Interviews: In-Depth, Semistructured

Leigh Barrick, Geography Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by R. Longhurst, volume 5, pp 580–584, © 2009 Elsevier Ltd.

Glossary
Cold calling A strategy to recruit research participants, in which the researcher contacts potential participants without giving
notice beforehand. This outreach can be done, for example, through a phone call, text message, or email.
Epistemology A particular theory and practice of knowledge production.
Intersectionality A concept developed by feminist scholars of color to theorize power differences between people as
multidimensional. Following this concept, power relations are best understood through the intersection of multiple axes of
social difference, such as ability, age, caste, class, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and more.
Methodology The specific research methods that a researcher chooses for their project. Feminist scholars have argued that these
choices are shaped by a researcher’s beliefs about the purpose of knowledge production and what counts as legitimate
knowledge.
Positionality The social position that an individual occupies relative to other people.
Positivism A theory and practice of knowledge production that held a predominant role in geography during the mid-20th
Century. Positivism emphasizes objectivity and direct observation and is often associated with quantitative research methods.
Reflexivity A research practice in which the researcher examines how their own social position may shape their project,
including through their interactions with participants. Some critical geographers have advocated for reflexivity as a launching
ground for direct forms of political intervention, as opposed to a purely intellectual practice.
Situated knowledges A concept developed by feminist social scholars of science, which suggests that knowledge production is
never fully objective; rather, a researcher’s social position gives them a partial view of the world and inevitably shapes how they
do research.
Third party recruitment A strategy to recruit research participants. When a researcher does not have access to the contact
information of potential participants, they can request the help of a third party, such as a nonprofit organization or public
institution, to connect them.
Snowball sampling A form of third party recruitment in which the researcher asks their own contacts, which can include the
participants who they meet through the study, to help recruit further participants.
Triangulation A research practice in which the researcher seeks out additional methods to deepen their analysis. For example, if
in-depth, semistructured interviews are the primary method, the researcher could utilize one or various other methods such as
textual analysis or participant observation to build further evidence.

The in-depth, semistructured interview is a guided conversation in which a researcher enquires about how research participants
understand their social worlds. This qualitative research method is used widely across the social sciences and, for decades, has
been a central tool for conducting research in geography.
Key differences exist between the in-depth, semistructured interview and other forms of interviewing. Surveys and structured
interviews associated with positivist epistemologies strive to establish a formal, standardized set of questions to be used consistently
across a research project, which can be applied similarly in future studies. The format of survey and structured interview questions
may limit the breadth of possible responses, for example, by posing questions in a set order or utilizing multiple-choice questions.
The researcher seeks participants whose responses speak to the experiences of a broader population and may analyze responses
through statistical analysis.
The in-depth, semistructured interview has been widely taken up in geography since the late 20th Century turn toward postpo-
sitivist epistemologies. Although the researcher designs in-depth, semistructured interviews around a set of themes meant to answer
a specific research question, each interview is uniquely tailored to the participant. The researcher approaches the interview as
a distinct exchange and coconstruction of knowledge. The open-ended nature of this dialogue encourages participants to share
themes important to them. Researchers conduct textual analysis of their interview transcripts or notes. Semistructured interviews
can also be differentiated from unstructured interviews, which give participants even greater flexibility in guiding the conversation.
A semistructured interview can be considered “deep” in multiple ways. For one, participants are given space to describe and inter-
pret their social realities in ways that are nuanced and even contradictorydcreating an interpretive depth that can be difficult to
achieve with methods like surveys. The exchange between researcher and participant itself can also be considered “deep.” In-

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 7 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10832-7 403

depth, semistructured interviews involve a direct, embodied interaction between the researcher and participant and may delve into
sensitive themes. Building rapport tends to involve reciprocity, in which the researcher shares aspects of their own life.
The in-depth, semistructured interview can stand alone as a research method but in geography is commonly used as part of
a mixed-methods approach. Researchers may triangulate their analysis of interview data. This means that they seek out additional
evidence to deepen their analysis by drawing from one or various other research methods besides interviews. A few examples of
qualitative methods that could be used alongside interviews range from participant observation to focus groups, textual analysis,
and more. The researcher may also use quantitative methods alongside interviews.
Within geography, and the social sciences more generally, the in-depth, semistructured interview has been subject to debate
about its methodological merits and the ethical dilemmas it invites. Thus, a description of how geographers use this type of inter-
view as a research tool would be incomplete without situating the method within broader discussions on the politics of knowledge
production. To this end, after outlining how in-depth, semistructured interviews are generally conducted, this entry turns to ques-
tions of methodology and epistemology, asking why geographers use this research method and concludes by situating the in-depth,
semistructured interview within recent theorizations of the relationship between scholarly research and social change.

Interview Practice

There is much more that goes into conducting an in-depth, semistructured interview than the dialogue that takes place during the
interview itself. Before getting started with any interviews, the researcher has likely crafted a research plan. This involves the
researcher deliberating their methodology, considering which research methods they want to use and for what reason. If interviews
are part of the research plan, then the project will generally require approval from the research ethics board (REB) at the researcher’s
university or institution. The goal of the REB review is to prevent research from compromising the well-being or dignity of
participants.
In preparing for the REB review, the researcher may begin planning the logistical dimensions of their research. For interviews, this
could mean strategizing how to recruit participants, which questions to ask, and considering other details of interview conduct. This
section outlines each of these logistical dimensions, drawing on the work of geographers such as Robyn Longhurst and Gill Valen-
tine, as well as other social scientists who have reflected on in-depth, semistructured interview practice.
During the early stages of project design, the researcher will likely have thought about who they want to recruit as interview
participants. As mentioned, the goal of conducting in-depth, semistructured interviews is not necessarily to create a generalizable
analysis, in which participants stand in for a larger population, nor a protocol that can be easily replicated in future studies. Rather,
the goal is to find participants who can shed light on the research question in a meaningful way.
Before the researcher begins recruitment, the REB review process prompts them to examine, and strive to minimize, any risks
caused by the study. There are numerous ways that social science research can generate risks for participants. For instance, discussing
sensitive topics during an interview could make the participant feel uncomfortable. Or perhaps participating could generate specific
social, economic, or legal risks for the participant. For example, a participant who expresses critical viewpoints about their workplace
could face negative repercussions at work, should their employer learn of their participation in the interview. Risks can also extend
beyond the individual participant. A research project could risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes about the participant’s
community.
One common strategy to minimize risks to participants is to keep their identities confidential, unless they prefer otherwise. This
can be done by securing research data, whether in electronic or paper form, and by not revealing names or other identifying details
in publications. Despite such efforts, risks may remain, and it is incumbent upon the researcher to explain those risks, as well as the
project’s overarching goals, when recruiting potential participants. As per the REB review, this takes place through an informed
consent process. After the potential participant has been invited to participate and has had adequate time to decide, the researcher
generally documents their consent either verbally or on a signed form. The consent process does not end there, as participants can
later decide to withdraw from the study.
The REB review can provide a crucial foundation for researchers to examine how and why they do research. Yet as a number
of geographers and other social scientists concerned with research ethics have noted, the ethical considerations of conducting
interviews do not start or end with any formal institutional requirementsda point this article will explore further in later
sections.
Researchers use various techniques to recruit interview participants, and what follows are a few examples. One common method
is to advertise the study, such as by posting flyers in public spaces or by doing outreach through online forums. Another recruitment
technique is to approach potential participants at a site where they spend time. Or, the researcher can “cold call” potential partic-
ipants, contacting them without giving notice beforehand (e.g., via phone or email). When a researcher does not have access to the
contact information of potential participants, they can request the help of a third party, such as a nonprofit organization or public
institution, to connect them. This recruitment strategy is called “third party recruitment.” The researcher can also ask their own
contacts (including the participants who they meet through the study) to help recruit further participants. This is another form
of third party recruitment known as “snowball sampling.”
A key component of any recruitment technique is to be prepared to explain the research project in a way that will make sense to
participants, which can involve detailing why the researcher believes a participant’s viewpoints are valuable, and what drives the
researcher to undertake the project.
 Interviews: In-Depth, Semistructured 405

Once a participant has agreed to an interview, the researcher must prepare questions. One way to begin is to review any existing
research on the interview topic, with the goal of designing interview themes and questions that are as informed as possible. It is up
to the researcher to determine the level of detail they will put into writing out an interview script. The options range from drafting
questions verbatim to sketching a list of general themes to loosely guide the interview.
No matter how a researcher prepares for the interview, it can be useful to consider how to frame their questions from the perspec-
tive of the participantdin other words, how to ask questions in a straightforward way that will elicit a reflective, open-ended
response. Researchers tend to be deliberate about the order in which they pose questions. A common strategy is to begin with light
opening questions, perhaps of a general or factual nature, and only move into deeper or more challenging questions later in the
interview. Researchers often close the dialogue by returning to lighter questions. The end of the interview can also be an opportunity
to ask the participant if there is anything else crucial for the researcher to know that did not yet come up. By the end of the interview
(if not before) the researcher generally thanks the participant for their participation.
The format of the in-depth, semistructured interview allows the researcher and participant to engage in a somewhat free-flowing
dialogue. The researcher has a set purpose in speaking to each participant and an agenda of themes they plan to discuss. Nonethe-
less, the flexible nature of this research method encourages the researcher to listen closely for any unexpected themes that arise and
follow the lead of the participant as they bring new themes to light.
There are several other important logistical dimensions to conducting an in-depth, semistructured interview, including how
the researcher will document the conversation. Some common methods to document an interview are to make an audio or video
recording, or to take detailed notes. The researcher has likely considered their plan to document interviews during the REB
reviewda decision influenced in no small part by participant wishes and needs. Geographers have reflected on the advantages
and disadvantages of recording interviews versus taking notes. While recording provides a detailed record of the conversation,
it may inhibit what participants feel comfortable sharing. The ubiquity of smartphones makes recording conversations easier
than ever, while raising new concerns about digital privacy when considering how data (e.g., the digital file containing the
recording) will be stored.
Geographers are also attentive to how interview site can shape the dialogue. For instance, holding an interview in a space signif-
icant to the participant, such as their home or neighborhood, may yield additional insights into their social world and provide cues
for the conversation. The site need not be static. In recent years, geographers have increasingly used “mobile methods” such as con-
ducting interviews while walking or driving through a space meaningful to participants. In a similar vein, geographers have shown
a growing interest in analyzing the events of everyday life as they unfold, for example, by drawing on digital video footage in addi-
tion to interviews.
The interview site can shape not only the dialogue but how the researcher and participant experience power differentials. For
example, holding an interview in the researcher’s office may emphasize the researcher’s authority. In contrast, interviewing a busi-
ness executive in their own office may magnify that participant’s authority; however, interviewing an employee with relatively less
authority about their work experience at their workplace could make the participant feel distressed and put them at risk of retribu-
tion by their employer. It is thus important to consider not only how the interview site can shape the interview but any risks it could
cause for the participant or researcher.
In-depth, semistructured interviews are not always conducted in person. They can also be done remotely (e.g., over the phone or
through online video chat). The researcher may conduct some combination of remote and in-person interviews within the same
study. It is important to note that conducting interviews remotely can raise privacy concerns, for instance, around the security of
any data generated through an online video chat.
Regardless of precisely how or where the interview is conducted, the process of analyzing interviews can begin right away. The
researcher may find it useful to document their impressions and any additional notes immediately after the interview and complete
their transcription (if they have recorded the exchange) as soon as possible. This allows the researcher to begin the analysis process
while the discussion is still fresh in their mind. It also allows them to integrate any insights and unanticipated themes that come up
in early interviews into other interviews moving forward.
With these logistical dimensions of interview practice in mind, this article now situates the in-depth, semistructured interview
within broader discussions about the politics of knowledge production.

The Politics of Knowledge Production

The in-depth, semistructured interview is a research method, meaning a tool that can be used to obtain information. This section
asks how this type of interview became a commonly used method in geography. In some senses, the answer may seem straightfor-
ward: geographers anticipate that interviews will help them answer their research questions. In other ways, the answer can be much
more nuanced. As feminist geographers have long argued, a researcher is driven to conduct research in a specific way due to their
beliefs about the purpose of knowledge production and what counts as legitimate knowledge. This section examines the method-
ological and epistemological foundations that make the in-depth, semistructured interview a popular research method in
geography.
During the mid-20th Century, positivist epistemologies (and the quantitative research methods often associated with them),
which emphasize objectivity and direct observation in knowledge production, held a predominant role in geography. The in-
depth, semistructured interview was adopted widely as geographers sought alternatives to positivist epistemologies. By the
406 Interviews: In-Depth, Semistructured

1970s, feminist, cultural, and social geographers were bringing qualitative methods like interviews from the margins into the main-
stream of the discipline. This shift was met with heated debate.
Critics warned that qualitative methods like the in-depth, semistructured interview lacked methodological rigor and were overly
subjective. Drawing on social studies of science, such as the work of Donna Haraway, feminist geographers countered these concerns
by arguing that knowledge production is always partial and never fully objective. Whether using qualitative or quantitative
methods, research design is inevitably shaped by the researcher’s identity and their partial view of the world. This insight prompted
a turn toward reflexivity as a tool to situate knowledge and thereby account for this partiality. In other words, geographers began to
examine their own social position, or positionality, and how it might inflect their research design and final analysis, from the
research questions they select, to the methods they choose, to the way they interact with participants.
By the late 20th Century, geographers had increasingly adopted qualitative methods like the in-depth, semistructured interview
as an alternative to positivist epistemologies and quantitative methods. They were motivated, in part, by shifting understandings of
what counts as legitimate knowledge production. In geography, feminist interventions not only helped move qualitative methods
like the in-depth, semistructured interview into the mainstream, they also sought to rework how interviews are done. The social
science interviewer was historically imagined as an unmarked (male) observer, and thus framed as an authoritative, objective expert
in relation to the research participants. In contrast, feminist scholars sought to establish nonhierarchical interview interactions with
participants, and to take women’s perspectives and everyday lives seriously as a topic of research interest. Feminist geographers have
also interrogated the complex role of whiteness and other dominant, unmarked categories of social difference in the power relations
that pervade research methods like interviews.
The goal of the late-20th Century efforts by feminist geographers and other critical geographers to mainstream qualitative
methods like the in-depth, semistructured interview was often to speak for or with (and thus “give voice” to) populations
whom they saw as marginalized. However, the idea that relatively privileged scholarsdparticularly white feminist scholars of
the Global Northdcould or should speak on behalf of subaltern groups came under scrutiny. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s ever-
salient question, “can the subaltern speak?” highlights how imperialism can inflect even well-intentioned research. Spivak’s ques-
tion illuminates the epistemological barriers that can prevent voices expressed outside of dominant registers from being heard,
getting to the heart of the ethical issues around voice and representation presented by qualitative methods like the in-depth, semi-
structured interview.
These ethical dilemmas have challenged critical geographers to rethink how they might better orient their research toward
contributing in a concrete way to social change. Some have sought to conduct their research collaboratively with participants or
otherwise align their project in a politics of solidarity. Others have rejected specific research methods and topics that they find
to be extractive and reinforcing of power imbalances or otherwise disconnected from the goals and needs of the population to
whom their study pertains. In certain cases, this effort to align research with social change can mean reworking interview practice
or simply rejecting interviews as a method altogetherda point elaborated further in the following section of this entry.
Other critical geographers have attended to the ethical dilemmas around voice and representation by turning the microscope
away from marginalized populations and toward powerful elites and institutions. This scholarship often draws on qualitative
methods like in-depth, semistructured interviews with people in relatively powerful positions, as well as participant observation
(at times as part of an institutional ethnography), to shed light on power imbalances from a different angle. Such approaches
have been taken up, for example, in economic and political geography.
Critical geographers have also responded to ethical dilemmas around voice and representation by engaging in more intersec-
tional practices of reflexivity. Early reflexive practice in geography often assumed that participants and researchers could exist in
either entirely separate or overlapping social positions. The researcher was thought to hold a position of relative privilege, and
the participant, a position of relative disempowerment. Interventions by feminist scholars of color, and by scholars whose work
situates them between the Global South and North, have been crucial to complicating this binary understanding of power. Geog-
raphers continue to reflect on the complex ways that power flows through research relationships. Various axes of social difference,
such as ability, age, caste, class, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and more, can come to matter in unexpected ways
during any given interview. Further, geographers have reflected on the impossibility that researchers can hold complete knowledge
of themselves or know precisely how their identity shapes research relationships.
Finally, geographers have added depth to their reflexive practice by advocating for reflexivity not simply as an intellectual exercise
that acknowledges the existence of power imbalances but as a launching ground for direct forms of political intervention. For some
social justice–oriented critical geographers, part of this effort is to make their research practices more accountable to the goals and
needs of the communities to whom their study relates, as elaborated further in the following section.

Methodological Accountability

When researchers discuss their research methods in academic publications, they often focus on what they diddfor instance, how
many in-depth, semistructured interviews they conducted and with whom. Lesser discussed is what researchers did not do. For
example, a researcher may decide not to pursue interviews with a particular population. When a researcher does conduct interviews,
participants may refuse to answer certain questions. Some potential participants may refuse to participate when recruited. Scholars
within and beyond geography concerned with decolonizing research methodologies are increasingly treating such refusals as
productive and worthy of discussion, rather than as a problem to be resolved.
 Interviews: In-Depth, Semistructured 407

Geographers and other social scientists have reflected upon how in-depth, semistructured interviews may not be appropriate for
every project. This reflection arises from the harmful history of the social sciences in propelling colonial dispossessions and other
forms of state violence toward marginalized groups. A key example is that knowledge produced by qualitative research about Indig-
enous peoples has historically been used to justify land dispossession in settler-colonial societies. This epistemological baggage has
not simply disappeared with the passage of time. Rather, it can carry forward through contemporary research, including through the
practice of conducting in-depth, semistructured interviews.
As mentioned, many social scientists have historically gravitated toward fieldwork-based qualitative methods like in-depth,
semistructured interviews and participant observation out of a desire to speak for or with marginalized populations. Although
a researcher may wish to align their project politically with the community to which their study relates, the outcome can still be
extractive or harmful. Scholars of critical Indigenous studies and critical race studies within and beyond geography have observed
that research about social inequalities often seeks to document stories of pain, driven by an unspoken assumption that simply pre-
senting these stories in an academic voice will convince powerful actors to implement change. This promise often goes unfulfilled in
any concrete way. Qualitative methods like interviews are one tool through which researchers continue to document stories of
adversity.
Scholarship concerned with decolonizing academic research methodologies has observed that although REB reviews seek to
mitigate harms toward participants, they do not necessarily prompt researchers to deeply examine the epistemological underpin-
nings behind their research agenda. Thus, the idea that academic research into experiences of adversity inherently creates a pathway
to social change tends to go unexamined. Further, the researcher continues to hold relatively free rein over deciding what sort of
project they want to conduct and with whom. Some scholars have argued that this unchecked academic authority individualizes
the researcher, distancing them from the communities to whom their study pertains. This distancing tends to emerge not only
through academic research with or about Indigenous peoples but in projects that span the Global South and North and in a variety
of projects that endeavor to speak for or with subaltern groups. As a result, research practices may serve to reinscribe imperial power
imbalances.
All this is to say that a researcher may undertake an entire research project without pausing to consider the political purpose of
the research. To help build greater accountability, geographers are engaging with efforts to decolonize research methodologiesdan
effort that has been elaborated by Linda Tuhiwai Smith and other anticolonial and antiracist scholars, including within geography.
To this end, geographers have advocated for making deliberate, informed choices in research methodology and accounting openly
for those choices. This effort can include engaging with refusal in the research process.
Engaging with refusal in the research process can mean a number of things. For one, researchers have found that in-depth, semi-
structured interviews are not always possible or appropriate for various research agendas. For instance, some researchers of settler
colonialism and other forms of state violence have written about their refusal to collect and publish painful or politically sensitive
stories when doing so would not be productive for the given community’s needs and goals. In practice, this could mean working
closely with a community but not seeking interviews with community members. When community members to whom the research
relates have already given interviews (e.g., for media, advocacy, or academic reports), some researchers opt to draw on this
secondary material in lieu of conducting their own interviews.
The work of geographers studying immigration enforcement practices in migrant-receiving regions like Australia, the European
Union, and the United States provides other examples of engaging with refusal. Some geographers have reflected on their choice to
avoid pursuing interviews within detention centers. Such decisions hinge not only on the locked doors and barbed wire fences
meant to keep observers out but crucially, on the researcher’s desire to avoid creating extra vulnerability for people who are
detained. These methodological decisions can be further driven by a desire to avoid asking people to repeatedly recite a painful
narrative, whether of their experience of displacement or of detention.
Continuing with the same example, geographers have written about strategies to conduct research about immigration enforce-
ment that avoid interviewing people in the moment when they are detained. The researcher may opt to conduct participant obser-
vation to learn about what goes on inside detention centers, perhaps by collaborating with advocacy groups. Another strategy is to
pursue interviews with people only after their release from detention. The researcher may also seek interviews with other actors with
relevant insights, like government officials and advocates. These interviews can be done in addition to, or in lieu of, interviews with
people targeted for immigration enforcement. Geographers have also triangulated or supplemented any interviews they conduct
with other research methods. Or, they may forgo interviews altogether for alternative methods that shed light on immigration
enforcement practices, such as textual analysis of government documents.
Researchers who do choose to conduct in-depth, semistructured interviews about any given topic are likely to engage with refusal
in a variety of ways. Some participants may refuse to reveal certain information during interviews, while other people refuse to
participate in the first place. Rather than framing these refusals as a failure or problem to be resolved, researchers are theorizing
them as revealing of how to better orient academic knowledge production toward social change, including by respecting the bound-
aries set by such refusals.
There are many good reasons to pursue in-depth, semistructured interviews, as this research method can offer unique insights
into how people understand their social worlds. Interventions within and beyond geography, seeking to orient research practice
toward social change, however, challenge geographers to interrogate the imperial heritage that even well-intentioned research
methods and agendas may carry. These interventions advocate for researchers to carefully examine why they wish to pursue methods
like the in-depth, semistructured interview. The goal is to encourage scholarship that is deliberate and open about methodological
choices and accountable for the outcomes of those choices.
408 Interviews: In-Depth, Semistructured

Conclusion

The in-depth, semistructured interview is a qualitative research method that has held a central role in the discipline of geography for
decades. Geographers have taken up new research areas and methods in recent years, qualitative and quantitative alikedfrom an
interest in the events of everyday life as they unfold to social interactions online to big data analysis. Nonetheless, geographers
continue to use the in-depth, semistructured interview regularly in their work, often as part of a mixed-methods approach. They
also continue to rethink how and where they conduct interviewsdfor example, by carrying out mobile interviews in a site significant
to the participant.
There is much more to interview practice than the logistical dimensions of how and where interviews are done, as the overview of
the politics of knowledge production around the in-depth, semistructured interview in this article suggests. Critical geographers
continue to examine why they gravitate toward research methods like interviews, and endeavor to build accountability for their
methodological choices.

See Also: Anticolonialism; Epistemology; Ethical Issues in Research; Ethnography; Feminism/Feminist Geography; Feminist Methodologies; Fieldwork;
Focus Groups; Intersectionality; Mixed and Multiple Methods; Participant Observation; Positivism/Positivist Geography; Quantitative Methodologies;
Questionnaire Survey; Racism and Antiracism; Social Studies of Scientific Knowledge; Subalternity; Subjectivity; Triangulation.

Further Reading

Coddington, K., 2017. Voice under scrutiny: feminist methods, anticolonial responses, and new methodological tools. Prof. Geogr. 69 (2), 314–320.
Crang, M., 2002. Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26 (5), 647–655.
Dowling, R., Lloyd, K., Suchet-Pearson, S., 2016. Qualitative methods I: enriching the interview. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40 (5), 679–686.
Elwood, S.A., Martin, D.G., 2000. “Placing” interviews: location and scales of power in qualitative research. Prof. Geogr. 52 (4), 649–657.
Faria, C., Mollett, S., 2016. Critical feminist reflexivity and the politics of whiteness in the ‘field’. Gend. Place Cult. 23 (1), 79–93.
Gubrium, J.F., Holstein, J.A. (Eds.), 2001. Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Kobayashi, A., 1994. Coloring the field: gender, “race,” and the politics of fieldwork. Prof. Geogr. 46 (1), 73–80.
Longhurst, R., 2010. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford, N., French, S., Valentine, G. (Eds.), Key Methods in Geography, second ed. Sage Publications,
London, England and Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 103–115.
Luker, K., 2008. Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.
Maillet, P., Mountz, A., Williams, K., 2017. Researching migration and enforcement in obscured places: practical, ethical and methodological challenges to fieldwork. Soc. Cult.
Geogr. 18 (7), 927–950.
Rose, G., 1997. Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 21 (3), 305–320.
Simpson, A., 2007. On ethnographic refusal: indigeneity, ‘voice,’ and colonial citizenship. Juncture 9, 67–80.
Sundberg, J., 2015. Ethics, entanglement and political ecology. In: Perreault, T., Bridge, G., McCarthy, J. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. Routledge, London
and New York, pp. 117–126.
Tuck, E., Yang, K.W., 2014. R-words: refusing research. In: Paris, D., Winn, M.T. (Eds.), Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 223–247.
Valentine, G., 2005. Tell me about.: using interviews as a research methodology. In: Flowerdew, R., Martin, D. (Eds.), Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing
a Research Project, second ed. Prentice Hall, Harlow, England and New York, pp. 110–127.

Relevant Website

Government of Canada, Panel on Research Ethics (2014) Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2). http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/
policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/.