In the social and political sciences, the process of classification of individuals into groups in quantitative research has a long and problematic history. Much energy has been spent refining different models of categorisation, so that a ‘clearer’ picture of social stratification may be achieved. It is a picture that is freer from moral undertones, and one that emphasises the mapping of economic realities of people’s lives as they relate to their assets (such as level of income, political participation, occupation, education, home ownership, consumption and leisure patterns (Skeggs, 1997). The use of quantitative methods to generate subjective understandings and meanings of social process (as experienced by individuals) has been criticised, while qualitative research methods are documented to be well placed to facilitate the generation and analysis of participants’ perspectives in such ways that generate thick and rich description (Bryman, 2001; Stanley and Wise, 1993). Both quantitative and qualitative research illustrates, time and again, that British society is
hierarchical and highly stratified around clusters of assets (Bottero, 2005, Goldthorpe and Marshall, 1992, Goldthorpe and McKnight, 2006, Oesch, 2006, Savage et al., 2005b).
Whether or not patterns of stratification are interpreted as evidence for the salience of social class has been highly contested within sociological debates (Atkinson, 2010). These debates have come at a time when the highly stratified nature of society is not denied, but the relevance and legitimacy of the language of social class is questioned. Whether or not change (such as an increase in social mobility) within and across these clusters is possible from generation to generation is a central focus of the debate by sociologists, and one that calls the very usefulness of the concept of class into question (Bauman, 2004, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, Lash, 1994). Some social theorists dispute the usefulness of the concept and language of class because of changes to national and global economies. They argue that these changes have created greater fluidity between individuals in their relationships to traditional measures of social class, such as occupation, consumption and leisure habits, and political affiliations (Scott, 2002). Sociologists on the other side of this debate argue that empirical research demonstrates that class is still a highly salient sociological – as well as social – category; however, it is at the same time variously disavowed by research participants and theorists (not to mention politicians and the media) (Bennett, 2009, Savage, 2010). Theorists who insist on the relevance of social class as a structured and structuring force in people’s lives have come to see the disavowal of social class not as evidence of its
irrelevance, but as a signifier of its immensely problematic explanatory power, not least in relation to the intense ways in which it is underpinned by moral economies and discourses (Bourdieu, 1987, Sayer, 2005b, Skeggs, 2004).
Considering the difficulties surrounding the avowal and disavowal of social class, how then can a qualitative empirical study – which has it as a central theoretical concept – proceed? One response taken up by scholars has been to argue that methodological problems, or ‘class denial’, serve the analysis and evidence the subjectively contested meanings of class, and the highly relevant relationship of social class to social processes (Reay, 1997a, Skeggs, 1997). To a large extent I share this position; yet I am aware that this does not necessarily serve as a guide to talk about class in the interview process. While much has been written on the problems and limits of operationalising the concept of social class, this has largely been taken up by researchers using quantitative research methods, such as the survey. Much less has been said about operationalising the concept for qualitative research (Goldthorpe and Marshall, 1992, Goldthorpe and McKnight, 2006, Savage et al., 2005b). This extends into research methods books, which are strangely quiet on the issue of how to research class using qualitative research methods. This is particularly strange when, unlike topics related to gender, sexuality, children, trauma or ‘race’ and ethnicity, class is not often considered to be a sensitive topic of research (Babbie, 2007, Bernard, 2000, Bryman, 2012, Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). Perhaps this is because investigating processes of social class almost exclusively through the use of interviews is difficult, and rare, as the topic
itself is conceptually problematic for all concerned. Indeed, as the research shows, asking direct questions about people’s experiences of class often results in an obfuscation of the term and contestation of its implicit and explicit meanings (Savage et al., 2001, Savage et al., 2005b, Skeggs, 1997, Warde, 2010). Thinking about how to elicit class-talk (using the language of the sociology of class or stratification) is problematic because of the issues of the disavowal of social class – but it is possible.
A likely problem with researching social class is that the topic is infused with politically contested meanings, and everyday understandings of the terms employed; these terms are often complex and contradictory, for both researcher and the researched. Skeggs (2004) argues that research on class is itself always political; much of the research on class carried out by those who insist on its relevance has an emancipatory agenda, which has much in common with feminist research. The next section looks at how emancipatory agendas have been taken up by feminist researchers, and what they have to offer to scholars researching social class.
THE USEFULNESS OF FEMINIST METHODOLOGIES FOR