Percepción visual

‘… we should say, what is as obvious as it is important, that for the most part we can only report what people say they do, which is not necessarily the same as what they actually do.’(Young and Willmott, 2007 [1957], xxvii)

In seeking to define qualitative research Denzin (2003) identifies seven chronological moments in the history of this approach to research: the traditional (1900-1950), the modernist (1950-1970), blurred genres (1970-1986), the crisis of representation (1986-1990), the postmodern (1990-1995), postexperimental inquiry (1995-2000) and the future (2000 - now). My study draws its inspiration from the third of these moments that of ‘blurred genres’. It is informed by the work of Clifford Geertz, who argued that the old functional, positivist, behavioural totalising approaches in the social sciences were being replaced by more pluralistic, interpretive and open-ended perspective. By calling on researchers to provide ‘thick descriptions’ of social phenomena Geertz stressed the role of researcher as an interpreter of interpretations arguing that the research text represents interpretations of interpretations (rather than objective descriptions of reality) (see Denzin, 2003, 24-25). For Denzin (2003), amongst others, the issue now becomes the author’s presence in the

118

interpretative text and the authority of the researcher in an age without any firm rules regarding the text, its standards of evaluation and its subject matter. Importantly, as Denzin (2003) notes, the blurred genres approach, emphasising as it does an interpretative approach, is closely associated with the theoretical approaches of constructivism and interaction which underpin my selection of methods of in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

However, the use of this method is not without criticism and although in-depth interviews have been widely used in qualitative research (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Denzin, 2003; Seale, 1999; Silverman, 1997, 2001) there remain considerable debates, and sometimes controversy, about their use. This method has been seen as overused becoming the position of the default method within qualitative research that is not sufficiently interrogated as to its appropriateness and utility. There has also been strong criticism from some academics who talk about endless, ‘Oprah style’ interviews that contribute little to existing knowledge (Silverman in Gergen and Gergen, 2000, Atkinson and Silverman, 1997). Atkinson and Silverman also argue that the use of interviews can give researchers a spurious sense of the authenticity, stability and security of their data as the direct contact with participants and the amount of data frequently generated by such interviews can create a sense of authenticity that is uncritically presented by the researcher. Furthermore, there can be an uncritical or even unacknowledged adoption of the use of interviewing without consideration of the differing power between the researcher and researched, not least because the former hold the ‘monopoly of interpretation’ (Kvale, 2006). Others have questioned the validity of interviews as providing a “window” on to a world, claiming that interview data, despite efforts to minimise bias, can only provide a valid picture of what occurs in interviews (Sacks, 1992). The interviewer’s aim is to elicit a range of interpretative practices in the expectation that these will more accurately map the interpretative practices used outside the research interview (Potter and Mulkey, 1985).

119

Although I am fully aware of the limitations of the use of in-depth, semi-structured interviewing they remained the most appropriate method for me to use for a number of reasons. First, as already noted above qualitative methods allow us to‘…study things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them (Denzin and Lincoln, 1995: 16). In similar ways Mason argues that through

…qualitative research we can explore a wide array of dimensions of the social world, including the texture and weave of everyday life, the understandings, experiences and imaginings of our research participants, the ways that social processes, institutions, discourses or relationships work and the significance of the meanings they generate (Mason, 1996:1).

Second, as South (2005: 11) argues (in a study not dissimilar to mine) the use of qualitative methods, in the form of in-depth, semi-structured interviews such as those conducted in this study, can be used to demonstrate how individuals are more than ‘passive victims of fate’in terms of, for example, policy and its implementation and how they actually inter-act with and respond in ways relevant, ultimately, to some of the proposed policy outcomes. Third, and most importantly, I very much wanted to hear how residents of the Leys, an area that has been ’othered’ and territorially stigmatized more or less since its construction in the 1950s interpreted, narrated and presented their own experiences of living on the estate. I wanted to see if there was a counter-narrative that could be contrasted with the dominant narratives reflected in policy, media representations, the views of professionals and residents of other parts of Oxford. Again, this seems important to me as a way of trying to encourage a move away from the dominant monologue which defines and is directed at the

120

residents of the estate to one in which, as some level at least, there is a dialogue informed by alternative and seldom-heard voices.

I argue that utilizing qualitative, semi-structured interviews was the most appropriate way to access the data I wished to access in order explore and answer my research questions (Marshall, 1996). However, Willmott and Young’s statement which opened this section – that we can only report what participants say they do – is not quite the whole picture. While I have tried to reproduce an accurate depiction of the participants’ views, experiences and narratives I also recognise that that qualitative research of this kind consists of negotiation and the construction/re-construction of the meanings given to social interactions and that the data gathered through such interviewing is highly situated and has no necessarily fixed meaning (Popay and Williams, 1994). Thus the researcher may report on what participants have told them but they also play a significant role in constructing the meanings and significance attached to what the participants may have said and researchers need to be actively conscious of this as they proceed through their work.