Rendimiento académico.

Epistemological and ontological considerations

Chapter 1 laid out my theoretical framework for this thesis. I have argued for the need to reground theories of subcultural research by recognising the connectedness of participants and their lives to their wider social and cultural world.

As such this research is shaped by a constructivist ontology. The social world, along with its structures, rules and norms, is constructed through interactions between actors. Meaning and understanding is created through intersubjective communication and sharing (Crossley, 1996). This

conceptualisation of the social world has important implications for my methodological approach.

In interrogating the everyday implications of punk, it is necessary to understand how punks themselves conceptualise and attach meaning to their practices. I therefore take an interpretivist ethnographic approach (Denzin, 1997; Marcus and Fischer, [1986] 1999). I recognise and communicate my position as affecting the production of the data, as well as in interpreting and presenting the data in the form of this thesis.

Ethnography

An ethnographic approach, in which the researcher is immersed in their field of study for a prolonged period of time, participating in it and observing it, enables me to ‘focus […] on how experience and practice are part of wider processes’ (Skeggs, 2001: 426). As such this is the best approach for a project that will fully fit with my theoretical framework, for reasons I shall outline in this chapter.

An ethnographic approach makes available a range of research

methods including (participant) observation and interviewing, as well as the collecting of documents and other artefacts; most often, ethnographers combine a number of these techniques (Bryman, [2001] 2008; Hammersley and Atkinson, [1983] 1995). Such a methodological approach will ensure data that can result in a ‘thick description of events’ (Geertz, 1973:6), allowing the multiplicity, complexity and connectivity of the social world to emerge as required by my theoretical framework.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the turn to subcultural research projects which employ ethnographic rather than semiotic methodologies has

produced pieces of work (Haenfler, 2006; Hodkinson, 2002; Gololobov et al., 2014; Leblanc, 1999; Wallach, 2008) which have better unpicked the social practices through which participants construct meaning.

However, ethnographic projects have a chequered past, with exploitative practices that must be avoided (Punch, 1986; Spivak 1988;

Stacey 1988). I therefore take a feminist approach to my ethnographic and interviewing practices, recognising, claiming responsibility for, and working to minimise, the power relations that exist between researcher and

participant (Haraway, 1991; Skeggs, 2001). I discuss the ways in which I have sought to achieve this below in this section, and also in sections 2.4 and 2.5.

This ethnographic project utilises participant observation, in which I recorded notes in a field diary, and interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Each of these techniques will be discussed in more detail.

The majority of the fieldwork for this project was conducted at gigs, many of which were in Amsterdam where I was based for the majority of my fieldwork, but also in Groningen, Nijmegen and Leiden. Gigs are the prime location for punks to socialise, often between and after the bands have played. Gigs are not only where bands are on ‘show’, but also where

merchandise, art, zines, and other (often political) literature are distributed. Especially in a fragmented punk scene, such as Amsterdam (see Chapters 3 and 4), gigs were often the main location where punks would meet up

beyond band practices and gatherings for close friendship groups. As gigs are open to the public, they therefore formed a prime research ‘gateway’ to the scene. In addition to this I also undertook participant observation in a variety of other locations, at more ‘everyday’ subcultural venues such as record shops, squats, Amsterdam’s anarchist bookshop, ‘punk’ bars, and even at a band’s practice session, as well as at more ‘occasional’ events including a participant’s birthday party, a squatters’ demonstration and a gig after-party.

Two participants were kind enough to give me ‘guided’ tours to the ‘best’ punk places in other cities I visited, in Nijmegen and in Groningen. At one point in my research I also embarked on volunteering at a ‘VoKu’1_{at a squat}

in Amsterdam-East, which entailed helping out with food preparation, cooking and serving, and then relaxing and eating with others later.

Field notes were always written up in a diary as soon as possible after the events had taken place and were analysed as outlined in section 2.6. My field notes recorded the events which took place, who else was there

(including demographic estimations), stylistic elements, the practices in which I and they participated in, notes on my own emotional reactions to events as well as what I perceived others might be feeling, and notes from memory on any pertinent conversations held.

Ethnography and participatory techniques often generate other forms of data as the researcher collects any available ‘subcultural’ paraphernalia. I gratefully accepted gifts from my participants where they wished to share their cultural artefacts with me. For example, I was given CDs and records, band merchandise, books or zines they had written, etc. On other occasions I bought items available either at gigs or in shops. I collected newspapers, leaflets and posters that had interesting stories, and made photographs – sometimes of participants’ own collections.

1_{A German acronym for ‘Volks Küche’ (transl. People’s Kitchen) which is used}

Image 1:Kosta’s ‘Best of Dutch punk collection’. Photo taken by author, 6 February 2011.

Conducting interviews

Processes of interviewing are where power inequality between researcher and participant can be particularly harmful to the individuals involved, and to the research produced. As such there has been much work done (Langellier and Hall, 1989; Oakley, 1981 Punch, 1986; Smith, 1979) on how interviewing can be done in a feminist and non-exploitative way. This includes attempting to redress power hierarchy through reciprocity and rapport (Oakley, 1981, Bryman, [2001] 2008), in order to empower women who take part in

research projects. I felt it most appropriate, given my theoretical framework, to apply this approach toallinterviews, regardless of gender, recognising that a power-hierarchy between researcher and interviewee is present in any

situation and that oppression and lack of privilege can stem from markers other than gender identity (Crenshaw, 1991). In a similar way, Haenfler (2006) employed feminist approaches in all his interviewing as his aim was to give voice to his participants and allow them to tell their story. The specific techniques that I employed in order to address the power imbalance in my interviews is discussed in sections 2.4 and 2.5.

In order to understand how the meaning of punk is constructed by participants it was crucial that I let the interviews be as open as possible, inviting a free discussion of what the interviewee believed to be pertinent to a discussion of punk (Haenfler, 2004). However, as I wished to have a few questions and themes that were discussed in most, if not all, interviews I settled on a (loosely adhered to) semi-structured interview format. Before entering the field I drew up an ‘interview guide’2_{. This structure was}

designed to generate data both about the contemporary scene, and how each individual believed that the scene had changed over time. Interviews with former or older participants would work as oral history testimonies, as well as touch on key themes in terms of politics and intergenerational

relationships. Interviews were recorded and later transcribed in their original language (see sections 2.5 and 2.8).

2_{I made sure to ask about the participant’s journey into, through, and their}

involvement in punk, their wider interests and political engagements, as well as some biographical details. Specific questions were tailored towards each individual.

Oral history and living memory

Key to my interviewing technique, especially amongst older punk

participants, was an emphasis on uncovering a sense oftheirhistory of Dutch punk. Interviews were to have an ‘oral history’ dimension in which

participants were asked for their perspectives on how Dutch punk had developed and changed and how their interactions with it had shifted over time. Whilst this project only drew on oral history techniques and did not aim to produce full biographical life histories of all participants, the dimension through which ‘a’ history of Dutch punk (Chapter 3) is produced is an important element of the project’s methodology.

The choice to focus the historical element of this project on oral history techniques is in keeping with the overall theoretical framework in which participant voices and understandings are privileged. This is a particularly important element of oral history as it focuses on empowering those whose voices are erased and are absent from more traditional forms of history based on official documentation (Thompson,[1978] 2000), and allows us to focus on people rather than ‘big structures and grand processes’ (Klandermans and Mayer, 2005: xvi).

The use of oral history techniques refocuses our minds on how histories (like any form of social research) are not produced in contextual vacuums; neither by academics, nor by participants. ‘In oral history, in fact, we do not simply reconstruct the history of an event but also the history of its memory, the ways in which it grows, changes, and operates in the time

between then and now’ (Portelli, 2009: 24). Oral history relies on memory which is notorious for shifting over time and place and reflects the

contemporary situation as much as it does the past.

In sociological studies, oral history is most often utilised in the form of narrativised life histories, or ‘life stories’, shifting the focus from events with which participants bore witness to, to their experiences. As Bertaux (1981) argues, ‘life stories are some of the best tools with which to elicit the

expression of what people already know about social life’ (39). These stories illuminate as much of the present context and ‘anticipated future realities’ (Rosenthal, 1997: 63), as they tell us of participants’ understandings of their past.

Moreover, in the context of the interview situation the participant will respond to their perception of what the interviewer is interested in, resulting in an interactive process between both parties of creating a biographical historical account (Rosenthal, 1997). As such the ‘situation of the inquiry’ can greatly affect the way in which a participant chooses to present themselves, ranging from the ‘official presentation of the official model of the self’ to (rarely) the ‘intimate exchanges between very close friends and from the logic of the secret which are current in these protected markets’ (Bourdieu, 2000: 303). The relationship between – and positionality of – both

interviewer and participant, can affect the way in which the interviewee may present themselves (Joseph, 1996). ‘Life histories are thus not a collection of all the events of an individual’s life course, but rather “structured self-

images”. This comes close to some notions of “identity”’ (Kohli, 1981: 65). Indeed, in this sense, a life history interview is no less interactional than any form of interview. Whilst some may therefore critique the generalisability and reliability of such techniques in the face of these subjectivities,

Kremakova (2012) defends their ability to produce the sort of rich detail welcomed in ethnographic research: ‘Even though each interview is only one of countless possible renditions of an individual’s life story, a varied

collection of interviews eventually collates a rich patchwork image that can reveal in broad terms individual lives’ (168).

As suggested by Portelli (2009), oral and life histories are greatly affected by the production of memory, which ‘is an experience of the present’ rather than of the past (Mah, 2010: 401). Oral history makes clear the tension between ‘private’ memories over ‘official’ memories, and privileges the former over the latter (Portelli, 2009). Mah (2010) suggests with her concept ‘living memory,’ that: ‘local memories exist within the present as dynamic and changing processes and that they do not necessarily function as part of the social construction of official or unofficial collective memory’ (403). ‘Living memory’ thereby captures the malleability of the nature of the stories told by participants in oral history interviews.

Given this, it is important to be aware of researcher positionality, the relationship and rapport between interviewer and participant, and the wider context that might affect the stories told. Most notably for this research project (and as discussed in the introduction to Chapter 3) was the change in

legal status of squatting in the Netherlands at the time of my research. In the light of shifting public opinions, participants may have sought to emphasise the importance of squats as part of a wider project of defending squatting. Their living memories, in this context, became a political tool in the battle for squatters’ rights.

It was notable throughout my interviews that participants were most animated and keen to discuss their earliest experiences as part of the punk movement, I relate this too to memory practices in which the most vivid memories are formed by ‘new’ experiences, rather than those which had become more commonplace after 5, 10, or even 20 years of experience as a punk. This ultimately impacts upon the manner in which oral histories are created.

2.3 Positionality