Temporary Transience and Qualitative Research: Methodological Lessons from Fieldwork with Independent Travelers and Seasonal Workers

Entering “the field”

Novice researchers preparing for fieldwork are often given a plethora of advice from more seasoned researchers and instructional texts. Central to this advice is often the importance of “gaining entry” into a particular field. ¹ To gain entry and access to people who can help researchers learn and explore research questions, students and researchers are taught to identify important informants in a setting, especially gatekeepers (Fontana & Frey, 1998; see also Bailey, 1996; Jorgensen, 1989). To this end, it is suggested that the researcher either “start at the top” (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002; Jorgensen, 1989), working with a community member with high status, or develop a relationship with someone who is well networked within the community (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Thus, researchers are encouraged to contact key people in the field.

In contexts with stable group formations in which hierarchies and networks are established, this advice might serve researchers well. However, fieldwork with transient populations emphasizes the shortcomings of traditional ethnographic paradigms. For instance, is it possible to identify gatekeepers among a group of backpackers from various countries who have little or no connection to one another or among newly arrived seasonal workers with little connection to one another and the larger community? If gatekeepers do, in fact, exist within these communities, what is their role vis-à-vis other community members?

In the case of independent travelers, there is a social network that is constituted by shared travel experiences and narratives (Sorenson, 2003). However, this network is continuously disrupted by the ongoing mobility that underpins such travel. In this setting, there is no hierarchy, and there are no key informants. In any possible capacity as a gatekeeper, the best a participant can offer is introductions to other participants. By contrast, the community of seasonal workers in which Melanie was working had more structure than the backpacking community and, as a result, appeared to have more potential gatekeepers to facilitate access to the worker. By virtue of being workers who reside (albeit temporarily) in the community, they have employers and landlords. In her study of seasonal workers Gallagher (1997) contacted the management of one of the largest apartment complexes and seasonal employers to gain access to their tenants and employees; however, she still had many problems securing participants. Seasonal workers had little connection with their employers and landlords. Moreover, they did not feel connected with the community and thus had little vested interest in contributing to research about it, at least through the formal hierarchical structures of work and housing. The use of such formal avenues to access high-status individuals, with the assumption that they were, indeed, gatekeepers, as a means of gaining access to seasonal workers was not practical because of this dissociation, a likely hindrance for Gallagher's attempts to locate participants for her study.

This lack of social structure also complicates suggestions to ask permission to conduct research. Even scholars who do not assume that there are formal gatekeepers in every setting almost always suggest that researchers gain permission to access the setting informally (see Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002). Yet among the temporarily transient populations with which we worked, there is no person or organization that represented the community and could thus be used as a contact point through which to request permission. Although gaining permission was not feasible and thus not a major undertaking for our research, Dewalt and Dewalt distinguished between gaining permission and gaining access. They suggested that permission is granted most often through formal gatekeepers, whereas access is a more informal and difficult process through which researchers are able to secure access to individuals or events.

In this sense the lack of gatekeepers and official community representatives facilitated research inasmuch as seasonal workers and independent travelers have loose social networks that were relatively easy to access. Participation in independent travel, and thus membership in the network of independent travelers, is open to anyone with appropriate dress, behavior, or associates (Sorenson, 2003). Membership also turns on geography as most cities have a “backpacker ghetto” (an area of high-density, low-budget accommodation, restaurants geared to travelers' tastes and budgets, and shops with souvenirs appealing to the aesthetic of independent travel; Hottola, 2005; Spreitzhofer, 2002; Suvantola, 2002) and participation in appropriate activities (Spreitzhofer, 2002). Given the decentered character of travel, there were no formal organizations or spaces that would have enabled contact with travelers. Within these places and because she presented a discernable traveler appearance, social networks were easily accessible to Kristin simply because of a shared “foreigner” identity. As Sorenson, Spreitzhofer, and Suvantola each experienced, simply being a backpacker provided Kristin with full and unmediated access to other backpackers as potential research participants.

Although there were no organizations representative of seasonal workers in Jasper, some organizations were tangentially related. To begin developing her connections with seasonal workers and integrating into their social networks, Melanie decided to approach these community organizations following Lofland and Lofland's (1995) suggestion that gaining entry to a research site is facilitated by connections in that location. The first organization she contacted provides a broad range of services and support to all members of the community, including seasonal workers. From there she was referred a local HIV/AIDS organization. Most of their programs are directed toward seasonal workers with a major goal of reducing HIV and other sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates among youth. These organizations specifically target the social activities of seasonal workers. For example, they distribute condoms in local bars twice each week, organize social events (including a volleyball tournament), provide tours to various local attractions for seasonal workers, and host a fashion show. Through these activities they help to cultivate a more cohesive social network of seasonal workers. The sponsored events, along with the community-building events, provided Melanie with better opportunities to integrate into the network of seasonal workers.

Melanie was also able to make her way into a less organized social network using her connection with the HIV/AIDS organization. The staff was particularly helpful in facilitating her entry into various social networks. In addition to several members of the staff agreeing to be interviewed and to talk about their experiences working with youth in Jasper, they invited her out to parties and to the bar, an entry point that proved invaluable. Unlike the travelers in India, who openly welcomed new people to their collectives, the seasonal workers tended to stick to themselves after they had established relationships with other workers. By the middle of the summer seasonal workers distinguished other workers from tourists, with whom, for the most part, they did not socialize. Without the initial introduction and contact from the HIV/AIDS organization and its staff, it would have been much more difficult for Melanie to distinguish herself from tourists and become accepted as part of the local young adult group.

Gaining acceptance

Because of their transient nature networks of independent travelers and seasonal workers (at least at the beginning of the summer) were open to newcomers. In addition, unlike research that tends to study “up” or “down” (Luff, 1999, and Fine, 1998, respectively), our respective research took place in communities that were not socially distanced from us. As a result, although there were variations between the researchers and individual participants, including the potential barriers of difference in sexual orientation, racialization, or social status (Reinharz, 1992), these dissimilarities were often overcome by other shared characteristics. Because of our assumed ages; our appearances, which to some extent involved taking on the specific dress practices of seasonal workers at the bar and of western independent travelers; our participation in appropriate social and recreational activities; and our presence and temporary transience in the same geographical space, we were able to move through the relatively weak exclusionary boundaries that defined our respective subcultures and pass as members of the group.

In India transience facilitated not only getting into a porous network but also bringing individuals into the study because travelers and Kristin (as both traveler and researcher; Sorenson, 2003; Spreitzhofer, 2002) were strangers eager to approach and engage with one another. Recognizing each other as foreigners, travelers shared both experience and advice away from ostensibly untrustworthy Indians affiliated with the tourism industry. Because people were moving quickly between locations and were often arriving in places of which they had no knowledge other than the sketch in their guidebook, trust in other travelers was quickly established regardless of whether the other travelers were actually able to provide useful information. Instead, this trust was founded on the basis of a perceived shared identity and against the assumed deception of locals working in the tourism industry.

Once initial contact had been made, which might have consisted of something as inconsequential as asking directions or whether the food at a given restaurant was palatable, rapport developed between travelers. Given the small populations of travelers and the relatively small geography of the tourist district, repeat encounters were likely, each of which contributed to an informal relationship. Moreover, because traveler routes were entrenched through available transportation routes and guidebooks (Spreitzhofer, 2002), it was not uncommon to meet the same person in multiple places along the way despite traveling separately. On these occasions subsequent meetings were strangely like reunions with close friends, and in interviews that took place during our second or third encounter, participants were far more candid in their discussions and reflections.

The one limiting factor to a fully open membership of travelers was that of road status (Sorenson, 2003). This status, Sorenson has argued, constitutes a hierarchy through which adherence to appropriate forms of travel are policed, and backpacking is reproduced as a relatively coherent institution despite its unstable population and ever-shifting field. Road status, as Sorenson defined it, “comprises hardship, experience, competence, cheap travel, along with the ability to communicate it properly” (p. 856); it is the evidence that for backpackers travel is not a vacation, as it is assumed to be for tourists. When approaching random travelers with the intention of proposing interviews, Kristin was frequently subject to a display of such traveling status to establish a hierarchy of travel practices. This hierarchy had the ability to facilitate or shutdown the possibilities for interviews. In one instance Kristin met and chatted with a few travelers while waiting for a train. While trying to find a place in the conversation to insert an interview request, the other travelers asked what class of train she was using. When she replied “second a/c [air conditioned],” the response of the travelers was one of poorly disguised distaste. Kristin's decision to use middle-class forms of travel rather than the least expensive (and highest road status) option terminated this conversation and any potential to propose an interview.

Whereas outside of specific challenges to her road status Kristin was essentially integrated into the activities by sitting and drinking chai in the courtyard of a guesthouse, Melanie had to make a much more deliberate effort to participate in the chosen activities of seasonal workers. Correctly assuming, based on Gallagher's (1997) experience, that many workers would be reluctant to spend their free time doing interviews, Melanie guessed that they would instead prefer to spend their time off socializing with friends, hiking, biking, climbing, or participating in some other activity facilitated by living in the mountains. Thus, she planned on participating in social activities with seasonal workers to get to know them and talk with them about casual sex. Envisioning herself with a plethora of hiking partners, discussing the intricacies of “hooking up” and heterosex while trudging up the picturesque mountain slopes, she assumed that these young workers were drawn to the mountains for the same reason she is: the sports and activities. It quickly became clear that this was not the case. The majority of seasonal workers in town were there for the social life of drinking and partying, not the tranquil mountain adventures that are the realm of the permanent residents and tourists. Thus, rather than having conversations while hiking up slopes, her social activities most often consisted of going to the bar and to house parties.

When workers arrived in Jasper, they tended to develop relationships with other seasonal workers and for the most part did not socialize with locals. This segregation was partly due to locals' reluctance to open up to seasonal workers or to build lasting friendships with people who would inevitably leave at the end of the summer. Given the lack of interaction of seasonal workers with both locals and tourists, it was important for Melanie to portray herself in ways similar to seasonal workers to be trusted by them and to be allowed access to their group. This self-representation was accomplished in part through connections with the local HIV/AIDS organization and through participation in various social activities. In addition, simply by being in town for a longer period, Melanie began to be recognized by workers as someone who had been around town for a while. Often when she met new people, they asked her where she worked, assuming that she, too, was a transient employee.

Although working and living with seasonal workers would have further facilitated Melanie's access to participants, these would also have posed barriers to her research. Prior to entering the field, Melanie contemplated working in Jasper at one of the local businesses. This employment would have provided her with greater access to seasonal workers and helped to establish rapport and social networks, as most young adults socialize with coworkers. However, most businesses required staff to work full-time hours. Such a commitment would have made it difficult to schedule interviews, participate in social activities, and find time to work with data.

It might also have been possible for Melanie to share accommodation with seasonal workers as another means through which to develop rapport and to participate in their social activities, including more opportunities to hear stories about their casual sex experiences. Instead she chose to live with a woman who ran a bed and breakfast. This decision provided her with a break from the active social lives of the workers and the space to write field notes and begin data analysis. It also provided a space in which she could ensure the security of her data and the anonymity of her participants.

Meeting and recruiting participants

Having established herself as part of the community of independent travelers, mostly by sharing their spaces, Kristin found it relatively easy to meet travelers and invite them into the study. In day-to-day public sites, such as guesthouse courtyards, restaurants, buses, trains, and shared taxis, as well as sites of tourist activities, it was ordinary to begin conversations with unknown travelers. Sorenson (2003) suggested that because backpackers have no shared culture beyond their travel, their conversations with one another generally draw on travel experiences. Thus, in such conversations a common question is “Why did you come to India?” Once conversations began, Kristin used this question as a launching point to tell the person about her research. In this way, the lack of shared culture of the backpackers beyond their travel experiences not only enabled introductory conversation but provided an easy means through which Kristin could disclose her social location as a researcher and make a formal request for an interview. These interviews were often conducted on the spot (see below) and took place in a variety of locales, including rickshaws, trains, beaches, and restaurants, similar to Spreitzhofer's (2002) experience:

The interviews took place both in the urban backpacker centres…as well as along the guidebook-defined trails across the region: in traveler restaurants and on locals markets, at airports and bus stations, climbing Sumatra's volcanoes and relaxing in the shade of buddhist wats, sweating on Indonesia's crowded pelni ferries as well as freezing in Malaysia's air-conditioned coaches, even on Cambodia's “Killing Fields”—in short, wherever western-style backpacking was evident. (p. 119)

Melanie employed a variety of recruitment methods, including placing posters around town, handing out flyers, talking about her research at staff orientations and other events throughout the summer, and approaching staff at the local bars. She also met potential participants through snowball sampling and referrals from people she knew. Considering that the group in which she was interested was new to town, staff orientations were used to as a method to inform newcomers to Jasper about her study. However, the most successful recruitment strategy was talking with people in social settings and in bars. This success reinforced Melanie's understanding of the relationship that seasonal workers have with the town and the community: Social relationships were of utmost importance, and the spaces in which these relationships were enacted were the best places to identify and relate to the young seasonal workers. In these settings Melanie was viewed as a peer and thus more trustworthy than in the formal settings of staff orientations.

Arranging interviews with transient participants

The transient nature of the seasonal workers in Jasper created interesting challenges to arranging and maintaining appointments. Gallagher (1997) found it difficult to get in contact with participants because they had limited or no phone access. Unlike Gallagher, Melanie found that almost all seasonal workers had phone access at home or through a cell phone. She purchased a cell phone for her time there and, in a technological sense, found it was easy to keep in touch with potential participants. However, at times it became difficult to find people who were willing to give up some of their time to participate, the same problem confronted by Harrison (2003). The seasonal workers were more interested in being interviewed in their first couple of weeks in town, earlier on in the summer, when they did not know many other people and were looking for ways to fill their free time. Later in the summer recruitment was more difficult; seasonal workers had established social networks and were reluctant to schedule an interview because they would rather spend time with their friends. As their priority was having a good time, people were willing to sit down and have an interview with Melanie as long as it did not interfere with their social plans. Thus, interview scheduling became difficult when the weather was great and participants proposed going to the beach for the day or camping for the weekend, activities that resulted in some people “forgetting” about interviews. In one instance a participant told Melanie that his roommate had planned a party for the evening his interview was scheduled, so he could no longer do the arranged interview because he had to help prepare for the party.

Another difficulty was the seasonal workers' lack of stability. Very few people had firm plans about how long they would stay in town. One participant said she was staying into the fall and then left in mid-August. Melanie also received a phone call from a participant 5 minutes before her scheduled interview appointment saying that she had to pack because she decided to leave town the next morning and did not have time to participate. Thus, although their full-time employment suggested a more permanent and stable residency, seasonal workers were still somewhat unpredictable in their decisions to stay in town.

Volatility was similarly problematic for Kristin. With independent travelers, serendipitous timing was critical to arranging and conducting interviews within unpredictable travel schedules. At least four interviews were lost when travel plans changed on short notice. An older couple who Kristin had made arrangements to interview simply did not show up. As they had seemed very interested in the opportunity to talk about how their experience was much different than many other independent travelers given their age, it is possible that their no-show was due to participation in recreational activities that were more interesting and conflicted with the appointment (much like the social lives of seasonal workers) or simply not being able to find the meeting place. In other instances, potential participants changed their minds about partaking in activities at the last minute or ended up indulging in too many intoxicants to conduct the interview to which they had agreed. These instances were exacerbated by Kristin's transience: The decision to move repeatedly and often on short notice was in keeping with the mobility practices of independent travelers, yet it often subverted research practices by moving Kristin away from participants who might have agreed to an interview after a slightly longer period.

Although a lack of free time was not an issue for Kristin's research in the same way that it was for Melanie's project, and a range of participants could be found participating in a range of activities, contact with participants was difficult in a more logistical way. Unlike the seasonal workers, few travelers had cell phones, and given that Kristin was one of the many without and that public phones were erratic in availability and functionality, phones were of little use to the project. E-mail was similarly frustrating, as Internet cafés were sometimes difficult to find, occasionally very expensive, and not infrequently marred by a poor (or absent) connection. Even if phones or e-mail had been useful, designating a place to meet in an area that is poorly known to both people was a complicated proposition. Even some “obvious” meeting places did not lend themselves to researcher and participant getting together. For example, Kristin made arrangements to meet a participant at his hotel in Bangalore, but the front desk of the hotel reported that not only did they not have a person by the participant's name, no such room number existed. Kristin subsequently learned that there are three hotels of the same name in the city.

The difficulties of meeting up with potential participants for both Melanie and Kristin underscored the need to be able to interview on the spot should an opportunity present itself, an orientation that resulted in multiple interviews in a single day if willing participants were present. Unlike ethnographic practices that emphasize a long-term engagement with a few people, the temporary presence of seasonal workers and independent travelers meant that “instead of prolonged interaction with the few, fieldwork has had to be structured around impromptu interactions with the many” (Sorenson, 2003, p. 850). For both Melanie and Kristin's projects, preparedness to conduct an interview on the spot was essential. Both traveled with information sheets, consent forms, recorders, microphones, and spare batteries, as well as interview schedules at all times, a strategy particularly useful for those transient groups in which people are not in the habit of making appointments days in advance.

Confidential space

Conducting research outside of an area with a university meant a lack of suitable space to hold interviews for both researchers. For Melanie's study in particular, one of the key concerns on entering the field was to find a suitable place for interviewing that would protect both the confidentiality of participants and her safety. Sometimes spaces that were safe and private were complicated by their politics. Although it was necessary to use the office space offered to her by the HIV/AIDS organization, Melanie had concerns that participants would associate her with the organization and would change and color their stories. Fortunately, the organization is known predominantly for handing out condoms and does not seem stigmatized as an AIDS organization. When setting up interviews, Melanie made it clear that the organization was lending her office space but that she was not a part of their organization. Most participants interviewed in the office of the AIDS organization did not mention the space and seemed comfortable, although a couple of participants expressed interest and surprise at many of the items in the office, including condoms, female condoms, lube, and pamphlets related to many sexual and relationship health issues. Although many people were willing to be interviewed in the office, others preferred meeting elsewhere. Ultimately, Melanie conducted interviews in a variety of locations, including a yoga loft, coffee shops, participants' apartments, ² two bars, and outdoor spaces in addition to the office space.

Melanie did not notice a difference in the depth or tone of interviews conducted in private spaces as compared to those done in public spaces. At first she was unsure about how interviews in coffee shops would go, considering that the space was public and, as such, she could not guarantee confidentiality or anonymity. However, the participants were generally quite open and willing to talk about their experiences in these public places. In some ways it seemed as though some participants felt that public locations were more anonymous than meeting in the office. If people saw them sitting with her in a coffee shop, they would assume that they were friends just “out for coffee,” whereas if someone saw the interview taking place in the office, it would be more obvious that it was not just a casual conversation that was taking place.

For independent travelers, confidential space was much less of a consideration. While working through the consent form with participants, several brushed aside the issue of confidentiality and told Kristin that they did not care if she used their real names or that it did not matter if people knew who they were. Kristin conducted interviews in many public spaces, such as restaurants, trains, beaches, and guesthouse courtyards, as noted above. In many of these instances, English-speaking Indians and tourists were present and were often obviously listening to the interview. In fact, it was extremely difficult to arrange private interviews with individuals because of the social nature of independent travel as well as the lack of private space. In several instances the participant's traveling companion was present during the interview, an arrangement that seemed to bolster the confidence of the participant. One interview was conducted with a group of the participants' friends present. This participant chose to do the interview in front of an audience even though there was space with greater privacy available away from the courtyard. Furthermore, Kristin's traveling companion sat in on many of the interviews with the permission of the participant. Likely because they were speaking about the same kinds of topics and ideas they would have spoken about in a casual conversation, and because these topics were more global than personal in nature (as opposed to Melanie's work on sexual consent), independent travelers were very unconcerned with having their confidentiality protected in spite of Kristin's ethical obligations to do so.

Perceptions of anonymity

Because of the number of travelers in any given tourist district and the distance of travelers from one another on returning to their homes, travelers often had the sense that they were anonymous. Because of the transience of their time in India, their relationship with the researcher, and their lifestyle while overseas, few travelers had reservations about participating or about speaking their mind during the interview, including making racist or sexist comments. Indeed, in some ways the perceived anonymity that enables travelers in general to take risks uncharacteristically (Gogia, 2006), violate prohibitions (Diken & Lausten, 2004), and reconstruct themselves (Noy, 2004) was reproduced in the interviews Kristin conducted.

For some participants, this sense of anonymity stemmed from the low likelihood of ever encountering the researcher again, an overt explanation that was likely complemented by the decreased presence of the social norms and filters of their own country on foreign geographies (see Diken & Lausten, 2004). Feeling anonymous, many participants spoke to issues related to colonialism using language that they might have been less likely to use in their own countries:

This is India and baksheesh [roughly “bribe”] system is a very nice system if you have money and as a Westerner you have money so you always able to do whatever, to get to whatever you want to get, not always but most of the case. If you push harder enough they will in the end, they the Indian people will do whatever you want because you're the white man. I have no idea why it's like that, but I'm using it for me. As long as I don't screwing anybody else, why not? (Daniel)

Thus, a participant's sense of anonymity worked to overcome possible reluctance to speak about a potentially politically delicate subject (see below).

Similar to Kristin's field work, Melanie found that many seasonal workers were willing to talk with her and tell her about their experiences of casual sex. Their loose connections to the community and short duration of their time in town gave them a sense of anonymity that they might not have felt in their hometowns. The phrase “what happens in [town] stays in [town]” also applied to the interview situation: Like their sexual experiences, the interview would not follow them back to their home town. This attitude contrasted sharply with that of one of the interviewees who grew up in town and was quite concerned with ensuring his confidentiality. Prior to the interview he asked Melanie many questions regarding her qualifications and training, including the ethics procedure. He made several amendments to the consent form, including the removal of the statement allowing Melanie to use direct quotes in her dissertation and subsequent publications. As a local in Jasper he was acutely aware of the potential for rumors and wanted to make sure that his stories did not circulate around Jasper.

In light of his concerns, Melanie was shocked that he wanted to conduct an interview in one of the local pubs. She offered to use the office instead, but he said that he was more comfortable in the bar. Although he did not explain his choice, it could be that a bar gave him the cover of a date or going “out for a beer,” given the inconspicuous recording device. On the other hand, if other locals saw him walking into the HIV/AIDS office with Melanie, they might have had some questions about what he was doing, and why. During the transcription of his interview, it also seemed that he might have intentionally picked a place with high levels of background noise so that it would be less likely for Melanie to catch what he was saying verbatim. Although the use of public space seemed to compromise his anonymity, the high level of background noise reinforced his confidentiality because it would have been difficult for anyone to overhear his interview.

Delicate subjects

Transience exacerbates the special considerations necessary when dealing with sensitive and potentially volatile topics (see Fontana & Frey, 1998). There were some important ethical concerns for Melanie regarding her project, considering that the topic is deeply personal. Although her research interest was exclusively about consensual sexual experiences, she was aware of the potential for some participants (especially women) to share potentially painful stories of sexual violence. In similar circumstances researchers often put together a reference sheet for resources and will refer participants to a counseling agency if required. In a small town there was very little in the way of support for survivors of sexual assault in the immediate community. In addition, the transient nature of seasonal workers meant that participants were from all over Canada and thus might need to seek support in other places across the country. To address this possibility, Melanie located some national resources to refer people to agencies outside of the immediate area if necessary.

Although not as sensitive a topic as sexual consent, the colonial legacies that frame their travel experiences was often an uncomfortable subject for independent travelers. The topic of the interviews made it easy to draw people into the study as well as to conduct the interviews. Asking travelers about their reflections on their travel experiences and the meaning of their travel was similar to discussions had by travelers generally. The interviews were conducted conversationally, so on finishing the interview, several people responded “That's it?” or “Come on, ask me some more questions!”

Although Kristin was interested in their experiences and the stories that they told—narratives that were likely to turn up in more general settings—she was also interested in aspects of travel that are less often discussed, such as perceptions of poverty, the relationship between their country and India in the context of poverty, and the significance of their travel in the context of colonial legacies. Compared to more superficial topics, such reflections required considerably more trust, something that was difficult to build during impromptu interviews or interviews with travelers with whom Kristin had no relationship. Moreover, the presence of other travelers typically made participants less willing to engage seriously with thornier issues and more likely to joke their way through such questions. Given the difficulty in arranging independent interviews, serious engagement with overtly political topics was tricky to build. Shifting the discussion from descriptive travel questions (e.g., “Where have you been so far?” and “What has been your favorite/least favorite experience?”) to more critically reflective discussions resulted sometimes in satire of the research and sometimes in a defensive stance, both of which would not only make the interview uncomfortable but also shut down the very reflections Kristin was seeking.

Using commonly shared travel experiences to open the interview helped to build rapport and dialogue and often provided experiences or comments that Kristin could use to frame the more difficult questions as they arose. Furthermore, the informality of the interview and Kristin's questioning self-presentation (in contrast to critical frame of the study) reduced the threat of many difficult questions and made it possible for participants to have sufficient trust as to speak outside of filters of political correctness.

Another tactic involved participating in jest at the serious issues and turning it back on the participant. After one participant's intentionally bizarre response to the different experiences of men and women travelers, one of his friends told Kristin that she should have expected such a response. When Kristin replied jokingly that she was surprised by the remark because “he seemed intelligent all day,” the participant laughed and continued the interview, taking the questions more seriously.