Desaponificado

of an existing literature, and capture something of people's own understandings of the diverse processes of time-space compression. As such, and in line with the general aims of a qualitative approach, the methodology is centrally concerned with questions of meaning. But, rather than locating meaning in the understandings of some distanced academic observer, it seeks to understand how such meanings are constructed by these respondents themselves, people who live out the changing relations of the 'global' and the 'local' in their day-to-day lives. There are a range of techniques geared towards such a project, ranging from participant observation to 'autophotography' (Eyles & Smith, 1988), and it is important to outline the criteria behind the selection of my own particular methodology.

From the beginning it was felt that the main body of the thesis would move around a theoretically informed thematic analysis drawn from peoples own accounts, and gathered through a number of semi-structured interviews. But at the stage of an initial pilot study a number of secondary techniques were also considered, largely because the 'triangulation' of multiple research methods is one way to ensure a more rounded picture of any set of understandings, and to move towards greater 'theoretical adequacy' (Cook & Crang, 1994; Morley & Silverstone, 1991; Schütz, 1967). Early on, for example, the use of 'autophotography' was considered, as a way to capture people's own constructions of their local area. In the end, however, this was rejected. It was felt that it would have involved a detailed understanding of the 'politics of representation' that would draw attention away from the main aims of the thesis (some may be better at using a camera than others, for example, and some may not capture what they 'see' at all), and that an understanding of people's constructions of their local area could as easily and more directly be accessed through simple interview material (cf Cohen, 1989; Ziller, 1990; Ziller & Smith, 1975). So too participant observation was rejected because it was felt such techniques still located an understanding of the 'rationale' behind behaviour largely with the observer, rather than the observed (cf Dwyer, 1977; Evans 1988; Tedlock, 1991).

Initially, however, there was the aim of deploying a 'creative tension' between qualitative and quantitative techniques (Pile, 1992). For example, to capture the changing relations of presence and absence I considered using a modification of Wallman's map of 'affective distance', on which respondents could plot their social networks along the lines of both geographical and emotional distance (cf Wallman et al, 1982). Once again, however, it was felt not only that the emplotment exercise would take up too much time in the interview, but that such themes could be accessed more directly through interview material itself.

w ay to access such meanings was through an analysis of topics within which people could simply describe their 'everyday' experiences of time-space compression, and from which a more abstract set of theoretical concerns could then be 'read off'. As well as constructing these topics in ways that were accessible to people's own experiences it was therefore critical to conduct these discussions in a manner that would allow people to explore these topics in sufficient depth to bring out the ambiguous and contradictory nature of those experiences.

But there also exist a number of interview formats, ranging from the highly structured, to the 'semi-structured', single, repeat and group interviews, all of which intimately affect the type of material generated and thus a wider set of debates concerning the relations of 'theory' and 'method'. In my pilot study I had worked with seven respondents around a 'semi-structured' technique, but conducted just two interviews with each respondent. In these I had not been able to generate enough depth to develop the themes I wished to discuss, and in the main study it was decided more sessions were necessary.

At the same time it was decided not to use either group interviews or focus groups (Greenbaum, 1988). Whilst such techniques have generated significant attention within the discipline (Burgess, 1992b; Burgess et al, 1988a & h; Burgess et al, 1991), and there are a number of overlaps between group work and approaches used in one-to-one repeat interviews, I felt group techniques had a number of draw backs for the current project. First, I wanted to contextualize my respondent's understandings within a more developed biography of each respondent, and to do this with groups would have generated far too much material for a single worker to analyze. Secondly, group interviews can also represent an even more 'artificial' atmosphere than the one-to-one discussion, and people may not be confident enough to voice their opinions within the group especially when, as in the current research, many of the topics under discussion are of a highly personal nature. Thirdly, though this situation may be reversed, in as much as a group approach allows for the formulation of opinions in dialogue (particularly interesting, perhaps, within a conception of the new cultural class as a shared 'speech community') such work requires skills on the part of the co-ordinator that I did not feel I had. For example, the co-ordinator is often required to manage the group dynamic in such a way as to encourage revelation without engendering potentially damaging emotional confrontations. Though such a skill is also part of the repeat interview, such issues are generally easier to handle one-to-one than in in-depth groups (see Burgess et al, 1988a & h).

interviews held a number of benefits, both in relation to the type of topics under discussion and issues of coverage. Further, any research requires the negotiation of a set of unequal and hierarchical power relations. These issues impact upon the process of analysis, and the final presentation of the research document. But they are bought into stark relief within the interview itself, where a powerful researcher might intimidate a less powerful respondent into revealing aspects of their world they may wish to keep private, usually through playing on their professional credentials (Cornwall, 1984).

In the light of such arguments there has been a generalised move towards a less hierarchical research procedure. Here respondents are viewed not (or not only) as some sort of 'informational resource' to be milked for the benefit of the researcher (to get the material and advance their career, for example) but a (more) equal player in a project designed for the benefit of both parties. For example, it is often hoped that through the research process the respondent may have time to reflect on issues they would not normally dwell on, such that the research becomes a learning exercise for the respondent as well as the interviewer, and certainly this was one of the aims of the current project. One of the major benefits of a repeat interview format is that it allows time for this (more) equitable relationship to be established.

But this is not to imply that the interview itself will not move around the constant re-negotiation of a number of roles (Smith, 1988), and in the current project it quickly became clear that I was playing different roles with different respondents, and according to the topic under discussion. For example, when asking about the local area I would often move between the position of naive and inquisitive visitor, and that of local 'bore' (cf Jacobs, 1990). Where with Paul I tended to 'play' on our shared love of football, and my south London accent, with George and Alex there was a tendency to draw upon similar family and educational backgrounds. Even as this role playing can be understood as a move to engender greater intimacy, and thus encourage a certain material disclosure, it can also be seen as part of quite normal social interaction. We all play roles in all arenas of everyday life, and the 'cut off point' may only come when it is felt that such roles are a deliberate attempt to mislead, or intimidate the respondent.

Nor should such roles be understood as being played only by the researcher or always to the researcher's benefit. Many interviewees are quite capable of withholding information they do not want to disclose, as well as more subtle forms of 'resistance' (Plummer, 1983). Furthermore, there is still a certain prurience within the academy over the quite obvious role that sexual attraction can play in our research (Newton, 1993), combined with a tendency always to see such issues as working to the benefit of, if not always initiated by, the male researcher (cf Pile, 1991a). Pat, for example, certainly played

up her position of wise old matriarch (in contrast to the rather 'daft' intellectual who kept asking her such silly questions). In contrast, both Dorian and Amanda undertook a form of sexual flirtation that often made me extremely uncomfortable, but that I often reciprocated (not unaware that it was lending the interview a certain intimacy I would otherwise have found hard to generate).

Within a repeat interview format, where meetings may continue for several weeks (as in this case) or months, these relations can clearly become quite intense. This means that the researcher must tread a thin line between encouraging an intimacy that may lead to potentially damaging emotional disclosures (upsetting to both parties), and one in which the research may continue in a more open atmosphere. The respondent may often attempt to use such meetings as a form of therapy, and the researcher must be certain of how far they are prepared to let such a form develop (Burgess et al, 1988a & h).

For example, in my meetings with Amanda we often discovered material that was extremely upsetting to us both, and on one occasion I deliberately aborted the next meeting in order to the let the general atmosphere 'calm down' before reconvening two weeks later (I feigned illness). Further, it is important to recognize that neither party may be prepared to continue such intimacy outside of the quite specific atmosphere of the meetings, such that these developments need to be recognized, and if necessary diverted, at the time of the interview itself. Certainly, when Dorian and I met some months after our sessions (we bumped into each other on a bus) the meeting was fraught, and Dorian seemed embarrassed over 'what she might have told me about herself'. Yet in other cases, of course, researcher and interviewee might continue a friendly acquaintance. Since our interviews I have often met Alex quite easily on the street, I receive Christmas cards from Pat, and Paul has kept me informed of his growing family. Indeed, within an atmosphere that can generate such intimacy it was clearly important both that I liked my respondents, and that they liked me. As much as around those issues explored in section 3.3a, then, personal relations drove the selection procedure, and (I hope) the meetings were enjoyable for all concerned.®

3.4b Some everyday topics of time-space compression: the interview process