Revealing Incidents of Hate Crime on Public Transport: Working with Disabled People

  • David Wilkin
Part of the Palgrave Hate Studies book series (PAHS)


This chapter helps the reader to understand to the process involved in collating the experiences of disabled people who have been victims of hostility. Ground-breaking methods were used to collect data from a group of people who, generally speaking, have been excluded from participating in such research. Interviews and focus groups were the mainstays of the author’s study. Adaptive techniques were utilised to capture the thoughts of people with physical, mental and communication difficulties. Aside from victim data, data were additionally collected from the authorities who oversee UK public transport and the companies which provide it. Finally, the staff members who operate buses and trains were interviewed. These elements were incorporated to provide a rounded understanding of what is being done in the UK to safeguard disabled people from hostility on public transport services. Techniques of analysis, methodological reflection and areas which presented problems are also presented in this chapter.


Inclusivity Victimisation Research methods Safeguarding Participants 


  1. Cronin, A. (2008). Focus Groups. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Cummins, R. A., & Laraine Masters, G. (2002). Proxy Responding for Subjective Well-Being: A Review. In International Review of Research in Mental Retardation (Vol. 25, pp. 183–207).Google Scholar
  3. Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). (2011). Hidden in Plain Sight: Inquiry into Disability-Related Harassment. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  4. Goodley, D. (1996). Tales of Hidden Lives: A Critical Examination of Life History Research with People Who Have Learning Difficulties. Disability & Society, 11(3), 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hardy, S.-J. (2017). Everyday Multiculturalism and ‘Hidden’ Hate. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollomotz, A. (2018). Successful Interviews with People with Intellectual Disability. Qualitative Research, 18(2), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Home Office. (2016). Action Against Hate: The UK Government’s Plan for Tackling Hate Crime. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  8. Home Office. (2018). Home Office: Hate Crime Statistics. Online at: Accessed 17 Oct 2018.
  9. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Lechuga, V. (2012). Exploring Culture from a Distance: The Utility of Telephone Interviews in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mason-Bish, H. (2015). Beyond the Silo: Rethinking Hate Crime and Intersectionality. In N. Hall, A. Corb, & P. Giannasi (Eds.), Routledge International Handbooks: Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime (pp. 24–33). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Mental Capacity Act. (2005). Codes of Practice: Updated 2016, (2016). London: The Stationery Office. Online at: Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  13. Morgan, D. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Novick, G. (2008). Is There a Bias Against Telephone Interviews in Qualitative Research? Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 391–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Urquhart, C. (2012). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations