The previous section emphasised the need to ensure young people are listened to and respected within social research, and therefore to represent young people as competent social actors who contribute to their experience of the
social world, and so can be viewed as “experts” in their own context (Corsaro and Molinari, 2008). Social constructionism, or the belief that everyday knowledge is derived from social interactions, appeared to be the ‘best fit’
epistemology in terms of the current study. By using a social constructionist approach, this study rejects the framing of young people as vulnerable and passive within their own contexts and acknowledges the active role of young people in shaping their own social world (Prout and James, 1997, Morrow, 2001, Macdonald et al., 2005). However, as stated in Chapter two, the contexts that young people interact with to shape their own social world are influenced by the wider socio-political context. Being aware of the multiple contexts within which young people actively negotiate their everyday lives, the study also aims to understand young people’s experiences using a bottom-up inductive approach rather than applying potentially flawed assumptions regarding young people in deprived neighbourhoods (e.g. young people as dangerous or feckless). Using a bottom-up inductive approach to examine young people’s experience of
regeneration and relocation meant the fieldwork did not begin with a set of assumptions regarding the impact of regeneration and relocation, but instead was led by the responses of young people, with some questions being adapted over the course of the fieldwork period.
Using social constructionism, it is also possible to understand how young people discuss the presence of risk in the neighbourhood, and what resources are used to gain information regarding safe and unsafe spaces. For example, in terms of younger children, their perception of reality may be shaped by parents’
attitudes or the presence of parental boundaries that govern use of space. As the children grow older, this perception of reality develops due to increased interactions with different physical and social resources. This, in turn, may have a positive effect on their risk avoidance and negotiation strategies as their
knowledge of the everyday contexts of their lives becomes more nuanced. As the physical and social contexts of the neighbourhood were changing due to
regeneration, understanding how young people negotiate risk or perceive changes in risk is important. To study this social constructionist view of young people within the neighbourhood, an ethnographic methodology was adopted.
Ethnography seeks to understand what participants’ daily lives are like, including the physical and socio-emotional contexts (Eder and Corsaro, 1999). In order to
achieve this, ethnographies involve ‘close-up, on-the-ground observation of people and institutions in real time and space, in which the investigator embeds themselves near (or within) the phenomena so as to detect how and why agents on the scene act, think and feel the way they do’ (Wacquant, 2003:5).
Therefore, by observing participants’ interactions with different contexts, or different people, it is possible to better understand the taken for granted way that resources may be accessed or used in everyday life.
Ethnographic research has also been viewed as a way to challenge preconceived ideas, especially those surrounding marginalised groups. Within ethnographic studies there is also the ability to provide a reflexive awareness regarding the ways in which the various structures which frame individuals’ lives impact on their behaviours and life choices (Skeggs, 1997, Jones, 2009). Linked to this is the potential for ethnographies to challenge the dominant negative discourse that surrounds marginalised groups. Many ethnographies aim to do just that through illustrating the complexities of life for socially marginalised groups, for example homeless populations (Barker, 2012, Jackson, 2012, Perry, 2012), drug users (Bourgois, 1998, Page and Singer, 2010), or youth gangs (Alexander, 2000, Aldridge et al., 2011, Fraser, 2013). Other ethnographies focus on shedding light on socially excluded neighbourhoods; highlighting the everyday life for those on the fringes of society (Willis, 1977, Charlesworth, 2000, Macdonald and Marsh, 2005).
Often these studies highlight the resilience of individuals and their use of
informal resources in order to negotiate the multiple risks present in their lives.
The fieldwork conducted for the thesis was not a traditional ethnographic study, as it did not involve an extended period of participant observation and
interaction with the wider community. Instead, the fieldwork was informed by three aspects of ethnographic practice: the importance of the everyday in discussing structural complexities within the participants’ lives; the importance of documenting change (and therefore the importance of time within the
research process); and the power dynamics which are present within
participants’ lives but also manifest within the research process. These three aspects are discussed in more detail below.
4.2.1 Examining the everyday
In ethnography, importance is placed on understanding behaviour in its habitual context, seeking to interpret how people give meaning to the phenomena they experience within this (Bray, 2009). As young people have access to different resources within the neighbourhood, it is possible that the same geographic location can be experienced in a number of ways, with different outcomes, for different individuals (Reay and Lucey, 2000, Elliott et al., 2006, Popkin et al., 2010, Mcpherson et al., 2013). Young people interact with different contexts simultaneously, and their everyday experience can be framed as a complicated web of social interactions, cultural and economic capital and motivation. As discussed in Chapter two, important proximal contexts in young people’s everyday life include public spaces of the neighbourhood, school, the home, family, and their peer group (although it is possible for a young person to be a member of more than one peer group). Understanding the interaction between these contexts in everyday life highlights the multiple and contradictory ways young people experience neighbourhood processes (Panelli et al., 2002) and also how these experiences shape their identities (Abbott-Chapman and Robertson, 2001, Worth, 2009, Hollingworth and Archer, 2010, Bannister et al., 2012).
Examining the everyday may also reflect the interaction between individual agency and the social structures of the neighbourhood (Mcgrellis, 2009), and therefore show how the participants make sense of the contradictions that occur. Highlighting these contradictions also helps to challenge preconceived ideas regarding vulnerable or demonized groups. For example Thomson (2013)’s study of NEET (not in education, employment, or training) young people found that, rather than enjoying being unemployed (as is often the discourse
surrounding ‘skiving’ young people), participants in the study were in a cycle of low or no-pay/voluntary jobs and were trying to find paid employment through various means. Thomson’s participants viewed their lack of ability to be in full employment as a personal failure, and their social networks were unable to facilitate better prospects.
In terms of the current study, as many of the everyday contexts of the
participants were changing due to regeneration (e.g. demolition of buildings,
changing resident population, relocation to new home in different
neighbourhood, friends also relocating), it was of interest to examine how these changes were viewed at an everyday level, and whether these changes affected the interactions with different contexts. For example, whether physical changes to public spaces influenced young people’s everyday spatial behaviour (e.g.
walking to school, hanging out), and how they explain these changes.
4.2.2 Documenting change over time
In order to examine young people’s responses to contradictions and the
structural boundaries which exist within their everyday lives, it is also important to reflect upon how these phenomena change over time, and therefore a
longitudinal research design is often sought. Bryman (Bryman and Teevan, 2004) defined longitudinal research as a design whereby data are collected on at least two occasions. The use of a qualitative longitudinal design within ethnographic methodological studies ensures experiences of change and continuity can be captured (Thomson et al., 2002, Flowerdew and Neale, 2003, Neale and
Flowerdew, 2003, Macdonald et al., 2005, Farrall, 2006, Weller, 2012). Within longitudinal ethnographic studies, there is a need to include cultural practices, transitional pathways, and personal identities as these may interact with the individual’s experience of temporal and spatial elements of everyday life (Neale and Flowerdew, 2000).
The inclusion of these elements may improve the understanding of how participants respond to change. Furthermore, as longitudinal ethnographic research enables researchers to ‘see beyond the immediate and monitor change over time’ (Weller, 2012, Simmons et al., 2013:10), it is likely that changes both with regards to the young people’s personal lives and also the wider contexts which frame their everyday may also be captured. Capturing the latter is important to this thesis as the two study neighbourhoods are undergoing
considerable urban change that will affect how young people access resources in the neighbourhood. This may increase awareness of the support mechanisms, challenges, and structural barriers in place for young people and of their capacity to navigate changes (Neale and Flowerdew, 2003).
Rather than studying change as an objective phenomenon, it is of interest to study the pace and cumulative nature of change, and the ways in which
individuals attempt to experience consistency or a sense of normality throughout these changes (Flowerdew and Neale, 2003, Holland et al., 2006). To do this, they may attempt to avoid, manage, or adapt to the change, with the decision often reflecting the resources that the individual has available (Thomson et al., 2002). Therefore for the current study, it is of interest to examine the different contexts of the participants’ lives and examine how their interactions within these contexts help navigation of change, but also how they navigate changes in the contexts themselves. By understanding the mechanisms through which the participants navigate change, it may be possible to provide a better account of resilience within the neighbourhood (Neale and Flowerdew, 2003, Thomson et al., 2003).
4.2.3 Power dynamics and representations
The focus on the individual and their own situated realities and contexts also illustrates the importance of reflecting on power differences between
participants and researchers. Rather than viewing power within social research as a static and binary force which can be viewed in terms of the ‘haves’ and
‘have nots’, it may be more useful to view it as a fluid relationship; it is produced and negotiated in the local settings of the research through social interactions (Christensen, 2004). While researchers are often seen to be the powerful element in the research context, it is also important to identify the ways in which participants may exercise their own power within the research context. For example, their choices of whether or not to answer a question, to
“tell the truth”, or to behave appropriately during an interview all reflect their ability to gain control and exercise power (Blackman, 2007, Duncan et al., 2009).
Furthermore, research which aims to empower participants to take control of a research project must also see the interviewer surrender some of their control.
If this is done incorrectly, it may lead to the interview feeling “out of control”
but if the research is planned with clear objectives, it may allow for the
participants to give insights that may not occur in other research settings (Morrow, 2000, Spilsbury, 2002).
However, there is a fine line between promoting the nuanced life of the participants and ignoring the wider context of their lives. The latter has two main risks: promoting the participant as infallible, and promoting a sanitised view of their everyday context. In a review of ethnographic research (Wacquant, 2002) it was suggested that within this form of qualitative research, it is possible for researchers to suspend analytical judgement and conclude that the
participant is virtuous within their own context, especially when the study
involves a degree of criminality. Wacquant argues that some of these conclusions are unsupported by the evidence supplied and risks replacing one stereotype with an “invert cardboard cut-out issued out of the same symbolic frame”
(Wacquant, 2002: 1520).
Related to this is the sanitisation of the everyday contexts of the participants and that although participants may refer to their lives as normal or ordinary, there may be objective risks or structural constraints which frame their everyday lives. While it is possible for the participants to rely on resources or different contexts in order to experience positive outcomes, a failure to acknowledge the wider structural context of their lives risks “romanticis[ing] everyday life in these neighbourhoods” (Shildrick and MacDonald, 2006: 878). An example from Shildrick and MacDonald’s work suggested that while their participants utilised social connections in close-knit communities for informal childcare and to help with small loans if they could not afford something, their lives were bound within a neighbourhood with high crime, drug, and unemployment figures. To take the participants’ positive narratives of bonding social capital at face value may have provided a one-sided and inaccurate view of their lives, offering again an inverted one-dimensional view of life in the neighbourhood.
The current study seeks to examine young people’s experience of objective risk (e.g. housing conditions), subjective risk (perceptions of ASB) as well as their resources of resilience (including positive family interactions, peer support, and school connectivity). Therefore, similar to Shildrick and MacDonald, it is likely
that their normal everyday will be bound by objective risk, and a careful balance must be made.