International Conference: Qualitative transitions: Issues of Methodology in Central and South-East European Sociologies Rijeka Nov. 19-21, 2010 Qualitative

International Conference: Qualitative transitions: Issues of Methodology in Central and South-East European Sociologies Rijeka Nov. 19-21, 2010

Qualitative Methodology as a Means of Creating Space for the Articulation of Experience of Homelessness in Croatia

Lynette Šikić-Mićanović, Ph.D.

QUALITATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL WORLDS

Homelessness project

1) Why qualitative methods? (positionality/research interests, research questions/goals, context);

2) Advantages of using qualitative methods;

3) Problems of using qualitative methods.


Qualitative research: characterised as being more human, less mechanical, more participative, non-hierarchical and geared more towards the needs of the subject (Bernard 1998; Denzin & Lincoln 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson 1995; Silverman 2004).

Is the Qualitative approach intrinsically ‘better’ or ‘more appropriate’?

Quantitative methods → the advantage of the anonymous context (especially significant when

dealing with sensitive topics)→ picture is broader/can put the problem on the map (e.g., to show that it

is more widespread than previously thought→ can help identify differences among groups and changes over time→ to document differences between the sexes


i) positionality/research interests

humanistic vision of anthropology -- where the goal is the understanding of people’s lives, their social life and their culture

Methodologies include the use of empathy, participation, collection through casual conversation, interviews, life-histories

Account reflects the researcher as well as those studied

→ (respondents shared little common ground with the researcher(s) in terms of capital and experience)

Qualitative account is one of many possible interpretations


ii) research questions/goals

wanted to find out ‘how’ they became homeless (rather than ‘why’ which would give a 'blame the victim' explanation)

research ‘for’ or ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ – in response to a need to understand the subjective experiences of participants

focus on the meanings of lived experience (of everyday life) rather than measurement

to gain a fuller understanding of homelessness in Croatia to dispel myths and stereotypes about homeless people (vagrancy, loafers, etc.)


iii) Context

homelessness is a relatively new phenomenon that has been largely ignored by policymakers and social scientists

→ to contribute new data (relatively small groups)→ not designed to generate a statistically representative profile of homeless people

but to increase understanding

quantitative studies (see Bakula-Anđelić & Šostar 2006) on socio-demographic characteristics of homeless people – inadequate and further perpetuate stereotypes as well as depersonalise homeless persons

It is evident that most of them have accepted this lifestyle (2006: 399).

This group mainly avoids institutions except when this is unavoidable. Addressing institutions requires respect and acceptance of procedure

and order, that which as a rule, the homeless do not accept (2006: 403).


Homelessness Project

funded by the ERSTE Foundation

pioneering national qualitative study -- 2009→conducted by a team of researchers from the Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar & students

7 cities: Zagreb; Varaždin; Karlovac; Osijek; Rijeka; Split; and Zadar Ethnographic methods with shelters users (85) & shelter

coordinators/workers(written and oral consent were obtained)

All interviews were recorded and transcribed word for word





Advantages of using qualitative methods

Space created for articulation of homelessness experiences and participant’s worldview (their own stories and understanding) validated in their own words

facilitates trust building and sensitive topics can be explored

→ Most people welcomed the chance to talk, to be heard, to feel that their experiences are important and valid sources of info

have a therapeutic effect where participants feel empowered (Cotterill, 1992; Gilbert, 2001; Stuhmiller, 2001; Wincup, 2001). (lack of qualified staff and adequate support services)


Problems of using qualitative methods with a marginalised social group

Shelter life: there was a definite need for privacy for the interview that was

unavailable at shelters (places of rigid control where there is always surveillance; lack of space)

Not always possible to establish some degree of rapport (time restrictions, shelter regulations)

We were not able to discern a sense of their living (i.e, homelife) but were able to gain a sense of their unprivileged living arrangements and deprived financial well-being



Participant was not always best interpreter of own experiences (unable to suspend values due to familiarity--no comprehension of underlying structures/patterns)

Unable to answer demanding questions for research purposes Too many inconsistencies / contradictions in their stories Unable to organise events chronologically Limited vocabularies Difficulty in keeping them focussed on research topic Omissions from biographies (alcohol, drugs, gambling,

prostitution) Diminished capacity due to alcohol, sedatives, mental illness



ethical consequences arise from the fact that the emphasis of interviews with homeless people is frequently on negatives – on the deficiencies of the responder (Shaw 2008: 407).

→ e.g., dsyfunctional childhood, loss of job, marital break-up, lack of contact with children, weak social networks, inability to earn a living, etc.

→ sometimes caused too much discomfort and embarrassment -- may have felt like ‘failures’

Difficulty in establishing trust

→ Many of the homeless people that we spoke to had very negative experiences with societal institutions / ability to trust people and develop relationships completely shattered due to repetitive abuse



Power relationships Can the research relationship ever be equal? -- the researcher has the

time, skill, resources / control over the research process and product

provision of information can result in more confusion than clarity (eg formal letter about aims, locations, researchers, funding agency, and expected outcomes of the study)

accurate and full explanations are not always possible because qualitative researchers cannot specify in advance exactly what will be addressed in the research because they “consciously make an effort to remain flexible and receptive to the unexpected” (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

→ control of the interview in their hands (they could choose not to respond to particular questions or if they wanted to ask us questions of if they wanted to stop the interview completely)


Conclusions

Using qualitative methods = subscription to a different interpretive framework

→ qualitative research does not reach places no other method can, but creates a different representation of phenomena

→ it allows for findings

a lack of data is a major impediment to the development of coherent policies and meaningful strategies (of prevention) on homelessness in Croatia


Thank you

Please do not cite without permission from the author

Documents

International Conference: Qualitative transitions: Issues of Methodology in Central and South-East European Sociologies Rijeka Nov. 19-21, 2010 Qualitative