Fire Fighters, Neighbourhoods and Social Identity: the relationship between the fire service and residents in Bristol
Download 0.87 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Themes
- Neighbourhoods
- Positive and negative views of the neighbourhood
- Sense of making do
- Interaction with other services
- Microgeographies
Research QuestionsThe aims of this research programme, as stated above and elsewhere, are to understand better the relationship between AFRS and the neighbourhoods in which they work, by looking at the nature of the relationship, examining the roots of hostility and resistance and asking whether current engagement mechanisms are effective, using social identity approaches. As such, the data are approached with these questions in mind, and how the data address these questions will be dealt with more fully in the discussion section. In this study, these questions were addressed in the following ways:
ThemesIn this section, I will outline the overriding themes that I drew from the data. As with the previous chapter, the analysis will be presented in the form of a description of the theme and then a quote from a participant that demonstrates the manner in which the themes were discussed. The themes will be discussed in greater detail in the discussion section at the end of this chapter. The focus groups discussed a number of issues related to neighbourhood experience and exposure to the fire service (fuller details of which are given in Appendix 4 which outlines the schedule used for the groups). Inevitably, therefore, some of the themes reflect some of the questions that were asked, although, of course, the thematic structure is somewhat divergent from the schedule itself. The broad themes that I will look at in this section cover:
Within each of these larger themes emerge a number of smaller themes, which are introduced at the beginning of each successive section. Inevitably, some of these overlap, but that in itself is indicative of the way in which these issues become compounded in the minds of residents and the responses of the fire service. To an extent, the chapter reflects the format of the groups, whereby the discussion started in general terms about their neighbourhood, and then drilled down into particulars about where they lived. This was followed by general conversation about the fire service, focussing in then on personal experiences of the fire service and then negative experiences or reported experiences. However, this is only a loose framework, and the themes that have arisen, for example, are not the same as the questions that were asked. NeighbourhoodsIn this section, I will discuss the way in which residents spoke of their neighbourhood and of their experiences of living where they live. This will include themes about how people spoke of the positive and negative aspects of where they lived; how people disagree on what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ neighbouring; how residents discussed the microgeographies of their environments and the way in which participants discussed the culture of their neighbourhoods, and how this is relevant to the fire service, especially considering norms in the neighbourhood that might tolerate or encourage hostility to public services. Many of the participants involved in this study are current council tenants, or, if home owners, had bought council houses of which they were longstanding residents. As such, not many of them had experienced a great deal of agency about where they lived, and a number of responses to the neighbourhood reflected a degree of acceptance and resignation, but an absence of choice. This potentially means that residents expressed their views about their neighbourhood in different ways to residents who had chosen to live where they lived (for example, most of the Pilot Group participants had had more choice in where to live), but that they also felt that, even if they did move, it would likely be to a comparable or similar neighbourhood. Although tenureship and opinions on moving out of the neighbourhood were not issues covered, or even much raised, in the course of the various discussions, many of the responses should be viewed as responses of people without much choice in where they live. You gotta live where you lives. You’ve not got a lot of choice Bobby, Shiregreen Further, it should also be noted that constraints, both economic and cultural, also acted on those who had bought houses outside of the council system. All my participants were constrained by finances and a number who had moved recently to Bristol were living in neighbourhoods that they had heard of, or which were proximate to places of work and many discussed living elsewhere if they were able to. Needless to say, residential choice is not a matter to be discussed here, and so it must be accepted that people have a number of reasons for living where and how they do, not all of which are within their control.
Liz, Upperfield This demonstrates a number of problems and benefits of urban living: close proximity to neighbours, who may help at difficult times, or cause dismay by their proximity. Indeed, neighbours further away might or might not help, but certainly the extent of their arguing would remain unknown. It also suggests that Liz, whilst clearly finding her neighbours difficult, does not wish to speak ill of them. This theme is repeated again and again throughout the data, of people experiencing quite profound problems in their neighbourhoods, but either making light of it, or juxtaposing it with more positive aspects. Perhaps where people have little agency over where they live, it is too depressing to dwell on the negative – although it must be sorely tempting. Further, groups were not united either within or between themselves on what constituted positive or negative aspects of neighbourhood, and indeed, I would not presume to tell people what was a good or bad aspect of their neighbourhood (although that did not stop them telling me the negative aspects of my neighbourhood). However, what was interesting in this respect was what was tolerated within different neighbourhoods, either as normal, or as aberrant but insolvable. A number of issues – litter, maintenance, car speed / parking – were raised as problematic but things you just got on with. Other issues caused more problems – young people, crime and fear or crime – with participants being less relaxed about some of these aspects and discussing the interactions that they had had, in many instances entirely fruitlessly, with other services nominally responsible for such provision. However, much of this was accepted with a sense of resignation, especially amongst older participants. Sense of making doA number of residents discussed their neighbourhoods in terms of having come to tolerate it over time. Although many expressed a great pleasure in their early years in the neighbourhood – which in many instances was the early years of the neighbourhood itself – this had faded over time. It is not clear, however, to what extent this reflects a general dissatisfaction allied to becoming older, an increased intolerance of problems or actual neighbourhood decline – most likely a combination of these factors. However, many participants had invested most of their life in one neighbourhood and felt that moving away was no longer an option. I like Hilton. I’ve lived up here too long not to. Brenda, Hilton Brenda exemplifies this, saying she has lived in Hilton too long to not like it. This reveals a degree of ‘mind over matter’ – she has both forced herself to accept it, but also made friends and got to know the neighbourhood.
Ivy, Hilton Likewise, Ivy is both happy with where she lives despite being intolerant of the problems. This sense of making do was typical for a number of older residents.
Paul, Shiregreen HFSV Group. This demonstrates a range of the problems that residents felt within their neighbourhood: lack of opportunities and inappropriate supervision of young people; perceived lack of ‘neighbourliness’; failure to follow through on promises by developers / housing providers; failure to provide adequately for waste disposal, and, crucially, failure amongst a range of agencies to respond to problems. As such it is no wonder that for many residents, dealing with public services is trying and ultimately unrewarding, and over time becomes seen as a waste of time, or leads to hostility towards these services. This has dual implications for the fire service. Firstly, it is possible that residents will assume the fire service ‘guilty by association’ with the other services, and not refer problems to them. In this way, the fire service become ‘just another public service’ and not a trusted provider, for instance: My only observation is maybe the fire service could use its position with the council… Sid, Hilton HFSV Group As such, it is likely that the fire service would struggle even more to get fire service messages across in hard pressed communities. Secondly, the alternative is for the fire service to become seen as the first public service of choice:
Paul, Shiregreen HFSV Group Whilst there could be advantages in this for the fire service, in that they would, for a while be seen as a particularly trusted and reliable provider, this is likely, eventually, to set them up to fail. As discussed in the previous chapter, fire fighters are not unequivocally keen on attending to community matters, and additional requests and expectations from the community could quickly be seen as a burden and a nuisance. This would likely impact on the service that the fire fighters provided, and in residents being let down by yet another public service. As such, the fire service has a fine line to tread to maximise the potential of being seen as a trusted provider, without becoming the first service of choice for a range of provision beyond their remit, which would result in a swift decline from such exulted status. This will be discussed in Chapter Eight with regard to implications for the fire service.
These microgeographies also particularly affected who people mixed with and where people went and when. The idea of mixing with people from different neighbourhoods will be considered in greater detail in the section on making judgements about different neighbourhoods. However, the idea of travelling is closely linked to this. Much has been written elsewhere about the insularity of council estates (Hanley 2007), and these three neighbourhoods are no exception to this. This is particularly commented on, for example in Upperfield, where participants said they had to take two buses to get to a decent park for their children, or in Hilton, which is on a steep hill, which is hard for older residents (or those with mobility problems, or even pushchairs) to navigate. In Shiregreen one resident was clearly not going to let ideas of insularity stand between him and a social life:
Robin, Shiregreen It remains to be said that these outer villages must lie within three miles of Shiregreen. This demonstrates the extent to which estate life can become all encompassing – these villages are essentially walking distance away, but the emotional distance of leaving the estate is far greater than that. As such, for residents of these relatively socially isolated areas, what counts on the estate counts for more than it might to a resident of a more mobile area (Forrest, Kearns 2001). For the fire service, such insularity presents a number of problems. Firstly, there is potential, in such inward focused communities, for any outsiders, whether public service or not, to be regarded as untrustworthy or not credible. Secondly, community and local knowledge – of which there is much in such areas, which have long memories of institutional prejudice or wrong doing (Bradford, Jackson et al. 2008) – militate against new knowledges being brought in from elsewhere. Thirdly, cultures which have developed in these circumstances, which suggest that outside agencies are ‘enemies’ (or at least alien), are hard to penetrate and for outside agencies to perpetuate new knowledge, even – perhaps especially – where that new knowledge might be helpful to residents. Outsiders are immediately categorised as interfering, and this in no small part extends to the fire service. However, participants were not just passive recipients of neighbourhood delineation, and many knew and understood the implications of different names, choosing to ‘play along’ with certain elements as and when it suited them.
Jeanette, Upperfield This participant understands that different names carry different resonances, and whilst many would just dismiss their labelling, she is able to turn this to her advantage. Although she lives in an area without a great deal of agency, and can exercise little control over this, she is able to exert control through her own use of these labels and their systemic implications.
Download 0.87 Mb. Share with your friends:
|