THE MOSS SIDE & HULME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRUST

A fundamental problem in sociology is that what we know about social behaviour (and indeed, most social phenomena) is dependant on our methods for studying it, while our methods for studying it depend on what we know about social behaviour (Ellen, 1984:27). In Sidewalk (1999), Mitchell Duneier, now Professor of Sociology at Princeton University New Jersey, demonstrates how it is possible for ethnographers to extend the boundaries of what we know and what we are comfortable with in order to gain an insight into the lives of social groups whose social behaviour is seemingly beyond the researchers methodological comprehension.

Sidewalk (1999) can essentially be divided into seven key sections, commencing with the first distinguishing feature; the visual, cartographic and pseudo-genealogical whos-who of research respondents. Whilst there are no apparent claims that Sidewalk (1999) is a visual ethnography per se, the book, along with the research itself, is enhanced by the photographic contributions of Ovie Carter, a photographer for the Chicago Tribune. The methodological relevance of such an inclusion will be examined later in this review, however it is made clear for the reader at the very beginning, that Duneiers work does not necessarily conform to certain ethnographic protocols, particularly relating to respondent anonymity. Sidewalk (1999) then commences with a brief introduction, recounting how Mitchell Duneier first became aware of the second-hand book sellers who operate in various locations within Greenwich Village, New York. Duneier relates briefly how he was himself introduced to several key figures who became respondents. He also gives the reader an appetiser into his research methods, although he justifies and states his methodology at much greater length elsewhere within the book. Interestingly, Duneier within this section, places his work within a theoretical framework, citing the work of Jane Jacobs (1961). Based upon this urbanist position, Duneier sets out his aims and aspirations for the research as the desire to offer a framework for understanding the changes that have taken place on the sidewalk over the past four decades (Duneier, 1999:8). The first section of Sidewalk (1999) not only introduces key characters within the study, but also distinguishes and stratifies the different type of respondents, for example, it is fundamental for the reader to differentiate between a book seller, a magazine vendor, and a panhandler or street beggar. Within the first 111 pages, Duneier introduces the key respondents to the reader, and accompanied by Carters monochrome photographic images, manages to create a vivid mental picture of the setting for his research. In the third section of the book, Duneier gives a more in-depth, almost geographical-legal account as to why the physical location of the area featured within Sidewalk is of importance. This again evolves primarily from his knowledge and understanding of the work of Jane Jacobs (1961). The book and magazine sellers are not situated geographically by accident, and Duneier takes the time to examine why the bookstalls are where they are. Laws prohibiting the unhoused from living in railway stations, alongside laws allowing the sale of printed matter without licence, assisted in creating the environment in which Duneier studied. Mitchell Duneier calls this a sustaining habitat (Duneier, 1999:115).

The next three sections examine the minutiae and the practicalities for those whom live and work on the sidewalk. Issues such as sleeping and urinating are discussed freely with the respondents. There appears to be no topic within this subject area that neither Duneier nor his respondents feel unable or unwilling to discuss. Sidewalk (1999) also explores the more logistical issues of creating and maintaining space in which to sell books, managing the processes of legality, for example being moved on or out, or being accused of stealing by the larger corporate book stores who are located close by. Duneier (1999) then returns to the West Village neighbourhood, studied by Jane Jacobs forty years previously, in order to compare the then and now, and importantly, the now and now just five blocks from Sixth Avenue, the site of his own research. The final section of this work is the most pertinent in many ways to this particular review. Duneier includes an Afterword, written by Hakim Hasan, the principal character of his research. He also includes a 24 page appendix dedicated to his methods. This will clearly be referred to throughout the review.

The introduction to Sidewalk (1999) begins with a record of a conversation between Hakim Hasan, described by Duneier as a book vendor and street intellectual (Duneier, 1999:3) and an African-American male in his mid-thirties. This is written in a style akin to a novel. This, according to Arthur Frank (2004) is a good thing for a book such as this to do. Frank (2004) argues that one key feature of good qualitative research, is the ability of the researcher to discover the body (p431); the body being whatever demands the readers attention and calls for explanation (Frank, 2004:431). Frank (2004) gives heady examples of how both Goffman and Foucault utilise this method in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) and Discipline & Punish (1977) respectively. Duneier (1999) overhears the conversation between vendor and customer, and the impact on him as a sociologist and researcher led to his subsequent study. The recounting of this brief yet fascinating exchange at the very beginning of Sidewalk (1999) is also sufficient to grasp the attention of the reader. Duneier goes on to tell of his first encounter with Hakim. Having previously discounted the book vendors as people with whom he would wish to associate, Mitchell Duneier noticed on one occasion that one vendor was selling a copy of his book, Slims Table. Following a discussion regarding this with the vendor, Hakim, he was asked for his address and telephone number. Hakim Hasan wanted these details to put in his Rolodex. Duneiers initial reaction was to question within himself why an unhoused man such as this would have a Rolodex, and this led to him asking himself why he presumed that Hakim was unhoused. This was the body (Frank, 2004) that led to Duneiers interest in street vendors. Whilst Duneier notes the importance of the work of Jane Jacobs from the very beginning of this study, it is clear from the text and from notes within the appendix stating his method, that Sidewalk (1999) was never a conscious decision to somehow update or verify the work she had completed forty years earlier. Frank (2004) notes that Duneiers decision to go back to West Village, the site of Jacobss 1961 study, was a retrospective one, and this is confirmed in the text. In Madison, Wisconsin, the following fall, at some distance from Sixth Avenue, I realized that I might make use of Jane Jacobs study to do a loose comparison of todays sidewalks and those of a few decades ago. Something had changed in this neighbourhood, and my recognition of this change was the beginning of a research design (Duneier, 1999:341). Despite this however, the work of urban sociologists such as Jane Jacobs has clearly influenced Duneier sufficiently to generate and motivate his research interests in urban public spaces. In an article for the American Journal of Sociology (2002), which takes the form of a rebuttal against a critique of Sidewalk, Mitchell Duneier states that where Jacobs concluded that the sidewalk was made somehow safe by the eyes and ears on the street, his intention in Sidewalk (1999) was to enter into a dialogue with her theories of public space under the new conditions of social inequality and cultural difference (Duneier, 2002:1551). Duneier regards himself as an urban sociologist working in the traditions of the Chicago School of Urban Sociology of the 1920s, as informed by contemporary developments in the social sciences and the humanities[his] intellectual forebears include W.E.B Du Bois, Robert E. Park, W.I Thomas, Carolyn Ware, Charles Johnson, Everett Hughes, St. Clair Drake, William Foote Whyte, Horace Cayton, Robert and Helen Lynd, Howard S. Becker, Erving Goffman, Elliot Liebow, Gerald Suttles, Herbert Gans, and Elijah Anderson. [His] primary goal as a scholar is to carry on some of their traditions in order to illuminate issues of race and/or poverty as found in American cities in the current era (Duneier, 1999:352). Sidewalk (1999) certainly reads like many of the great ethnographies produced out of the Chicago School tradition, and the influence of many of the esteemed names noted in his reverential-like testimony is clear.

Duneier makes it clear that his position within this study was definitely one as participant observer (Duneier, 1999, 2002). Even Loic Wacquant (2002), a sociologist from the university of California, Berkeley, whom is credited with offering the most rigorous critique of Sidewalk (1999), recognises that Duneiers method was indeed participation; direct participation (Wacquant, 2002:1475) as Wacquant describes it. Sidewalk (1999) however, came out of many years of participant observation research. After observing Hakim Hasan for a period of two years, Duneier wrote his initial manuscript, which was in fact accepted by the publishers. Duneier allowed Hakim Hasan to read this initial manuscript prior to publication, and Hasan suggested that it was too narrow and too focussed on just him and not the other vendors who operated in and around Sixth Avenue. Duneier accepted these comments, and made the decision to begin his research again, paying greater attention to those whom he had not previously ignored, but whom were marginal in his initial research findings. Tom and Herbert (2002) highlight the importance of the relationships that are built between researcher and respondents. They argue that researchers should be willing and able to reconsider plans to publish work if it turns out that our writing feels hurtful or inaccurate to our research participants (Tom & Herbert, 2002:600). Tom and Herbert (2002) acknowledge that not all researchers are in the position to completely restart their work as Duneier did, and that indeed there are occasions where it is correct to publish items participants disagree with. Duneiers decision to recommence his observation involved a new process of getting in with new vendors. It must be noted here however, that two years working with Hasan and others did not place him in a privileged position when it came to his being accepted by his new respondents. Duneier however notes that quite the contrary was the case on occasions. For example, he actually felt this previous association with Hakim compromised his integrity and sincerity somewhat, because Hakim was not universally liked by all of the street vendors. Fieldwork can be a morally ambiguous enterprise. I say this even though I have never lied to any of the persons I write about (Duneier, 1999:336). Whilst Duneier did notice a greater personal gap between himself and the other participants than he had between himself and Hakim Hasan, he does appear to have overcome this with a great amount of success. Gunzenhauser (2006) and Duneier and Back (2006) and Hasan himself in Sidewalk (1999) recognise that Duneiers ability to cross racial, class, intellectual and cultural boundaries in his research with the street vendors was remarkable, if not a little fortunate. Even the critique of Sidewalk by Wacquant (2002) recognises that Duneier had developed an association at the level of devotion with respondents so different from himself. Wacquant (2002) is clearly here questioning the objectivity of Duneiers study, yet at the same time acknowledging that the researcher-participant boundaries that we often anticipate can in fact be overcome with skilful entry into a group. As noted by Gunzenhauser (2006), the relationships Duneier developed in his study contribute to the depth of meaning in his work, while stopping short of transcendence (Gunzenhauser, 2006:622). It would be interesting to note what, if any, criticisms would have been levelled at Duneier had he been a black African-American male himself, as opposed to the white, Jewish American academic that he is. Duneier frequently documents issues he had regarding his tape recorder. He notes how it was viewed by his respondents with caution, and conversely how at times, the participants would pick up the machine and perform into it (Duneier, 1999). The dangers for research in using such an accurate recording device as a tape recorder are noted in Ellen (1984), however Duneier appears to avoid, acknowledge and utilise the majority of the pitfalls associated with such an instrument. There were instances where respondents wished to remain anonymous, and Duneier has maintained this anonymity where requested in his text by not identifying specific respondents, instead using X and Y for example, as opposed to naming participants as he does in the majority of his text. Wacquant (2002) argues that the lack of anonymity is deliberately adopted by Duneier, in order to enhance his claims regarding the morality of his respondents. For example, Wacquant (2002) notes that it would be inappropriate to discuss illegality without anonymity. Duneier does state however that his decision to use a more journalistic named approach, as opposed to a more conventional socially scientific anonymous one, is deliberate and grounded in good practice. It seems to me that to disclose the place and names of the people I have written about holds me up to a higher standard of evidence. Scholars and journalists may speak to these people, visit the site I have studied, or replicate aspects of my study. So my professional reputation depends on competent description which I define as description that others who were there or who go there recognize as plausibly accurate, even if it is not the way they would have done it (Duneier, 1999:347-348). The advantage of course of using such a machine, is that as a researcher, he was not expected to remember large chunks of conversation, or indeed have to excuse himself frequently in order to make field notes during participation. Duneier acknowledges that he learnt a great deal about using his tape recorder once the photographer, Ovie Carter became involved in the research (Duneier, 1999). He notes that after observing how a photo-journalist utilises the camera to capture relevance as and when it is possible and when it may be appropriate, he began to use his digital recorder in the same way. For example, he details how he began to take the recorder with him everywhere and always, just in case, as a photographer may carry a camera to capture the snapshot, he as a researcher may capture the conversational equivalent.Duneier uses a conversational technique when in the field (Duneier, 1999). Frank (2005) believes that Duneiers research technique utilises dialogical research (Frank, 2005:964). According to Frank (2005), within a dialogical relation, one person can never say of another, this is who such a person is. One can say at most, this is how I see this person now, but I cannot know what she or he will become. Dialogue depends on perpetual openness to the others capacity to become someone other than whoever she or he already is (Frank, 2005:967). As Frank (2005) also notes, Duneier does not only study the street vendors, he spends time with them. Duneier never sets out to judge the participants, and this, Frank (2005) argues is good dialogical technique. The researcher is necessarily more than an observer of peoples lives. She or he becomes an engaged witness whose recognition people seek as confirmation that their struggles are moral, at least in intent. The relevant standard of moral worth is neither relativist, situating moral worth solely within the conditions of one individual life, nor absolute, emanating from a space of no specific life. Dialogue is the space between those extremes (Frank, 2005:972). Morality features a great deal, both in Sidewalk (1999) itself, and in the critique of the work by Wacquant (2002). Duneier (2002) suggests that Wacquants central critique is based upon the idea that Duneier somehow depicts his respondents as saints or paragons of morality (Wacquant, 2002:1469). Wacquant implies political motivation on the part of Duneier, to highlight flaws with the then hard line approach to crime and urban stability being exhibited by the Mayor of New York at the time; Rudolph Giuliani. Duneier (1999) has a section on interventions in his appendix on method. In this, he notes that while he was mindful of the dangers of intervening in the lives of research participants, he and a friend wanted to design and manufacture a cart for use by one of the respondents. The purpose of this cart would be to assist in gathering, moving, storing and managing the magazines of one of the vendors, ultimately tidying up the sidewalk potentially as a by-product. The request to have this manufactured was met with political opposition. Duneier was himself accused of encouraging the behaviour of the street vendors, whilst the authorities at the same time were wanting to move such people off of the sidewalk. As noted by Hammersley (1992,1995) however, a political motivation for undertaking specific research is not a methodological flaw in itself. Hammersley (1992) does warn that if the political motivations of a social researcher are not explicit, then on what basis are we to distinguish between ethnographic insight and political prejudice (Hammersley, 1992:15)? Duneier (1999) however, argues that his motivations are based around issues of social inequality and not politics. Hammersley (1998) notes that it is not possible for ethnographers to escape our social backgrounds and circumstances (Hammersley, 1998:10), and whilst Duneiers social background was in fact a great deal more privileged than that of any of his respondents, his sociological focus is clearly upon racial inequalities and the urban situation, and this is obvious within his research. The importance of the visual images provided by Ovie Carter to this research, has been noted on several occasions within this review already. Carters involvement in this study began after Duneier had already spent four years in the field. The contribution that Carter has made to this research is beyond simply that of the images he supplies. Duneier notes how Carters background as an African-American male whose brother himself has just left life on the streets as a crack addict, although not in New York, played a part in providing yet another dimension to his study (Duneier, 1999). Wacquant (2002) refers to Carters images as Kodak moments (Wacquant, 2002:1475), and by this he means that Duneier is somehow attempting to legitimise the otherwise illegal and immoral lifestyles of his respondents, by showing them cooking for elderly female relatives to cite but one example. Duneier (2002) rejects this critique of course, stating that Carter simply took photographs of all situations that the participants were in. The benefit to ethnography of the visual image, is best described by Iain Edgar (2004) who states that new research methodology such as image-work, offers the opportunity for researchers to further study the personal and social world of the respondent and so obtain a blend of cognitive, affective and intuitive material known, dimly known, implicit, suppressed and even repressed by the conscious mind (Edgar, 2004:104). A potential criticism that could be offered with regard to the images used in Sidewalk (1999), is that unlike the explanations given regarding his use of the tape recorder, Duneier offers little explanation as to the ethical issues that are evident when using such a recording medium. The consent of his participants does appear to be given, but no specific notes are offered in relation to ethical issues. Negotiating complex social relationships is necessary in order to do ethical visual research that involves the making and using of images, the analysis of their meanings, and the rights and responsibilities associated with the ethics concept (Papademas, 2004:122). It is important to note that the images included within Sidewalk (1999) do not in their entirety feature respondents. Duneier also uses images of semiotic importance to draw the readers attention to the environment as well as the participants. This demonstrates an informed use of the image as a whole ethnographic tool, where the setting is often as important to the research as the respondents themselves. As previously noted, Sidewalk (1999) begins with an image gallery of the key respondents. This serves to provide the reader with an instant mental picture of the participants. This gallery does not simply feature the images of the vendors and panhandlers, but also contains images of some of the legal and institutional representatives who are also participants within this research. By accompanying the images with a brief introduction to each figure, and by placing them on a simplistic map, also assists the reader when building a mental picture of the study. This gallery also serves as a key reference section, and the reader will almost always find themselves returning to these opening pages to refresh their memory. This appears to be a useful methodological tool, because readers are rarely familiar with the setting of ethnographic research, which is very often a fundamental part of the study. Loic Wacquants (2002) critique of Sidewalk (1999) takes the form of six individual criticisms that arise from Duneiers work. Alongside these, Wacquant makes general comments regarding Sidewalk and other urban ethnographies of the time. The critique is based more on the ethnographers desire to present a somewhat distorted account of poverty and urban life, than it is interested in focussing upon methodological matters. Wacquant (2002) does however, throughout his appraisal of Duneiers research, make reference to issues such as choice of setting, the vast amount of data collected, and the overenthusiastic devotion to his respondents. Duneier (2002) within the same publication, rebuffs all of these allegations, and whilst he acknowledges that criticism is a worthwhile and beneficial process within research, he believes that Wacquants review of Sidewalk quotes selectively and misleadingly and systematically misrepresents the work as a whole (Duneier, 2002:1551). Duneier makes no apology for his methods, and quite the contrary, provides the reader with a concise and thorough statement of his methods employed throughout his research. He covers areas such as the evolution of the study, getting in, the use of the tape recorder, diagnostic ethnography, the ethnographic fallacy, checking material, publishing, the social position of the researcher and intervention (Duneier, 1999). Duneier has conducted a stringent ethnographic study, overcoming his own personal social background to do so. He invites others to visit Sixth Avenue, and to check for ourselves the lives of his participants and the validity of his findings. Whether the reader accepts Duneiers position regarding the social inequalities facing black males in America is a result of personal social and political opinion, but for those who are influenced by the work of William Foote Whyte or Jane Jacobs to name but two great urban sociologists, Sidewalk (1999) is a masterful use of the ethnographic art, conducted and presented in a manner befitting the Chicago School tradition.BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duneier, M (1999) Sidewalk New York:Farrar, Straus & Giroux

Duneier, M (2002) What Kind of Combat Sport is Sociology? in American Journal of Sociology Volume 107 No6 p1551-1576

Duneier, M & Back, L (2006) Voices From the Sidewalk: Ethnography and Writing Race, in Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 29 No3 p543-565

Edgar, I.R (2004) Imagework in Ethnographic Research in S.Pink, L.Kurti and A.I.Afonso (2004) Working Images: Visual Research and Representation in Ethnography London:Routledge

Ellen, R.F (1984) Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct London:Academic Press Ltd

Frank, A.W (2004) After Methods, the Story: From Incongruity to Truth in Qualitative Research, in Qualitative Health Research Volume 14 p430-440

Frank, A.W (2005) What is Dialogical Research and Why Should We Do It? in Qualitative Health Research Volume 15 p964-974

Gunzenhauser, M.G (2006) A Moral Epistemology of Knowing Subjects: Theorizing a Relational Turn for Qualitative Research, in Qualitative Enquiry Volume 12 No3 p621-647

Hammersley, M (1992) Whats Wrong With Ethnography? Methodological Explorations London:RoutledgeHammersley, M (1995) The Politics of Social Research London:Sage

Hammersley, M (1998) Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide (2nd Edition) London:Longman

Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York:Vintage

Papademas, D (2004) Editors Introduction: ethics in visual research, in Visual Studies Volume 19 No2 p122-125

Tom, A & Herbert, C.P (2002) The Near Miss: A Story of Relationship, in Qualitative Enquiry Volume 8 No5 p591-607

Wacquant, L (2002) Scrutinizing the Street: Poverty, Morality, and the Pitfalls of Urban Ethnography, in American Journal of Sociology Volume 107 No6 p 1468-1532

PAGE 1@00106914