A many-layered decision

As outlined in Chapter Six, one advantage of a qualitative methodology lies in the ability to carry out in-depth investigations. Although, for example, Morrison and Clark (2011:1953) asked people to offer a primary reason and any additional reasons for moves, most respondents still only provided one reason for moving. It may be that respondents simplified their own mobility decisions in the face of structured computer-assisted and telephone interviews. By contrast, the research presented here sought to actively draw out additional motivations.

Rather than simplifying behaviour into a 'model' of residential mobility, this chapter emphasises the many influences reported by households.

Very few participants could be characterised as either settled or frequently mobile; most moved between periods of relative stability (no moves for a five-year period) and longer or shorter tenures in other homes. Frequent moving (more than four moves in a five year period) in childhood was an uncommon experience, but in adulthood a number of participants had been frequent movers. This was more common in Eastland than Nearthorpe, perhaps linked to the tenure profile of the area. However, all but one participant had lived outside the area in which they now live, challenging the view (for example from key stakeholders) that people living in these areas were immobile.

Jack and Mary¹⁰, a couple in Eastland, had been relatively stable, having moved to Grimsby nine years ago from their home on the South coast. Multiple factors were involved in both deciding to move, and where to go. The relationship with Jack's sister, with whom they lived, was deteriorating but they were priced out of the local housing market. They wanted outside space for their children and to be closer to Mary's mother, who lived in the North, to provide support. Reflecting on their move from Cornwall to Eastland, Sarah and Matt also discussed a range of motivations: lack of local jobs, high rents and fractures in the relationship with their landlord, coupled with the belief that there would be more opportunities for work and education in Eastland, as well as outside space for their child. They also had connections in Eastland, where Sarah had grown up.

10 Household profiles can be found in section 6.6.

151

Sarah: …we knew everyone here, so, getting a bit lonely wasn't we?

Matt: You was Sarah: Well, I was

Sarah and Matt, Eastland Sarah's mobility was partly motivated by proximity to her friendship networks.

Matt described the factors involved in moving as his own "selfish reasons", wanting to be closer to his children who were in care. Moving lowered the cost of travelling to regular meetings about his children, and was "one major reason"

(Matt) for his move. Interviewing only Matt, or only Sarah, may have left these different motivations unarticulated, whereas a household interview uncovered the many layers of decision-making.

In discussing the move to their current home in Nearthorpe, Yasmin and Amir highlighted different motivations. Amir reflected on his connection to the area.

We always wanted to come back to Nearthorpe, 'cos…it's where I've been brought up and…we're a lot more comfortable with the community round here

Amir, Nearthorpe Although Amir framed their motivation in the 'we' form, Yasmin highlighted different priorities.

I don't feel it as strongly as Amir and his siblings feel it about this road…So, when this house became available it was a bigger house, it was a more spacious house, and it was what we were looking for obviously…wanting to start a family

Yasmin, Nearthorpe Yasmin emphasised the practical attributes of the house and its orientation to their future needs, rather than the emotional connection to place that Amir placed at the centre of their move. Such differences in motivations could leave one person driving mobility decisions. Sarah (Eastland), for example said "'I'd like to move to Cornwall with me mum' and [Matt] went 'ok, when?'" (Sarah).

Sarah's desire to be close to family and leave a difficult situation in Grimsby were key drivers for the move and the destination. Similarly Ann (Eastland) said that Mike "sort of went along with it" when she "got the idea that I wanted to be nearer town" (Ann).

152

Drawing out multiple reasons for mobility opens up the possibility of different and competing explanations within a household. For Mike (Eastland), transitioning from the private rented sector to owner-occupation was tied-up with a commitment to "move our relationship forward" (Mike), although this interpretation of their shared history was a surprise to Ann, who framed the move as "about having space" (Ann). In Nearthorpe, Helen had "never really moved for work", yet there were several instances in her mobility history when the household seemed to move for work reasons – to open a shop, or to run an off-licence. Significantly, these related to her husband's career. Helen's motivation for moving was not necessarily work-related, but about keeping the family together and supporting her husband: "I've always sort of followed my husband around…whatever suited him" (Helen). She felt that this reflected different gender roles; her generation were "more or less brought up to follow your husband" and did not have "so much independence as women have got today" (Helen).

Even a seemingly 'simple' account of residential mobility could be broadened through qualitative enquiry. Carol (Eastland) presented the move to her current home as a result of changes to Housing Benefit, which meant that – with her daughter planning to move from the home they shared – she would have two additional bedrooms and be subject to an unaffordable 'Bedroom Tax'. However, as the interviews progressed Carol revealed her longstanding desire to escape the neighbourhood, which she perceived as declining, and a more strained relationship with her daughter. Her mobility was therefore not a simple effect stemming from a policy change, but also driven by longer-running motivations.

Immobility can also have multiple interconnected rationales. Although Nadira (Nearthorpe) had considered moving, property prices were expensive where she was looking, and when her sister became ill she needed to remain close to provide support. Now caring for her own sick child, Nadira received support from other family members, which necessitated the immobility of several households. She was also emotionally connected to the place in which she had always lived. Aisha (Nearthorpe) too relied on a network of place-based support, but her immobility was also an assertion of control over her own pathway, which had been dominated by mobility forced by domestic violence. In these cases, immobility was a conscious choice, but for Dave (Nearthorpe) immobility

153

seemed habitual. Moving had not really been considered; he had everything he needed, so he would "stay put" where he was "comfy". His relationship to his home was practical – everything he needed was on his doorstep, it was convenient for family and friends. Housing was not something to be consumed, but a practical space directed to meeting particular needs (Allen, 2008).