Advertisement

The Process of Engagement: Hard to Reach or Easy to Ignore?

  • Stevie-Jade HardyEmail author
  • Neil Chakraborti
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Hate Studies book series (PAHS)

Abstract

This chapter begins by highlighting the overarching aims of our research before discussing the methodologies employed within each study. In particular, it focuses on the complexities and challenges associated with researching diversity, and more specifically with attempts to engage with, and to collect data from, groups and communities considered ‘hard to reach’. This chapter draws from the methodological dilemmas encountered during fieldwork to illustrate that it is only through developing a more nuanced, less formulaic approach to conducting research that social scientists will achieve more inclusive constructions of ‘difference’, more complete accounts of victimisation and a more comprehensive understanding of the specific issues and problems facing different communities.

Keywords

Hard to reach Diverse communities Engagement Victims Qualitative Survey 

References

  1. Ahn Lin, H. (2009). Race, bigotry and hate crime: Asian Americans and the construction of difference. In B. Perry (Ed.), Hate crimes volume 3: The victims of hate crime (pp. 65–84). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  2. Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, L. (2014). Everyday sexism. London, UK: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, C., Jansson, M., Millar, A., & Phillips, R. (2005). Community-academic research on hard-to-reach populations: Benefits and challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 15(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, J. (1999). Gaining access to underresearched populations in women’s health care research. Health Care for Women International, 20, 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhutta, C. B. (2012). Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakeslee, J. E., Del Quest, A., Powers, J., Powers, L. E., Geenen, S., Nelson, M., et al. (2013). Reaching everyone: Promoting the inclusion of youth with disabilities in evaluating foster care outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1801–1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal, 204(8), 429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, E. (2010). Developing email interview practices in qualitative research. Sociological Research Online, 15 (4). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/4/8.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, T. (2008). ‘We’re over-researched here!’: Exploring accounts of research fatigue within qualitative research engagements. Sociology, 42(5), 953–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, D. (2015). Cognitive interviewing practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Denner, J., Cooper, C., Lopez, E., & Dunbar, N. (1999). Beyond “giving science away”: How university- community partnerships inform youth programs, research, and policy. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development, 13(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devota, K., Woodhall-Melnik, J., Pedersen, C., Wendaferew, A., Dowbor, T. P., Guilcher, S. J. T., et al. (2016). Enriching qualitative research by engaging peer interviewers: A case study. Qualitative Research, 16(6), 661–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., et al. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. End Child Poverty. (2018). More than half of children now living in poverty in some parts of the UK. Available at https://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/more-than-half-of-children-now-living-in-poverty-in-some-parts-of-the-uk/. Accessed 22 October 2019.
  20. Farrant, F. (2014). Unconcealment: What happens when we tell stories. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleetwood, J. (2009). Emotional work: Ethnographic fieldwork in prisons in Ecuador. Special Issue: Critical Issues in Researching in Hidden Communities, pp. 28–50.Google Scholar
  22. Friemuth, V. S., & Mettger, W. (1990). Is there a hard-to-reach audience? Public Health Reports, 105(3), 232–233.Google Scholar
  23. Froonjian, J., & Garnett, J. L. (2013). Reaching the hard to reach: Drawing lessons from research and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(12), 831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garland, J., Spalek, B., & Chakraborti, N. (2006). Hearing lost voices: Issues in researching “hidden” minority ethnic communities. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hesse-Biber, S., & Burke Johnson, R. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jewkes, Y. (2012). Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: Doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liebling, A. (1999). Doing research in prison: Breaking the silence? Theoretical Criminology, 3(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez, O., Wu, E., Shultz, A. Z., Capote, J., López Rios, J., Sandfort, T., et al. (2014). Still a hard-to-reach population? Using social media to recruit Latino gay couples for an HIV intervention adaptation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Medland, A. (2011). Portrait of the West Midlands. Office for National Statistics. London.Google Scholar
  31. Mohebbi, M., Linders, A., & Chifos, C. (2018). Community immersion, trust-building, and recruitment among hard to reach populations: A case study of Muslim women in Detroit metro area. Qualitative Sociology Review, 14(3), 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Office for National Statistics. (2012). Ethnicity and national identity in England and Wales: 2011. Available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11. Accessed 22 October 2019.
  33. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issues in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  34. Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2017). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Sandelowski, M. (1994). Focus on qualitative methods: Notes on transcription. Research in Nursing & Health, 17(4), 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shirazi, F., & Mishra, S. (2010). Young Muslim women on the face veil (niqab): A tool of resistance in Europe but rejected in the United States. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2014). Analysis: principles and processes. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 199–218). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Tyler, K. (2004). Reflexivity, tradition and racism in a former mining town. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(2), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vershinina, N., & Rodionova, Y. (2011). Methodological issues in studying hidden populations operating in informal economy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(11/12), 697–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yeo, A., Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2014). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 177–210). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Zempi, I. (2016). Negotiating constructions of insider and outsider status in research with Veiled Muslim women victims of islamophobic hate crime. Sociological Research Online, 21(4), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CriminologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations