Australian anthropologist Raymond Madden defines ethnography as “writing about people” (Madden, 2010:16). In an ethnographic research, the researcher needs to be among the people he or she studies, in order to shape an understanding of the object at study (ibid.). This research is inspired by ethnographic methods for what regards my participation in favela life during field-work, and it leans on a social constructionist ap- proach with an interactionist perspective, as has been presented in section 3.1.
The primary source of empirical material are interviews that I have conducted during my seven-week stay in Vidigal. These are supported by participant observations and document analysis. Mik-Meyer and Jaärvinen (2005:11) point out how the pragmatic in- teractionist approach sees a broad spectrum of qualitative methods as desirable. This is in line with the interactionist perspective's theoretical approach, that sees action as be- ing shaped in interaction with the surrounding context (ibid.:10). Brown-Saracino un- derlines how researchers often conceptualise gentrification without direct contact with the people they study, a conceptualisation away from “the sound of hammers and saws as workmen refurbish houses, [and] the individuals seated at a new coffee shop or bis- tro” (2010b:14). Similarly, Atkinson and Bridge (2005:7) highlight how “there has been more theory and less observation in recent times with perhaps not enough work to con- nect the two and engage with pragmatic policy responses to gentrification”. In this thes- is, through ethnographic methods, I aim at connecting these two levels.
Brown-Saracino points out how her study of gentrifers in rural and urban US has be- nefited from a similar combination of methods. Arguing for the inclusion of participant observation in her methodological framework, she argues that: “[w]ithout the combined methods, we would not have a full understanding of [the object at study]. In the same sense, interviews alone would have left us with questions about whether social preser- vationists translate their beliefs into practice” (Brown-Saracino, 2009:49). For these reasons, this research makes use of a combination of methods.
In the following I briefly present the different methodological tools that ethnograph- ers such as James Spradley (1979 & 1980) and Raymond Madden (2010) have intro-
Methodology and Operationalisation
duced16. At the same time, I justify the choice of these methods placing them within the
interactionist approach presented by in Jaärvinen and Mik-Meyer's anthology (2005).
4.2.1 - Interviews
The twenty-four iterviews conducted in Vidigal are the primary source of empirical material for this thesis. The ethnographic interview is very similar to a friendly conver- sation (Spradley, 1979:58 and Rubow, 2010:227;234), in which the ethnographer aims at discussing certain specific topics. The purpose of the interviews has been that of in- vestigating my informants' production of meaning and their positioning in relation to the changes Vidigal is undergoing. I have attempted to avoid as much as possible direct questions about the broader social context (e.g. gentrification, class differences, etc.), asking the informants to talk about their everyday lives and interactions within the favela. This, in accordance to the interactionist perspective, has been an attempt to focus on the production of meaning through which the world is shaped (Mik-Meyer and Jaärvinen, 2005:16). In an interactionist perspective, the interview is not a “find-and- uncover-mission”, but rather an interaction between interviewer and informant in which also the interviewer influences the produced results (ibid.:15). Cicourel (1964:97 in Jaärvinen, 2005:28) points out how the interview is a social interaction, and it has to be analysed as any other social encounter. Therefore, the interview has to be put in rela- tion to the social context that has produced it. This entails both the physical context (in the direct encounter with the interviewer) and the broader social context. During the analysis I use these interviews as exemplifiers of broader patterns and I put my inform- ants' words in relation to the context they are placed in. At the same time, I account for the way in which my presence and interaction with the informants has contributed in
16 In their work, Spradley (1979 & 1980) and Madden (2010) present a wide variety of ready- to-use tools for the practising ethnographer. These tools regard planning, performance and analysis of interviews and observations, as well as selection of informants and of social set- tings to be observed. In this section I only briefly introduce the key elements of their ethno- graphic methods, while the entirety of their tools and suggestions have served as a general inspiration in the planning of my field-work.
Part I – The Frame
shaping the result of the interviews. Goffman (1981 in Rubow, 2010:240) points out how semi-structured interviews allow both the informant and the interviewer to change positions (social identities, to use Jaärvinen's terminology [2005:30]) along the course of the interview. Following Jaärvinen (2005:40), I focus on the unexpected, and highlight the contradictions within my informants' words rather than flattening them out.
In order to allow a dialectic interaction with the informant and to be open to the un- expected, while at the same time making sure to discuss some of the relevant themes for this research, the interviews are of the semi-structured type. A copy of the inspirational interview-guide can be found as appendix B. I present the reasons behind my choices of informant in section 4.3.