Troubling power and knowledge creation dynamics through research subject inter-viewing: critically exploring the field of possibilities

Abstract

Interviewing is a commonly used qualitative method in social scientific research. However, researchers departing from feminist theories have long been critical of power and knowledge creation dynamics in the context of this method. In contribution to this literature, this article aims to introduce research subject inter-viewing, which is an interview guide-facilitated audio- or video-recorded interview between at least two research subjects. The researcher is the organiser and coordinator but is not present during the interview. Instead, the research subjects interview each other about the problem or phenomenon that the researcher delineates through interview topics, questions or vignettes. In this article, I critically explore research subject inter-viewing's field of possibilities through seven research subject interviews with fourteen participants. In this critical exploration, research subject inter-viewing changed the power and knowledge creation dynamics during the interview process. It shifted to a dynamic between research subjects changing the scope of knowledge creation through the research subjects’ initiatives. Therefore, research subject inter-viewing contributes an alternative approach to interviewing that facilitates a transformative shift of power dynamics and opens new ways of co-creating sensitive or cultural knowledge in an interview setting.

Keywords

Feminist epistemology feminist methodology interview knowledge creation power dynamics situated knowledges

Introduction

Relational power dynamics shape all forms of social interaction. Researchers departing from feminist theories have long been critical of power dynamics in knowledge creation in the context of research interviewing (Wahab, 2003; Taylor and Rupp, 2005; DeVault and Gross, 2007; Mendez, 2009; Duncombe and Jessop, 2012; Burgess-Proctor, 2015; Boucher, 2017). Accordingly, some have developed different interviewing approaches that challenge researchers to reflect on positionality and how they create research material (Porter et al., 2009; Warr et al., 2011; Fujii, 2017). Building on this literature, I have developed an interview approach called research subject inter-viewing (RSI). RSI is an interview guide-facilitated audio- or video-recorded interview between at least two research subjects, who may or may not know each other. The researcher is the organiser and the coordinator but is not present during the interview. Instead, it is the research subjects who, either in person or via video conference, interview each other about the problem or phenomenon that the researcher delineates according to their research aims. Together, the research subjects conversationally interpret interview topics, questions or vignettes provided by the researcher.

RSI is grounded in the rich foundation of interpretive social sciences that views knowledge as always situated and produced in specific social and historical contexts (Haraway, 1988). Like other interviewing approaches in this tradition, RSI is well suited for research that explores meaning making. It is not aimed at any particular ‘kinds’ (Hacking, 2007) of research subjects. However, the idea is that the research subjects should have some similarities according to their identities and/or knowledge backgrounds, like working in the same occupation or coming from the same cultural context. These similarities may change depending on the focus of the research. With that said, RSI may work well for research subjects who have experienced stigmatisation, marginalisation or oppression (Burgess-Proctor, 2015) since they have great potential for understanding and analysing their own and each other's experiences (Cooley, 1902; Du Bois, 1903; Hartsock, 1983; hooks, 1989). Used in this way, RSI can be a primary tool for creating research material or can be utilised in combination with other methods to contextualise and deepen researchers’ understandings. This article aims to further explore the field of possibilities of RSI in relation to power and knowledge creation dynamics. In this way, this article contributes RSI to the literature on feminist critiques of social science and offers alternative frameworks for understanding and conducting research interviews. Through the lens of situated knowledges (Haraway, 1988) and facilitated by the concepts of discursive practice and field of possibilities (Barad, 2003), I critically attend to the power and knowledge creation dynamics at play while doing RSI. I see power, in this sense, as operating through knowledge production, influencing what counts as legitimate knowledge and who gets to have authority over it. This question will guide this critical exploration: How does RSI shape the field of possibilities for relational power dynamics and knowledge creation?

Through seven RSIs with fourteen research subjects, this critical exploration shows how this approach shifts relational power dynamics and knowledge creation during the interview process through research subjects’ own initiatives changing the scope of knowledge creation. In the remainder of this article, I will detail how power and knowledge creation dynamics manifest in research interviewing, as well as other approaches to interviewing that seek to trouble these interactions. Then, RSI will be contextualised by outlining its theoretical and practical development through my research together with fourteen research subjects. The field of possibilities of RSI will then be critically explored as an imaginable alternative qualitative interviewing approach that is valuable and can be used in social scientific research. The article will culminate with conclusions on this critical exploration and the new directions in which it may take qualitative interviewing.

Relational power and knowledge creation dynamics in research interviewing

Research interviewing, one of the most used qualitative methods in the social sciences dating back to the early twentieth century, has become a hegemonic tool employed by many researchers with limited justification (Brinkmann, 2018). Maccoby and Maccoby classically define interviewing as ‘a face-to-face verbal exchange, in which one person, the [researcher], attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another person or persons’ (1954: 449). More recent understandings emphasise that the face-to-face aspect includes interviews done in person, virtually or online (Nehls et al., 2015). Through interviews, research material is generated via back-and-forth exchanges of questions and responses (Fujii, 2017). Cohen et al. (2007) add that interviewing is both a verbal and non-verbal method and that both aspects need to be considered in exploring the construction and negotiation of meanings. The interview is then a co-constructed systematised, rather than naturally occurring, tool used to deepen social scientific understanding, which can be organised according to various paradigms and theoretical perspectives associated with the differing interview types. For instance, one-on-one interviews between a research subject and a researcher or between multiple research subjects and a researcher. These types of interviews are then arranged as either structured, semi-structured or unstructured.

Interviewing is not a simple tool to collect information in any of its types. An interview is a place where information, or empirical knowledge, is created through relational power dynamics, or the negotiation of power asymmetries. As Schostak argues, interviews are ‘a place where views may clash, deceive, seduce, enchant’ (2005: 1). As a result, the research interview may be viewed as a dialogue characterised by different relational tensions. On the one hand, the researcher may be perceived by the research subject as having expert knowledge or a hidden agenda or as being a ‘cultural outsider’ (Brinkmann, 2018). That is, they may be positioned as having more power according to their scientific competence to initiate and define the interview, build rapport, ask questions, probe, take account of the time, video or audio record and carry out theoretical analysis (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009; Duncombe and Jessop, 2012). Or they may be positioned as simply a person who does not really understand what it is like to be in the position of the research subject.

On the other hand, researchers may be racialised or disadvantaged due to their gender or ethnicity in relation to the research subjects (Benney et al. 1956; Riessman, 1987; Zavella, 1993; Beoku-Betts, 1994; Lefkowich, 2019). Researchers may even be in danger in an interview situation due to their ideologies or identities in the presence of research subjects (Blee, 1991, 2002; Sehgal, 2009). Or, comparably, research subjects may be considered elite or skilled, due to high levels of education or to being publicly authoritative individuals who have an investment in being interviewed; this meaning that they have advanced skills in formulating what to say and how to say it during an interview (Ball, 2013; Glas, 2021). In these instances, the interview situation may evolve towards counter-control, or when research subjects withhold or talk around sensitive, theory-based or cultural knowledge during an interview with a researcher (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). Regardless of the case, or approach, power asymmetries manifest through power relations characterised by testing, negotiating and/or reinforcing inequalities (Alshenqeeti, 2014; Brinkmann, 2018). Power dynamics in this sense are fluid in the interview context (DeVault and Gross, 2007).

Whether the researcher is viewed as someone with whom the research subject should put on a show to present themselves in a good light (Ball, 2013), or the researcher feels that they are unable to ask certain questions clearly without interruption or being taken seriously, or whether certain facts are withheld and denied (Boucher, 2017), troubling power dynamics is worth exploring. As Kvale and Brinkmann argue, researchers should reflect on the role of relational power dynamics in qualitative research interviews as it raises epistemological issues about the implications for the knowledge produced and ethical issues about how to deal responsibly with power asymmetries (2009: 34). That is, these dynamics have consequences for research interviewing in nuancing and creating deeper understandings of the problem or phenomenon of interest in the research.

Interviewing to trouble power and knowledge creation dynamics

Power and knowledge creation dynamics have been problematised for a long time through the development of broad approaches including participatory action research (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005) and feminist ethnography (Stacey, 1988; Lather, 2001) and in the context of approaches to particular methods like interviewing. Some studies have shown that moving interviews into online spaces like video conferencing or emailing can contribute to a more democratic power dynamic between researchers and research subjects (Linabary and Hamel, 2017; Ślęzak, 2023). Others have developed strategies like those used in relational interviewing, which include active listening, becoming familiar with research subjects’ language and treating people with dignity and respect (Fujii, 2017). Many of these approaches, like in-depth interviewing, emphasise the reciprocity of the researcher and the subjectivity of the research subject (Kvale, 2006; Porter et al., 2009). Self-disclosure and creating knowledge collaboratively have also, for example, been used as a practice for building rapport and developing a close relationship with research subjects (Wahab, 2003). These approaches are even thought to provide a space where objections and hesitations voiced by the research subjects are considered in shaping, rather than limiting, the research (Tanggaard, 2008).

Other approaches, like self-interviews, have been designed specifically to create more opportunities for research subjects to reflect on what they want to say by creating the opportunity for them to record their own memories and thoughts using a written guide provided by the researcher (Keightley et al., 2012). Another approach called scaffolded focus groups has also been developed to prevent privileged, dominant, high-status and vocal research subjects from taking over the interview situation. In these interviews, researchers carry out individual surveys, small-group discussions and large-group discussions to ‘give’ each of the individual participants a voice (Rutledge et al., 2023).

In these specifically developed approaches to interviewing, as Fujii writes, ‘the data that [the researcher] and [the research subject] generate often take the form of stories that the latter tell about themselves and others’ (2017: 3). RSI, in comparison, facilitates dialogue through two or more research subjects who simultaneously respond to an interview guide that can be designed according to a researcher's aims as either semi-structured questions or more open ended and topic based. In this way, RSI is both collaborative and interactive – but also conversational. Scheibelhofer argues in favour of interview forms that put ‘the [research subject] at the core of the communicative act and in the drivers’ seats of the interview situation’ (2023: 1). And while approaches like reflexive (DeVault and Gross, 2007), interpretive and in-depth interviewing such as intensive interviewing (Scheibelhofer, 2023) draw on open-ended and narrative forms of engagement and require researchers to be reflexive about relational power dynamics, they still position the researcher as the primary ‘collector of data’ through interviewing. Comparatively, RSI requires researchers to align with agreeing methodological statements while remaining reflexive of power and knowledge creation dynamics. However, in using RSI, there is also an emphasis on research subjects’ capabilities to engage in meaning making for the creation of research material through actively repositioning the researcher as the co-creator.

More like RSI, there are even ‘joint’ or ‘dyadic’ interviews (Morgan et al., 2013; Caldwell, 2014; Polak and Green, 2016; Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018), which include two research subjects together in an interview with a researcher. The difference, of course, is that in RSI the researcher is not present. Most like RSI, there is also peer and reciprocal interviewing (Porter et al., 2009; Warr et al., 2011). These interviews are like RSI since the researcher is not present. However, they differ in three major ways. First, they require people who are not researchers to undergo training to interview each other. In peer interviewing, the interviewer is someone with a similar background to the research subject, and in reciprocal interviewing the interviewers are both research subjects. These interviewing approaches, then, still esteem researcher-like skills in the context of an interview. Second, they do not change the dynamic of the interview since one person asks questions and the other answers them. For instance, in reciprocal interviewing research participants alternate interviewing each other (Porter et al., 2009). Finally, these approaches are between two people whereas several research subjects can participate in a single RSI. In this context, RSI should be understood as a part of ongoing attempts to trouble, not solve, power and knowledge creation dynamics that contribute a new way of positioning the researcher and research participants to find different ways of co-creating knowledge.

Further troubling power and knowledge creation dynamics: the development of RSI

I have developed RSI based on my experiences in other forms of interviewing. For this reason, I use my research as a case to illustrate the development of RSI. My research critically explores preschool teachers’ gender equality work. Part of my focus is to delve into preschool teachers’ values and political ideologies. For this reason, Swedish Law and the National Ethics Authority in Sweden (Etikprövningsmyndigheten) consider my research material to be sensitive. Accessing preschool teachers who want to talk about these sensitive issues to create research material is challenging. Some have, for instance, told me they do not feel comfortable discussing these issues at all. And even those who agree to doing an interview do not always seem eager. For example, in the approximately sixty-five interviews that I have carried out, some preschool teachers have told me that they have read about gender equality in preparation for our interview or that they want to have the correct answer. Many of the research subjects have also mentioned that they are nervous about participating in the research. As a result, I have made my best efforts, as we researchers are taught, to build rapport.

The ethics surrounding building rapport are, however, controversial. Duncombe and Jessop write that in order ‘to persuade some of our women interviewees to talk freely, we needed consciously to exercise our interviewing skills in “doing rapport” with – or rather to – them’ (2012: 108). It is precisely this idea of persuasion that makes the ethics of this situation feel dubious. I have, for instance, communicated that I am not ‘out to get them’ and reaffirm that I am not going to determine whether what they are telling me is right or wrong. After I do rapport to them, they relax. But it is unnerving to have to go through all these motions of convincing them to trust me.

I have thought a lot about why preschool teachers need to be convinced in this way. I started to notice in previous literature that preschool teachers are positioned as objects instead of as research subjects with self-awareness who can convey their own meanings. For instance, in one quantitative study, survey questionnaire methods were used to explore preschool teachers’ understanding of the concept of gender equality (Wernersson, 2009). Their responses were limited to multiple-choice answers, which barred a nuanced understanding of preschool teachers’ knowledge. In another study, preschool teachers were observed to study their use of a pedagogical gender perspective without an opportunity to explain their personal actions in, for example, an individual interview (Ärlemalm-Hagsér, 2010). To make any conclusions about the meanings of the surveys and observations in these studies, the research material is represented through researchers’ interpretations from their knowledge perspective with limited input from research subjects. It is within this context and through my understanding of the practice of situated knowledges that RSI has been developed.

The practice of situated knowledges: RSI as an approach to interviewing

Research material that is represented through researchers’ interpretations from their knowledge perspective relies on a point of departure that knowledge is universal and objective. That is, it is the ‘faceless, bodiless and contextless knower, who can detach [themself] from the world and the objects of study, and then from an aloof and elevated position of surveillance produce objective knowledge’ (Lykke, 2010: 5). Haraway (1988) is a strong critic of the problem of viewing knowledge production in this way; accordingly, she has dubbed it the ‘god trick’. From this problem, she has developed the principle of situated knowledge, which states that knowledge is rooted in and restrained by social similarities, overlap, contradictions and differences. This is because knowledge creation is seen as deeply embedded in power structures (Mohanty, 1988). For instance, inequalities related to class, gender and ethnicity shape the sources, access and experiences of knowledge (Lykke, 2010; Loomba, 2015). In this sense, knowledge is not only situated but also practice. As Barad suggests, ‘practices of knowing and being are not isolable; they are mutually implicated. We don’t obtain knowledge by standing outside the world; we know because we are of the world’ (2007: 185). The practice of situated knowledge does not see truth as an intrinsic quality of knowledge, but as produced relationally through continuous and dynamic open processes over time. As Haraway (1988) might say, we are always in the belly of the monster.

In line with Haraway (1988), then, I reject the assumption that the researcher is the all-knowing, detached, contextless producer of objective knowledge. Instead, I agree with Lykke who argues that ‘there is no “outside,” no comfortably distant position from which the world can be analysed’ (2010: 5). And, through RSI, the researcher is not present for the interview but they are, simultaneously, not ‘outside’ of it either. Their ideas and focus are present through an interview guide, topics or vignettes, which are interpreted in different ways through the research subjects’ practice. Barad relevantly builds on this thinking:

There is in this sense no privileged position from which knowledges can be produced, as the researcher is of the world. Researching phenomena, then, is a methodological practice of continuously questioning the effects of the way we research, on the knowledges we produce. This unfolds itself as an ethico-onto-epistemology of knowing in being. Ethics is about being response-able to the way we make the world, and to consider the effects our knowledge-making processes have on the world. (2007: 381)

Key to this statement is Barad's (2007) ‘knowing in being’, which highlights the situatedness and the active role that we all have in knowledge production. In this way, the development of RSI as a method is concurrently the questioning of my role as a researcher and the ethical, ontological and epistemological positions of research subjects in previous literature that are focused on similar problems and phenomena.

Kvale (1996) highlights the idea that the process of interviewing can be an interchange of perspectives. Viewing the process of interviewing in this way underscores the role of human interaction in knowledge production. It also emphasises the social situatedness of processes used to create this research material. Interviews may then be viewed as neither subjective nor objective but instead as intersubjective (Laing, 1967). The ‘I’ in RSI stands for ‘inter-views’ to emphasise the intersubjectivity of this exchange between research subjects (Schostak, 2005). Research subjects are always co-creators in the material they in part produce during interviewing, including for instance audio, transcripts and research notes (Laing, 1967).

The scope of the research subject's co-creation of situated knowledge is always determined by a field of possibilities expressed through discursive practice (Barad, 2003). That is, the knowledge that research subjects create in the context of an interview is not simply discourse, or what is said. The field of possibilities is defined by what it is that ‘constrains and enables what can be said’, making it a dynamic and contingent multiplicity of possibilities that is neither singular nor static (Barad, 2003: 819); for instance, the topic of the interview, the questions asked, the other person they are talking to, the physical context, their knowledge. But also, the field of possibilities may be determined by power relations in the interview situation through silences, pauses, interruptions, lengthy monologues, commands, powerless language, facilitative phrases, disclaimers and back channelling (Boucher, 2017). Discursive practice arises from a field of possibilities and constitutes what a meaningful statement is. As a result, it is discursive practice and the field of possibilities that allow us to trouble the power and empirical knowledge creation dynamics of each interview situation.

RSI, then, makes way for research subjects’ ability to reposition themselves in the practice of knowledge from their own situated realities so that they may co-create social scientific research together. Removing the researcher from the immediate interview situation can be a way of troubling dynamics of power and knowledge creation by paving the way for different types of exchanges that can be understood by research subjects and researchers alike. The RSI constellation makes researchers and research subjects co-creators, which facilitates research subjects’ ability to practise situated knowledge. However, the theoretical analysis or ‘thinking with’ of the research material co-created with RSI needs to be done carefully; this aspect is, however, beyond the scope of this article.

Methodological design

The exploration into the field of possibilities of RSI for troubling power and empirical knowledge creation dynamics is based on a qualitative methodological design. In my research, RSIs have been deployed within a larger qualitative study to explore the ways that preschool teachers understand and do gender equality work. I had one semi-structured interview with each of the research subjects before they participated in the RSIs. In preparation for the RSIs, I coordinated appropriate meeting times and places; I suggested length, topic and questions, and set up recording possibilities. As a result of this design, research subjects were able to interpret the interview guide designed to be related to the aims of my research, which included four questions meant to facilitate meaning making. In the first question, there were sixteen vignettes or hypothetical situations related to gender equality work in preschools. Each participant picked two situations, four in total, to reflect on together. The last three sections included questions related to reflecting further on the situations by connecting them to their practical work.

The people who participated in this study are all preschool teachers in Sweden and were located and recruited for a larger study through purposive sampling. Out of twenty-one research subjects who participated in the larger study, fourteen preschool teachers chose to participate in the RSIs. The preschool teachers who chose not to participate in the RSIs either felt that they did not have time to do this interview or were ill with COVID-19. Two of these preschool teachers mentioned that they felt uncomfortable talking to another unfamiliar preschool teacher about topics related to gender equality in the preschool. Consequently, the preschool teachers who participated in the RSIs were from five different preschools located in four different municipalities on the west coast of Sweden. Participants self-identified as nine women, four men and one non-binary person and their ages ranged from late twenties to early sixties. This research has been reviewed and approved by the National Ethics Authority in Sweden (Etikprövningsmyndigheten).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all the RSIs were done over a video-conferencing platform. RSIs do not need to be carried out over a video-conferencing platform; however, in the case of my own research, it gave an advantage of flexibility that allowed for people with great physical distances from each other to meet and to choose where they wanted to be during the interview. There were seven interviews arranged through an online meeting-scheduling tool, which allowed for people to mark the times they were available to meet. I used a function that made all participants anonymous to each other, and only I was able to see their available times and first names. This strategy kept me from being able to pair them up myself, and instead made way for pairing them based on their availability. There were two cases where I had to ask participants if they could meet at another time than they had chosen. This was because they did not select the same time as another person. The pairs met for the first time on the video-conferencing platform.

Prior to the RSIs, research subjects received an informational letter about the research aims, questions and design. At the start of every RSI, I introduced the participants to each other. I did use their real first names to introduce them to one another and I noted the ethics of confidentiality and that they could decide together how much or how little they would reveal about themselves. I reminded them that in the published research they would be given pseudonyms and that their privacy would remain a top priority.

I did not send them the interview guide ahead of time because I wanted them to see, experience and interpret it for the first time together. I did not put the interview guide in the chat due to formatting issues, and did not attach it through the chat because that would require them to have multiple windows open on their computer. Instead, I showed the participants the interview guide through the ‘share screen’ feature on the video-conferencing platform. I read out loud through each part of the interview guide, before leaving. Key to this is that I just read the questions; I did not interpret them or elaborate on any intended meanings. Before leaving, I asked them if they had any questions or comments. Finally, I told them that I would be nearby if they needed me. I suggested that they wave their arms or yell for me in that case, since I was working with headphones on. I then left and put the computer about two metres away with the screen slightly turned away from my sight. I recorded the audio of their RSIs and transcribed other interviews while they talked.

The seven RSIs ended up being around forty-five minutes to an hour long each. This equated to a total of five hours and twenty-nine minutes of interview audio and 43,118 words of transcribed material. All RSIs were conducted in Swedish and translated into English. Research subjects were given the opportunity to read their transcripts and to approve these translations to ensure accuracy in their meaning.

For the purposes and aims of this article, the interview audio and transcribed material was analysed for themes related to the field of possibilities in this approach. The analysis of these interviews was then interpreted with the help of understandings of power, situated knowledge / knowledge as practice, discursive practice and field of possibilities put forth in the previous sections of this article.

Research subject inter-views’ field of possibilities

In this section, the question posed in this article is addressed through an analysis of the material created during seven RSIs. Through the lens of the theoretical understandings that underpin this research, the field of possibilities of relational power and empirical knowledge creation dynamics during RSIs is critically explored.

Relational power dynamics in RSI

After clicking on the video-conferencing link, I waited for the research subjects to arrive virtually. Doing these RSIs over a video-conferencing platform afforded research subjects even more control over the interview process, as they chose where to complete the interview from. As they entered the virtual space, I greeted them and introduced them to each other; this was standard for all seven interviews. After some brief chatting and reading through the interview guide, I asked if there were any questions. There were sometimes practical questions; for instance:

Karin: Do we choose and then take turns? Like I have a turn and then she has a turn? Or, do I choose mine and answer them all at the same time?

Megan: That is a really good question, very creative. No one has asked me that. But, you all can decide.

These types of practical questions can be understood in the context of relational power dynamics as a negotiation. For instance, Karin gave me the opportunity here to dictate how they should approach the questions and when each of them would discuss their chosen vignettes. This may indicate a power asymmetry, as I am viewed as the knowledgeable person in charge of the interview. In response, I tell her that she and her partner could decide together. The responsibility for determining the terms of the interview shift from researcher-research subject to research subject-research subject. For example, when I left, Karin asked her fellow research subject how she thought they should approach the interview and they decided together to take turns.

The shift in relational power dynamic to research subject-research subject is also exemplified in the level of engagement the research subjects had with one another. For instance, in several interviews when I came back to scroll down to the next part of the interview guide, something I would not have had to do in an in-person RSI, the two research subjects would maintain their conversation as if they didn’t notice that I was there. I would always wait to see if they would give me attention, which exhibits my own reflexivity of power dynamics, but they always kept talking. The boundaries of the interview, in this sense, did not include me, the researcher. In each of these interviews, I would say something like:

Megan: Excuse me, I am sorry for interrupting, but I just want to see if I should scroll down for you all? Or, should I come back?

In one interview, the research subjects both laughed, saying they hadn’t realised I was back. My physical presence would, however, have likely been more salient if the interviews had been done in person in a location of my choice. Then they explained that they had not finished: ‘You can come back in a few minutes’, they said. In this example, which is like other instances, they chose the timeframe of the interview and whether I should be there.

Another indicator of a shift towards a research subject-research subject dynamic was laughter, which was common throughout all the interviews, mainly in the context that the research subjects laughed together or made each other laugh. Elizabeth laughed at what she referred to as Caroline's ‘relatable’ work experiences; Erik and Benjamin laughed at how often they agreed with one another; Ester and Mattias laughed at their own similar experiences with colleagues. Erik told me after the RSI that it was fun to talk to Benjamin and that he forgot he was being audio recorded or that we would all be able to listen to the conversation later. Erik said: ‘I felt relaxed, you know, like I was just talking to a colleague’. In this sense, laughter may indicate the intersubjectivity of RSI, and the absence of the one-way dialogue noted in other approaches to interviewing. Relatedly, to say that he just felt like he was talking to a colleague may be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the shift in power dynamics created during an RSI through the removal of the scientific competence of a researcher.

The shift, then, of power dynamics from researcher-research subject to research subject-research subject is interesting material to analyse further. Towards the beginning of the RSIs, power asymmetries could be seen through the negotiations around the approach to the interview guide and taking turns talking. In several cases, for example, one research subject would typically be given and/or take the lead over the other. Ester and Mattias asked their partners how they would prefer to do things. In both circumstances, Ester and Mattias were the younger and less experienced preschool teachers.

Relatedly, Erik, who was the older more experienced preschool teacher in his pairing, took the lead by reading all the questions aloud, making sure that they had chosen different vignettes before starting and keeping track of the time in answering the questions. He continuously checked in with his partner, Benjamin, to see if these decisions were okay. Benjamin gave him the ability to continue, saying things like ‘it's a good idea’ or ‘yeah, we can do that’. In all these circumstances, then, the power negotiations seemed to be co-produced through research subjects checking in and confirming with one another.

Kristen and Eva, who come from two different cultural backgrounds, illustrated a different power dynamic that shifted throughout the interview. Namely, Kristen, the younger, less experienced preschool teacher, talked more than Eva at the beginning of the interview. They were supposed to choose two vignettes each, yet Kristen chose three and interrupted Eva multiple times while she was speaking. There was a change towards the middle of the interview, however, when I came back to scroll down for them. It was primarily Eva who talked to me about the scrolling and after that she tended to talk more and even began steering the interview by telling Kristen at some point, ‘we need to go back to that question’.

The need for my presence was sometimes a factor that limited the ability of research subjects to move through the interview guide because the interviews took place through a video conference. For instance, when Caroline yelled ‘HEY MEGAN, CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE?’. Or when Lisa suggested to Helena ‘Should we say to Megan that we are done? […] Megan?!’. This limited their ability to completely steer the interview themselves, as they were reliant on the interview guide and on my help in scrolling through it via my shared screen. I was called back into the interview for clarifications a few times, like in this exchange between Benjamin and me:

Benjamin: IS THAT HOW IT WORKS MEGAN?

Megan: What did you say?

Benjamin: Do we only consider four choices in part B?

Megan: No, you can consider all sixteen of them.

Benjamin: Ah okay!

Here, then, I did direct Benjamin and Eric on the number of vignettes to consider but not on how to consider them. Whether or not I was needed for practical help or clarification on how to navigate through the interview guide, some research subjects did negotiate more of a power balance, or a relatively equal exchange, amongst themselves.

Caroline, Elizabeth, Helena and Lisa seemed to find a power balance through their negotiations. Out of these four research subjects, none of them formulated an idea of approach to the interview guide as a command but rather as a question. During Caroline and Elizabeth's interview, when one would start to talk while the other was talking, they would both stop and encourage the other to continue. Helena and Lisa spoke relatively equally, rarely interrupted each other and tended to talk for longer periods; they mutually encouraged each other to talk too. For instance, Lisa said ‘I just keep babbling, what do you think about it?’. Consistent in both research subject interviews was that each research subject took time at the start to discuss their personal and work identities. Both pairs found similarities and reflected upon them together before approaching the interview guide.

Empirical knowledge creation in RSI

From the start of each interview, research subjects did follow the interview guide; however, they consistently created a dialogue around it too. For instance, they would probe with questions and even silence in every interview by asking ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ or pause while the other thought through their response. Helena continuously made ‘mm’ sounds as Lisa talked, as if reminding her that she was listening and to continue.

Research subjects changed the interview possibilities by regularly asking questions that were not in the interview guide. For instance, after learning about the time Elizabeth and her students spend outside, Caroline asked ‘How have you adapted your outdoor play? Have you read about it or prepared for it in any certain way?’. In this sense, she developed questions that break from the interview guide but are still relevant to the research aims. In another interview, Dennis and Malin did not follow the interview guide for around twenty minutes while still discussing relevant issues. The dialogue around the interviews led to research material that was more detailed and complex than simply answering the questions in the interview guide.

There were even instances when research subjects either posed questions that I would have not known to ask or brought up topics I would have not known to bring up. For instance, they would ask questions related to administrative routines and computer programmes that I was not familiar with. Caroline discussed a computer programme she uses to plan her work and Elizabeth followed up to ask her about aspects of the programme. This highlights the significance of the research subjects’ similar knowledge backgrounds. For example, in Karin and Ester's exchange related to children's literature:

Karin: I read a book called Stop! It Is My Body! Have you heard of it?

Ester: Yes, it is that one from Save the Children Organisation, right?

Their similar knowledge backgrounds are also related to research subjects’ tendency to, for instance, mention examples from their own experiences, leading them to compare with the interview guide and even with each other. The comparison of experiences with the other research subject led to a variety of exchanges. For instance, many examples of their own experiences turned into exchanges of similar experiences. Ester said that she had been in a similar situation as in a vignette and told Karin how she responded to it. Afterwards, Karin said that she has also experienced this type of situation and explained how she handled it.

Agreement between research subjects was common in each RSI, with Benjamin and Erik even joking that they had better disagree soon. Sometimes agreement was immediate, and the research subjects related it to their shared knowledge or similar experiences. However, research subjects sometimes agreed after negotiation and discussion. Dennis and Malin, for example, had an exchange where they disagreed in the beginning and then discussed it and negotiated. Dennis said ‘Let's look at the facts […]’ as he presented research-based evidence. He and Malin discussed this empirical evidence and agreed that there are different ways of viewing the problem. In this sense, their discussions and negotiation led to them reaching ‘conclusions’ together, which thereby shaped the knowledge creation of my research.

Disagreement between research subjects was common in every interview. Ester and Karin, for example, would develop their different stances and seemingly saw each other's perspectives while still reaching different conclusions. In a related situation with Mattias and Britt-Marie, Mattias showed his disagreement by saying ‘Yeah, you could do that, but I think it is hard. You don’t want to make it into too big of a deal […]’. He said ‘you could’ and then gave an alternative way of handling the issue. Frida said something similar in her interview with Karl after he said he would handle a situation in a particular way. Frida said ‘You could say: the child has a name […]’. These ‘you could’ statements, then, were a way of expanding on a response to a vignette or question that was different from the other research subject participating in the interview.

The differences between the research subjects do not end with their disagreements. Their exchanges led to them discussing the differences in their thoughts and practice. For example, Karin explained to Esther that they do not have a pretend home area in their class for kids to explore role play. Instead, they have boxes with role-play stuff and the kids can play in any part of the room. In this example, the paired research subject, Ester, thought this was a good idea. It was common throughout all the RSIs to discuss differences and then give each other ideas related to theory and practice. For instance, Helena and Lisa paused more than once throughout their interview to note something that the other one said they would like to do in practice. Many of the research subjects noted that they learned from each other during the RSIs.

Discussion

Troubling relational power dynamics through RSI changed the field of possibilities by shifting the power dynamic in the interview situation from a first-hand, researcher-research subject dynamic towards a research subject-research subject dynamic. This shift was denoted in three main ways. First was when power negotiations moved from between researcher and research subject to between research subjects. The negotiations between research subjects were related to, for instance, how they should approach the interview guide in terms of taking turns talking and managing their time, which would otherwise have been determined by the researcher in traditional forms of interviewing (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009; Brinkmann, 2018).

The second way the change can be seen is through the researcher's need to renegotiate a position in the interview. For example, the new dynamic led to me, the researcher, being ignored upon re-entrance into the interview situation, leading to a need to renegotiate a position with research subjects who then determined when I should return or if I was needed in the interview (Brinkmann, 2018). This can be understood as me, the researcher, being shut out of the interview situation. It may be safe to assume that my presence would be more salient if the RSIs were done in person in a location chosen by me. In any case, the boundaries created through, for example, ignoring me constrained my ability as the researcher to participate in or contribute to the interview situation.

The third way that the power shift can be observed is through the power asymmetries created by negotiations between research subjects. That is, power asymmetries that developed between research subjects can be related to social identities like age, level of experience and cultural background (Boucher, 2017). For instance, research subjects with ‘matching’ (Buford May, 2014) social identities spoke more equally, did not interrupt each other and made sure that they both responded. These similarities facilitate what Buford May (2014) calls insider moments, wherein ‘interests converge and [research subjects] are able to share in the kinds of interactions that yield important insights’ (2014: 117). In contrast, research subjects with different ages, genders and levels of experience seemed to develop a ‘leader’ in the interview who took responsibility for the guide and steered the interview, sometimes interrupting or talking more than the other research participant (Boucher, 2017). In this sense, RSI does not remove power asymmetries but shifts the power dynamic, changing the field of possibilities according to research subjects’ age, experience, culture/ethnicity/race, gender and sexuality rather than pre-determined roles within the interview context.

The shift in power dynamics can be further understood as the repositioning of the researcher and the research subject, namely through the acknowledgement of the research subject as a co-creating human subject rather than an object (Laing, 1967). In this sense, the researcher is still a co-creator of the research and does not stand objectively outside its parameters, as they are still creating material through organising the interview, creating an interview guide, contributing to the analysis, etc. (Lykke, 2010). However, the primary dynamic is between research subjects, which impacts the field of possibilities and discursive practice. This is largely related to RSI breaking away from the ‘one-way’ dialogue common in other forms of interviewing (Brinkmann, 2018) where one person informs another (Maccoby and Maccoby, 1954). Instead, it fostered a place of exchange between people where negotiation emerged, and both people involved presented their own situated knowledge.

The shift in power dynamics changed the field of possibilities related to empirical knowledge creation in two primary ways. The first way is the possibilities for empirical knowledge creation changed, as they were no longer restricted by the knowledge base of a researcher. For example, the interview guide used in this research did not limit the exchanges between research subjects, as they created their own dialogue through their initiatives of probing or deviating from the interview guide. That is, they asked questions or had discussions related to, but not included in, the interview guide based on their mutually similar experiences or knowledge. The deviance from the interview guide may be viewed as problematic in some research, especially if research subjects lose focus or if their discussions lead to agreements made from politeness (Brinkmann, 2018). However, the important point here is that, in this research, the research subjects in each pair seemed to know more about how to probe on the topic since they are experts in their own culture.

A second way that the field of possibilities changed related to empirical knowledge is through fostering an exchange that transformed potentialities based on the research subjects’ similar knowledge backgrounds. For instance, they brought up topics and had discussions I would not have been able to facilitate. These exchanges that were related to similar knowledge backgrounds meant that agreements and disagreements were part of the research material, making it possible to follow negotiations between research subjects on the social phenomena central to the research questions. In this case, it is the exchanges based on having a similar knowledge background that gave way to agreement and disagreement, which is considered uncommon in the context of a research interview. This is because in other interview approaches researchers do not typically explicitly communicate that they agree or disagree with a research subject (Kvale, 1996). However, problematically, research subjects consistently appearing to agree may be groupthink or missing the aims of the interview guide entirely (Tursunovic, 2002).

Conclusion

This article aimed to explore RSI's field of possibilities specifically related to relational power and empirical knowledge creation dynamics. In contribution to a robust conversation within feminist human subject research around power and knowledge creation dynamics, this research has shown through seven RSIs including fourteen research subjects the value of removing the researcher, and researcher-like skills, to reposition research subjects as ‘drivers’ in the interview situation. This removal changes the dynamics of power and knowledge creation in the research interview situation. RSI shifts from a researcher-research subject to research subject-research subject power dynamic. This was seen when the researcher renegotiated a space upon returning to the interview situation and when power asymmetries based on age, experience, culture/ethnicity/race, gender and sexuality developed between research subjects. The approach made negotiation, discussion, agreement and disagreement possible in the context of a research interview. Removing the researcher also meant that research subjects drew on their similar knowledge backgrounds instead of being limited by the researchers’ knowledge. They reflected on their own experiences and understandings to ask questions that I, the researcher, would not have known to ask. RSI, in this sense, showed a great potential to be open ended or more unstructured because the people in the interview did not have research aims or questions in mind when given the interview guide. These discoveries may be seen as a way of changing the field of possibilities. In this sense, RSI contributes an alternative interviewing approach that facilitates a transformative shift of power dynamics and opens new ways of co-creating sensitive or cultural knowledge in an interview setting. This interviewing approach is compatible with a variety of broader approaches that seek to trouble power and knowledge creation dynamics, like participatory action research and feminist ethnography, because it addresses power dynamics, creates a new way to amplify marginalised voices and repositions research subjects as co-creators of research. Future research could try RSI in person rather than over a video-conferencing platform, as well as exploring it in relation to theoretical analysis. Additionally, RSI could be explored concerning its potential when rooted in other scientific philosophical paradigms.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Ylva Ulfsdotter Eriksson and Jenny Bengtsson for the insightful discussions and thoughtful, close readings. Your guidance has been invaluable. I also wish to acknowledge the tremendous learning I experienced during the review process. The reviewers’ thoughtful and rigorous feedback contributed significantly to this work, and I appreciate the care and time taken to engage with it so thoroughly. My heartfelt thanks also go to the editorial collective at Feminist Theory for their support. And, above all, to David – thank you for always being my unwavering source of encouragement.

ORCID iD

Megan Rådesjö

References

Alshenqeeti

Hamza

(2014) ‘Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review’. English Linguistics Research, 3(1): 39–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n1p39.

Ärlemalm-Hagsér

Eva

(2010) ‘Gender Choreography and Micro-Structures – Early Childhood Professionals’ Understanding of Gender Roles and Gender Patterns in Outdoor Play and Learning’. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4): 515–525.

Ball

Stephen J.

(2013) ‘Political Interviews and the Politics of interviewing’. In: Geoffrey Walford (ed.) Researching the Powerful in Education. London: Routledge, pp. 108–127.

Barad

Karen

(2003) ‘Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter’. Signs, 28(3): 801–831.

Barad

Karen

(2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Benney

Mark

Riesman

David

Star

Shirley A.

(1956) ‘Age and Sex in the Interview’. American Journal of Sociology, 62(2): 143–152.

Beoku-Betts

Josephine

(1994) ‘When Black Is Not Enough: Doing Field Research among Gullah Women’. NWSA Journal, 6(3): 413–433.

Blee

Kathleen M.

(1991) Women of the Klan: Racism and gender in the 1920s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Blee

Kathleen M.

(2002) Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

10.

Boucher

Anna

(2017) ‘Power in Elite Interviewing: Lessons from Feminist Studies for Political Science’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 62: 99–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.05.003.

11.

Brinkmann

Svend

(2018) ‘Interviews’. In: Norman K. Denzin Lincoln

Yvonna S.

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 997–1038.

12.

Buford May

Reuben A.

(2014) ‘When the Methodological Shoe Is on the Other Foot: African American Interviewer and White Interviewees’. Qualitative Sociology, 37(1): 117–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9265-5.

13.

Burgess-Proctor

Amanda

(2015) ‘Methodological and Ethical Issues in Feminist Research with Abused Women: Reflections on Participants’ Vulnerability and Empowerment’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 48: 124–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.10.014.

14.

Caldwell

Kate

(2014) ‘Dyadic Interviewing: A Technique Valuing Interdependence in Interviews with Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities’. Qualitative Research, 14(4): 488–507.

15.

Cohen

Louis

Manion

Lawrence

Morrison

Keith

(2007) Research Methods in Education. London: 6th edn. Routledge.

16.

Cooley

Charles H.

(1902) Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons.

17.

DeVault

Marjorie L.

Gross

Glenda

(2007) ‘Feminist Interviewing: Experience, Talk, and Knowledge’. In: Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber (ed.) Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 206–236.

18.

Du Bois

William Edward Burghardt)

(1903) The Souls of Black Folk. Champaign, IL and Boulder, CO: Project Gutenberg and NetLibrary.

19.

Duncombe

Jean

Jessop

Julie

(eds) (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

20.

Fujii

Lee Ann

(2017) Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. 1st edn. New York: Routledge.

21.

Glas

Aarie

(2021) ‘Positionality, Power, and Positions of Power: Reflexivity in Elite Interviewing’. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(3): 438–442.

22.

Hacking

Ian

(2007) ‘Kinds of People: Moving Targets [Lecture]’. British Academy Lecture, 151: 285–318.

23.

Haraway

Donna

(1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’. Feminist Studies, 14(3): 575–599.

24.

Hartsock

Nancy C. M.

(1983) Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York, NY: Longman.

25.

hooks

bell

(1989) Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston, MA: South End Press.

26.

Keightley

Emily

Pickering

Michael

Allett

Nicola

(2012) ‘The Self-Interview: A New Method in Social Science Research’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(6): 507–521.

27.

Kemmis

Stephen

McTaggart

Robin

(2005) ‘Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere’. In: Norman K. Denzin Lincoln

Yvonna S.

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 559–603

28.

Kvale

Steinar

(1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Kvale

Steinar

(2006) ‘Dominance Through Interviews and Dialogues’. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3): 480–500.

30.

Kvale

Steinar

Brinkmann

Svend

(2009) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

31.

Laing

Ronald D.

(1967) The Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

32.

Lather

Patti

(2001) ‘Postbook: Working the Ruins of Feminist Ethnography’. Signs, 27(1): 199–227.

33.

Lefkowich

Maya

(2019) ‘When Women Study Men: Gendered Implications for Qualitative Research’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919872388.

34.

Linabary

Jasmine R.

Hamel

Stephanie A.

(2017) ‘Feminist Online Interviewing: Engaging Issues of Power, Resistance and Reflexivity in Practice’. Feminist Review, 115(1): 97–113.

35.

Loomba

Ania

(2015) Colonialism/Postcolonialism. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.

36.

Lykke

Nina

(2010) Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Maccoby

Eleanor

Maccoby

Nathan

(1954) ‘The Interview: A Tool of Social Science’. In: Lindzey

Gardner

(ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology. 1st edn. London: Addison-Wesley, pp. 449–487.

38.

Mavhandu-Mudzusi

Azwihangwisi H.

(2018) ‘The Couple Interview as a Method of Collecting Data in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Studies’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1): 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750994.

39.

Mendez

Jennifer B.

(2009) ‘Globalizing Feminist Research’. In: Martha K. Huggins Glebbeck (eds)

Marie-Louise

Women Fielding Danger: Negotiating Ethnographic Identities in Field Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 67–96.

40.

Mohanty

Chandra

(1988) ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’. Feminist Review, 30(1): 61–88.

41.

Morgan

David L.

Ataie

Jutta

Carder

Paula

Hoffman

Kim

(2013) ‘Introducing Dyadic Interviews as a Method for Collecting Qualitative Data’. Qualitative Health Research, 23(9): 1276–1284.

42.

Nehls

Kimberly

Smith

Brandy D.

Schneider

Holly A.

(2015) ‘Video Conferencing Interviews in Qualitative Research’. In: Shalin Hai-Jew (ed.) Enhancing Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research with Technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 140–157.

43.

Polak

Louisa

Green

Judith

(2016) ‘Using Joint Interviews to Add Analytic Value’. Qualitative Health Research, 26(12): 1638–1648.

44.

Porter

Elaine

Sheila

M. Neysmith

Marge

Reitsma-Street

and Stephanie

Baker Collins

(2009) ‘Reciprocal Peer Interviewing’. International Review of Qualitative Research, 2(2): 291–312.

45.

Riessman

Catherine Kohler

(1987) ‘When Gender Is Not Enough: Women Interviewing Women’. Gender and Society, 1(2): 172–207.

46.

Rutledge

Stacey A.

Gilliam

Elizabeth

Closson-Pitts

Brittany

(2023) ‘“I’m Being Heard Right Now”: Amplifying Individual Voice Through Scaffolded Focus Groups’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(1): 67–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1973272.

47.

Scheibelhofer

Elizabeth

(2023) ‘The Interpretive Interview: An Interview Form Centring on Research Participants’ Constructions’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22: 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231168748.

48.

Schostak

John

(2005) Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

49.

Sehgal

Meera

(2009) ‘The Veiled Feminist Ethnographer: Fieldwork Among Women of India’s Hindu Right’. In: Martha K. Huggins Glebbeek

Marie-Louise

(eds) Women Fielding Danger: Negotiating Ethnographic Identities in Field Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 325–352

50.

Ślęzak

Izabela

(2023) ‘Navigating Power Dynamics in Virtual Interviews with Sex Workers During COVID-19: A Researcher-Participant Perspective’. Qualitative Report, 28(9): 2562–2581.

51.

Stacey

Judith

(1988) ‘Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1): 21–27.

52.

Tanggaard

Lene

(2008) ‘Objections in Research Interviewing’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(3): 15–29.

53.

Taylor

Verta

Rupp

Leila J.

(2005) ‘When the Girls Are Men: Negotiating Gender and Sexual Dynamics in a Study of Drag Queens’. Signs, 30(4): 2115–2139.

54.

Tursunovic

Mirzet

(2002) ‘Fokusgruppsintervjuer i teori och praktik’. Sociologisk Forskning, 39(1): 62–89.

55.

Wahab

Stéphanie

(2003) ‘Creating Knowledge Collaboratively with Female Sex Workers: Insights from a Qualitative, Feminist, and Participatory Study’. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4): 625–642.

56.

Warr

Deborah

Mann

Rosemary

Tacticos

Theonie

(2011) ‘Using Peer Interviewing Methods to Explore Place-Based Disadvantage: Dissolving the Distance Between Suits and Civilians’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5): 337–352.

57.

Wernersson

Inga

(2009) Genus i förskola och skola: Förändringar i policy, perspektiv och praktik. Gothenberg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

58.

Zavella

Patricia

(1993) ‘Feminist Insider Dilemmas: Constructing Ethnic Identity with “Chicana” Informants’. Frontiers (Boulder), 13(3): 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3346743.