In a deleted scene from the hit movie Pulp Fiction, the crime boss’ wife, Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman), interviews hitman Vincent Vega (John Travolta) using a handheld video recorder. It’s a shame that the scene was taken out of the final movie because it teaches some good lessons about interviewing. Mia explains that it is her job as the interviewer to make the interviewee feel comfortable as interviews can be rather awkward in their formality. She then asks Vincent, “When in conversation, do you listen, or do you just wait to talk?” To which he replies, “I wait to talk, but I’m trying to listen.” Many of us, if we are honest, are probably like Vincent. We wait to talk. When conducting interviews, however, it is important that we learn to listen.

In this chapter, the qualitative interview method is defined, and its uses are outlined. The techniques for collecting qualitative data and creating interview guides are also reviewed. Included here is a discussion of power, reflexivity, and relational accountability. The focus then shifts to focus groups as well as sharing circles, a qualitative method often relied upon by Indigenous researchers and other researchers in their work with Indigenous communities.

When and How to Conduct Qualitative Interviews

Interviews are a method of qualitative data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers. An interview is like a conversation but one conducted with a purpose. The researcher designs the questions to elicit information from participants on a specific topic or set of topics. Typically, interviews involve an in-person meeting between an interviewer and an interviewee (also called a respondent). They need not be limited to two people, nor must they occur in person.

Interviews are a great way to gather detailed information. They are also useful when the topic is complex, when the questions require lengthy explanation, or when participants may need extra time or to engage in dialogue with others to work out their answers. Additionally, if the topic is one about which people will likely have a lot to say or you want them to reflect on their experience or describe some process, then interviews may be the best method.

In sum, interview research is especially useful when a researcher:

• wishes to gather very detailed information.
• anticipates wanting to ask respondents for more information about their responses.
• plans to ask questions that require a lengthy explanation.
• wants to access personal experience.
• has a complex or confusing topic.
• has a topic that involves studying thought or decision processes.

Interview Techniques

Qualitative interviews are sometimes called intensive or in-depth interviews. These are knowledge-producing conversations or acts of meaning-making that take place between the interviewer and interviewee (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011). Qualitative interviews often employ a semi-structured framework, which means that the researcher has a particular topic they want to hear about from the respondent, but the questions are open-ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent. This is made easier by the fact that interview studies typically sample a smaller number of people than surveys, often 30 people or fewer (van den Hoonard, 2019). In-depth interviews aim to hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand and to hear it in their own words.

Qualitative interviews involve open-ended questions, which are questions a researcher asks that do not provide pre-selected answer options. Open-ended questions are harder to answer because they require respondents to come up with their own words, phrases, or sentences in response. To respondents, qualitative interviews may seem more like conversations than interviews, but in reality, the researcher guides the conversation to ensure the respondent talks about information relevant to the topic and goals of the research project.

Creating Interview Guides

While qualitative interviewers may not ask the same questions in the same way to every respondent, the researcher develops a guide in advance that they then refer to during the interviews. The interview guide contains a list of topics or questions the interviewer wants to cover. You can think of an interview guide like your to-do list for the day: both contain the items you hope to check off or accomplish, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if you didn’t accomplish everything on the list or in the exact order in which it’s written. See an example of an interview guide in Appendix B.

While there is flexibility, Kallio and colleagues (2016) suggest developing a semi-structured interview guide using a systematic and rigorous multi-stage approach, with the following steps:

• First, determine if an interview is appropriate to begin with.
• Then, develop an in-depth understanding of the topic, which may include a literature review and speaking to subject matter experts.
• Next, based on the existing and new understanding of the topic, design a tentative semi-structured interview guide including main questions and follow-up questions. You may begin by simply listing all the topics and questions that come to mind.
• Afterwards, pare down the list by cutting questions and topics that seem redundant and grouping similar questions and topics together.
• Lastly, test, evaluate and revise the interview guide before using it with actual participants (Kallio et al., 2016).

The order of the questions in the guide matters, as people need to warm up and feel comfortable speaking with an interviewer before they can talk about sensitive or controversial issues. It is usually best to avoid census-like questions up front (e.g., what is your age), as these sorts of closed-ended questions set a “just the facts” tone for the interview instead of preparing for a rich discussion of a person’s experience (Weiss, 1994). Opening with “How are you today?” will help set the right conversational tone and prevent the interview from feeling like a criminal interrogation.

Don’t use loaded terms, like “dangerous drugs” or “offensive pornography,” but do use context-appropriate language that draws on terms that participants understand. For example, if a participant uses a term like “down” (a colloquial term for fentanyl), it may make sense to use this term in your interviews rather than “opiates and opioids” (it may also be more accurate). Acronyms, though commonly used in criminal justice discourse, should generally be spelled out unless they are very common (such as RCMP in Canada).

As you develop an interview guide, try to follow a few important principles. First, avoid questions that can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”. If you choose to include such questions, make sure to include follow-up questions. In your follow-up questions, try to avoid asking a simple “why?” as it can come off as confrontational, even if that is not how you intend it. Besides, people often won’t know how to respond to “why” because they often don’t know why themselves. Instead, you might say something like, “Could you tell me more about that?” This allows participants to explain themselves further without feeling that they’re being doubted or questioned in a hostile way.

Good researchers always avoid asking leading questions. For example, rather than asking, “Don’t you think that people in your neighbourhood have a strained relationship with the police?” you could ask, “What comes to mind for you when you think about the police in your neighbourhood?” This avoids pushing the respondent to answer in a specific way and to simply agree with your “don’t you think” question. You should also avoid asking questions that can be answered without any knowledge about the topic, such as “Do you agree with the federal government’s new bail reform legislation?”; many people will provide an answer to a question like this, regardless of their actual knowledge of the topic (Palys & Atchison, 2014).

Qualitative interviews should also ask questions that draw out stories. Sometimes, respondents will give brief cursory answers instead of the in-depth responses that qualitative interviewers desire. In these cases, the interviewer can probe the respondent to elicit a more thoughtful, thorough response. A useful probing technique can be simply pausing and waiting without going to the next question. This may indicate that the interviewer is waiting for a more detailed response. Other techniques for eliciting more information include overt encouragement (e.g., an occasional “uh-huh”), asking for elaboration (e.g., “Can you tell me more about that?”), and reflective statements (e.g., “I’m hearing that you found the experience uncomfortable”) followed by a pause to wait for the respondent to elaborate.

Participants often offer markers about other topics that you may wish to explore when they are talking about something else (Leavy, 2017). Rather than interrupting the flow, you should jot these markers down and return to them later. By returning to a marker with a question like, “A moment ago you said that… could you elaborate on that point?”, you show both interest in what a person is saying while allowing them to expand on something that is particularly important to their narrative. End your interview with some variant of the question, “Is there anything else that I should have asked or that you would like to tell me?”

In summary, the  things to avoid when conducting qualitative interviews are:

• demographic questions at the outset
• closed-ended questions
• loaded language
• leading questions
• “yes” and “no” questions
• “why” as a follow-up question

Reflexivity

While an interview is similar to a conversation, it is also distinct from the simple back-and-forth flow that marks a casual exchange between friends. In addition to being more one-sided, the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee can contain notable power differentials. As such, it is important to work at reducing the degree of status hierarchy between the researcher and those they are working with (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011).

As the interviewer, you should strive to be more reciprocal in your exchange rather than purely extractive. This can be partly achieved through thoughtful reflection on one’s social position and the relational dynamics of the interview, a practice qualitative researchers call reflexivity. Status differences can never be simply erased, so researchers must be honest with themselves and their readers about how social distinctions affect their study. While it may seem less scientific to reflect on one’s social position, Sandra Harding (1993) explains that it is quite the opposite. By practicing reflexivity, we create the conditions for “strong objectivity” where the reality of social differences is acknowledged rather than hidden or ignored.

Documenting Interviews

When a researcher sits down to interview a respondent in a qualitative interview, they must have a way to record the respondent’s answers. Most qualitative interviewers make audio recordings of the interviews they conduct while still taking some notes. Recording interviews allows the researcher to focus on interacting with the respondent instead of being distracted by trying to take detailed notes. Of course, not all participants feel comfortable with being recorded, and the subject may be so sensitive that even asking respondents for consent to record the interview may be inappropriate. In these cases, the researcher must balance meticulous notetaking with exceptional questioning and all-star listening skills. Managing all these tasks simultaneously can be difficult and mentally exhausting for any researcher.

For these reasons, researchers (especially those new to interviewing) must practice their interviews in advance. Ideally, you’d find a friend or two willing to participate in a couple of trial runs with you. Even better, you’d find someone similar in at least some ways to the people in your sample, as they can give you the best feedback on your questions and your interview demeanour.

In general, it is better to do interviews in person as you can observe a person’s body language and respond to subtle cues that you would otherwise miss. In some cases, however, it may not be possible to meet directly. This was widely the case in 2020 when COVID-19 distancing guidelines made in-person interviews impossible (Ali et al., 2023; Mamdani et al., 2022). In such cases, the interviews are typically recorded with the consent of the participants and transcribed before being analyzed in the same way you would for an in-person interview. Recordings can be done within video conferencing software, such as Teams or Zoom. iOS likewise includes a call record and transcription function, as does Android.

Interviews and Indigenous Ways of Knowing

Disentangling Indigenous interviewing techniques from the Indigenous ways of knowing and being that inform these techniques is an impossible task. There is no one way to conduct an interview in an Indigenous way. Generally, Indigenous ways of conducting interviews reflect personal and cultural positionality. This may include incorporating ceremony (e.g., burning cedar and tobacco) into the interview process, consulting with tribal knowledge holders to develop an interview guide, or hosting a community meal/feast.

For example, in her interview-based research, Métis-Anishinaabe scholar Chantal Fiola (2015) conducted culturally-located research. She used a blend of Anishinaabe values, relational accountability, and Western research protocol with the aim of better understanding the intersection of Métis, Anishinaabe, identity, and spirituality. This represents a Two-Eyed Seeing approach to research (see the Introduction chapter and chapter 12 for more on Two-Eyed Seeing).

Fiola’s primary method of data collection included interviewing and recording participant stories. She used quota sampling (see chapter 8) and cultural practices to guide participant recruitment. During recruitment, Fiola presented a handmade asesmaa (tobacco) tie to “acknowledge and honor [sic] the participants’ knowledge, correct imbalances that may result from asking for their stories, and promise to respect these” (Fiola, 2015, p. 87). Before and during each interview, participants had the option of smudging with mushkodaywushk (women’s sage). Participants were gifted a handmade medicine bundle at the end of the interview.

Some Indigenous researchers have noted that interviewing itself is not an Indigenous methodology and have developed alternative approaches to collecting data, such as storytelling (Thomas, 2015), yarning (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010), and conversational methods (Fiddler, 2014; Kovach, 2019). Thinking about story data creates different expectations on the part of the researcher. For example, one should try not to interrupt a story to redirect it back to a preferred question. This allows participants to share stories in a holistic manner, rather than in a fragmented way, and gives more power to the storyteller. As Kovach (2021) notes, those who are culturally familiar with storytelling will naturally self-regulate. She further contends that story as a research method is congruent with an Indigenous approach to knowledge, which is required for any research that seeks to employ Indigenous methodologies.

The concept of relational accountability is central to Indigenous research methodology. Relational accountability means being accountable to all our relations (Wilson, 2008). This includes being responsible both for participants but also communities at large, the environment, the land, homelands, ancestors, and lived history. Other qualitative approaches, such as feminist methodologies and participatory action research, also value the relational (see chapter 12), but Indigenous methodologies “are relational at their core” (Kovach, 2021, p. 12). For research to embody relational accountability, it needs to consider all our relations and how we are showing respect and reciprocity to them. As Fiola shares, “In an Indigenous research paradigm, methodology is about relationships. If you want to understand someone or something better, you can increase your understanding of it by developing more relationships with it” (Fiola, 2015, p. 83).

Accountability also extends to the participant as they are held accountable to their knowledge. It is therefore uncommon for research employing relational accountability to use anonymous participants. Participants are commonly known to the researcher or are known to other participants.

Relational accountability guides every stage of research including the initial phases through to publication. Relational accountability positions researchers as intermediaries between the participants or community and the topic. The researcher is not the main authority, nor do they take ownership of the data gathered. The participants and community have the final say and maintain ownership of the research data and outcomes.

Focus Groups

Focus groups are planned discussions designed to elicit group interaction to gain a deep understanding of people’s experiences and perceptions of complex social issues. Historically, focus groups were more commonly used in market research. They were adopted in the 1940s by sociologists to study reactions to wartime propaganda (Merton & Kendall, 1946). Today, focus groups are used in fields as diverse as health research, social work, product development, and criminal justice studies (see this video clip for more on the origins and various uses of focus groups: Hector Lanz: How do focus groups work?).

As with an in-depth interview, a focus group is a meaning-making process but one that occurs within a group rather than a dyad (Kim, 2009). In this method, a researcher gathers a small group of people to participate in a facilitated discussion on a particular topic. The researcher serves as a moderator, a person who organizes and guides the discussion by posing questions or topics for discussion. They then let the group members discuss the questions or topic among themselves, with the goal of ensuring that everyone has a chance to respond, and observing interactions among participants.

A researcher conducting focus groups collects data on more than people’s direct responses to their questions; the group interaction is also a key focal point. During their conversations, participants may ask each other follow-up questions, agree or disagree with one another, display body language that tells us something about their feelings during the conversation, or even come up with new questions. Further, when people hear others talk, it can trigger responses or ideas they had not yet considered. These are the kinds of interactions and displays the researcher can focus on.

While focus groups can be expensive and time-consuming, group events may save time because they require fewer sessions than one-on-one interviews to collect data from the same number of people. Nevertheless, a focus group should not be approached simply as an expedient means of gathering more individual-level data. The group dynamics will affect who speaks (and how much) and who may remain silent. While there are ways to mitigate these issues (e.g., creating groups of people who occupy similar social positions), the fact that context affects how people communicate becomes part of the data. Focus groups tell us how people communicate when in a group and how meaning is constructed in a particular social context, which from a social constructionist perspective more reliably reflects how people develop their thoughts and opinions (Hollander, 2004).

Group Size and Composition

When forming focus groups, researchers must take care to form groups whose members will want to interact with one another and to control the timing of the event so that participants are not asked nor expected to stay for a longer time than they have agreed to participate. The researcher must also be prepared to inform focus group participants of their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of what is said in the group. At the same time, the researcher must also clarify to participants that the unique nature of the group setting prevents them from being able to promise complete confidentiality.

Researchers determine the size of focus groups in part by the topic of interest and their sense of how much participants will have to say about the topic. If the topic is sensitive or likely to invoke passionate responses and a lot of conversation, a group of three to five people may be ideal. Groups larger than that, especially for heated topics, can easily become unmanageable. For other more mundane or unfamiliar topics, a group of about six to ten participants may be the ideal size.

If you’re going to form a focus group, you’ll want to consider what you know about the topic and participants’ potential interest in, passion for, and feelings about the topic. You should also consider your comfort level and experience in conducting focus groups. These factors will help you decide which size is right for your research project. As this discussion indicates, the researcher ultimately decides the size of the focus group, and they may choose to conduct multiple focus groups on the same topic to increase their sample size.

Once you’ve decided to form a focus group, you’ll also need to consider who might be willing to talk to each other. It may seem counterintuitive but focus groups with participants who don’t know each other may provide more information than groups in which participants are friends, relatives, or acquaintances (Palys & Atchison, 2014). Hollander (2004) even found that women were no more likely to disclose assaults within all-female focus groups than they were in mixed-gender groups (Hollander, 2004; see also Currie & MacLean, 1997). This is not to say that groups should be so heterogeneous (meaning diverse) that people have a hard time connecting with each other, nor that homogenous same-gender groups cannot produce valuable moments for consciousness raising, which may well be an important goal of more action-oriented research projects (Montell, 1999; Wilkinson, 1998); rather, it is to emphasize that part of your role as a researcher is to be attentive to the way the group dynamics shape the data you are collecting.

Focus groups are particularly useful in gaining data from populations who are traditionally seen as difficult-to-reach; people who may feel unsafe, marginalized, or reluctant to speak are often best suited for focus group research (Kitzinger, 1994) because the focus group can serve as a safe space for people to share perspectives and experience (Dodson et al., 2007; Montell, 1999). Focus groups can create multiple voices and reveal more nuanced perspectives, even though the researcher ultimately remains the privileged speaker. In many ways, the researcher can “witness” the creation of meaning within the group as well as the dissenting voices of those who may not share the consensus viewpoint.

In sum, focus groups are especially useful when a researcher:

• is engaging with community and other stakeholders.
• seeks to find out more about a little-known topic.
• wishes to gather a diverse range of opinions quickly and efficiently.
• has a sensitive topic that participants may feel safer discussing in a group.
• wants to study group dynamics and how meaning is co-constructed.
• is using Indigenous methodology such as research-sharing circles.

Given their propensity to generate personal revelations, researchers must consider the appropriate level of self-disclosure amongst participants and set limits on how far the discussion should go. This is especially the case when participants already know each other. A useful way of setting such boundaries is to ask participants to think about how they might feel the following morning about what they shared in the group (Morgan, 1998). While noting that it is impossible to ensure confidentiality given the group setting, the moderator should always ask participants to honour the privacy of the group members (van den Hoonard, 2019).

Whatever composition a researcher designs for their focus groups, they must keep in mind the extent to which social contexts impact group dynamics. Participants’ silence as well as their speech may be shaped by gender, race, class, sexuality, age, and other background characteristics or social dynamics, all of which might be suppressed or exacerbated depending on the composition of the group (Hollander, 2004). As Asgar and Macdonald (1995) ask, “Who are those silent voices in the group? Why aren’t they talking? What do they have to say?” (p. 83). Their silence may be as significant as the words being spoken around them.

Moderating Focus Groups

As facilitated discussions, focus groups must be guided by a skilled moderator. Morgan (1995) suggests that for sensitive topics, it is important to choose moderators “whose background will put the participants at ease,” which is generally achieved by sharing some similar social characteristics with the group (p. 521). Often, the researcher moderates the discussion, but sometimes they bring in a trained outside person to serve in this role. Whoever moderates the focus group must be sure to provide enough space for interaction and discussion while also ensuring that the group achieves the research goals.

If you are the one conducting the focus group, be sure to prepare well. Before participants arrive, check your questions, arrange the room, put out nameplates, check recording equipment, and arrange handouts and refreshments. Greet everyone as they arrive. Begin by reminding participants that they’ve been invited because you want to hear from all of them; therefore, the group should let just one person speak at a time and try to avoid having just a couple of participants dominate the conversation. This often relates to status, as those with more power tend to introduce topics that are more likely to be taken up by the group (Hollander, 2004). One way to ensure more voices are heard is to begin by asking participants to briefly introduce themselves or to provide a brief response to an opening question. This will help set the tone of having all group members participate.

As the focus group gets rolling, the moderator plays a less active role than in a one-on-one interview. Sometimes, the conversation may stall, or you, as the moderator, may want to guide the conversation in another direction. In these instances, the moderator must demonstrate that they’ve been paying attention to the conversation before trying to change the course of the conversation. For example, the moderator should be prepared to interject statements or questions such as, “I’d really like to hear more about what Simran and Emma think about what Xinxin has been saying” or “Several of you have mentioned . . .. What do others think about this?”. These kinds of statements and questions can help in a variety of ways, including keeping the conversation going, redirecting the conversation, shifting the focus to participants who have been less active in the group, and serving as a cue to those who may be dominating the conversation to allow others to speak.

Sharing Circles

Sharing circles and talking circles have a similar purpose to focus groups but are designed by Indigenous peoples to reflect Indigenous ways of knowing (Lavalleé, 2009). The exact protocols of each type of focus group will depend on the community, researcher, and research project. One example of this is the facilitator introducing their name (gifted or English), Nation relationship(s), family, and where they currently reside before any discussion occurs (Tachine et al., 2016). Often, the introduction of all members of a sharing circle is lengthy and the process takes a significant amount of time. Lennox might say, for example: “Taanshi hello. My name is Christina, and I am Red River Métis, French, English and Irish. My maternal family moved from Treaty 5 to Coast Salish territory 50 years ago where I have lived and played for all of my life.” In a circle, everyone gets a chance to speak and participants are expected to listen and not interrupt. In some cases, an object may be passed around to mark who is speaking, commonly a talking stick.

Sharing circles were not designed as a method of research but can be an effective method when respectfully used by Indigenous peoples in their work with Indigenous communities (Martin, 2001; Wilson, 2008). Research-sharing circles encourage equality between speakers and provide participants with ample time to reflect on what is being said. The skills required for a facilitator to run a sharing circle are similar to those required for a focus group, though the methods used are not the same. Facilitators of sharing circles must have an awareness of Indigenous worldviews and have received permission from a teacher, or Elder, to conduct the circle (Martin, 2001). For more on research-sharing circles, see Talking Circle – Sharing Circle.

Conclusion

As illustrated throughout this chapter, interviews are an effective way to gather detailed information. Participants can elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods, and they can also share information in their own words rather than being asked to fit those perspectives into limited response options. Because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes.

As with some other methods, in-depth interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviours. Especially for new researchers, conducting qualitative interviews may also be emotionally taxing for the researchers involved in interviewing, transcribing, analyzing, and writing (Lalor et al., 2006; Velardo & Elliott, 2018).

Focus groups resemble one-on-one qualitative interviews in many ways, but they give researchers the opportunity to observe group dynamics that cannot be observed in one-on-one interviews. Historically, focus group research was more commonly used by applied researchers than by academics, though in recent decades, social scientists from all domains have discovered the usefulness of focus groups for gaining understanding of social processes and have begun using this method of data collection in their studies.

Indigenous interviewing techniques are inseparable from Indigenous ways of knowing and vary based on cultural context. Some Indigenous researchers prefer storytelling or conversational methods to traditional interviewing techniques, as they allow a more holistic expression. Relational accountability is key to Indigenous research, with its emphasis on respect, reciprocity, and responsibility to all relations, including land and ancestors. In Indigenous research, participants often retain ownership of their stories, and so anonymity is uncommon. Sharing circles, though not originally research methods, are used to promote equality and deep listening in Indigenous research.

Interviews can be emotionally taxing for both interviewers and interviewees. Interviewing people about their experiences may invoke stories of trauma and other shocking, infuriating, or sad events that may be difficult for respondents to speak about and for the researcher to hear. This may take a toll on those who are being interviewed, which is why it is important in many criminological studies to use a trauma-informed approach that centres empathy and compassion while gathering data (Quinless, 2022).

Further Reading

• “They’re very lonely’: Understanding the fraud victimisation of seniors”
• Lived challenges to ethical social work practice in criminal justice settings
• Narrated experiences of sexual and gender minority refugees: Resilience in the context of hardship from pre-to post-migration
• “We keep each other safe”: San Francisco Bay Area community-based organizations respond to enduring crises in the COVID-19 era
• Sexual consent education among youth experiencing homelessness in Toronto, Canada: Findings from an arts-based and qualitative study

References

Ali, F., Russell, C., Greer, A., Bonn, M., Werb, D., & Rehm, J. (2023). “2.5 g, I could do that before noon”: A qualitative study of people who use drugs’ perspectives on the impacts of British Columbia’s decriminalization of illegal drugs threshold limit. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 18, article 32, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-023-00547-w

Asgar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organizations, 54(1), 78-86. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.54.1.x102372362631282

Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcis.v3i1.57

Bird, D. (2021). Negotiating successful transitions:“Criminalized” Indigenous women in Saskatchewan [Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan]. HARVEST. https://harvest.usask.ca/items/cf06afd5-12e2-4d38-bc2c-eaa234babd9d

Currie, D. H., & MacLean, B. D. (1997). Measuring violence against women: The interview as a gendered social encounter. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives (pp. 157-178). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327907.n12

Dodson, L., Piatelli, D., & Schmalzbauer, L. (2007). Researching inequality through interpretive collaborations: Shifting power and the unspoken contract. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(6), 821-843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407304458

Fiddler, C. (2014). Examining the influence of Aboriginal literature on Aboriginal students’ resilience at the University of Saskatchewan [Master’s thesis, University of Saskatchewan]. HARVEST. https://harvest.usask.ca/items/f81c07a1-05d4-48d2-a17d-b2e4c85812be

Fiola, C. (2015). Rekindling the sacred fire: Métis ancestry and Anishinaabe spirituality. University of Manitoba Press.

Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”?” In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 127-140). Routledge.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.).  Sage.

Hollander, J. (2004). The social context of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241604266988

Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031

Kim, W. (2009). Drinking culture of elderly Korean Immigrants in Canada: A focus group study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24, 339- 353.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-009-9104-z

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023

Kovach, M. (2010). Conversation method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40-48. https://fpcfr.com/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/172

Kovach, M. (2019). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 123–137. https://fpcfr.com/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/376.

Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. (2nd ed.) University of Toronto Press.

Lalor, J. G., Begley, C. M., & Devane, D. (2006). Exploring painful experiences: Impact of emotional narratives on members of a qualitative research team. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(6), 607-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04039.x

Lavalleé, L. F. (2009). Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two    qualitative Indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800103

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community based participatory research approaches. Guilford Press.

Mamdani, Z., Loyal, J. P., Xavier, J., Pauly, B., Ackermann, E., Barbic, S., Buxton, J. A., & Greer, A. (2022). “We are the first responders”: Overdose response experiences and perspectives among peers in British Columbia. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 31(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2022.2132134

Martin, J. V. (2001). Voices from the heart of the circle: Eight Aboriginal women reflect on their experiences at university. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta]. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-phdq-b306

Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. The American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541-557. https//www.jstor.org/stable/2770681

Montell, F. (1999). Focus group interviews: A new feminist method. NWSA Journal [National Women’s Studies Association], 11(1), 44-71. https://doi.org/10.2979/NWS.1999.11.1.44

Morgan, D. L. (1995). Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732395005004

Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guidebook. Sage Publications.

Palys, T. S., & Atchison, C. (2014). Research decisions: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Nelson Education.

Quinless, J. M. (2022). Decolonizing data: Unsettling conversations about social research methods. University of Toronto Press.

Tachine, A. R., Yellow Bird, E., & Cabrera, N. (2016). Sharing circles: An Indigenous methodological approach for researching with groups of Indigenous peoples. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(3), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2016.9.3.27

Thomas, R. A. (2015). Honouring the oral traditions of the Ta’t Mustimuxw (Ancestors) through storytelling. In S. Strega & L. Brown (Eds.), Research as resistance: Revisiting critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (2nd ed., pp. 177-198). Canadian Scholar’s Press.

van den Hoonard, D. K. (2019). Qualitative research in action: A Canadian primer (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Velardo, S., & Elliott, S. (2018). Prioritizing doctoral students’ wellbeing in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 23(2), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3074

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Free Press.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction, and the co-construction of meaning. Women’s Studies International Forum, 21(1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00080-0

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.