As previously explained, one of my underlying motivations to adjust aspects of my presentation of myself and role was my readings of contextual cues and the reactions to me as a government employee by those who worked in this community and knew my participants better than I did. Those individuals working in the community had inferred that the families were likely to adopt a negative viewpoint of me and would not feel comfortable in revealing elements of their lives to me if they knew I worked for the government. Thus, in my social interactions with them, I chose not to risk potential consequences of full disclosure.

There was little negotiation regarding what was acceptable in conveying the aspect of my identity related to my employment and much conscious thought behind my lack of disclosure. I conveyed only a selected facet of my identity as it pertained to the research while using language that was familiar to them. That is, I presented myself simply as a student doing a project to learn about what families do with their children outside of school. Parents were accepting of this explanation of my role and willing to let me into their homes and their lives.

In the course of the interviews, the parents readily exposed details of their lives, including traumatic events they had suffered. My socialization as a health care worker elicited a desire to nurture, and I found the task of remaining distant a challenge. Although some of what the parents said was shocking and distressing to hear, it was necessary for me to respond in ways that promoted continued participation. By feeling at ease with emotions expressed, this gave me greater access to their intimate lives. According to Seidman (1998):

The purpose of in-depth interviewing is not to get answers to questions, nor to test hypotheses, and not to 'evaluate' as the term is normally used… At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the experiences of other people and the meaning they make of that experience. (p. 3)