“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