78
immigration reform; two have Temporary Protected Status; and two have other forms of legality, one of whom is on a temporary student visa and the other is a youth who had been undocumented for most of her life, but now has legal residency. The narratives represented in this dissertation come from thirty three of these individuals: the thirty two 1.5GUY, and the one who was undocumented most of her life.
My recruitment and interviewee demographics are in accordance with an exploratory and
phenomenological study. Stebbins (2013) suggested that the “most efficacious approach is to search for…understanding wherever it may be found, using any ethical method that would appear to bear fruit” (p. 6). Furthermore, Laverty (2003) wrote that the aim “is to select participants who have lived experience that is the focus of the study, who are willing to talk about their experience, and who are diverse enough from one another to enhance possibilities of rich and unique stories of the particular experience” (p. 29; see also van Manen, 1997). Gonzales and Gleeson (2012) stressed we “have not uncovered the diverse sets of undocumented experiences” (p. 3): my aim was diversity. My expectation was that the more diverse the interviewees and the contexts, the greater the potential for diversity of perspectives, experiences, and coping strategies. I recognize that differences in nationality, ethnicity, race, contexts of origin, context of reception, religion, sex, gender orientation, socio economic status, etc. influence experiences. I acknowledge that restricting interviewees to particular characteristics could have allowed for a different focus, if not research outcome, including an in-depth contextual analysis. While context likely shapes experiences, I wanted to explore these experiences, rather than attribute them to a particular cause.
79
One youth told me “we are tired of being treated like lab rats by researchers.” This reflects the growing interest in researching undocumented populations and still limited access; organizations are frequently used as gateways to interviewees. This comment is an example of “research fatigue” (e.g. Moore, 1996) that can occur when groups are frequently tapped into for research—especially amongst marginalized populations. Further, some youth feel as if they receive nothing in return. I explained I could not pay youth, but I could offer a coffee and a copy of the transcript. However, many youth told me they agreed to an interview because it allowed them to share and raise awareness about their struggles. Like Boccagni (2011), I acknowledge that “the return for my informants was at most
symbolic and immaterial. It was contingent on my attempts to make their lifestyles and conditions more visible, or easier to be understood in non-stereotyped terms” (p. 741). I mentioned with optimistic reserve, my hope that my research could somehow contribute to greater understanding of the everyday needs and issues facing 1.5GUY.
I was clear about this hope from the start, and made explicit my support of the DREAM Act or other comphrehensive immigration reform as a means to gain genuine access via trust. I did not want any interviewee worrying that I might be anti-immigrant to the detriment of the interview or well-being of the individual. Trust is an important component of qualitative research, and especially with
undocumented individuals (e.g. Duvell, Triandafyllidou, & Vollmer, 2008). Trust “is central to the ways in which undocumented migrants develop and establish their social networks” (Sigona, 2012, p.
54); individuals must negotiate between the fear, risk, and benefits of disclosing ULS. Due to fear of detection, individuals with ULS may distrust unknown outsiders, including researchers, while others may be far less concerned and simply trust the researcher (Duvell et al., 2008). Before I entered the field, I was unsure as to which scenario(s) I would encounter. I therefore initially and purposely
recruited individuals I perceived to be least afraid due to their public presence, e.g. individuals who had come out as undocumented via the internet, news, journalism, or other social media, as my hope was they would be more willing to meet with me.
I employed four methods to recruit interviewees and gain trust: 1) Contacting organizations working with and for (undocumented) immigrants and their rights; 2) Searching the internet for articles, groups, or blogs written by or about 1.5GUY; 3) My personal network of former classmates and colleagues
80
working within education; and 4) Purposive sampling via snowball recruitment. I examine these processes in further detail in the following sub-sections.
4.3.1 Youth-Run Organizations
I obtained the greatest access to interviewees via youth-led organizations, as I was in direct contact with 1.5GUY who could decide if they wanted to participate or forward my request to their peers.
Because I grew up in and went through the university system in the U.S., studied Higher Education Management, and have worked at U.S. universities, I have firsthand experience about “student life” in American universities, e.g. the way extra-curricular organizations, clubs, etc. exist and function, which made navigation easier. I contacted organizations working with Latino and Hispanic culture,
immigration, educational access, human rights, the DREAM Act, etc. as well as similar local, grass-roots, non-profit organizations not attached to universities.
4.3.2 Internet Information & Journalism
As part of pre-planning and fore-understanding, I kept up-to-date with information and journalism about immigration policy, reform, and debates at both national and state-levels, including human interest stories. I found articles written by or about 1.5GUY, which at times included personal or organizational contact information. In such cases, I was often able to contact the individual directly or indirectly through their organization and ask if they would be willing to be interviewed. In these situations, I knew an individual’s ULS, as well as some other personal information in advance;
regardless, I always conducted a full interview.
4.3.3 Personal Network
As individuals in my network already had my trust and could assist with recruitment, coordination, and obtaining consent, I navigated my personal network to arrange for two site visits to high schools in Dallas, Texas and New York City, New York as some scholars have suggested (e.g. Duvell et al., 2008). Before I met with interviewees and obtained informed consent, I limited personal questions;
ethically, I did not want to start an inquiry before individuals had been thoroughly informed about my research, given consent, and had the chance to ask me questions.
The visits to Dallas and New York City meant contact with several high school students, which gave educational diversity amongst interviewees. Instead of reflecting upon the transition out of high
81
school, individuals were living through changes, barriers, and uncertainties. Because I gained access through a gatekeeper, this meant that youth were “out” about their ULS in some regard. I did,
however, learn that many youth had not yet participated in any sort of organization or social movement for immigration reform and most had not shared their ULS with anyone beyond their everyday peers.
However, some interviewees were currently in university; while they were out about ULS in their high schools, which illuminated an interesting dynamic about the contexts and complexities of coming out, which I will examine in further detail in my findings. Due to my research methods and sample size, I cannot conclude with certainty about the particular institutional or geographic contexts, but
acknowledge that these contexts may matter and represent areas for future investigation and comparison.
4.3.4 Snowball Sampling
As fieldwork progressed and I made connections, I used “snowball sampling” to recruit youth. With snowball sampling, researchers tap into the social networks of interviewees to gain access, trust, rapport, and legitimacy, all of which are particularly useful when dealing with sensitive topics or hard-to-reach populations; trust can be gained through trusted peer referrals (e.g. Atkinson & Flint, 2001;
Bergeron & Senn, 1998; Brackertz, 2007; Browne, 2005; Cebulko, 2014; Gonzales, 2011; Magnani, Sabin, Saidel, & Heckathorn, 2005). Browne (2005) wrote: “networks in these instances included word of mouth assurances which are significant when the research is of a sensitive nature” (p. 50). However, Brunovskis and Bjerkan (2008) acknowledged both ambivalence and difficulty in accessing additional interviewees through key interviewees in their study on undocumented immigrants in Norway. In my case, however, snowball sampling was critical for access to less open and otherwise out-of-reach individuals who may never participate in a research project otherwise.