Rose Lindsey

Exploring local hotspots and deserts: investigating the local distribution of charitable resources

This paper investigates whether regional patterns of uneven charitable distribution are evidenced at a local neighbourhood level. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative evidence of charitable resources in two case-study areas, one affluent and one deprived, it argues that there is a clear distinction between the case-study areas. Charities in the affluent area are more numerous, run by volunteers, and meet a broad range of social, community and cultural needs of that community. Charities in the deprived area are less numerous, meet urgent needs related to deprivation, and are more likely to be larger charities run by professionals with statutory funding. There is great concern, within the deprived area, about the impact of austerity cuts and measures, and what this will mean for the future of these charities, and the community which they support

A Sociologist’s Field Notes to the Mass Observation Archive: A Consideration of the Challenges of ‘re-Using’ Mass Observation Data in a Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study

This paper explores the challenges arising from the ‘re-use’ of Mass Observation Project (MOP) writing (1981 to present day) encountered by the authors when setting up an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded, longitudinal, mixed-methods research project on civic engagement. The paper begins with a brief review of the present UK social science research environment, highlighting the evidence for an increasing Research Council focus on interdisciplinary research and secondary analysis/re-use of data. It argues that this shift in focus gives rise to unique methodological challenges such as those encountered by the authors in this project. After providing some background and context, the paper discusses different obstacles encountered in the course of setting up this project. These include difficulties in: communicating within and across disciplines; re-using data across disciplines; the use of metadata, and its role in choosing writers from a longitudinal secondary data source; choice of analytical tools and approaches; and the Mass Observation writers role in the research process. By sharing these experiences, the paper seeks to enable potential users of the MOP to see the value of MOP as a source of longitudinal qualitative secondary data; appreciate its potential for use with other data sources and across different disciplines; and equip other researchers to meet some of the challenges that the longitudinal use of MOP writing throws up.