Methods are mere instruments designed to identify and analyse the obdurate nature of the empirical world, and as such their value exists only in their suitability in enabling this task to be done.
Blumer, (1969: 27).
My study is located within a constructivist paradigm as it involves understanding the complexity of how people make sense of their lives (Crotty 1998). Qualitative methods are traditionally associated with constructivism (Atkinson and Silverman, 1997, Silverman, 1997, Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, Mason, 1996) and here I use in-depth, semi-structured interviews with residents from the Leys. As Denzin and Lincoln argue, qualitative methods allow us to ‘…study things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (1995: 16). The theoretical approach I use here is interactionism as, following Blumer (1966) I attempt to understand the meanings social actions and interactions have for people and I am clearly interested in subjectivities, discourses and constructions of meaning and the complex interplay of these phenomena (Atkinson and Housley, 2003; Blumer 1998). I was interested in looking for and at
110
‘discourses’and what sorts of things were going on, what kind of things were happening and, indeed have happened, and how residents spoke about, understood and gave meaning to their experiences of everyday life within this specific community – in its broadest sense – hence the methods chosen for this study (Devault, 1990).
This is of critical importance to this study as I wish to examine the ways in which residents express and discuss their own experiences and views of their community, its needs and the ways in which they feel outsiders tend to approach and characterise the estate and the impact they see this as having for them. Clearly there is an enormous literature to draw on here for an examination of method and a discussion of methodologies –I intend to draw on a comprehensive range of materials. In particular I will draw on Denzin and Lincoln’s Handbook of Qualitative Research and a selection of qualitative research texts (For example, Fontana and Frey, 1994; Becker, 1998; Charmaz, 2006; Lofland and Lofland, 1995; Silverman, 1997a, 1997b, Fontana and Frey, 2003).
My interest in the research questions and the focus of this project stems from two main concerns which have arisen directly from my involvement in community projects, activities and organisations, often in areas (both geographically and of policy) characterised as ‘deprived’ or in need of ‘regeneration.’9 First, over the last twenty years I have been involved in a number of projects aimed at ‘improving’ social conditions and the ‘quality of life’ through increasing inclusion, tackling social issues and problems (for example, crime, drug-use, domestic violence, homelessness) and have often found myself working in some way or other in those communities seen, in official and popular discourses, as the most
9 See for example, Steering Group Member – Blackbird Leys Communities Against Drugs Project (CAD), Home Office funded community development initiative, April 2002-2005, Partnership Board Member, Leys Linx, SRB-5, Oxford, 2002 – 2004, current member of the Oxford Strategic Partnership Sub Group on Health and Social Inclusion, Founding Trustee and Director, Community, Action, Development Ltd., Trustee and Director Substance Misuse Arrest Referral Team, (SMART CJS), Oxford, Trustee (Chair) and Director, Oxfordshire User Team, (OUT), Steering Group Member - Health Provision for Ethnic Minorities funded by the NHS and organised by the Oxfordshire Bangladeshi Association in partnership with East Oxford Action, 2003- 2005, Steering Group Member – Blackbird Leys Communities Against Drugs Project (CAD), Home Office funded community development initiative, April 2002-2005, Steering Group member, Regeneration Framework Oxford City, 2009-present.
111
deprived, problematic and ‘in need’. However, while this is a constant sense of ‘these places’ (and these communities do experience many of the issues referred to) the way they are constructed, discussed and represented – it has not been my experience of such communities, neighbourhoods and the people who live in them. Second, and in a broader context, I am fascinated by the wider political and social processes at work here that appear to contribute to the construction and reinforcement of the ideas of ‘problem people’ and ‘problem places’ (Johnston and Mooney, 2007). In exploring these issues and gauging what might be happening in these communities I have opted to employ in-depth, qualitative, semi-structured interviews as my principal research method. This method has been adopted to maximise the richness and depth of data generation enabling a thorough understanding of how people make sense of their life experiences (Chamaz, 2006).
As noted in the introduction above in recent years there has been considerable discussion of what use and value sociological research has both in terms of economic and policy utility and in terms of the discipline’s intellectual and research capabilities (Law 2004, Hammersley, 1995, 2011, 2014). For example, Urry (2003), has argued that current social phenomena, especially in relation to the impact of globalisation, are so complex as to have out-run the capacity the social sciences have to meaningfully investigate them. In the face of this sort of argument others have called for a reinvigoration of the engagement sociology has with the social world (Back, 2007). For Bauman (1987), sociology should strive to embrace an approach to the social world that offers a commitment to interpretation without legislation. More recently, Back (2007) has argued for a sociology that pays more attention to the fragments of the everyday and one that admits the voices and stories of those not normally heard and to ‘…pay them the courtesy of serious attention’(2007:11). I am very much of the view that one important role for the social science researcher is to do exactly that: pay serious attention to those less heard. This clearly adds a specifically political dimension to my work.
112
I hope that my own reflexivity and critical reflection on my work ensures that this political dimension remains one that can be characterised by a small ‘p’ and not one of overtly partisan, ideological commitment (Hammersley, 1995). In this sense I have decided, as Becker challenged us to, (1967) choose which side I am on. But, if I have done this ‘as personal and political commitments dictate’ I have tried to:
… use our theoretical and technical resources to avoid distortions that might introduce into our work, limit our conclusions and recognize the hierarchy of credibility for what it is… (Becker, 1967: 247).