Study 3: Observations in the community

Study 3: Observations in the community

The first study in this research project, as described above, focused predominantly on the fire service and, using participant observation, looked at how fire fighters view themselves and their work as well as how they see residents in different communities, particularly drawing on social identity approaches to examine that as a dynamic relationship. Following a pilot study, participant observation was not seen as an effective method for the second study, and so a number of focus groups were convened and conducted with diverse residents in the selected Bristol neighbourhoods, with the purpose, as discussed above, of looking at how they saw themselves and their relationship with the fire service. The third study comes, in a way, full cycle (Cialdini 1980), to look at the interaction between fire fighters and residents in a number of different settings. This took two particular phases. In the first phase, I utilised traditional participant observation, where I engaged, as much as possible with the tasks at hand and formed, in many cases, relationships with the participants. Gold (1958) describes four types of observation work, ranging from complete participant through participant as observer and observer as participant to complete observer. In the first study, the method was mostly participant as observer; in the second study, where I used focus groups, the ethnographic role was less well defined, although Gold does liken ‘one visit interviews’ (page 221) to the observer as participant. In the third study, particularly the first phase, which I shall discuss below, the method was far closer to complete observer than had been the case during either of the other studies.

Not only does this study link together the three different studies which have comprised this research project, but also, to an extent, links some of the literatures from which the methods have been drawn. In this section, I shall start by reviewing some of the different methods of observation utilised by researchers in areas such as urban studies and criminology, as well as more familiar ones which utilise social identity approaches in social psychology. Following this, I shall set the scene for some of the observations I conducted by revisiting the types of community facing work which the fire service undertake (discussed in more detail in the Research Context). I shall then discuss the actual methods which I utilised.

A number of researchers have used observation techniques in studies of place attachment and incivilities, both of which, as described in the Literature Review, have relevance to this research project. Brown’s (2002, 2004) research focussed on environmental assessments to link perceived incivilities with weak place attachments, although these studies do little to address the lived experience of life in one of these neighbourhoods. Similarly, Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) combine physical and social measures by covertly videoing from a slowly moving car – a method which is not without ethical concerns. Both of these approaches attempt a degree of quantitative objectivity and neglect the experience of being in the neighbourhood (Sheller, Urry, 2006) or the potential for street life to be a positive dimension to city living (Jacobs, 1961).

Work on riots (Reicher 1984), football crowds (Stott, Hutchison et al. 2001, Stott, Reicher 1998) and protests (Drury, Stott 2001, Drury, Reicher et al. 2003) has been conducted using social identity approaches for a number of years and has utilised a number of methods, which are included in more detail in the methodology for Study One (above). Drury and Reicher (2000) describe the process of collecting data at a road protest in 1994, for which they used participant observation. In this instance, they are known to the protesters, which was necessary for gaining access to the protest. The potentially conflictual nature of the demonstration rendered more formal techniques impractical, and so they relied on the collection of contemporaneous data (page 583) by a researcher (Drury, Reicher 2000). In this research, Drury and Reicher form part of the protest crowd and are able to interact with the participants to collect a number of different types of data, including witness statements, semi structured interviews and contemporaneous recordings. Although this level of data collection is desirable, it is not always possible in a research environment, especially where the crowd is not ‘organised’ to such an extent. In a further study, Stott et al (2007) use participant observation with football crowds in Portugal (for Euro 2004). They describe a two-fold process of conducting semi structured observations (as opposed to the very structured, quantitative ones described above) alongside data collected from fans who were opportunistically interviewed during the course of the tournament. Further data were collected through web based questionnaires available before and after the tournament (page 80). My research methods for this study, as discussed below, follow in this tradition.

Community interventions

As discussed above, the fire service hold a range of intervention strategies, meeting with residents in a number of different settings. These tend to come to a head in the summer months, where they are asked to attend a number of community events and festivals. Although these are not the only community engagements they undertake, these are, from a pragmatic perspective, well suited to observations. The public nature of these events make gaining access relatively easy, and, particularly if they are doing displays (barbeque safety, chip pan demonstrations etc), observing is a ‘natural’ activity to be undertaking.

For a number of years, fire services have tailored messages to particular sectors of the community (for example smokers), but in recent years, this has become more sophisticated. As with risks for other social problems (for example, ill health or crime), risk is concentrated in certain, poorer, geographical areas (Smith, Lepine et al. 2007), and amongst poorer sections of the public. Further, there are two separate risk factors at play: causing a fire and being a victim of a fire. However, unlike crime risk, these factors are likely to play out within the household with family members both causing the fire and being the victim of it. There are strong socio-demographic links to risk of fire (Smith, Wright et al. 2007), and again, these are closely correlated to measures of poverty. Although the fire service are unable to act to prevent poverty, they can help to protect against some of its symptoms, and, as such, conduct a range of community interventions, including attending events and conducting Home Fire Safety Visits, which are their ‘flagship’ intervention aimed at reducing death and damage through accidental house fires.

This study took a two-pronged approach to examining the relationship between fire fighters and residents in a number of neighbourhoods. The first phase was to observe a number of community events where the fire service were present in the community and interacting with residents. The second was to shadow fire fighters from the watch with which I had previously worked as they conducted HFSVs. Although Avon conduct a number of different interventions in the community, as described above, these are the primary mechanisms for engaging with residents on an individual / household basis and in a community setting. I was interested in continuing to view the relationship in dynamic, interactive terms, congruent with social identity approaches, and these two different types of intervention seemed most valid in these terms. To add different experiences to this phase, I also revisited fieldnotes from Study One and reconstructed events from that, providing a rich and detailed range of data.

First Phase

Although Avon have an events team, based at HQ, who organise and promote some of the ‘flagship’ events, others are organised and carried out solely on station, with no recourse to central planning. This meant that it was hard to find a comprehensive list of events from which to select. I was able to access the list held by HQ, but this only contained information on larger events (for example the Harbour Festival) where AFRS provide not only an appliance but also display stands and support staff to provide information and hand out leaflets, ensuring a continuous presence even if the appliance is called to an emergency. I was able to find out about further events by my presence at different fire stations, and in one instance, was given information about a likely appearance by the participants at a focus group – demonstrating the importance of a flexible and opportunistic approach to ethnography (Drury, Stott 2001, Harrington 2003).

The events I attended included:

• 
  The Upperfield Festival: a large community event at which the fire service have a guaranteed presence to publicise HFSVs and to deliver community fire safety messages, as well as raising their profile as ‘friends’ of the community. There was no display team at this event, only the appliance and fire fighters from the local station.
  
• 
  The Hampton Road Festival: a smaller community event in an ethnically diverse part of Bristol, at which support staff ran a display focussed on barbeque safety and fire safety when cooking. Although an appliance was promised at this event, none appeared for the duration of my visit.
  
• 
  The Mound Festival: a community event arranged in a regeneration area. Although I seemed to be in the right place at the right time for this event, it did not appear to be taking place. I asked a number of local residents if they were aware of it, and none appeared to be. The events department assured me the next week that it had gone ahead, so clearly local knowledge failed me!
  
• 
  Shiregreen ‘fun day’. This was sponsored by the large supermarket in the area as a celebration of its anniversary, and I attended with my children hoping (possibly optimistically) to add their perspective to my observations. This is the neighbourhood that hosts the fire service’s community safety centre, and there was a full turn out of display team, with chip pan fire demonstration, appliance, regular crew and a group of recruits.
  

At these events, and drawing on Stott (2007), I was particularly interested to note:

• 
  The physical setting of the interactions
  
• 
  The participants
  
  • 
    Are they AFRS / residents (plus other demographics)
    
  • 
    How many people are there
    
  • 
    What they are doing
    
  • 
    What they look like
    
• 
  The chronology of events as they unfold
  
• 
  Any material artefacts that are present, distributed or generated during the encounter
  
• 
  Behaviours and interactions between people and groups
  
• 
  Any verbal exchanges that are overheard or participated in.
  

(adapted from Angrosino, 2008).

Utilising these methods enabled me to work towards answering my research aim, to better understand relationships between the fire service and different neighbourhoods, as well as addressing issues around the root of hostility and resistance, the extent to which social identity approaches can be used to help us understand these relationships, and whether the current engagement mechanisms are effective in this study. However, these events are only really relevant at a macro level. To view smaller group interactions, it was necessary to go into people’s homes to observe HFSVs, as described below.

Second phase

The purpose of this phase of the study was to build on the data gathered over the summer months by observing fire service attendance at community events by observing the interaction between fire fighters and residents, through the mechanisms of home fire safety visits (HFSVs).

In this study, I followed a crew as they ‘warm called’ a neighbourhood in Norton. This procedure involved distributing leaflets around a neighbourhood, giving details of the HFSV, and leaving a card for residents to put in their window to signal if they do or do not want a visit. This marks a departure from the standard method of disseminating information about HFSVs at events (for example community visits, school visits) and allowing residents to call up and book their own. In the past, visits have been targeted, predominantly through focussed marketing, at particular risk groups, such as the elderly or disabled people. This newer approach recognises that risk factors are often concentrated in specific geographical areas (Smith, Lepine et al. 2007), and that by targeting a whole residential community, they are likely to be able to access a number of people who exhibit different risk factors. However, this approach also enables the fire service to access people who would perhaps be traditionally reluctant to invite fire fighters into their homes, but might feel more able to when they are moving door to door. I had hoped that this would enable me to observe the fire service meeting with a wider range of people than just those that have thought ahead to invite them, and that, therefore, they might be met with a wider range of behaviours (although, as will be described in the study chapter, this was not the case)

The crew were mostly people with whom I had worked on previous occasions, and, as such, there was an existing degree of rapport which facilitated the process. Much of the process was similar to that described in the methodology for Study One, however, time and circumstances had changed somewhat and so there were a number of differences in the way in which I conducted the study. In the first study, I rode alongside the crew in the fire engine, observing the chat that went on in that environment and potentially being whisked away to further incidents and away from community work. By the time I undertook this study, I was in the early phases of pregnancy and felt that riding along would not be appropriate, although I was reluctant to ask what the exact procedures would be for the pregnant fire fighter, for fear of further distinguishing myself from the male crew (Childs, Morris et al. 2004). As such, although I reported to the station for duty as before, I made my own way behind the fire engine to get to the sites. Arriving separately, and in ‘civilian’ clothes also helped to distinguish me from the fire fighters in the minds of the residents with whom we met. It was interesting to observe that, although the speed limit was never exactly broken, it was very hard to keep up with the appliance as it drove through the city: traffic lights were passed on orange, other vehicles gave way for the engine to pull out and the 30mph limit was certainly tested.

As with previous contacts with the fire service, I carried briefing sheets on the research (included as Appendx 7) and discussed the work in terms of me being a ‘researcher’ rather than a student (Campbell 2003). I introduced myself to residents as a researcher, looking at HFSVs, and asked if they are happy for me to observe. If they said no, I would have left, but in the event none did. Again, I had a hand out ready to provide to residents if they asked about the research, but again, none did. My aide memoire for observations is included as Appendix 8. More detail is given about the visits in Chapter Eight.

Summary

In this chapter, I have discussed the background to the methodologies for three studies, covering ethnographic work with AFRS, focus groups in three neighbourhoods and two phases of observations. The following three chapters present analysis of the data generated in each of these studies, looking at the relationship between fire fighters and residents, how hostility and resistance arise between them, how social identity approaches can explain these relationships and the extent to which current engagement mechanisms are effective.

Download 0.87 Mb.

Share with your friends: