P ROPOSED OVERALL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

In the previous chapter 2, I have argued that there is no ‘readily-given’

theoretical framework that would lend itself for analysing informal cultural urban practices. Given the lack of adequate theorisation, I need to genuinely revisit the theoretical object of informal culture in the urban context. Rather than testing an existing theory or attempting to prove a particular hypothesis, I need to develop a new conceptualisation from the ground up (i.e. from the actual informal cultural practices).

In section 3.1 I have argued that the conceptual and theoretical shortcomings are closely linked to inadequate methodological approaches. Firstly, there has been an overemphasis on quantitative data and rankings. As I have shown in section 3.1.1, these are not meaningful for the field of culture, and even less so for informal cultural practices. Secondly, where comparative approaches have been used, these have unhelpfully focused on quasi-scientific methods. This has restricted any comparison to ‘most-similar’ cases, thus further deepening the conceptual dualism between cities in the global South and North.

These kinds of methodological approaches do not allow me to gather the kind of data and knowledge that I need to provide a multi-faceted reconceptualisation of the informal cultural practices in the urban context. Thus, my choice of methodology is not simply justified by the requirements or preferences of a particular theoretical framework (for example, the tendency in systems theory towards generalising, quantitative data approaches; or the preference for case studies in anthropology). Rather the choice of my methodological approach needs to be determined by the purpose that it serves, i.e. to achieve my research aim.

3.2.1 Grounded theory approach

In order to overcome the methodological shortcomings, and to enable the object of informal culture to be revisited, I require:

• An explorative, qualitative approach that really tries to understand informal cultural practices in their multiplicity, and the various processes and factors at play in determining these various forms. Such an approach

66

must not pre-determine the findings, over-simplify the object through the use of inapt categories or hierarchies, or try to fit the diverse urban experiences into a universal theory.

• A methodology that allows making connections across different geographies and contexts.

• A methodology that considers the ontological linkages between theory and empirical knowledge.

This calls for a grounded theory approach, based on a series of case studies.

The grounded theory concept, originally described by Glaser & Strauss (1967) does not start with hypotheses or preconceived notions. Instead, the researcher attempts to discover, understand, and interpret what is happening in the research context (Bowen, 2006). It is a research approach that calls for continual interplay between data collection and analysis to produce a theory during the research process (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). This is mostly done using inductive analysis, whereby themes and categories emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis (Bowen, 2006: 13). As Mäkelä & Turcan (2007: 133) have pointed out, “the use of grounded theory method is especially appropriate when confronted with an inadequacy or inexistence of theory on a subject”. As I have argued throughout the previous chapter 2, this is the case for informal cultural practices in the urban context.

However, a grounded theory does not imply that the approach is devoid of any theory. Instead, my review of literature has identified three main ‘sensitising concepts’ that will guide my analysis (see section 2.4.4). Blumer (1954: 7) defined sensitising concepts as those concepts that give the user “a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances. Whereas definitive concepts provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merely suggest directions along which to look.” They may or may not ‘survive’

until the end of the research and emergent concepts from the data may supplement or displace them. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that such concepts usually exist at the beginning of a research project, whether the

67

research explicitly states them (and, indeed, is aware of them) or not (Bowen, 2006).

3.2.2 Multiple case studies

As Yin (1994) points out, a case study methodology is particularly good at exploring complex contemporary phenomena in-depth and within their real life context. They are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are being posed. Or as Easton (2010: 119) argues, case research enables to “tease out and disentangle a complex set of factors and relationships” and to

“understand a phenomenon in-depth and comprehensively”. All of these apply to my study, given that my main research aim is to provide an in-depth understanding of informal cultural practices in the urban context. But more important than this normative, methodological reason, my choice of a case study approach is the logical consequence of my earlier critique of the existing methodological approaches and the only way in which I am able to explore the multiple dimensions of informal cultural practices from the ground up. As argued in section, 3.1.2, choosing a ‘grounded’ case study approach will ensure that any theoretical construction or conceptual framing is – on the one hand – firmly rooted in empirical observation and evidence (Nijman, 2015), and – on the other hand – emerging from the actual, diverse experiences of the people engaging in informal cultural practices.

Furthermore, while scholars such as Roy (2009a; 2009b) and Robinson (2011) have highlighted that much could be learned from putting the experiences of cities in the global South in conversation with those in the global North, this call to action largely remains to be put in practice. This is something that my empirical study is going to address, thereby pushing the theoretical agenda of comparative urbanism further still. In order to do so, I will choose two different sites for my case studies, one in the global South and one in the global North, considering them both as “resources and sites for theory generation” (Ibid.: 17).

While the two different cities provide an important context of analysis, the focus of my research is on five specific informal cultural practices, which are my cases. As Robinson (2016a) argues, cases do not need to be defined territorially but could be any kind of urban process or outcome. Choosing these

68

specific practices as my units of comparison (as opposed to the cities itself) allows me to interrogate the issue at hand – urban informality in the field of culture – from a number of perspectives, thus improving our understanding of the issues involved. It therefore ensures that my research focuses on the grounded reconceptualisation of informal cultural practices, as opposed to the similarities and differences between the cities.

In this sense, my approach differs from Robinson’s work and that of other comparative urbanism scholars, as it goes beyond the analytical boundaries of the city (and the ambition to provide a new conceptualisation of a given city) to explore a process that – despite being distinctly urban – can only be better understood when not confined to the experience of a particular city. In other words, looking at multiple case studies within each city does not only strengthen the robustness of my theory (Yin, 1994: 45), but is also more “fruitful” by emphasising the “various, complex layers” that urban processes, such as informal cultural practices, are composed of (Ren et al, 2015: 153). In using this approach, I also seek to avoid further deepening and emphasising the existing conceptual and methodological dualism of the global South and the global North.

The case study sites and the specific informal cultural practices which I have chosen as case studies, as well as my rationales for selecting them, are explained in the following section 3.3.