Disclosure seemed to serve as a starting point for developing a close relationship in the research practice. As seen in the discussion of research methods, the in- depth interviews focused on significant events that the participants experienced. Initially, the participants seemed to have difficulty deciding what to talk about. When I felt their indecision or uncertainty, I shared a significant event that had happened to me. My self-disclosure seemed to provide a sense of security to the participant that both of us were equally vulnerable. At the same time, my self- disclosure seemed to be used as a strategy to ease the tension and distance between the participant and myself. Sharing my story, which was sometimes very personal, seemed to balance the power issue and helped the participant feel more comfortable with me. This self-disclosure seemed necessary and helpful.
In the case of Emily, my marginalised stories seemed to deepen the conversation between us, and they provided Emily with a sense of security to share her stories whether they were positive or not. Emily appeared to have a positive attitude towards life. She initially mentioned this: “Actually, it [Living in NZ] is okay.” (Interview 2), and “I think everything is good.” (Interview 5). Also, her stories often ended with a statement like how much she appreciated her life. However, those statements were not elaborated on when I asked her to tell me additional stories.
159
I assumed that she expected the question/answer format of a traditional interview. She also might have thought that good migrant stories were what I wanted to hear during the interviews. This assumption seemed to be present in other interview relationships, as illustrated by Mia’s comment in the second interview.
You can ask questions in relation to the way you want to conclude your writing. . . . I am wondering [if] my interview is going to the way that is very different from what you have in your mind . . . if there is a possibility I would like to answer the way you want.
Since I had this overt conversation with Mia about her assumptions, even after the explanation of the interview processes, I felt that I should tell my stories first to model the story telling and ease the tension. During the third interview with Emily, I began the interview with the statement, “I don't know if you [have] had any similar experience. I had a bad experience today.” Then I told her about an incident that day when I felt mistreated as an Asian woman. She commented that I should not keep those emotions in me, as they would harm me. She said that I would “always feel sad” if I did. Then she told me stories which were opposite to mine, detailed stories of her new identity as a Sunday school teacher. Gradually she told me both positive and negative stories in relation to her identity negotiation. In this way, I found that self-disclosure of both positive and negative events helped me to obtain a comprehensive description of the participants’ experiences.
Along with self-disclosure during the interviews, my story sharing in the written responses after each interview seemed to provide a sense of security and a sense of power sharing (Lee et al., 2015) for the participants. This may be a valuable effect of story sharing. For instance, at the last interview with Simi, she indicated that she appreciated my story sharing, and she felt secure to tell her stories.
I think you were really open. You did share whatever you thought about your family and problems. I appreciated that because you didn't have to do that. I think you were pretty open and straightforward about things. You explained me exactly what was required of me. So I was comfortable talking to you. You know, I have this confidence in you that this information I shared with
160
you will be only with you, nobody else, so that the confidentiality was there. I have enjoyed working, being a part of it. (Interview 8, Simi)
At the same time, story sharing seemed to have ensured that the participants’ stories were heard and appreciated, as seen in Simi’s comments like “you were really open” and “I appreciated that.”
My responses played a role in generating story sharing by indicating that I was interested in further elaboration in the next interview. One example is shown below in my fourth response to Jessica:
I just remember a few things from our talk which I thought would be very good to discuss further in the next interview. . . . I think those experiences you have are very valuable and so, if you could, maybe we could talk about one of them next month. (Response 4: Gina to Jessica)
My response worked to signal to Jessica that I wanted to hear more, and that I wanted her to elaborate. This response became a starting point for the next interview with her.
The excerpt below is part of a response to Lucy. Lucy mentioned her participation in a workshop in order to improve her job searching skills in the second interview. She also mentioned that she had begun her new role as a chairperson at an ethnic language school. Both, I thought, would be interesting in terms of my research aims. So I reminded her and myself to talk further about them in our next interview session.
It would be nice if you could share any story related to the workshop next time or if you have any other episode in relation to your role as a chairperson. That would be great. (Response 2: Gina to Lucy)
In the third interview, Lucy shared stories related to the workshop and being a chairperson.
In sum, my disclosure as an insider to some degree helped me to develop a relationship with the participants. Mutual disclosure seemed to provide a sense of
161
power and security to the participants so they could open up and share stories that were rich with detail about their experiences.