While when I was back home as a kid, I didn’t have such supervision, I returned from school, and I was out there somewhere, but everybody in the community knew to watch over the kids. In the US, unfortunately, you cannot do that.

Alfred expressed anguish over his sense of non-belonging in Liberia, despite it being his real home, a place that provided safety, freedom and community. His reflections echoed those of numerous diaspora participants who shared concerns about global populist politics, overt racism against ethnic minorities, and the dwindling optimism regarding non-discriminatory immigration and citizenship policies. As seen in Alfred’s comments above, the collective apprehension extended to fears about raising Black children in countries marked by racial profiling and police brutality. As a parent to a Black boy in a Western country, their fears and concerns resonated with me emotionally and personally.

Conversely, the dynamic that evolved between me and a young Liberian scholar, I’m calling John proved illuminating as it challenged my perspectives and the connections, I had formed with participants favouring dual citizenship. He had been awarded a prestigious international scholarship and was pursuing a graduate degree in the Global North when I interviewed him. Aligned with many Liberians in the No camp, he found the emphasis on dual citizenship by post-war governments laughable, given Liberia’s developmental challenges.

My view is dual citizenship is currently not a priority, whether it is for people of Negro descent or not. What it [would do] is create opportunities for people with wealth to acquire land, acquire assets. Liberians, in the short to medium term will benefit from [from a dual citizenship policy], but then in the long term will lose their country to others.

In his view, the government should prioritise urgent matters such as reconciliation, job creation, pro-poor policies, building institutional capacities for economic development and transforming the education system.

Throughout the interview, it became apparent that his disapproval extended beyond the focus of my research to encompass my inability to unequivocally confirm my return to Ghana after completing the PhD. Though unspoken, his demeanour noticeably shifted, interpreting my indecision as a lack of commitment to return home. In response to my uncertainty, he said:

When I travel out of Liberia what I see in these countries to me is, a message to give back. Liberia can be like this, and it is our individual and collective commitment to make it happen. It is always about giving back, to bring in the values – that I see in the US and other places to bring them to Liberia.

I come to school I see how the academic system is structured; I see how professors are committed to providing knowledge. I see how governments are committed to supporting schools, even primary and secondary schools. So how can I bring those commitments to Liberia, to be able to help the country improve.

The peculiar dynamics of this encounter left me grappling with a sense of being perceived as a ‘sellout’, seemingly prioritising the comforts and privileges of my diasporic life over my struggling homeland. In response to his demeanour, I must have expressed a sentiment akin to my family and I making the decision when the time comes and yet the experience induced a lingering sense of guilt, prompting days of reflection.

My interaction with John exposed certain privileges inherent in my positionality, triggering a critical reflection that influenced the critical lens through which I analysed the interview data. For example, while I empathised with Alfred’s anguish over his apparent lack of belongingness in neither America nor Liberia, I was equally critical of his privileged choices, such as the decision to leave Liberia following the election of President Weah in 2018. I lauded Alfred’s decision to return to work for the Sirleaf government (2006–2017) as selfless. Nevertheless, I concurrently explored his subsequent return to the United States in 2018, driven partly by opposition to political changes under President Weah. Alfred had wanted to continue in his consulting capacity for the Weah government but as he puts it: things were going downhill, so I moved back [to America]. This decision, while within Alfred’s prerogative, underscores the privilege to leave Liberia when circumstances turn unfavourable – a choice inaccessible to many Liberians who must weather challenging situations without the option to cross international borders. The ability to exercise such a choice, reserved for a privileged few, contributes to grievances against dual citizenship in Liberia. Thus, the encounter with John played a pivotal role in identifying and actively engaging with the perspectives of some of my study participants.

Discussion and conclusion

The query, ‘But Why is a Ghanaian Studying Liberia?’ encapsulates a profound epistemological question. It relates to researcher positionality (Berger, 2015) and underlines the need for reflexive analysis of the intricate dynamics within the researcher/researched relationship. It prompts transparency by shedding light on subtle nuances that might otherwise evade readers’ notice. By reflecting on my positionality, I illustrate the fluidity of the insider/outsider binary and the complexity of researcher positionality, challenging assertions that an insider researcher inherently occupies a privileged position (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). In my interactions, I consistently found myself initially positioned as an outsider, primarily defined by my Ghanaian nationality and the research focus. However, this apparent outsider position evolved over time as I build rapport and participants begin to connect with one or more of my shifting identities. As discussions progresses, my position in relation to the participants fluctuates, influenced by the topic at hand, my pursuit of additional information, or the extent to which I disclose aspects of myself during the conversation. In my engagements with Chairman Wettee, for example, my nationality and the student-expert relationship initially positioned me as an outsider. I noticed, however that, he would often transcend this outsider designation, in an attempt to relate to my perceived diasporic experiences.

Further, my interaction with John underscores the dynamic nature of how participants categorise the researcher as an insider or outsider. His occasionally dismissive tone reflected his perception of me as sympathetic to the Yes camp. This perception of me was not necessarily wrong because while maintaining a neutral outsider stance on the dual citizenship debate, I felt emotionally imbricated in diasporas sense of belonging and citizenship in their host and home countries. Nevertheless, even in his disapproval of my research focus, he tends to refer back to my outsider status, which to him meant that I was naïve of the core issues. I gained valuable insights from participants like John who presumed my naivety and in attempts to educate me on the subject matter, led to peculiar discoveries in the data that an insider might overlook (see Hayfield & Huxley, 2015; Hellawell, 2006). Accordingly, the connections I build with study participants through the use of insider assistants confirms arguments that social differences and even an outsider status ‘can often smooth entrée into a community and enhance the quality of interviews’ (MacLean, 2013, p. 78).

As previously discussed, some researchers have linked negative interview experiences to technological challenges, arguing that it limits researchers’ ability to bond with participants (see Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst, 2017; Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Heiselberg & Stępińska, 2023). During my interviews, the technological glitches such as time-lags in the audio and video feed, was more of a nuisance than a disruption. Both the participants and I were familiar with such issues, and so the conversation tended to wander to the challenges of poor connectivity, and sometimes broader discussions about the intricate links between internet connectivity and economic development in Africa. The recurrent technological interruptions, rather than acting as a deterrent as argued by Deakin and Wakefield (2014) for example, served as a catalyst for a more profound conversation and bonding with the study participants (Prior & Lachover, 2023). The cumulative openness gained through such conversations contributed to confidence building in the interview process, as well as the study participants’ trust in the researched/researcher boundary. In addition, the online space and perhaps the geographical separation provoked a level of candidness from some of my study participants. In essence, the cumulative openness underscores the unique dynamics introduced by the virtual space, allowing participants to express themselves freely and contribute to a richer qualitative data collection experience (see Jenner & Myers, 2019; Prior & Lachover, 2023; Weller, 2017).

In this paper, I have shown my reflection process, to demonstrate the fluidity of the insider/outsider positions, how it can impact the researcher/researched relationship in not only the online interviews but interpretations of the data. This paper adds to the growing literature on the significance of positionality and reflexivity in research processes and highlights the strengths and challenges of internet-mediated research. The insights presented here not only resonate with the specificities of my online fieldwork experiences but also contribute to the broader understanding of methodological considerations in the ever-evolving landscape of qualitative research.