Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research*

“Placing” Interviews: Location and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research*

Sarah A. Elwood DePaul University Deborah G. Martin University of Georgia For qualitative researchers, selecting appropriate sites in which to conduct interviews may seem to be a relatively sim- ple research design issue. In fact it is a complicated decision with wide-reaching implications. In this paper, we argue that the interview site itself embodies and constitutes multiple scales of spatial relations and meaning, which construct the power and positionality of participants in relation to the people, places, and interactions discussed in the interview. We illustrate how observation and analysis of interview sites can offer new insights with respect to research questions, help researchers understand and interpret interview material, and highlight particular ethical considerations that re- searchers need to address. Key Words: qualitative research methodologies, interview sites, research ethics.

Introduction find and travel to and that were conducive to conversation; and concerns about power rela- ’m beginning to think there is NO good tions between participants and researchers, spe- “I place for an interview!” This lament be- cifically with respect to the ways that choosing a gan a conversation between the authors about location such as our university offices might different sites for conducting interviews in quali- constitute our own position as that of “expert.” tative research. Our research projects were However we found minimal guidance in the lit- different—one studying the meaning and impor- erature as to the implications of different inter- tance of place for collective activism and neigh- view sites for the power and positionality of our borhood identity, the other exploring the social research participants, or discussing whether in- and political impacts of the use of information terview sites can be a source of information technologies by neighborhood organizations— about the geographies of people and places in but we found that we grappled with common the research. dilemmas about where to conduct interviews. In this paper, we argue that interview sites Was it better to interview a neighborhood or- and situations are inscribed in the social spaces ganization staff member at her office or at a lo- that we as geographers are seeking to learn more cal restaurant or coffee shop? Should we inter- about, and thus have an important role to play in view neighborhood residents in their homes or qualitative research. We suggest that the inter- at the neighborhood organization office? If we view site itself produces “micro-geographies” of asked participants to choose where they wanted spatial relations and meaning, where multiple to be interviewed, what could we learn from scales of social relations intersect in the re- their choices? What issues should we consider search interview. Careful observation and anal- in evaluating possible interview locations? That ysis of the people, activities, and interactions is, why might one site be “better” than another, that constitute these spaces, of the choices that for us as researchers or for participants? Draw- different participants make about interview ing on our training in qualitative and feminist sites and of participants’ varying positions, methods, we were prepared to assess these ques- roles, and identities in different sites can illus- tions about interview locations with respect to trate the social geographies of a place. These two kinds of issues: pragmatic considerations “microgeographies” can offer new insights with such as choosing places that participants could respect to research questions, help researchers

* Both authors contributed equally to this paper. We would like to thank Eric Sheppard, Patricia Ehrkamp, Stuart Aitken, and three anonymous reviewers for their close reading of this manuscript and insightful suggestions about it. Professional Geographer, 52(4) 2000, pages 649–657 © Copyright 2000 by Association of American Geographers. Initial submission, July 1999; revised submission, October 1999; final acceptance, December 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.

650 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000 understand and interpret interview materials, searcher and research participant—takes place. and highlight ethical considerations in the re- As such, it represents a microscale of sociospa- search process. tial relations, manifesting the intersection of We begin with a brief discussion of scale and broader power dynamics—at multiple scales, how we use it to conceptualize microgeogra- such as the neighborhood, city, region, and so phies of the interview, followed by an assess- on—with the social relations constructed in ment of the ways that methodological litera- the interview setting itself. The microgeogra- tures have examined locational considerations phies of the interview reflect the relationships in qualitative research. This literature has of- of the researcher with the interview partici- fered suggestions as to appropriate interview pant, the participant with the site, and the site locations, and has analyzed ways that spatial re- within a broader sociocultural context that af- lations constitute power and position of re- fects both researcher and participant. searcher and participants. In the following sec- tion, drawing on examples from our research, Pragmatism and Power: Past we outline some of the potential contributions Considerations on Placing Interviews offered by reflection on interview sites and sit- uations. In our work, such reflection provided Two different literatures on qualitative re- crucial contextual details about the social geog- search methods have shaped our understanding raphies of our field sites by highlighting signif- of important issues to be considered or ad- icant power struggles within these communities, dressed in using interviews as a research tech- illustrating important community institutions, nique, particularly with respect to the question and informing our understanding of the differ- of where to conduct interviews. Broadly, we ent roles and identities through which commu- differentiate these two groups as: 1) “instruc- nity members identified with and were active in tional” texts, which outline and discuss the me- their neighborhoods. These insights were a chanics and some of the implications of a range crucial source of data, one which we argue de- of qualitative research techniques, and 2) criti- serves more direct attention in the design and cal reflections on methodology found through- implementation of qualitative research, partic- out the social sciences, which focus particular ularly in geography. In conclusion, we make attention on the power relations that are repro- specific suggestions as to how researchers might duced in and affect the research process and its understand the contributions and significance results. of microgeographies in which they are con- Instructional texts offer advice to researchers ducting research. on a number of different aspects of conducting interviews, including how to select participants Scale and the Interview Site and appropriate ways to contact them, how to compose interview questions, and how to record Geographers stress that scale is socially con- information (on tape, in notes, etc.). However, structed (Smith and Dennis 1987; Herod 1991; many of these texts are silent with respect to Delaney and Leitner 1997). While social or po- the spaces and places where interviews might litical processes may operate within a particular be carried out (Morgan and Spanish 1984; bounded space, those processes are not fixed at Merton et al. 1990; Denzin and Lincoln 1994; that scale, but are constructed through social re- Lofland and Lofland 1995). A few do make ex- lations. Any given location, therefore, is a setting plicit suggestions as to appropriate locations for a variety of social, political, and economic ac- for interviews or focus groups, including res- tivities and relations that operate at and through taurants, private homes, and public buildings multiple scales. For our purposes in this paper, it such as schools or community centers (Morton- is crucial to recognize that, far from being re- Williams 1985; Yin 1989; Krueger 1994). moved from social and cultural contexts at Primarily, these texts frame the question of in- other scales, the interview site provides a mate- terview locations in terms of convenience for rial space for the enactment and constitution of participants and researchers, suggesting that power relations. By interview site, we mean the location should, for instance, be quiet and specifically the location where the interview— easy to find. Morton-Williams (1985) alludes to an exchange of information between the re- the importance of considering relationships

“Placing” Interviews 651 and interactions in particular places—noting ruption from men, because men could not enter that participants might feel uncomfortable certain spaces. In her research, Berik navigated speaking freely about some issues in places these spatial divisions strategically, to foster where other people are present and might over- open conversations with women participating hear the conversation. For the most part, how- in her research. ever, these texts either ignore the power dynam- Although the feminist ethnographers de- ics constituted by the interactions among scribed above clearly demonstrate that there interview participants in particular interview are spatial and geographical dimensions to the sites or assume that power is somehow absent power relations they discuss, this point is not in certain locations, as in Krueger’s (1994) ad- always explicitly examined. A number of ge- vice that researchers should seek a “neutral” ographers have entered these discussions with place to conduct interviews. By glossing over particular attention to the ways in which power issues of power and place, the instructional texts relations in research are spatially constituted, at provide minimal guidance for understanding multiple scales (Gilbert 1994; Katz 1994; Nast the significance of the social and political dy- 1994; Nagar 1997). There is a great deal of vari- namics of different spaces for interviews, re- ation with respect to how these scholars exam- search data, and analysis. ined the methodological implications of such Critical reflections on methodology in the spatially constituted power differences, but their social sciences, particularly those drawing on common point is that social divisions have spa- feminist scholarship, offer a much more de- tial expressions with practical and ethical impli- tailed conceptualization of power and place in cations for researchers. research processes. A number of feminist eth- At the global scale, there are cultural expec- nographers offer insightful discussions of power tations and international economic hegemonies relations in the spaces and places where re- which situate power between a “first world” re- search is carried out (Kondo 1990; Abu-Lughod searcher and “third world” interview partici- 1993; Behar 1993; Behar and Gordon 1995). pants (Moss 1995; Lal 1996; Wolf 1996; Nagar These scholars examine different constructions 1997). Yet Katz (1994) and Gilbert (1994) ar- of power—inequalities between the so-called gue that the inequalities that accompany a “first first and third worlds, as well as power hierar- world” researcher who conducts work in the chies rooted in gender, race, class, ethnicity, “third world” are not necessarily resolved by and other dimensions of social differentiation. conducting research in one’s own country or Their primary arguments are that researchers city of residence. They suggest that race, class, must examine how these power relations are family status, ethnicity, and other social identi- manifest in the particular cultures and places ties are important sources of differential power where research is conducted, how they shape that shape relationships between researchers relationships between researchers and partici- and participants, even if they share similar na- pants, and how they shape the ethics and poli- tional or local identities. tics of knowledge construction in fieldwork. A number of geographers have examined The bulk of this literature focuses on partic- ways in which power relations between re- ipant observation, but some researchers have searchers and participants are shaped by the lo- written specifically about interviews and the cations in which interviews or focus groups are power relations of the spaces in which they are carried out. In particular, these discussions fo- conducted. For instance, Berik (1996) shows cus on the implications of conducting inter- how gender relations affected the spaces in views or focus groups in private homes. Both which she could conduct interviews and shaped Longhurst (1996) and Goss and Leinbach her interactions with participants in these in- (1996) write about focus groups that were con- terviews. As a woman doing research in rural ducted in the researchers’ homes, a choice Turkey, she found that the cultural norms de- made by the researchers to try to foster an at- fining spaces in which men and women could mosphere conducive to sharing personal infor- interact presented particular difficulties for her mation, and to create a more reciprocal rela- attempts to interview men. Simultaneously, tionship with research participants. Oberhauser these spatial divisions had the advantage of en- (1997) and Falconer-Al Hindi (1997) argue that abling her to interview women without inter- interviews conducted in participants’ homes

652 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000 have important potential as a strategy for dis- scales. That is, the very social relations that are rupting power hierarchies between researchers the subject of research may be highlighted in and participants. In none of these cases do the microgeographies where the research is carried authors suggest that their locational choices out. In the following section, we offer examples erase power differences. Rather, they seek to il- from our research of ways that microgeogra- lustrate how power relations between the re- phies of interview locations can be “read” for searcher and interview participants are consti- important insights into social geographies of tuted by the locations in which research is places being studied, and also for their influ- conducted. Nagar (1997) expands this consid- ence on identities and positions of research eration of the locations of interviews to other participants. In many instances, interview loca- spaces besides homes. She examines multiple tions are fixed or severely constrained (cf. Berik spaces in which the interviews and conversa- 1996; Lal 1996), but in situations where re- tions of her research took place—in homes, searcher or participant has greater flexibility or neighborhood streets, and various public choice, it is important to reflect upon these institutions—and discusses the ways that race, choices in terms of what they can tell us about gender, class, and caste expectations and hier- the community, individuals, or places involved archies of these spaces shaped her interactions in the research, as well as how they may impact and relationships with participants. Similarly, the interview experience and material col- McDowell (1998) examines the ways in which lected. In interrogating interview sites in this her interviews with bank employees were af- manner, we are guided by a question that fected by the location of the interviews at their Kondo uses to frame her ethnographic re- workplaces. She suggests that some participants search: “How did the people I knew craft them- had concerns about confidentiality in the inter- selves and their lives within shifting fields of view site and the appropriateness of engaging in power and meaning . . . ?” (1990, 10). That is, in an interview at work, and also that some par- our analysis of interview sites, we examine how ticipants seemed reluctant to talk about their participants situate themselves and their lives home lives in an interview conducted at their within the shifting fields of power and meaning workplaces. that constitute the spaces and places in which The key understanding from the critical the interview takes place. methodological literature is that social interac- tions have inherent power dynamics that oper- Microgeographies of ate or are simultaneously manifest at different Interview Locations spatial scales. However, these discussions fo- cused primarily on the identity and positional- We explore here two important contributions ity of the researcher vis-à-vis the participants. that an examination of microgeographies of in- With the exception of McDowell’s (1998) terview locations can make to research. First, workplace interviews, there is very little discus- microgeographies can offer a rich source of data sion of how interview participants relate to the about social geographies of the research situa- space of the interview and are situated within tion and enable researchers to enrich their un- the multifaceted power dynamics of a particu- derstanding of explanations offered by partici- lar site. Thus, while the critical methodological pants. Researchers may observe artifacts such literature explicitly recognizes power and posi- as decorations or posters in a person’s home or tionality as crucial elements of research interac- office that reveal certain priorities or commit- tions to be examined, it has paid less attention to ments, or observe interactions with other people the ways that research sites—the microgeogra- that are relevant to understanding a partici- phies of the interview—can be interrogated to pant’s experiences in a particular place. Second, illuminate substantive research material about microgeographies of interview locations situ- the power relations and social identities of the ate a participant with respect to other actors people participating in these interviews.1 and to his or her own multiple identities and We suggest that these microgeographies roles, affecting information that is communi- provide a window on salient power structures cated in the interview as well as power dynam- operating in a particular community, among ics of the interview itself. For instance, in one particular social actors, at a variety of social location a participant may assert one identity,

“Placing” Interviews 653 such as that of political official, and in another place, but analysis of the microgeographies of a location answer interview questions from a number of interviews can also offer important different perspective, such as that of con- opportunities to learn about the social geogra- cerned parent. phies of a community. The sites available for At the most basic level, interview locations interviews—as identified by both the researcher provide an important opportunity for researchers and participants—and the choices that a group to make observations that generate richer and of participants make about where they want to more detailed information than can be gleaned be interviewed may offer useful clues about im- from the interview content alone. These obser- portant community institutions, highlight a vations can both generate new information and lack of such institutions, and provide greater give the researcher a stronger understanding of understandings of social and spatial divisions in issues explicitly discussed in the interview. For a community. example,2 in an interview conducted in a partic- In one of our research projects, for instance, ipant’s home, Denise3 and I engaged in a con- participants chose a number of different loca- versation about neighborhood activism and tions within the neighborhood for interviews, in- organizing at her kitchen table. Before the in- dicating by their choices some of the key institu- terview began, I was introduced to her daughter tions around which the neighborhood’s activities and granddaughter, who came to my mind later and the interactions of residents are centered—a in the interview, when Denise described her park building, a coffee shop that was formerly concerns about neighborhood crime in terms a cooperative grocery, the neighborhood asso- of the safety of children on a block where ciation office, and a local restaurant. Further, drug dealers were active and sometimes vio- in many interviews, participants offered un- lent. She pointed out the house directly across prompted and enlightening explanations of the the street where drug dealers had lived the year importance of these spaces to the neighbor- before. Meeting some of Denise’s family mem- hood. The grocery-turned-coffee shop, for in- bers, and seeing the close proximity of the stance, had been a vacant or nuisance property problems she sought to address, helped me to for many years, and as both a coop and a coffee better understand the immediacy of her activ- shop, served as a gathering place for residents. ism. In many ways, being involved in her local Several participants talked about the site as tan- block club was a necessity for Denise, to chal- gible evidence of their collective capacity to lenge the eroding safety on her street. The set- make changes in their community and as a rea- ting of her home made clear to me the long- son to continue their hard work. Other partici- standing connections that Denise has in and to pants talked about a difficult transition period the local place. Her husband worked just down when the coop shut down, explaining that this the street, at a bar where they could meet with transition was part of a larger struggle in the other neighbors. She was employed by the lo- neighborhood about the direction and priori- cal school district, but her knowledge of and ties of collective community efforts. These ac- commitment to the school system was clearly counts illustrate how participants use various connected to her own childhood, as well as the locations to construct their communities, and schooling of members of her family. Being able show that by situating the interview in impor- to sit in Denise’s house, and go outside to look at tant community sites, researchers and partici- the former drug house—now home to a friendly, pants (re)construct essential community histo- law-abiding neighbor—and the bar where her ries and values through the social interaction of husband worked, made the words Denise had the interview. In this instance, information spoken into my tape recorder come alive. The gathered through attention to the microgeog- rootedness of this family in their neighbor- raphies of interview locations was especially hood, an essential detail in explaining Denise’s valuable because such histories were sparsely activism, was conveyed as much by the location recorded or totally absent in other sources of of the interview as by the taperecorded words historical information, such as neighborhood of the interview itself. newspapers, organization newsletters, and meet- Not only is it useful to observe the microgeog- ing minutes. Interrogation of microgeographies raphies of a single interview as an opportunity of interview locations is, therefore, an impor- to learn more about a particular participant or tant opportunity for triangulation of evidence

654 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000 and overlapping methods, which are funda- beginning to emerge with respect to where mental strategies that qualitative researchers participants wanted to be interviewed. Older, use to build rigorous explanations and cases working-class homeowners mostly wanted to (Denzin 1989). be interviewed at a neighborhood restaurant, In another neighborhood, common commu- while younger middle-class homeowners who nity spaces for interview conversations were had more recently moved to the neighborhood much less apparent. When I offered to meet predominately chose a recently opened coffee participants at a coffee shop or restaurant, an shop for their interviews. This division of activ- uncomfortable silence usually followed. I ran ity spaces suggested there might be divisions in over the options in my own mind: numerous the community along lines of class, age, and ethnic restaurants, none of which I knew espe- length of residence, and that such power rela- cially well, and a strip of fast food restaurants, tions operate and are reconstructed in various identical to their counterparts in other towns locations in the neighborhood. This observa- and neighborhoods. A few restaurants and a tion turned out to be central to my research diner which I knew had been focal meeting questions regarding the impacts of information places in the community were now defunct. In technologies on power struggles in the neigh- the end, most participants offered their own borhood organization. Specifically, the older homes as the site for an interview (a choice residents drew on their longterm experiences which, as discussed above, may highlight the in the neighborhood as their claim to authority connections individuals make between neigh- in neighborhood decisionmaking. The newer borhood activism and their homes). Occasion- residents discounted such experiential knowl- ally, participants suggested one of four neigh- edge as biased and uninformed, advocating in- borhood organization offices, a choice which stead the use of GIS-based maps and analysis of generally indicated an allegiance by that indi- large governmental datasets as more authorita- vidual to one organization more than the other tive and legitimate sources of information. three. Certainly the choice of a neighborhood Thus, close attention to the choices made by organization’s offices for an interview illus- participants about interview locations revealed trated the salience of the organizations for information about the social geographies of the these residents. Yet it was especially telling in neighborhood that in turn were central to under- these interactions that the many small indepen- standing the community’s struggles over author- dently and family-run ethnic restaurants were ity and the legitimacy of different kinds of knowl- not viewed by the participants as suitable inter- edge claims for neighborhood decisionmaking. view sites. Most of the restaurants were run by In addition to providing evidence about so- Asian immigrants, while most, though not all, cial geographies being investigated in research, of the neighborhood activists were white. The microgeographies of interview locations are a absence of any single public location outside of part of the many ways that participants’ roles, an organizational office to serve as a focal meet- identities, and power are constituted in the in- ing place for any of the main organizers and or- terview experience. Participants may con- ganization members demonstrated a lack of a sciously or unconsciously position themselves community gathering place, and was perhaps differently with respect to the multiple roles illustrative of a lack of cohesion among neigh- and identities that structure their experience of borhood residents overall. different places. These explicit and implicit In similar fashion, the choices that partici- presentations of self have important implica- pants in the other, more cohesive neighborhood tions for interpreting interview material, as in the study made about where they wished to be participants might offer different perspectives interviewed indicated relationships and divi- on questions being asked, depending on where sions in that community, information that was the interview is conducted. Further, the micro- invaluable to my larger research questions. geographies of locations construct participants’ After completing a number of interviews with power and expertise, meaning that different lo- residents about their activities in their neigh- cations might situate participants differently in borhood organization and the changes occur- terms of their power in the research process ring in that organization with the rising use of and their sense of the contribution they might information technologies, I noticed a pattern make to questions being asked.

“Placing” Interviews 655

In interviewing neighborhood organization The ways that locations can situate partici- staff and neighborhood residents about their pants also has implications for the power rela- experiences, actions, and perceptions of the tions of our interview experiences. Different neighborhood, we found that they offered strik- sites may serve to define a participant as having ingly different kinds of answers, depending on valuable knowledge to contribute, or, conversely, where the interview was conducted. When or- can constitute the researcher as holding expert ganization directors and staff members were knowledge. For instance, organizational direc- interviewed at their offices, they tended to offer tors who wanted to be interviewed in their of- explanations and answers based primarily on fices emphasized their position as directors, the organizations’ priorities and viewpoints. seemingly to assert their expertise about the They answered questions about their neigh- neighborhood and authority in the interview borhood activism primarily with regard to their experience. This assertion of authority may be organizational roles and activities as paid staff rooted in a concern expressed by organization members. In contrast, when we interviewed or- staff in both neighborhoods that outside “ex- ganization directors and other staff members in perts” such as university researchers tended to their homes or in public places outside of their write negative or critical accounts of their offices, they talked more freely about their neighborhoods or organizations. Similarly, in opinions outside of the organizational goals or interviewing resident volunteers at organiza- missions, and offered examples drawn from ex- tional offices, we found that they were much periences of the neighborhood through other more likely to present themselves as knowl- identities besides that of organizational leaders. edgeable participants with valuable informa- In addition to talking about their activities with tion to contribute. In other locations, such as the neighborhood organization, staff members their homes or neighborhood institutions, they who lived in the neighborhood talked about expressed considerably more anxiety during volunteer work at the local school, relation- the interview about whether or not they could ships with nearby neighbors, activities at a make a contribution or were giving us the community garden, or work with their block “right” answers. We argue that this difference clubs. Rather than limiting their answers is rooted in the microgeographies upon which strictly to one aspect of their identities in the participants draw in constructing their identi- neighborhood, that of staff members, they re- ties in particular places. Many residents seemed flected on questions through multiple roles to consider perspectives drawn from their “of- shaping their experiences. Since we did not in- ficial” work with the neighborhood association terview the same individuals in different loca- to be more legitimate sources of information tions, we cannot definitively attribute these dif- and expertise than their experiences of simply ferences in interview material only to location. living in the neighborhood. Interviewing in the It could certainly be the case that differences in neighborhood association office highlighted this participants’ personalities or some aspect of work with the neighborhood, allowing partici- our own relationships with these individuals pants to constitute themselves as having knowl- led them to offer different kinds of answers to edge and expertise about the neighborhood. our interview questions. However, the com- The microgeographies of a single site may monalities between our separate interview ex- have contradictory implications, immeasurably periences lead us to believe that the site of an complicating the researcher’s tasks. In the ex- interview does play an important role in the amples above, interviewing volunteers at the way that interviewees position themselves with neighborhood association office was advanta- respect to questions being asked. Each location geous when it empowered people to constitute constructs or represents particular microgeog- themselves as knowledgeable participants. How- raphies of sociospatial relations, such that, in ever, some of the research questions dealt with different locations, participants are situated dif- the neighborhood or neighborhood organiza- ferently with respect to identities and roles that tion’s conflicts and struggles, and residents’ structure their experiences and actions. Conse- feelings about the organizations’ actions and quently, interview participants may offer differ- agenda. Ethically, this interview content made ent kinds of information, depending on where the neighborhood office a less than ideal loca- they are interviewed. tion. Residents and staff might be legitimately

656 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000 concerned about expressing dissenting or neg- nity to examine participants’ choices for clues ative opinions in the office. Directors and other about the social geographies of the places where staff might not want to express their concerns research is being carried out. However, it is im- about the neighborhood in the organization of- portant to talk with participants about the con- fice, where their role is primarily to act as an tent of the interview, so that they may choose a advocate of the neighborhood. In the end, place where they will feel comfortable to speak there were no “right” answers to these dilem- freely. On the other hand, if the researcher mas. For the most part, we both tried to limit must choose an interview location—either be- office interviews to those participants who cause the interview participant is reluctant to seemed to feel most anxious about their ability suggest places or because of other constraints— to contribute information useful to our re- it may be fruitful to suggest several different search and expressed the strongest desire to potential sites. In order to be ready to generate meet us at the neighborhood office. ideas about possible locations, it is important to learn as much as possible about microgeogra- Implications and Conclusion phies of the potential sites within the commu- nity, and about the broader social geographies of Interpreting and understanding the signifi- the community and interview participants. For cance of different interview sites is important example, what is the role of a particular site in the throughout the research process as part of cre- community? Who will be there? How will par- ating a feasible and effective research plan, un- ticipants’ and researchers’ roles, identities, and derstanding power relations between researcher positions be constructed in a particular place? and research subjects, addressing ethical con- Reflection on the microgeographies of inter- siderations and dilemmas that may arise, and views is a process that starts before the actual gaining insights into fundamental questions of interviewing begins, and continues throughout the research. We suggest several approaches to the research and analysis. Understanding the incorporating these issues into research projects ethical implications and analytical significance involving interviews. We do not intend this to of interview sites may help researchers to navi- be an exhaustive set of recommendations, but gate the process of selecting and analyzing in- rather a useful starting point for reflection. terview sites, while they try to balance the As Oberhauser (1997) has illustrated, we needs of research with the interests of partici- stress that the interview is not just an opportu- pants. Finally, considerations of the implica- nity to gather information by asking questions tions of interview locations can be situated as and engaging in conversation, but is also an op- part of the basic motivating questions that portunity for participant observation. Specifi- drive us as geographers; that is, how space mat- cally, during an interview it is important to ters and affects us. Explicit analysis of the ways consider the physical attributes of the site and in which power and positionality are consti- to observe the people who are present and their tuted and evident in the places where we con- interactions with each other and with the inter- duct interviews is yet another way to interro- view participant. Although the interview site gate the sociospatial relations that we seek to may not be part of the primary avenue of in- understand in our research. ᭿ quiry in the research, observing dynamics in that place, and paying attention to what the Notes participant says about the place, may generate 1 useful research material. One important exception is Oberhauser’s (1997) discussion of home as a field site, in which she men- There are many other ways that interview tions that conducting interviews in participants’ locations provide insights into a research homes enabled her to observe women navigating project. Interview sites may be negotiated, re- the multiple demands of homeworking, the primary stricted, or chosen by researchers, participants, inquiry of her research. and other actors who are part of or affect the 2 In describing specific examples from our different research. Participants who are given a choice research projects, we use “I” to refer to our individ- ual research experiences, and “we” in describing ex- about where they will be interviewed may feel periences common to both our projects or in ana- more empowered in their interaction with the lyzing the significance of these experiences. researcher, and the researcher has an opportu- 3 “Denise” is a pseudonym.

“Placing” Interviews 657

Literature Cited McDowell, Linda. 1998. Elites in the City of Lon- don: some methodological considerations. Envi- Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1993. Writing Women’s Worlds: ronment and Planning A 30:2133–46. Bedouin Stories. Berkeley: University of California Merton, Robert, Marjorie Fiske, and Patricia Ken- Press. dall. 1990. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Prob- Behar, Ruth. 1993. Translated Woman: Crossing the Bor- lems and Procedures. 2nd ed. New York: The Free der with Esperanza’s Story. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Press. Behar, Ruth, and Deborah Gordon. 1995. Women Morgan, David, and Margaret Spanish. 1984. Focus Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of Califor- groups: A new tool for qualitative research. Quali- nia Press. tative Sociology 7:253–70. Berik, Gunseli. 1996. Understanding the gender sys- Morton-Williams, Jean. 1985. Making qualitative re- tem in rural Turkey: Fieldwork dilemmas of con- search work—aspects of administration. In Ap- formity and intervention. In Feminist Dilemmas in plied Qualitative Research, ed. Robert Walker, 27– Fieldwork, ed. Diane Wolf, 56-71. Boulder, CO: 44. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing. Westview Press. Delaney, David, and Helga Leitner. 1997. The polit- Moss, Pamela. 1995. Reflections on the “gap” as part ical construction of scale. Political Geography 16: of the politics of research design. Antipode 27:82– 93-7. 90. Denzin, Norman. 1989. The Research Act: A Theoreti- Nagar, Richa. 1997. Exploring methodological bor- cal Introduction to Sociological Methods. 3rd ed. En- derlands through oral narratives. In Thresholds in glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Feminist Geography, ed. John Paul Jones III, Heidi Denzin, Norman, and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. 1994. Nast, and Susan Roberts, 203–24. Lanham, MD: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Rowman and Littlefield. CA: Sage Publications. Nast, Heidi. 1994. Opening remarks on “women in Falconer-Al Hindi, Karen. 1997. Feminist critical re- the field.” The Professional Geographer 46:54–66. alism: A method for gender and work studies in ge- Oberhauser, Ann. 1997. The home as “field”: house- ography. In Thresholds in Feminist Geography, ed. holds and homework in rural Appalachia. In John Paul Jones III, Heidi Nast, and Susan Roberts, Thresholds in Feminist Geography, ed. John Paul 145–64. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Jones III, Heidi Nast, and Susan Roberts, 165–82. Gilbert, Melissa. 1994. The politics of location: Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Doing feminist research at “home.” Professional Smith, Neil, and Ward Dennis. 1987. The restruc- Geographer 46:90–6. turing of geographical scale: Coalesence and frag- Goss, Jon, and Timothy Leinbach. 1996. Focus mentation of the northern core region. Economic groups as alternative research practice: Experience Geography 63:160–82. with transmigrants in Indonesia. Area 28:115–23. Wolf, Diane. 1996. Situating feminist dilemmas in Herod, Andrew. 1991. The production of scale in US fieldwork. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, ed. labour relations. Area 23:82–8. Diane Wolf, 1–55. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Katz, Cindi. 1994. Playing the field: Questions of Yin, Robert. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Meth- fieldwork in geography. Professional Geographer 46:67–72. ods. Rev. ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kondo, Dorinne. 1990. Crafting Selves: Power, Gen- der, and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. SARAH A. ELWOOD is Assistant Professor of Ge- Krueger, Richard. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical ography at DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614. Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Her research interests include urban and social geog- CA: Sage Publications. raphy and GIS, particularly the social and political Lal, Jayati. 1996. Situating locations: The politics of impacts of information technologies in community- self, identity, and “other” in living and writing the based planning and neighborhood revitalization. text. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork, ed. Diane Wolf, 185–214. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing So- DEBORAH G. MARTIN is Assistant Professor of cial Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Geography at the University of Georgia at Athens, Analysis. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Athens, GA 30602. Her research interests include ur- Longhurst, Robyn. 1996. Refocusing groups: Preg- ban, social, and political geography, specifically place nant women’s geographical experiences of Hamil- identity and neighborhood organizing, and qualita- ton, New Zealand/Aotearoa. Area 28:143–9. tive methods.