C URVAS TIPO

Common advice on numbers of cases or participants for qualitative research seems to be ‘make a lot out of a little’ (Mason, 2002; Silverman, 2013: 141), but there is no consensus on how many participants make a good study (Baker and Edwards, undated - 2014?). The point was to provide meaningful empirical contexts and illustrations or scenarios, rather than ‘representative’ data. I originally planned a strategic sample (Mason, 2002: Chapter 7) that

would shed light on my theoretically informed understandings, which suggested I look for a range of people on the basis of the diversity of socioeconomic background (economic capital), education (cultural capital), but also other differences that might inform notions of affiliation and habitus, such as gender or ethnicity. Using the concept of habitus to explore my research questions also meant that I needed to habitus in relation to the communities as entities. Given the lack of existing data about intentional communities, I based my typology on existing categories of difference in their listings, such as size or location (rural/urban).

I also needed to consider how to sample interviewees based on age. Definitions of ‘old age’ have long been considered problematic (Fontana, 1977). In the UK context, one of the key significant markers of ‘old age’ is being over 65 years of age (ONS, 2012), although in the Introduction (page 15) I talked about how such categories are being diluted by government reforms aimed at reducing the burdens associated with increasing longevity. Well-

established concepts about ageing and what it means are increasingly being contested in social and cultural gerontology literature (Twigg and Martin, 2015a). This includes recognition that literal age, in years, holds only limited meaning as a category of differentiation of individuals or groups.

Yet, for the purposes of my research focus a line had to be drawn. There was evidence in other international studies of senior-only intentional communities that most members were over 60 (Choi, 2004) or in the USA mostly over 70 (Glass, 2013). However, at the start of my research, because there was no prior research conducted in the UK on ageing in intentional communities I did not know if there were any older members in intentional communities. The age category most frequently referred to in information about forming ‘senior’

intentional community groups, was over 50 years (based on three groups, two listed in the UK CoHousing Network directory under ‘forming groups’ and one advertising on the Diggers and Dreamers noticeboard). Without a clear precedent in previous research or a threshold in widespread usage within the networks of intentional communities, I therefore initially selected the threshold of 60+. It seemed to offer a useful boundary between the statutory definition of 65 years and a more fluid notion of becoming old, which acknowledged the arbitrariness of such thresholds.

I based my initial approach to potential research participants on this. My efforts to hold to this arbitrary threshold in selecting interviewees were thwarted in the field. The second community key contact who agreed to pass on my invitation to potential interviewees was in

Community 2 and he thought the potential interviewee was 60. At interview it turned out that he was 59. In community 6, the key community contact thought that people over 50 were to be included, so two of my interviewees were 53 and 59. Having travelled some distance to the community and having started the interviews with these individuals, I included them mainly because my original age threshold had been arbitrary and my focus was on ageing, rather than a study making strict comparisons based on participants’ ages. Such is the pragmatic reality of empirical research undertaken within time and budgetary constraints (Hallowell et al., 2005).

Based on my theoretical framework and methodological approach, I devised an interviewee classification form (Appendix 4) that would help me determine what Taylor calls

classificatory identity as distinct from ontological identity (Taylor, 1998), the latter being

more the focus of my interviews. The classification sheet was intended to help me locate each individual within contemporary UK social policy landscape and was based on key Bourdesian dimensions of social identity such as occupational class, annual income and property wealth (economic capital) and ethnicity and educational qualifications (cultural capital). The aim was also to seek out range and diversity amongst my interviewees, where possible. I based the questions on the UK Census, on the basis that these were a tried and tested format. I asked each interviewee to complete the classification sheet if they were happy to.

In retrospect, however, I omitted to include a direct question to interviewees about gender. Instead I assumed gender, based on normative notions, which, on reflection, I should not have done, given the contested nature of contemporary understandings of gender as not inherent and obvious. I also did not ask about sexuality because at the beginning I did not foresee it would be relevant. This was another omission I regretted, since one of the emergent themes became family and friends and for one interviewee (who identified as gay), sexuality played a role in her thinking about notions of family within the community. Future research could usefully address this.

Based on discussions with my supervisors and after reflecting on the specific literature relating to the number of interviews that constitute a respectable qualitative sample (Beitin, 2012; Creswell, 2007; Mason, 2002), I aimed to conduct around 15-20 interviews. Given the relatively small numbers of potential interviewees, I started with an opportunistic or volunteer approach, which is common for qualitative research projects at PhD level (Seale,

1998: 139). I decided to interview all individuals aged around 60 or more who agreed to take part, whatever type of community they lived in. The purpose was to explore the individual experiences of life within these communities, whoever the individuals were, since there was so little previous research for me to draw on in this field.

As the interviews progressed, I narrowed the strategy. Firstly, as I have mentioned in the section above (p50), my age threshold was difficult to adhere to. So, after I had secured the first 10 interviews, I began to focus on securing interviewees who were well past their 60th

year to provide more of a focus on what is referred to as the fourth age (Lloyd, 2015). Second, my original aim had been to find communities that were as diverse as possible. However, when the opportunity arose to interview more than one participant from a community, I adapted my strategy. I realised this could yield a fuller and clearer understanding of how the community was organised and how it worked from varied perspectives. Additionally, by spending more time in the community, I might come to understand more about who chose to speak about what and in what context. This enabled exploration of a key Bourdesian theme of interest: what wasn’t spoken of. Therefore, I continued with this approach, accepting all participants from each community who were willing to be interviewed, rather than seeking greater diversity of communities.

I decided not to seek out further interviews once I had booked 20. However, the logistics of booking interviews ahead and the way that an interview opportunity would sometimes arise whilst I was on location, meant I ended up carrying out 23 interviews. The number of

interviews in each community were:

Community 1 - 2 interviewees (two separate visits) Community 2 - 2 interviewees (one visit, over one day) Community 3 - 1 interviewee (one visit)

Community 4 - 2 interviewees (one visit, over one day) Community 5 - 5 interviewees (one visit, over two days) Community 6 - 5 interviewees (one visit, over one day) Community 7 - 1 interviewee (one visit)

Community 8 - 2 interviewees (two separate visits) Community 9 - 3 interviewees (one visit, over one day).