Nov 14 2014

From behind the lens in a familiar place: Reflections on using photography to explore gentrification in Los Angeles

Leave a comment

As I would assume many do, I found field research by far the most exciting part of the PhD experience. During the fieldwork stage not only was I released from the isolating process of reading, writing, and project planning, but I was able to watch theories, hunches, and answers come alive. It was the point where my relationship with the subject was most intimate and most revealing. The photographs that I took during fieldwork were a reflection of this intimacy, and were indeed the glue that held my data together. However snapping these images did not come without unexpected moments and a few lessons learnt, even in a location in which I could not have been more familiar. Here I reflect a bit on my time in Los Angeles making my way through the neighbourhood of Silver Lake with a camera in hand, and an open mind, writes Juliet Kahne.

I am often envious when I hear exciting ‘tales from the field’ from colleagues, especially when fieldwork has been conducted in areas foreign and exotic to the researcher. In the case of my PhD, the field research consisted of seven months in Los Angeles – a well-known, well-documented, and well-developed city, and a city I already knew extremely well given I that I grew up there. The fieldwork experience was very much as I expected it to be, and overall everything ran smoothly due to my familiarity with the location, its people, and a great deal of pre-planning. However as a participant observer who was highly dependent on the use of a camera as I made my way through the research area, there was indeed an element of surprise in my fieldwork, and I did have some unexpected encounters.

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 23.06.15

Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California

My PhD research investigated a historic neighbourhood in the eastern section of Los Angeles – Silver Lake – that appeared to be resisting mature gentrification despite being situated in a sea of re-development projects around Downtown Los Angeles and Hollywood. Ostensibly, this was an investigation into ‘social’ and ‘cultural’ urban processes, and an attempt to identify the various physical characteristics of the gentrification process due to an influx of capital. Due to the socio-cultural nature of my research topic, fieldwork was based on people and their experiences, but also it was highly based on the changing physical state of the research area over time. I therefore used photographs to record much of what I was ‘seeing’.  Photographs captured the setting of Silver Lake and the processes that were taking place within it, and a ‘photo diary’ became the foundation of ideas, thoughts, themes, knowledge, and observation shared throughout the final thesis. Using photography I was able to capture Silver Lake the ‘place’, rather than just the gentrified Silver Lake the media often described, and furthermore I was able to see, and show, the gentrification process in action.

Silver Lake

Workers putting the finishing touches on a new artisan coffee shop on Silver Lake’s western border. (Photograph by Juliet Kahne, 2012)

Noting the participatory act of ‘doing’ cultural geography, as opposed to being a passive researcher, Shurmer-Smith (2002: 4-5) states that “Doing [cultural geography] includes looking, feeling, thinking, playing, talking, writing, photographing, drawing, assembling, collecting, recording and filming as well as the more familiar reading and listening”. I feel this very much applied to my PhD fieldwork and the photography that documented the entire experience (see also Deljana Iossifova’s earlier post, which explains the use of photography in fieldwork). As I wandered through Silver Lake taking photographs over the seven months I was there, I saw change as it was taking place – buildings changing from one use to another, shops changing hands, and new businesses popping up. In gentrification, there is typically an ‘aesthetic’ associated with this process (see Bridge, 2006), and this was something I tried to document since it is truly a visual change in the landscape. One day as I crossed into Silver Lake from neighbouring Los Feliz I noticed the final touches being put on a new coffee shop, clearly showing examples of this aesthetic. The building had held a variety of businesses over the years but remained a non-descript looking building without much character. It was receiving a make-over with a clean font title, style, and colour scheme that better represented the aesthetic of an up-and-coming neighbourhood – this is besides the fact that an abundance of coffee shops in a neighbourhood often signals gentrification in its early stages. This new establishment, and the abundance of similar ones in surrounding locations, became useful in photographs as I could track the visual changes taking place in the landscape that were representative of gentrification. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Editor Tagged with: , , ,

Oct 30 2014

Embedding research in local contexts: local knowledge, stakeholders’ participation and fieldwork design

Leave a comment

It is not always easy for researchers to explain how and why a research project is important to local people whose interests may be diverse or in conflict. Viewing fieldwork as a process of constructive communication with all the stakeholders for better understanding of local situations with a broader context, this post argues that the balance and interface between research focus and common interests of relevant stakeholders must be found at the beginning of the fieldwork. It raises questions about the nature of fieldwork and roles of local stakeholders in the process: Why do we need the participation from multiple stakeholders? How can they make a contribution to the fieldwork? What attitude, approach and preparation could be helpful for the researcher in order to conduct an effective and successful fieldwork? The aforementioned questions are addressed via a field research experience in Italy, which involved adjusting the research focus and involved wide participation from local people including Chinese migrant workers, writes Bin Wu.

A good beginning of fieldwork is largely dependent upon how a researcher explains his/her research aims and relevance to local people, which requires a good understanding and use of local knowledge. Local knowledge is even more important for fieldwork in a complicated or transitional society, such as China or Chinese society to which available academic references or theories may not be appropriate in light of high complexity, low trust, interest conflicts and rapid changeable environments. This raises questions about the roles of local knowledge and stakeholders’ participation in the fieldwork design and implementation, a vital condition for an effective and successful fieldwork.

Local knowledge here is broadly defined as a sum of facts, concepts, beliefs and perceptions used by local people to reflect or interpret the world around them. Different from abstract or general knowledge which has been widely adopted or circulated within academic circles, local knowledge are created by and accumulated within local people. It may not be necessarily limited to a specific location or group but normally unfamiliar to scholars. Essentially, it reflects the way local people observe, measure and reflect on their surroundings, their solutions or coping strategies as well as how they validate new information. Local knowledge is different from ‘traditional knowledge’ or ‘indigenous knowledge’, used in a negative way to reflect local people who live in areas isolated from the rest of the world or their knowledge systems which are static and do not interact with other knowledge systems.

Based upon the broad definition of local knowledge highlighted above, the two extremes of fieldwork strategies can be distinguished from each other: academic-driven and community-based. The former treats a fieldwork as a process of information collection from “samples” or sampled population for the purpose of theoretical testing in which local people have nothing to do but provide genuine information/data requested by the researcher. The latter refers to a mutual process of learning, communication and interaction between the researcher and local people for common interests. The differences of two approaches can be illustrated in Table 1 below. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Editor Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Oct 21 2014

Encountering Chinese officials: bureaucratism, politics and power struggle

Leave a comment

Encountering officials is inevitable in many research projects in China. The encounter itself shows a snapshot of how local officialdom works. Being rejected by the officials, being unable to find the officials during office hours, being passing like a ball from one office to another, and being scolded or humiliated were normal occurrences for ordinary people in dealing with local officials. ‘In a meeting’ was a frequently named excuse by officials to avoid unwelcome visits. Encountering Chinese officials thus put challenge on researchers to get needed information, to interpret meanings behind words, and to explore complex relationships behind certain phenomenon. But the encounter itself constitutes a significant part of the research ‘field’. This post proposes carefully reflecting the laborious process of encountering government bureaus and officials to deepen our understanding of the local social world, writes Jiong Tu.

Screen Shot 2014-10-18 at 12.48.59

Sichuan, China

My PhD project explores people’s moral experience of health care transformations over the past decades in a county in eastern Sichuan, China. In the field from 2011 to 2012, I met many patients and health professionals through acquaintances’ introductions without much difficulty. People sincerely shared with me their concerns and worries as health care increasingly became a troubling issue. I also interviewed dozens of health administrators and officials in order to get a view from within the structure of the authority with respect to the health policy agenda and administration. Perhaps because I went back to my ‘hometown’ for fieldwork and my topic is not politically sensitive, I experienced neither intervention that many western researchers encountered in China (such as that depicted in an earlier post of this blog by Lisa Richaud), nor the fear and scare depicted in Mayfair Yang’s fieldwork in Beijing (Yang 2004) and in Yunpeng Zhang’s fieldwork in Shanghai (see this previous post here). But my encounters with local officials were frequently disturbing, dramatic and sometimes humiliating.

Politics at the bottom of bureaucratic structure

Figure 1

The county capital of my research site (Photo credit: Jiong Tu, December 2011)

In 2009 when I first did my master thesis research in the county, I naively went directly to local health office to ask for some data. There I was ruthlessly rejected by the officers, who responded to me in a scolding tone that I did not know even the basic social rule. ‘How could you come directly to a government office to ask for information?’ they responded. They said that I should at least ask some acquaintance to make a reference call to them, or else how could they know who I actually was, even though I had showed them my student card and a reference letter from university. As a native who spoke local dialect and appeared to be just an ordinary local young person, they simply rejected me. That time I did not get any information. The encounter several years ago gave me a lesson how I ‘should’ interact with government officials in a conservative interior county.

When I did research in this county again in 2011, I always tried to find some acquaintance to introduce me to local health administrators and officials. With the introduction of a reliable acquaintance, many administrators and officials appeared to be kind, sincere and outspoken during interview. Some of them further introduced me to their subordinates. Even so, I still met many obstacles in interacting with officials. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Editor Tagged with: , , , , ,

Oct 14 2014

Confessions of a ‘doorstep researcher’: Reflections on a comparative study of displacement experiences

Leave a comment

In  many  cities,  public  authorities  engage  in  redevelopment  or  renewal  of disadvantaged neighbourhoods.  While  the  aim  is  social,  physical  and  economic upgrading  of  these   neighbourhoods,  the  result  is  often  displacement  of  local residents.  Despite  the  growing literature  on  displacement,  we  know  little  about  how residents  experience  the  process of  displacement.  This  research  studies  residents’ displacement  experiences  through  the analytical  lens  of  accumulation  by dispossession. This post looks at the challenges and rewards that come with comparative methods, writes Bahar Sakızlıoglu.

In my PhD thesis, ‘A comparative Look at Residents’ Experiences of Displacement: The Cases of Amsterdam and Istanbul’ (Sakızlıoglu 2014b), I investigated how residents experience displacement in neighbourhoods undergoing renewal. In this piece, I will share some of the methodological challenges I faced and concerns I had during my research. I will discuss firstly the theoretical promises of engaging in a comparative (urbanism) practice. After mentioning the difficulties of employing comparative methodology, I will discuss the promises of being a ‘doorstep researcher’ and how it helps to grasp and map the socio-spatial and temporal divisions. I end this piece with a critique of ‘academic sightseeing’ in neighbourhoods undergoing urban renewal. For this exercise, my arguments are exemplified primarily through the case of Istanbul with brief references to Amsterdam.

The promise of comparative urbanism: Breaking the conventional thinking

Istanbul, Turkey

Istanbul, Turkey

Following the call for comparative urbanism (Robinson 2006, Lees 2012), I analysed two very different cases, Amsterdam and Istanbul, within a single theoretical framework built around the concept of accumulation by dispossession (Harvey 2005). I carried out my fieldwork in Istanbul first, and my field experiences and findings there shaped the questions and expectations for my fieldwork in Amsterdam. This enabled me to identify some aspects of the displacement process that I might not have observed otherwise. For instance, my observation that authorities in Istanbul used their discretionary and informal power to manage the process of displacement made me ask if such modalities of power could also be found in the rather formal policy environment of Amsterdam.


Indische Buurt, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Indische Buurt, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Indeed, I found that many of the residents in Amsterdam did not have regular tenant contracts and were not officially recognised as stakeholders in renewal processes. Housing corporations who are in charge of implementing renewal projects in Amsterdam start renting out vacant flats to temporary renters instead of regular tenants as early as five years before the projected renewal date. These temporary renters are not afforded many renters’ rights protections. This deregulation of rent protection through the insertion of temporary renters indicates a ‘calculated informality’ (Roy 2009: 83) that enables housing corporations to set aside their formal obligations to compensate renters for their displacement. More spaces for informality are created because the allocation of housing to temporary renters is loosely regulated. These precarious tenants are routinely overlooked in research on the Dutch housing market even though their precariousness aids the smooth operation of displacement through renewal. In regards to question of discretionary and informal power, I could thus shed light on how authorities create and use informality in Amsterdam to manage the process of displacement. This was an interesting comparative exercise that helped break with the conventional thinking that associates informality only to the cities in the Global South. Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Editor Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Sep 19 2014

Fieldwork in a digital age: Questions of privacy and copyright

Leave a comment

Maximising research impact and promoting knowledge sharing require researchers to pay greater attention to the ways in which data are collected, processed and stored for systematic access at a later date. This also means that questions of privacy and copyright would emerge naturally. In this post, Jenny Ostini explains how she has dealt with the issues of licensing, privacy and communication with research participants while she was building up a database of digital literacy narratives based on her research project to study people’s everyday digital literacies.

As a communication historian working in a digital research institute, I often find myself asking tricky research and ethical questions. This is not necessarily because I set out to do so, but because they are inherent to the nature of new media and technology and may not immediately have obvious answers. This is especially the case when there is a greater focus on the technical aspects of innovation than on the social. Many studies of technology have a greater focus on the “gee whiz” factor of innovation (what Kathleen Tynan refers to as the “rah-rah promotion of technology”) for its own sake rather than critical examination of short and long-term implications of technology. These ethical questions may get swept under the rug.

What some might call the administrative and technical issues of research can have serious implications both for the research outcomes and for researcher’s use of fieldwork data. In my current research project, questions of how data are collected and shared have become such significant issues that the project has broken into two streams: the fieldwork itself and the management of the data.

Fieldwork locations: Toowoomba and Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Fieldwork locations: Toowoomba and Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Recording digital literacy narratives in the field using the Twisted Wave app on an iPad with an Rode IXY mic attachment. (Photograph taken by Jenny Ostini) CC-BY

Recording digital literacy narratives in the field using the Twisted Wave app on an iPad with an Rode IXY mic attachment. (Photograph taken by Jenny Ostini) CC-BY

My research project is a study of people’s everyday digital literacies, that is, the practices in which we engage on a daily basis as we interact with technology. I’m collecting people’s stories of their first encounter with a computer and their most recent uses of computers and digital devices. I’m digging into their memories of learning to read and write and learning to use computers. I’m also exploring the rules around using computers at home, at school and personally. And I’m trying to find out how comfortable people feel with technology and what they do when things go wrong.  I’m interviewing a wide range of people about their experiences: from 14 and 15 year old schoolgirls in Brisbane to new university students and postgraduate students to academics involved in a digital research network at a regional university. I’m trying to build up a picture of the trajectories of individual digital literacy within each person’s social context. It has also become a work-in-progress testing some of the ethical and copyright issues around digital research.

Social science research is often focused on the big questions, requiring large samples and de-identified data. Ethnographies and social history are the stories of the particular and the individual.  Understanding why something is said or done is about knowing how that individual is situated in their social, economic and political contexts. As an individual researcher this is not an issue. It simply requires careful planning and use of information. But what happens when you want to go beyond the individual researcher to build shared resources that you might not be able to control access to, and use of? Or if your goal is to build a shared research resource? Continue reading

Posted by: Posted on by Editor Tagged with: , , , , , ,