“Everywhere the problems, the clarifying investigations, the insights of principle are historical” (Original emphasis; Husserl, 1954/1970, p. 369).

4.1 Rationale for the Empirical Exploration

This chapter is about conducting the empirical study, forming the basis of this book, having covered the major patterns in the field of intimacy and distance. This chapter critiques narrow concepts such as methodological nationalism and moves beyond them. As this book attempts to fill a gap in the knowledge concerning living apart together transnationally—(LATT) couples, it is crucial to pay close attention to what these couples say about their experiences and feelings. Through an interpretive phenomenological approach, I contextualise, reflect upon, and, to some extent, develop an understanding of the participants’ experiences, giving them broader meaning (Willig, 2019). I am aware of the limitations of my study as I attempt to explore the complex dynamics of the couples through a qualitative research and a subsequent follow-up study. It can barely cover a sliver of the complexity of the couples’ ways of maintaining intimacy across nations. Still, I hope that thick descriptions, ideally recognised by the readers, clarify their meanings and provide the reader access to LATT couples’ experiential realities (Willig, 2019, p. 802). The book contributes to theory building through its bottom-up research design, grounded in the data, and reflects inductive details and particularities of human experience combined with deductive elements embedded in an interdisciplinary theoretical framework covered in Chap. 2.

Rejecting Methodological—Individualism, Nationalism, Conjugalism, and Moving Beyond

In exploring intimacy and distance empirically, I am mindful that some dominant approaches within social and human sciences are problematic and that I must move beyond them. In line with Burkitt (2008), the division between the individual and society, exemplified by the “methodological individualism” of Karl Popper, is seen as problematic. Criticising the reduction of human beings to mere products of their society, Burkitt underlines social relations and advocates thinking in terms of a society of individuals, and he argues “we are all born into social relations that we didn’t make, and much of who and what we are is formed in that context” (Burkitt, 2008, p. 3).

The centre of this book is an exploration of LATT couples, who form a dyad and move beyond the perception of a person as a primary, self-contained entity. The qualitative interview method also includes a range of questions related to “significant others” and “generalised others” (Mead, 1934). In exploring LATT couples, I move beyond “methodological nationalism defined as a conceptual tendency central to social sciences’ development, referring to the territorial delimitation of phenomena to the regime of nation-states” (Wimmer & Glick Schiller, 2003, p. 581). I am also critical of the assumption about “people staying where they belong in their national states and regarding cross-(national) border movements as an anomaly”.

The significance of moving beyond the national borders is evident as the partners in LATT coupleships are located transnationally, beyond a single nation-state, and the concept of transnationalism frames the study. Finally, Groes and Fernandez (2018), also provide a salient methodological inspiration for my study through empirically involving issues of the moralities of money, mobility, and intimacy. Methodological conjugalism entails exclusive focus, a methodological fixation with marriage or the relationship between married couples, at the cost of other forms of relationships (Groes & Fernandez, 2018, p. 13). I include both married couples, cohabiting couples, and couples in intimate relationships who are unmarried, also analysing the differences and similarities between these two categories. I highlight that this book primarily covers the Global North, especially the Scandinavian countries, where cohabitation (the state of living together and having a sexual relationship without marriage) is highly prevalent, and big cities in the Global South, where such patterns including transnational marriages (Charsley, 2012; Williams, 2010) are emerging.

4.2 The Empirical Study—Research Design

The research design  recollects the research questions in Chap. 1 What are the dynamics of couples’ relationship maintaining in a situation of geographical distance, specifically among living apart together transnationally (LATT) couples? What are the “good practices” used by LATT couples to deal with intimacy and distance, which could inspire other couples in a similar situation?

Selection Criteria, Access, and Data Collection

The book explores the dynamics of LATT relationships based on either current or earlier experiences of living across nations, and collecting data about couples is difficult. Inspired by Gabbb and Finks (2015)’s moments’ approach for researching couple relationships, focusing on couples’ everyday experiences to gain insight into processes, meaning, and cross-cutting analytical themes while, including feelings and emotionality, we decided to conduct in-depth interviews. To ensure the participation of 20 couples, current or former LATT couples, we formulated the following selection criteria.

Couples who are currently or have been, in a non-cohabiting intimate relationship, living apart together, maintaining households in two different countries, for at least a year during their couple relationship. The age criterion was 21 years or above. Ethnicity-wise, the couples could be co-ethnics or ethnically mixed couples; in other words, ethnicity was not a criterion in selection. Both heterosexual and homosexual (gay, lesbian) couples are included. The participants could be married, divorced, or separated persons at the time of the interview.

Strategic sampling was used to access participants who fulfilled the criteria mentioned above. However, the empirical studies review pointed towards relevant organisations such as International Professional Women’s Network (PWN) in Copenhagen, Danes in Mexico, and United Nations City Intranet Copenhagen, leading to a partial snowball effect and mediators, friends, and colleagues from the research team’s network.

The interviews were conducted both face-to-face, through telephone and online: Skype and Zoom involving 20 couples, just one partner or both partners present, depending on the pragmatic conditions regarding the availability of the participants. The interviews (13) with only one partner revealed that the partners were rather forthcoming in single interviews. In contrast, in the joint interviews (3), both partners showed concern for each other’s feelings and sometimes argued, while in the interviews (4) with both partners separately, both similar and different perspectives on the same themes were revealed. The interviews lasted 45–110 minutes, the mean and mode were approximately 60 minutes.

Two interviews acted as pilot interviews in May–June 2017 and led to some adjustments in the interview guide, among others, an explicit inclusion of the theme of spirituality and religiosity. For face-to-face interviews, the participants were given the choice of meeting: in the NGO I am affiliated with Transcultural Therapeutic Team for Ethnic Minority Youth and Families (TTT), a quiet café, at their residence or workplace. Most participants chose the NGO location, while only a few invited the interviewer to their workplace or residence. Some research participants were in other European countries, while some were in the Asian and American continents, in all comprising of ten countries. They were given the choice of different online platforms and times which suited them. Linguistically, most interviews were conducted in English and a few in Danish. However, in some interviews, the language was mixed with Hindi, Danish and Spanish, which members of the research team also speak.

The transcriptions of the interviews for 20 couples were done by the two research associates (introduced in later Sect. 4.5, Researcher Position & Reflexivity) and a former Roskilde University MA student, Christa Kranich, with comprehensive qualitative research experience. There were considerations concerning anonymity and the choices of names we used for the participants and their families. They should correspond to names in the national and ethnic setting. The key questions required familiarity with the qualitative method (Kvale, 1996). My earlier research in the field of relationships, especially in couple relationships (Singla, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2015), and the literature review presented in Chap. 3, demonstrates a substantial familiarity with the theme and context of the inquiry, a precondition for the expert use of interview (Kvale, 1996, p. 108).

4.3 The LATT Couples: An Overview and Biographies

I have already introduced the couples interviewed briefly in Chap. 1. Some methodological details such as duration of LATT relationship, into four a priori categories on the basis of patterns emerging from Chap. 3,  long, middle upper, middle lower and short in Table 4.1, demographical details in Table 4.2 and short biographies along with ‘nicknames’ based on some main characters of their relationship, are presented to create some context to the interview material and contribute to knowing one couple from the other.

Table 4.1 Categorisation based on LATT duration
Full size table

4.3.1 Interview Form and Nature

In all 20 couples were covered. Four couples were interviewed jointly (both partners together); three couples were separately interviewed (6 partners), while among the remaining 13 couples, only one partner from each couple was interviewed (13 partners). It was not possible to interview both partners among 13 couples for reasons, such as non-availability, lack of interest, and the participants being separated/divorced at the time of the interview. Twelve couples were interviewed face-to-face, while eight were interviewed online (Teams, Zoom, and Skype) due to their geographical placing.

4.3.2 Geographical Placing

Besides Denmark, the participants lived in Dubai, France, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, and the USA at the time of interview, in all ten countries. Additionally, the participants (who were interviewed and the partners who were not interviewed) had the following 18 countries of origin; Mexico, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Denmark, India, Finland, Sweden, China, Benin, The United Kingdom, The Philippines, Peru, The United States of America, Norway, Germany, Italy, Israel and Belarus (see Table 4.2), illustrating the global scope of the study.  Based on some main characteristics of the LATT relationship, I present the couples as belonging to the following categories—the researcher’s a priori categorisation: sexual orientation, and duration of the LATT relationship to carry out the thematic analysis in a nuanced manner. 17 couples had heterosexual sexual orientation, while three had a same-sex, homosexual orientation.

One of the major aspects of the empirical data is the duration of the LATT relationship, which varies from a maximum of 15 years–1 year at the time of the interview.

This range of LATT experience is a strength of the data. The study includes a continuum of experiences, a couple who had a LATT experience in the 1980s, another couple who had a one-year LATT experience one year two decades ago, a couple who had 15 years’ LATT experience, and two couples who have eight years LATT. Bringing together experiences of couples with such variation, who have had a LATT experience of one year, and with couples with longer LATT experiences (8–15 years) is adding experiences from time periods (from the 1980s and 2000s) and temporal perspectives to the analyses. This enriches the results, reflecting the vast range of the participants’ experiences, rather than being methodologically problematic.

4.3.3 Details on the LATT Couples

Though I engage with the participants in all their human complexity, it is relevant to consider some demographic features. The participants are aged between 24 and 62 years old, with a mean age of 39.4. The duration of the couples’ intimate relationship varies from 32 to 1 year, with an average of 10.7 years, while time in a LATT relationship varies from one year to 15 years, with an average of 4.4 years. Socioeconomically, the participants can be placed as highly educated (7 undergraduates, 10 graduates, 17 postgraduates, and 8 doctorates and uppermiddle level). Table 4.2 further presents a brief overview focusing on the vital demographical and factual details of the 20 couples. The couples are presented in descending order of the period of the intimate couple relationship, starting with Mia and Juan, who have been in a relationship for 32 years. The last couple presented on the table is Anna and Boris, who were in an intimate relationship for one year. Only 20% of couples have children under 18 years (Table 4.2), reflecting the challenges involved in being a LAT couple and parenting demands. More details about parenting among LATT couples are covered in Chap. 6.

Table 4.2 is supplemented by short biographical notes of the participants, ‘nicknames,’ adding lived life perspectives about their backgrounds and relationship trajectories. The points covered in these biographical notes are how the partners met, the LATT relationship nature and duration, details of the research interview, and children from a previous or current relationship. One or two points from their lifeworld are crucial in understanding the participants’ intimate life situation.

Table 4.2 Details on the LATT couples
Full size table

4.3.4 Short Biographies

Mia and Juan—From Paris to thriving in Mexico

Mia and Juan met as university students in Paris during the 1980s, fell in love, and married. LATT experience is from their courtship, with Mia in Paris and Juan in Mexico. The face-to-face interview was conducted in Mexico City, where she had lived with Juan for almost 27 years. She was born and raised in Denmark to a Danish mother and a Hungarian father. Juan is Mexican. They have three adult children who do not live with their parents anymore, with one living in Denmark, whom she often visits. She underpinned their ongoing mutual support and freedom in the relationship, stating, “You do not chain the other person.”

Janet and Connor—Initially, it was destiny

Janet met Conner from Holland, also working in the development sector, in Africa, fell in love, and married. They have been a LATT couple as he was posted in Afghanistan and Vietnam, while Janet was interviewed online, as she was in the Philippines at the time of the interview, living there since 2003. Janet is originally from Malaysia, has no children, and has a harmonic relationship with her partner’s parents, yet she highlighted, “we did have moments where we had to get through a lot of cultural differences, especially talking about children.” At the same time, she underscored transparency and trust between her and Connor.

Heidi and Mogens—Attached to both Denmark and Greenland

Heidi met Mogens at a collective in the 1980s in Copenhagen, Denmark, fell in love, and married in 1987. They have been a LATT couple since 2014, as Mogens began to work in Greenland. The interview was conducted face-to-face at her office at a Danish university. They are both Danish and have two adult sons living independently in Copenhagen. Heidi thrives in the current LATT coupleship, though some kins, including Mogen’s ‘sister’s husband, are highly critical, emphasising the negatives and often asking,” Why and how do you do [LATT]?”

Neeta and Sid—Privileged apart and parenting

Neeta met Sid, both from India, in their common workplace, a United Nations agency in New Delhi fell in love and married 14 years back. They became a LATT couple in 2013 as Neeta got a job in the same agency in Copenhagen, where she was interviewed face-to-face. Sid was interviewed online as he was working in New Delhi. They have two daughters, eight and 12, who live in New Delhi, partly looked after by their paternal grandmother and father, while Neeta provided ‘distance parenting.’ Despite resistance from some extended family members, Sid was highly supportive of Neeta’s senior job in Denmark.

Sofie and Thomas—Dual-located academics

Sofie and Thomas met on the internet site as Sofie wanted to learn Swedish, which Thomas offered to teach in 2001. They have been a LATT couple since 2004 due to permanent positions in different universities in Norway and Sweden. They were interviewed jointly online while Sofie was visiting the university in Sweden, where Thomas worked. Sofie’s country of origin is Finland, and Thomas is from Sweden. Thomas has two adult children from an earlier marriage and no children together. Sofie underlined,” I never wanted to live like this though there were no obstacles from family and friends.”

Yin and Wu—A year apart and together ever after

Yin and Wu met at their mutual workplace in China and fell in love but did not cohabit there in 2000. They were a LATT couple for a whole year from 2001–2002, when Yin lived in Copenhagen and Wu in a big Chinese city. They both came to NGO I am affiliated with, for a joint face-to-face interview in Copenhagen. They were both born and brought up in a big city in China. They travelled back to China to perform the marriage ceremony in 2004 and then completed their doctoral degrees. Currently, they do not have any children. They live and work in Denmark and have close digital contact with their parents in China through WeChat, Baidu, and a Chinese social messaging application (QQ).

Alice and Ben—Separated but trapped

Alice from Denmark met her ex-partner, Ben from Benin, in Paris, where she had travelled for further education in 2004. Alice and Ben were together for almost ten years, half of the period as a LATT couple, as Alice was back in Denmark to complete her master’s degree in business. The interview with Alice was conducted online as she has a multinational company job in Paris. They have a 3.5-year-old son, Acinde. Alice and Ben separated in November 2014–2015, which was hard, as she discovered his cheating on her with another woman. She cannot move out of France as Ben has partial parental custody, which entails that she and the child live close to the father. This may be seen as an outlier case.

Adam and Richo—Meeting globally, though not in Saudi Arabia

Adam and Richo met in Mexico in 2008 at a party and began an intimate relationship. They have been a LATT couple for the past two years as Adam has a business director job in Riyadh, and an American company employs Richo in Mexico. Both Adam and Richo were interviewed separately online in Riyadh and Mexico City. Adam is originally from London, while Richo was born, brought up, and educated as an industrial engineer in Mexico. Due to migratory restrictions for the LGBT, Richo cannot visit Saudi Arabia, so they meet 4–5 times a year in different countries.

June and Simon—Separated but parenting together

June, from the USA, met her ex-partner Simon at a Danish university in 2006; they began an intimate relationship and were together for about nine years. They were a LATT couple for two years as she worked partly in the USA from 2008–10. She was interviewed face-to-face in the NGO office I am affiliated with in Copenhagen. She moved to Denmark in 2006 for a master’s level education in business. Simon is from Denmark, and they had a son, five years old, who lives partly with both parents under joint custody. However, she was also critical of living together, which later led to her separation from Simon.

Beth and Mabel—Freedom from same-sex relation restrictions

Beth and Mabel, 31, from the Philippines, met through common friends in the Philippines and began an intimate relationship in 2010. As Beth left for the USA in 2014, they were a LATT couple until they reunited in 2017. They were interviewed jointly online as they live in a big city in the USA. They have not discussed their same-sex relationships with their families in the Philippines. Beth added, “Being in a queer relationship, relationships not something we talk about openly, though friends were very supportive.” Mabel underlined, “I have not noticed any stigma about the relationship or living apart. Not in the USA.”

Lena and Pedro—Together after citizenship change

Lena, from Denmark, met Pedro, 39, originally from Peru, during her university exchange in Spain. at master’s level in 2009. She was interviewed face-to-face in I am affiliated with NGO in Copenhagen, where she lived and worked in a multinational company. They have been a LATT couple for almost eight years. Currently, Lena works in Denmark, and Pedro in Spain. Lena informed me that Pedro has been in Spain for ten years, and his family remains in Peru. He studied and worked with electronics and recently obtained Spanish citizenship. Though Alice was critical of the immigration restrictions being an obstacle to their reunification in Denmark, she also expressed optimism about Pedro’s moving to Denmark shortly.

Harry and Mara—Disharmony and violence

Harry from Denmark had internet contact with Mara from Mexico in 2009 with the intention of couple formation. After nine months of online contact, he visited her in Mexico for some months, and they were a LATT couple for almost a year until they married, and Mara arrived in Denmark in 2011. Harry, 51, was interviewed online as he lived in another city on Funen in Denmark. Harry worked in diverse furniture-making and IT jobs. However, at the time of the interview, he was unemployed. Harry has a son from an earlier relationship. Mara had a daughter from an earlier relationship, who also reunited with her. Mara joined a graphic designer study program after a series of unskilled jobs and her subjective experiences of societal exclusion. Harry and Mara’s marriage was marked by conflicts, disharmony, and violence from Mara’s side. In June 2016, they divorced and did not have further contact with each other.

Ken and Nina—Bound together by physical intimacy

Ken, from Denmark, met Nina at a jazz club in New York, where she worked as a server; they fell in love and began an intimate relationship in 2009. They continued as a LATT couple for the past eight years, and four years back, they had a civil marriage in Copenhagen. Ken was interviewed face-to-face in a quiet café in Copenhagen. He has two children, 21 and 15, with two different Danish partners. Nina has a Puerto Rican mother and a father of mixed black American and Native American descent. Nina considers Denmark ‘very white, monocultural’ but enjoys being with Ken’s family.

Abhi and Malati—Cosmopolitan couple with multiple moves

Abhi and Malati were neighbours in New Delhi, were introduced by a common friend, and started an intimate relationship in 2009. They were a LATT couple in 2010–14, and again in 2016–17 as Abhi studied in Singapore and Malati in New Delhi and the USA. They were interviewed jointly online, as they have been living together in Dubai for the past six months. Both grew up in New Delhi, India, and in 2015, they got married. They highlighted their life situation “we don’t have children, and, in that sense, it is easier to move, and we are more mobile.”

David and Theo—Privileged doctoral mobility

Theo and David met in New York in 2012, when Theo was studying abroad during his Ph.D., and dated intensely for a month in New York before Theo returned to Denmark, and continued in a LATT relationship for 1½ years. David, 34, and Theo, 37, were interviewed separately, face-to-face, in their offices at a Danish university where they worked. Theo is originally from Norway, he has been studying and residing in Copenhagen, while David is from the USA. They cohabited in Copenhagen for four years, and David is optimistic about residing in Denmark, especially the doctoral education system.

Sara and Gert—Meeting and travelling across continents

Sara met her partner Gert, 30, in South Africa in 2013, where she had moved for an internship. They have been a LATT couple for five years, except for four-month period when they broke up before they got together again. Sara, 25, was interviewed face-to-face in her apartment in Copenhagen, where she lived and studied for the last four years. She was born in Germany, and when she was four years old, the family moved to Denmark. Gert is from Holland and lived 2½ years in Copenhagen to get his degree in engineering. Sara described their relationship as a roller coaster ride with good times, bad times, and good times. They have travelled to different countries, including Tanzania, where Gert worked, and Hong Kong, where Sara studied for a semester.

Sana and Peter—Soon cohabiting in Germany

Sana and Peter met in 2013 at a bar in Copenhagen, and shortly after, they started an intimate relationship. They have been a LATT couple for the past three years. Three weeks after the interview, Sana had plans to move to his city in Germany to be a geographically close couple. Sana was interviewed face-to-face in Danish in the interviewer’s apartment in Copenhagen. Sana has lived in Copenhagen for the past nine years, and she is originally from Zealand in Denmark. Peter moved to Denmark from Germany, his mother is German, and father is from Sri Lanka, and he has ‘assimilated in Germany’. Sana was excited and reflective about her shifting to another country and future as a living together couple.

Mette and Das—Hearts together, but laws keep them apart

Mette from Denmark, met Das, 32, from India through Tinder,Footnote 1 an online dating and geosocial networking application, almost 2½ years back. They fell in love during the first meeting and are still in a LATT relationship. Mette, 32, was interviewed face-to-face in the NGO, I am affilated to, in Copenhagen, where she currently lives and works. Das lives in New Delhi, India, with his parents. Das has consultancy projects within the IT sector, primarily distance working, and has been subjected to a restrictive immigration regime, as he is a non-European Union citizen from the Global South.

Vivi and Ari—Sacrificing physical intimacy due to distance

Vivi met her ex-partner Ari through a common friend in the summer of 2016 when they lived and worked in Nairobi, Kenya. They were a LATT couple for 13 months, as Ari was relocated to a distant African country, and Vivi moved to Denmark, where she lived and worked as an intern for the past three months. Vivi, 27, was interviewed face-to-face in her office in the United Nations in Copenhagen. She introduced herself as North Italian, where her mother still lives, while her father lives in Mozambique; thus, her parents have been a LATT couple for the past 15 years. Ari is from Israel, and their relationship broke up in the summer of 2017, “distance also meant sacrificing that [physical intimacy].”

Anna and Boris—Weekend encounters in European cities

Anna met Boris through the dating app Tinder in 2016, in Italy, just before she moved to Denmark. They had been in a LATT relationship for almost a year; Anna was studying international politics at a master’s level, came to Denmark on an Erasmus exchange, and continued here in an internship. Anna, 24, the youngest participant in my study, was also interviewed face-to-face in her office in the United Nations regime in Copenhagen. Boris is from Belarus, whose family moved to Italy when he was ten years old. They frequently met during weekends in different European cities. Just ten days before the interview, their relationship had ended. Anna underlined that the breakup was not due to the distance but due to Boris returning to a previous girlfriend for seven years.

4.4 Analysis, Generalisation, and Ethical Considerations

The phenomenological approach in my empirical study aims to understand the participants’ experiences, seeking to “step into their shoes” through research methods such as interpretive phenomenological analysis (Willig, 2019). The data is subjected to thematic analyses, and following Braun and Clarke (2006), the theoretical position of a thematic analysis must be made clear. The interpretive phenomenological analysis is attached to a phenomenological epistemology, which gives experience primacy and is about understanding people’s everyday experience of reality.

I conducted the thematic analysis through thick reading, meaning condensation, and interpretive strategies in my study. The interpretation goes beyond what is directly said to work out structures and relations of meaning not immediately apparent in the narrative (Kvale, 1996, p. 201).

However, thematic analysis entails searching across the narratives to identify, analyse and repeat patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The themes are seen as the components of the phenomenon of the LATT couple relationship. Prior knowledge, reading literature, and theories, all help in the development of a priori themes. The a priori, deductive themes were combined with emergent/open themes, which were inductive and inspired by grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Veiled silence actively masks an inability or unwillingness to talk about sensitive topics (Bengtsson & Fynbo, 2018, p. 22), I also focus on silence as a modifier of both meaning and lack of meaning in my analysis.

The basic method is hermeneutic, briefly stated, working with understanding whole-to-part and part-to-whole relations. Gadamer, 1960 in Raold et al. (2021), underlines that “there is always an instance of the universal in particular.” Three different types of generalisation: naturalistic, statistical, and analytical, are delineated by Raold et al. (2021, p. 12). I perceive analytical generalisation, carefully considered assessments of the extent to which results can be used in similar situations, based on idiosyncratic and common characteristics of these situations (Kvale, 1996), as relevant for my study. In line with Valsiner (2019) importance of encoding experiences in a generalised form to be recontextualised in future is accepted. He questions how generalisation from a single episode in Science is possible and answers, “Through abstraction that includes making important distinctions in the analysis of the episode and then selectively ignoring some of the comparisons in the act of generalisation” (Valsiner, 2019, p. 94).

This research was conducted in line with the ethical standards of Scandinavian psychologists by the relevant Psychological Associations (Nordic ethical code n.d.). The central aim of social science research is to contribute to knowledge to ameliorate the human condition and enhance human dignity (Kvale, 1996). This aim co-exists with the ethical paradox that the neoliberal system, at a societal level, overlooks unique human potentials unless they contribute to the market (Prætorius, 2013). I agree with Kvale (1996, p. 109) that the interview method is a moral enterprise, that the personal interaction of the interview affects the interviewee, and that the knowledge produced by the interview affects our understanding of the human situation. In conducting research, ethical considerations include assuring confidentiality using pseudonyms, informed consent, adherence to ‘no-harm’ research principles, and researcher positionality (McLeod, 2011). We abided by the ethical agreements regarding confidentiality and anonymity. We have followed these principles in all the phases of the research and temporal dimensions: past, present, and future.

In the data-collecting research team, we ensured the participants that their anonymity would be protected, that participation required only one to two hours of their precious time, and that they could comment on their experience of being interviewed. All names of participants used in this book are pseudonyms, though the participants’ countries’ names are unchanged, as changing them would influence the understanding of geopolitical dynamics. However, names of cities, residential localities, and schools/universities were deleted and/or changed after suggestions from participants in reporting my study. We also offered to share the results and noted that all the participants expressed interest in sharing the results.Footnote 2 Overall, there was an appreciation for taking part in the study. Additionally, most couples, who participated in the study, expressed how they felt somewhat isolated regarding their LATT experiences, and they had positive feelings about sharing, articulating their experiences, listening about others’ experiences, and contributing to the field.

Sara: “It was much more intense than I expected. But I really think it is good for me to talk about it. I feel it is really a part of the whole healing thing.”

Sid: Accha Laga [Felt good]. Something I have been experiencing for the past five years, I have been feeling or experiencing nobody has asked me. This interview has asked something that has been there in mind. I had to think. I have come out with all those things. Otherwise, it would always be in me.

June: “Nice to be able to contribute.”

Beth and Mabel: …“So, the interview gave us time to think about it and appreciate what we learned.”

Mette: “Nice. It is nice to talk to somebody who thinks it is interesting. Because it is a big part of your life, it is nice to talk to somebody interested. You have done a lot of studies about it; you understand and in a way that you don’t get from your friends.”

Richo: “Interesting. Very valuable to look back. I knew it and never put it on the table… made things clear.”

4.5 Researcher Position and Reflexivity

The researcher’s position is highly significant in qualitative research, especially interpretive phenomenological research. As qualitative researchers, we must possess “reflexivity,” meaning that we monitor our contribution to meaning-making during the research process, especially how we interact with the research participants, and be conscious of the underlying, often tacit, issues influencing the researcher-participant exchange. This reflexivity is also vital in analysing and concluding our research (Willig, 2019).

Against this backdrop, I would like to reflect on the research team’s situation in my study. I was born, raised, and educated in North India. After my first master’s degree from Delhi University, I migrated to Denmark in 1980, as I got married to a co-ethnic. I earned my second master’s and doctoral degree in Denmark. I am a mother of three adult children who worked/studied in three countries during the data collection period: Mexico, India, and Holland. Moreover, my two adult sons had LATT relationships during the research period. Thus, I had a “second-hand” experience of LATT couple relationships and a long-term, “first-hand” experience of maintaining intergenerational family relations across nations, which motivated me to explore the phenomenon of intimacy and distance across national borders. As the principal researcher, I developed the interview guide and data collection strategy in collaboration with the research associates Ambika Varma and Christina Naike Runciman, who also conducted some interviews.Footnote 3 In the book, I primarily use the term I, though along with We, when I refer to data collection.

Our situation as ethnic minorities, along with our varying experiences of maintaining distance relationships—Ambika Varm’s LATT relationship, my transnational distance relationship with my children, my children’s LATT relationship, and Christina’s extended family—contributed to both accessing potential participants and to establishing rapport, confidentiality, and trust with the participants. My decades-long experience in empirical research was also helpful in conducting the research. We were aware of the value of sharing a beverage and some snacks during the face-to-face interviews, so there was always a cup of tea/coffee in the venues where we conducted the interviews. The participants were given a small gift (Indian silk scarves) as a token of gratitude for taking the interviews. Varma took some homemade Indian snacks while interviewing the participants, facilitating conversation and rapport. Runciman took healthy chocolate as a symbolic gift for the participants she interviewed face-to-face. I am aware that there were no such gifts when we conducted online interviews—In line with Bilger and van Liempt (2009), we reflected upon the insider/outsider perspective as they highlight that the researcher’s ethnic minority background has relevance for research with minority and majority populations.

In migration research, and even more so in transnational migration research, the question by whom research is carried out is particularly interesting when researchers (or part of the research team) are themselves migrants or even exponents of the population, community, and/or identity group they are conducting research with. It becomes even more interesting when ‘minority’ researchers as ‘outsiders’ conduct research in the majority population, which otherwise usually holds hegemony over knowledge production (Bilger & van Liempt, 2009, p.4).

The above-mentioned reflections, related to the researchers’ positionality, have ethical consequences as the qualitative methodologies make it possible to explore how the researchers’ standpoint influences the research process, the researcher and participant relationship, the interpretation process, and the data analysis. In my study, my insider position in researching with some co-ethnic participants led to ethical dilemmas related to disclosure and taken-for-granted assumptions about “you know, as an Indian, what I am talking about.” I attempted to create some distance with such assumptions and probed further about the participant’s unique viewpoint. I agree with Markova (2009) on the ethical dilemmas and methodological concerns in researching from an insider position with the same ethnic background. This commonality was hugely beneficial in minimising the sample bias as it eliminated the need for translation but posed a danger for steering towards ‘proving’ pre-existing assumptions. We needed to be open, ready to be proven wrong, and willing to be surprised! I had to underplay my ethnic background and emphasise my academic position as a researcher when interviewing Danish and other international participants.

Our team focused on the participants’ experiences through their narratives while sharing some experiences from our life situations and redirecting attention to the interview questions. As researchers, we aimed to balance proximity and distance between the researcher and the participant position (Chaudhary, 2008) through awareness and actively invoking commonalities and differences.

We were also aware of the ‘emotional labour’ experienced in conducting some of the interviews, among others, listening to stories of restrictive policies led to emotions of anger, disbelief, and pain among the researchers. There were also positive aspects, such as emotions of joy and love expressed by the participants and experienced by us. Resonating with Kleinman and Copp (1993), there were ongoing discussions between us researchers regarding emotions related to the encounter during the data collection, analysis, and dissemination of results. Sometimes, we shared our emotions with colleagues across national borders as below suggested, though not to the extent we would have liked due to the limited resources:

Let us acknowledge our interdependence [emphasis added] We can give up the individualist model and instead create interdisciplinary networks and informal groups that encourage us to give and receive academic and emotional support. In our experience, having cooperative contexts in which to think, talk and write makes us work better and feel better (Ibid p. 57).

4.6 The Follow-Up Study

The unexpected Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 formed the basis for a follow-up study of the 20 couples who had participated in the original project in 2017–2018 (Chap. 10). The follow-up data was collected from October 2020 to August 2021 with two primary objectives: to update the couples’ relationship status 3–4 years after and include the LATT couples’ experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic times. In October 2020, I emailed questions to all the participants and requested them to answer in-depth, though short replies were also welcome. An option of online interviews was also given to the participants. About a quarter of participants opted for online interviews. I conducted five individual and one joint follow-up interview lasting between 25–62 minutes through Teams/Zoom. Ten participants (representing eight couples) sent written answers to the survey questions. Lastly, I got current relationship information about three couples through their networks, although they didn’t respond to the survey. Unfortunately, three couples didn’t respond to the follow-up survey, probably due to a change in the email address. Overall, I received information from 85% of the participants. Unfortunately, one participant based in Copenhagen did not respond to my multiple emails and telephonic reminders, and I gave up the efforts in August 2021. Still, I deem the extent of follow-up responses satisfactory to tell the readers what happened to the couples since 2017–18. Resonating with (Metcalfe & Blanco, 2021), I also wish to underline the importance of and celebrate our international research collaboration as an intimate academic long-distance relationship that sustained us amid the Covid-19 pandemic. The next, Chap. 5, introduces the broad societal and immigration contexts that surround these couples’ experiences.