Fire Fighters, Neighbourhoods and Social Identity: the relationship between the fire service and residents in Bristol

Chapter Four: Methodology

Introduction

As stated above, the overall aim of this research is to understand better the relationship between AFRS and the neighbourhoods in which they work, particularly looking at the roots of hostility and resistance between AFRS and residents in various neighbourhoods, using social identity approaches to understand the relationship and asking to what extent existing mechanisms are effective. In this chapter I will present the methods I have used to research this issue, drawing on the literature review. I will be particularly looking at how social identity approaches can help us to understand these relationships, and how AFRS and residents frame these encounters. Further, fire service work has changed over the last decade, with an inevitable impact on identity. This suggests a temporal aspect to identity, which is mirrored further by the spatial context of encounters; that is to say, identity is contingent not just on time but on place. AFRS experience different communities in different ways, just as residents in those neighbourhoods will have different experiences of the fire service at different times.

In this research programme, I have chosen to use qualitative methods, the arguments for which are well rehearsed below and elsewhere (Drury, Stott 2001, Hammersley 1992, Ritchie, Lewis 2003). Further, I will be predominantly using ethnographic methods, the reasons for which are explained in relation to each particular study. Such methods have been used extensively with fire services (Myers 2005, Tracy, Scott 2006, Ward, Winstanley 2006, Hall, Hockey et al. 2007) and with police (Campbell 2003, Hobbs, May 1993, Rowe 2007) and as such remain congruent to previous literatures as well as to this study.

Locating the research

Of the eleven whole time stations, I have had contact with two in particular: Upperfield and Norton, with the majority of time spent at Norton station. Also the name of a local area and council ward, Norton station actually covers a wide swathe of south Bristol, extending into the countryside of North Somerset. Of most interest to this research, however, is the number of council estates and deprived communities that are covered by the station, particularly Wootton, Clearwell and Shiregreen. Inevitably, it is Shiregreen that comes up in conversation both with the fire service and with Bristolians about deprivation and multiple, complex problems. Disturbed by riots in the early 1990s (Campbell 1993), and by supermarket led regeneration in the 2000s, Shiregreen was once the beacon of hope for council housing in the south west. Built in the wake of the second world war, Shiregreen provided new homes, with the glamour of gardens, heating and indoor lavatories, to thousands of Bristolians. As with many similar areas, however, housing stock, reputation and facilities declined over time, with Shiregreen becoming a by word for outer city sink estate deprivation by the 1990s. In terms of social trajectory, it could be any one of a number of peripheral estates: Wythenshawe in Manchester, Speke in Liverpool, and the issues facing such areas are well rehearsed (Hanley 2007).

However, Shiregreen is on the up (Dundry Pioneers 2002, Broda 2008). The notorious High Street, strongly linked to the 1990s riots, was demolished in 2006 and a new flagship superstore built in its place. Neighbourhood Renewal funding has been and gone from the area, and it is currently a neighbourhood management pathfinder. Whilst this is neither the time or the place to enter into discussions of supermarket led regeneration, or of the regeneration process as a whole, there is particular reason for mentioning it. Part of the physical regeneration of the area has included the development of a new community building, which includes community meeting rooms, the new Shiregreen library and, most importantly, a dedicated AFRS community safety centre. Whilst some of the fire stations include community safety centres, which are open access to the community, this is Avon’s first detached one, which is actually located within a target community and not in a fire station, marking a step change for the fire service in their relations with the community.

The other two areas of particular focus are Upperfield and Hilton. These have similar, multiple problems of access, decay and deprivation (Bristol Partnership 2007). Upperfield is the larger of the two, with two distinct estates forming the neighbourhood. Again, both the neighbourhoods were viewed with great hope when residents started to move there in the wake of the second world war, but the areas have been quick to deteriorate. Upperfield has its own, designated fire station, which is staffed full time. Hilton, despite sharing a number of demographic features with the other two neighbourhoods is much less problematic to the fire service than Upperfield or Shiregreen. It is also a more diverse area and, despite being less problematic, is to an extent, more ‘deprived’, lacking, as it does shopping facilities and having recently lost its secondary school. Hilton does not have a designated fire station, but is served by two nearby full time stations.