See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240533016

‘Insider Research’ in the Study of Youth Cultures

Article  in  Journal of Youth Studies · June 2005

DOI: 10.1080/13676260500149238

CITATIONS READS
216 639

1 author:

Paul Hodkinson
University of Surrey
24 PUBLICATIONS   645 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Hodkinson on 21 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Youth Studies
Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 131 /149

‘Insider Research’ in the Study of

Youth Cultures
Paul Hodkinson

Ethnographic research on youth cultures, particularly at doctoral level, is often conducted

by investigators with some degree of initial cultural proximity to the individuals or
cultures under the microscope. Yet elaboration of the practical and epistemological
implications of ‘insider research’ among such scholars has been somewhat limited. This
article contributes to the development of such discussion through drawing together a
range of previous writings and by drawing upon elements of the author’s own experience
of researching a contemporary youth subculture as a long-term participant of the
grouping. In the face of theories emphasising the complexities of identity and the
multiplicity of insider views, the paper argues for the continued use of the notion of
insider research in a non-absolute sense. Subsequently, it is argued that researching youth
cultures from such a position may offer significant potential advantages* in respect both
/

of the research process and the types of understanding that might be generated. It is also
suggested, however, that the realisation of such possible benefits and the avoidance of
significant difficulties, requires a cautious and reflexive approach.

Introduction
Established as an approach by Chicago School researchers such as Nels Anderson
(1923) in the early twentieth century, conducting ethnography from an initial
position of subjective proximity with relation to one’s respondents has, in recent
times, become relatively commonplace within some areas of social research. Referred
to either as ‘ethnography of the self ’ (Wolcott 1999), ‘native ethnography’ (Wolcott
1999), ‘pure observant participation’ (Brewer 2000) or, as this paper prefers, ‘insider
research’ (Roseneil 1993), this form of enquiry has become particularly prevalent
in the study of youth cultures, not least at doctoral level (Bennett 2002, 2003).
Selected recent examples include Malbon’s (1999) ethnographic study of clubbing
in the United Kingdom, Weinstein’s (2000) examination of heavy metal culture,

Correspondence to: Dr Paul Hodkinson, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2
7XH, UK. Tel: /44 (0)1483 683767; Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1367-6261 (print)/ISSN 1469-9680 (online) # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/13676260500149238
132 P. Hodkinson

Khan-Harris’ (2004) work on the global extreme metal scene, Karenza Moore’s (2003)
study of drug use among clubbers, and my own research on goth culture (Hodkinson
2002). Yet Bennett rightly has pointed out that, in spite of the prevalence of such
‘insider studies’, detailed reflexive analysis of the implications of researching youth
cultures from a point of initial subjective proximity is comparatively sparse (Bennett
2002, p. 461) [1]. This paper attempts to contribute to the development of such
methodological discussions, bringing together a range of literature from within and
outside the area of youth cultural studies and drawing upon some elements of my
own ethnographic research of the goth scene, a music-based and style-based
subculture with which I had enjoyed intense personal connections prior to the
commencement of fieldwork.
While recognising, in relation to contemporary theories of identity, that the
complexity of the selves of both researcher and researched makes the notion of being
an absolute insider (or outsider) problematic, the paper rejects calls in some quarters
for the total abandonment of such terminology, instead seeking to justify and clarify
use of the notion ‘insider research’ as a means to designate ethnographic situations
characterised by significant levels of initial proximity between researcher and
researched. Subsequently, the discussion goes on to examine some of the most
important implications of researching youth cultures from such a position, firstly in
terms of the practicalities of the research process and secondly in respect of the effects
insider experience might have upon the quality of ethnographic interpretation and
understanding. In both respects, it is suggested that the role of insider researcher may
offer significant potential benefits but that, far from being automatic, the realisation
of such advantages and the avoidance of a series of equally significant difficulties is
dependent upon caution, awareness and ongoing reflexivity.

Insider as Simplification?
Before discussing the potential implications of what this paper terms ‘insider
research’, there is need carefully to justify the very use of such a notion, in the face of
well-versed arguments about the multifaceted and unstable nature of identities,
lifestyles and perspectives (Mercer 1990; Hall 1994). Some decades ago, Robert
Merton pointed out that the idea of researchers as absolute insiders or outsiders was
based upon ‘deceptively simple’ notions of identity and status (1972, p. 22). Having
rather failed to heed this warning, Ann Oakley illustrates the possible pitfalls of taking
insider status for granted in her suggestion that a feminist interviewing women was
‘by definition, both ‘‘inside’’ the culture and participating in that which she is
observing’ (1981, p. 57). As black feminists have since pointed out, this assumption
rode roughshod over crucial differences between women, not least those based upon
ethnicity (Carby 1982).
While raised by Merton and others some time ago, emphasis on the fluidity and
multiplicity of individual identities and the decline of substantive social groupings
has since then become an increasingly dominant feature of social theory (for example,
 Journal of Youth Studies 133

Jameson 1991; Bauman 2001). Contemporary youth identities sometimes are

regarded as a prominent case in point. That all manner of divisions and ambiguities
may be found beneath the massive umbrella category of ‘youth culture’ is long
established, of course (see Valentine et al. 1998). More recently, however, increasing
doubts have also been expressed over the existence of individual groups of young
people sufficiently substantive to allow the clear designation of insiders or outsiders.
Notably, subcultural theories, which placed emphasis upon the gravitation of young
people towards distinctive, normatively consistent cultural groupings characterised by
clear boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’ (for example, Cohen 1955; Hall & Jefferson 1977),
are frequently criticised. Contemporary young people’s identities, claim many critics,
are dominated by unstable individualised cultural trajectories that cross-cut a variety
of different groups rather than attaching themselves substantively to any in particular
(Muggleton 1997; Bennett 1999). At the very least, according to this ‘post-
subcultural’ perspective, youth cultural groupings must be regarded as diverse,
ephemeral and loosely bounded, something that would make the proximity or
distance of social researchers variable and hard to predict.
Such difficulties are accentuated by recognition that the prominence of particular
elements of identity fluctuates back and forth according to context and audience. The
possible impacts of this on ethnographic relationships have been illustrated by
Gillespie, who, having gained access to a group of Asian young people in Southall by
adopting the role of local teacher, claims continually to have shifted according to
context between the roles of teacher, researcher, friend, gori (‘white woman’) and
‘Southalli’ (1995, pp. 67 73). In a complex situation such as this, the notion of being
/

either an insider or an outsider in an absolute sense is inadequate. In some contexts

Gillespie’s local residence gave her a degree of insider status, while in others her
ethnicity, her status as a teacher and, presumably, her age created barriers between
herself and her respondents. Similarly, in relation to their own unpredictable
experiences as Korean American and Chinese British researchers interviewing Chinese
British young people, Song and Parker discuss a highly complex set of research
relationships, emphasising that in spite of what at the outset appeared to be a
significant degree of insider status in relation to respondents, their levels of proximity
were in practice ‘not a priori readily apparent or defined’ (1995, p. 243). As they put
it:

Dichotomised rubrics such as ‘black/white’ or ‘insider/outsider’ are inadequate to

capture the complex and multi-faceted experiences of some researchers such as
ourselves, who find themselves neither total ‘insiders’ nor ‘outsiders’ in relation to
the individuals they interview. (Song & Parker 1995, p. 243)

This kind of cautious emphasis upon the ongoing nuances and intricacies of
subjectivity in discussions of researcher proximity provides an important reminder
that the notion of being an insider in an absolute sense can indeed be a misleading
one (Davies 1999, p. 182). However, whether in respect of the study of youth cultures
or other parts of society, there is little value in overestimating the impact of such
134 P. Hodkinson

complexities to the extent that we lose the ability to differentiate between those
situations where there are extensive and consistent overall levels of familiarity
between a researcher and a group of respondents and those characterised by greater
overall levels of distance. Like most social science terminology, the notion of ‘insider
research’ reduces complexities to generalities; but, through doing so, it establishes
that researchers may sometimes find themselves positioned especially close to those
they study and enables the tentative development of valuable common lessons about
the probable implications of researching from such a position. Notably, the term
‘insider research’ is more useful in this respect than Gold’s (1958) notion of
‘observant participation’ whose current use ranges from a specific reference to initial
researcher proximity (Brewer 2000) to, more often, a general allusion to high levels of
researcher participation after the fieldwork has begun (Davies 1999).
At the same time as recognising the issues of complexity raised by Gillespie, Song
and Parker, and others, then, this paper utilises the notion of insider research as a
non-absolute concept intended to designate those situations characterised by a
significant degree of initial proximity between the sociocultural locations of
researcher and researched. Judgement of the appropriateness of the term for different
research situations will, of course, require the careful weighing up of a series of factors
that, according to their comparative levels of importance with those involved, may
create differing levels of proximity and difference in the context of the particular
research being undertaken. Thus, while they shared a degree of proximity with their
young respondents in respect of visible elements of ‘Asianness’ in their appearance,
Song and Parker found that, in the context of research that was focused upon race
and nation, obvious American and British elements of their respective identities
created barriers significant enough to warrant rejection of the notion that they were
insider researchers. Song and Parker’s careful reflective approach provides a valuable
model for other researchers in situations of apparent proximity. While in both their
cases differences were deemed at least as notable as similarities, there will surely be
other research situations where the consistency, importance and impact of those
elements of identity and perspective that are shared with respondents is deemed to
outweigh points of distance.
As a result of such careful assessments, the notion of insider research may be
deemed appropriate in a variety of research situations and in relation to a range of
different kinds of cultural grouping. Levels of proximity (or distance) seem likely to
be particularly clear, however, in those situations where, in spite of elements of
complexity and multiplicity in their individual identities, a set of respondents are
strongly and consciously united by the high overall importance to all of them of a
particular distinctive characteristic or set of characteristics. Such collective con-
sciousness* and hence clear insider/outsider boundaries* may sometimes be
/ /

particularly strong in the case of groups of respondents who are structurally

marginalised in respect of class, ethnicity, sexuality, gender or some combination
thereof. Yet cultural groupings whose defining characteristics are partially or wholly
 Journal of Youth Studies 135

‘elective’ may also sometimes be characterised by high levels of distinctiveness and

group commitment.
Consistent with this, there may be reason to suggest that in the context of youth
culture, committed and bounded groupings (whether predominantly structural or
elective in character) remain rather more prevalent than has been implied by the
‘post-subcultural’ theories described earlier. The emphasis upon fluidity and
individualisation within the latter has been offset by an ongoing accumulation of
evidence suggesting that some young people continue to focus significant propor-
tions of their identities upon discernable groupings that, whether ‘subcultural’ or not,
are united by strongly held attachments towards relatively distinct sets of tastes,
values or activities (for example, Thornton 1995; Hetherington 2000; Hodkinson
2002; Khan-Harris 2004; Moore 2004). Furthermore, it would seem that the
participants of such groups continue actively to differentiate themselves from those
deemed not to share the characteristics or perspectives so important to them
(Thornton 1995; Locher 1998; Pilkington 2004). As a consequence, while they may
experience variability in their precise levels of familiarity with different respondents,
those who research such groupings are liable to find that their overall level of
proximity to most participants is heavily contingent upon compatibility with the
fairly consistent and distinctive set of primary characteristics through which they are
unified. On the basis of such clear criteria, being positioned predominantly as either
an insider or an outsider becomes a highly probable outcome.
This brings us onto the example of the goth scene and of my own location as
researcher of this grouping. Centred around specialist pubs, gigs and nightclubs, and
identifiable via the dark, sinister appearance of its young participants and the sombre
tones of their preferred music, this grouping exhibited particularly strongly the kind
of collective characteristics alluded to earlier. Notably, as I have demonstrated in
detail elsewhere, involvement tended to be central to the practical and symbolic
lifestyles of individual participants and to involve a strong sense of collective identity
that, in many cases, was linked with an equally intense suspicion of outsiders
(Hodkinson 2002). There were few social rewards for those who displayed partial or
temporary involvement and significant encouragement for the display of commit-
ment to a relatively consistent and distinctive range of norms and values (Hodkinson
2002). Such levels of group identity, commitment and distinctiveness serve
significantly to reduce the likelihood of ambiguity in respect of whether or not an
ethnographer of the goth scene should or should not regard themselves as an insider
researcher.
As for myself, I had become interested in the goth scene as a 16 year old in search
of belonging, distinctiveness and status, and over the years that followed it had
maintained a central role in my sense of self, cultural tastes, consumer habits and
social patterns. Although there was a degree of diversity to the precise tastes, attitudes
and forms of behaviour associated with the goth scene, I shared with other
participants a commitment to and enjoyment of music, style and activities that
most regarded as central to the group’s value system. Both in my own perceptions and
136 P. Hodkinson

in those of other goths, I clearly occupied the position of insider in respect of an

element of identity central to the lifestyles of most respondents and at the heart of the
concerns of my research project. There clearly were variations in the levels of
similarity between myself and other goths* most notably perhaps in relation to
/

gender, age and, in some cases, class. However, occupying a position within my mid-
twenties placed me towards the middle of the age range of goths at that time and my
white, middle-class background, educational achievements and professional career
aspirations were, at the very least, compatible with the background and outlook of
many other subcultural participants. As well as sharing with respondents the all-
important primary status of goth participant, then, I was also in a position of relative
proximity in respect of various secondary features.
At the same time, like other insider researchers, from the moment I had finalised
my doctoral research topic, this relatively clear position as subcultural insider
operated alongside the equally important role of ethnographer. I was now observing,
interviewing and analysing the goth scene and its participants in relation to continual
reading, writing and academic discussion (see Bennett 2003, p. 190). Importantly,
while the nature and character of my personal involvement inevitably were affected
by such academic activities, I continued to participate as an enthusiast as well as a
researcher, something made easier, perhaps, by the aforementioned compatibility
between the values of the goth scene and those of education and academia. My
viewpoint was widened and focused in particular ways according to my academic
background and aspirations, but without compromising my level of involvement. In
other words, I made the transition from insider to insider researcher. The complex
implications of occupying such a position in respect of issues of interpretation and
understanding will be explored later on. However, occupying the role of insider
researcher is liable to have equally important implications for the successful practical
negotiation of the research process. With particular reference to issues of access and
the conduction of interviews, it is to these practical issues that we turn first.

Implications for the Research Process

Participation and Access
Holding a degree of insider status clearly can have implications for the achievement
of successful and productive interactions with participants. In the course of ongoing
decisions about the granting of trust and cooperation, research subjects are liable to
observe and classify those who seek to research their lives (Agar 1996, p. 105). The
results of this process may affect general willingness to participate and the quantity
and quality of data that eventually are disclosed (Song & Parker 1995, p. 253). While
such processes of classification may be influenced by a variety of shifting factors, it
already has been suggested that an insider/outsider distinction of some kind should
probably be expected if the research is focused upon a distinct and committed
grouping to which all respondents belong.
 Journal of Youth Studies 137

It is well established that being classified as an outsider by respondents may

generate practical difficulties for ethnographers in respect of access, not least in the
case of tightly knit or marginalised groups (Humphreys 1970, p. 24). Although
written some time ago, the following words from Becker surely retain significance to
some research situations today:

It is not easy to study deviants. Because they are regarded as outsiders by the rest of
society, and because they themselves tend to regard the rest of society as outsiders,
the student who would discover the facts about deviance has a substantial barrier
before he will be allowed to see the things he needs to see. (Becker 1963, p. 168)

Sasha Roseneil’s assessment that ‘there are many social situations which would be
inaccessible to an outsider researcher’ (1993, p. 189) seems a little over-categorical
here. Some of the most well-known sociological studies have demonstrated the
potential for initially distanced ethnographers to achieve significant levels of trust in
the most marginal of groupings* not least Whyte’s (1943) famous study of street
/

corner gangs, Humphreys’ (1970) work on public homosexual encounters, and

Fielding’s (1981) ethnography of the National Front. Yet such examples also
demonstrate that non-insiders may have to work hard over a long period of time
in order to gain the levels of trust they require (Brewer 2000, p. 61). Indeed, they
may* as in the cases of Humphreys and Fielding* even have to deceive respondents
/ /

through use of a covert approach.

In the case of youth cultures, those seeking to immerse themselves must be
conscious of the risk that they may raise rather than reduce barriers to access due to a
tendency in some such groups for particular suspicion of inauthentic participants
(Thornton 1995). In my own case study of the goth scene, the hostility of some
individuals towards those deemed to be ‘trying too hard’, or adopting elements of the
subculture in an insincere manner, was sometimes as great as that afforded to those
regarded as total outsiders (Hodkinson 2002, p. 40). Muggleton indicates that this is a
relatively common feature of youth cultures, something that may suggest significant
potential difficulties for ethnographers seeking to immerse themselves:

Those who merely ‘adopt’ an unconventional appearance without possessing the

necessary ‘inner’ qualities are regarded . . . as ‘plastic’, ‘not real’ . . . a subcultural
‘Other’ against which the interviewees authenticate themselves. (Muggleton 2000,
p. 90)

On this basis, attempting what may be construed as an artificial façade could be

more damaging to levels of trust and cooperation than approaching participants up-
front as an outsider, something particularly applicable where inflexible indicators of
age, class or ethnicity may be liable to undermine attempts at participation
(Hammersley & Atkinson 1995, p. 97; Moore 2003).
In contrast, insider researchers are liable, to some degree, already to share with
respondents an internalised language and a range of experiences (Roseneil 1993, p.
189). Gary Armstrong (1993), in relation to his study of football hooligans in
138 P. Hodkinson

Sheffield, emphasises that his local working-class background, his long-term status as
a committed Sheffield United fan and previous interactions with hooligans were of
crucial importance to socialising effectively in the field. Albeit in a thoroughly
different environment, having become familiar over a period of several years with the
distinctive norms, values and systems of status within goth pubs or clubs, I already
possessed the ‘cultural competence’ required to spend time within such spaces and to
communicate effectively with others. Alongside signifiers of age, ethnicity and class
background that were compatible with those of most goths, my carefully cultivated
subcultural appearance was critical in communicating my insider status to those
present, as was my ability to participate authentically in activities such as dancing and
making requests to the DJ. At the same time, an ability to interact with others in a
relaxed, confident manner, rather than being preoccupied with attempting to
perform in an unfamiliar way, made it relatively uncomplicated to meet and spend
time with people. As well as enhancing my ability to participate and observe, such
factors helped to enable a generous flow of informally volunteered information as
well as a willingness on the part of participants to introduce me around, vouch for me
and, in many cases, to take part in interviews themselves.
Of course, rather than being automatic or guaranteed, such potential advantages
are only realised when insider status is combined with a variety of generic social and
research skills (Bennett 2003). Furthermore, the significance and obviousness of
insider status and the extent to which it provides benefits, may vary from situation to
situation. In the case of Karenza Moore’s research on clubbing, for example,
familiarity and acceptance in one local ‘scene’ was not automatically translated to
similar kinds of clubs in different towns or cities (2003, p. 140). While in my own
case, locality was less of a barrier, the symbolic importance of physical appearance
among goths meant that, while my insider status was usually clear in face-to-face
situations, greater levels of effort were required in the case of online spaces. Goth
discussion forums on the Internet tended to require the gradual earning of acceptance
even from the most respected of goths off the screen. In my case, this entailed the
gradual internalising of specific norms for online communication and, initially, the
development of ways to convey subcultural membership in the absence of the key
signifier of appearance. After careful observation and a process of trial and error, my
insider status gradually was transferred into the online context through conversa-
tional techniques, website photographs and eventual face-to-face acquaintance with
some subscribers. Nevertheless, the example serves as an important reminder that
achieving recognition as an insider may require different levels and types of effort and
technique in different contexts.

Interviews
Longstanding calls for the ‘matching’ of interviewers with respondents suggest that in
addition to its potential benefits in terms of access, insider status may enhance the
quality and effectiveness of qualitative interviews. Feminists have established that
 Journal of Youth Studies 139

differences in status and power between researchers and respondents can seriously
inhibit rapport (Oakley 1981, p. 41). While initially their concern was with the
potential benefits of gender matching, it has since been demonstrated that differences
of ethnicity among women can create substantial barriers (Edwards 1990, p. 479).
While the specific identity criteria in question may differ, the observation that
cultural proximity and distance may affect interview situations applies every bit as
much to the study of youth cultures.
Of course, first and foremost, successful interviews with young people require a
variety of generic techniques. In the case of my interviews with goths, careful choice
of venue, friendly conversational tones, sympathetic responses, probing and offering
sets of alternatives were of particular value (Fielding & Thomas 2001, pp. 126 129).
/

However, holding some degree of insider status can offer important additional
benefits and possibilities, most notably with respect to generating of a relaxed
atmosphere conducive to open conversation and willingness to disclose. In one of the
interviews for my study, a goth promoter on interpreting my appearance expressed a
sense of relief about my not being ‘some scary academic’* something that I believe
/

many others also to have felt (also see Moore 2003) [2]. An ability to share
subcultural gossip, anecdotes and observations with respondents further enhanced
initial rapport, as well as offering an invaluable and effective additional stimulus for
conversation during the interviews themselves. While care must be taken to avoid
leading respondents towards particular answers through such contributions, the
ability sometimes to move interviews towards a situation of two-way exchange rather
than the usual question-and-answer format can offer substantial advantages in terms
of trust and conversational flow (Armstrong 1993, p. 26).
Of course, there are also potential difficulties that, if not recognised and
counterbalanced, may affect the conduction of interviews by insider researchers.
Over-complacency may result in failure to recognise that* even when consistently
/

regarded as an insider* one’s precise level of proximity is liable to fluctuate

/

somewhat from one respondent to the next. For example, Sasha Roseneil emphasises
that while most of her interviews with fellow Greenham Common protestors were
characterised by a deep sense of mutual commonality, she found herself unprepared
for a minority of cases in which differences of sexuality and perspective seriously
inhibited both rapport and trust (1993, p. 199). Needless to say, insider researchers of
youth cultures must* like all ethnographers* continually assess the way they are
/ /

positioned by respondents and adjust their behaviour appropriately. Insider

complacency may also lead to problems if the amount of perceived familiarity
between respondent and interviewer results in too much being taken as given,
whether in terms of questions not asked or information not volunteered. The
distanced interrogator may, in the course of asking basic level questions, gain access
to important insights and information (Lummis 1987, p. 58), making it advisable for
insider researchers to find ways of identifying and asking such questions themselves.
In my interviews with goths it was relatively unproblematic to invite respondents,
140 P. Hodkinson

from time to time, to provide detailed answers to basic questions ‘for the benefit of
the tape’ and the strategy produced invaluable and sometimes surprising data.
Insider researchers should also be aware that, although their status may often
improve rapport in a general sense, it may in some situations cause respondents to
feel threatened, or pressured into giving particular kinds of responses. In particular,
the notion that youth cultures, like other communities, are often characterised by
their own collective ideologies (Thornton 1995) raises the possibility that, in the
presence of someone they perceive as an insider, respondents may feel disproportio-
nately encouraged to provide answers consistent with dominant thinking within the
group [3]. Awareness of this possibility should inform both the approach taken to the
conduction of interviews and the subsequent analysis of respondent accounts.
Nevertheless, the problem may be somewhat balanced by the simultaneous likelihood
that, in the presence of someone they perceive as already ‘clued-up’, respondents may
be discouraged from the worst excesses of conscious inaccuracy. It may be particularly
easy for respondents to make exaggerations, omissions, guesses and throwaway
statements in the presence of a relatively ignorant ‘professional stranger’ and, for this
reason, I found myself grateful to be perceived by my goth respondents as someone
liable to identify obvious inaccuracies.

Insider as Insighter? Implications for Understanding

The Insider View?
In spite of the significance of issues of researcher proximity with respect to practical
matters such as access and interviewing, there are equally important and, perhaps,
more difficult questions at stake concerning the implications of insider research for
the kinds of understanding and knowledge eventually produced. After all, the need to
gain access to ‘insider knowledge’ has long been at the heart of arguments for an
ethnographic approach to the study of society. The interpretivist emphasis on
capturing social life, as experienced and understood by its participants requires those
who would research that social life to gain access to insider feelings, motivations and
meanings (see Blumer 1969; Shutz 1970).
Such an argument has been of key importance to recent debates in the study of
youth cultures. Rejection of the neo-Marxist brand of subcultural theory associated
with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies is often premised on
the argument that the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies tended to impose
external interpretations upon young people’s patterns of behaviour and alignment.
Through taking an approach dominated by theoretically-driven textual analysis,
Cohen (1972), Hebdige (1977, 1979) and others interpreted the appearance and
behaviour of skins, bikers, mods, punks and others as a magical means of resolving of
class contradictions and an expression of symbolic forms of resistance to hegemony.
Such interpretations are argued specifically to have lacked resonance with or concern
for the ‘insider views’ of most participants of such groupings (Muggleton 2000;
 Journal of Youth Studies 141

Bennett 2002). Subsequently, through what Bennett has termed ‘the ethnographic
turn’, emphasis has been placed upon the need to access and understand the
motivations, meanings and viewpoints of youth cultural participants themselves
(Bennett 2002).
Traditionally, this sort of interpretivist emphasis upon the need for insider
understanding has tended to prompt the adoption by initially distanced researchers
of methods that allowed them to access and record the volunteered accounts of
insiders or to gain direct temporary experience of being an insider through
participation. However, some have suggested that, no matter what methods they
use, non-insiders may be unable fully to access and understand the values, meanings
and worldviews of those they study. No amount of qualitative interviews or
temporary involvement, they argue, can compete with the privileged view possessed
by genuine insiders. Labelling this perspective ‘The Insider Doctrine’, Merton
characterises the basic thrust of argument as follows:

The doctrine holds that one has monopolistic or privileged access to knowledge, or
is wholly excluded from it, by virtue of one’s group membership or social position
. . . the Outsider, no matter how careful and talented, is excluded in principle from
gaining access to the social and cultural truth. (Merton 1972, p. 15)

While Merton’s discussion focuses largely upon adoption of the insider doctrine in
the development of ‘black studies’ in the United States, the position can be associated
with various strands of anthropology and sociology. It informs the reflections of
Hayano, for example, on his ethnographic study of poker players, in which he asserts
that ‘being a player’ himself for many years was essential to the ability to present an
authentic ‘insider’s view’ (1982, p. 155). A version of the insider doctrine can also be
found within feminist methodological discussions. For the same reason that,
historically, white male science failed even to place the plight of women on the
agenda, men are sometimes argued to be unsuited successfully to understand female
experience in the present [4]. Kremer is particularly uncompromising, arguing for the
exclusion of men from feminist research in order to avoid the ‘mistakes’ and ‘false
knowledges’ that would result from their lack of insider experience (1990, p. 465).
Falling into the essentialist trap discussed earlier in this article, this uncompromis-
ing position presents social groupings as fixed, one-dimensional and mutually
exclusive (Merton 1972). More fundamentally, it shares with interpretivism more
generally a questionable premise that there exists a single insider truth to the lived
experience of being female, being a poker player or, indeed, being a goth, which
somehow can be recorded by the ethnographer (Schwandt 2000, p. 192). Wolcott
explicitly warns against any such assumption, arguing that ‘there is no monolithic
insider view . . . There are multiple insider views, multiple outsider views. Every view
is a way of seeing, not the way’ (1999, p. 137). Such emphasis upon the multiplicity of
situated understandings of the world has prompted many to argue that the
interpretations made by ethnographers, as with all other ‘ways of seeing’ should
142 P. Hodkinson

always be regarded as constructions rather than revelations (Haraway 1991; Wolcott

1994; Smith & Deemer 2000).
My retention of the notion of insider research as a means to conceptualise research
situations characterised by significant initial social proximity should not, therefore,
be taken as a suggestion that researchers who find themselves in such a situation have
privileged access to a singular insider truth. Yet the avoidance of what some have
termed ‘naı̈ve realism’ need not prompt abandonment of any attempt to evaluate the
potential implications that insider research may have for the levels and types of
understanding produced. As Hammersley (1992), Davies (1999) and others have
shown us, we can accept the absence of absolute certainties and of exclusively correct
‘ways of seeing’ without abandoning the notion that, on the basis of contestable, yet
broadly agreed-upon, criteria, some forms of ethnographic interpretation should be
regarded as more plausible, useful and generally applicable than others. Indeed, in
spite of his own emphasis on multiple ways of seeing, Wolcott also implies the
existence of some such criteria, acknowledging the importance of producing
‘plausible interpretations’, of ‘not getting it all wrong’ and even of assessing the
correspondence of an ethnographic account with ‘the setting and individuals on
which it is based’ (1994, pp. 347 366). On this basis we may surely accept his
/

contention that there are multiple insider views, yet still plausibly demonstrate, in the
case of some groupings, that there are extensive points of apparent coherence between
such insider views, and equally consistent points of difference between them and the
majority of views from ‘outside’. At which point, the extent to which social
researchers share with their respondents such points of insider consistency remains
a matter of great interest in respect of their ability to produce plausible forms of
understanding.

Insider Experience as a Resource

We are now able to move on to a discussion of the extent to which initial proximity
should be regarded as valuable or even necessary in the aforementioned quest to
understand the lived experiences and perspectives of those involved in youth cultures.
Essentially, my argument here is that, while insider researchers should not be
regarded as having exclusive access to such understanding, they may nevertheless find
that, as a result of their dual position, they have valuable additional resources at their
disposal.
Even accepting, as argued earlier, that some groups of young people will retain
significant levels of external distinctiveness and internal consistency, it remains likely
that competent non-insiders will generate persuasive and valuable interpretations.
For example, in apparent contrast to the aforementioned gender essentialism of
Kremer, Shane Blackman (1998) has argued convincingly that, with the help of a
variety of practical measures and precautions, a white, male academic may overcome
at least some of the barriers to producing a plausible documentation the lifestyles of a
group of young women. In Blackman’s case, asking his ‘New Wave Girl’ respondents
 Journal of Youth Studies 143

to read and comment upon field notes and enlisting the advice of female colleagues in
the interpretation of data were among a number of strategies used in order to reduce
epistemological difficulties that may have arisen from his apparent outsider status.
Yet, at the same time as illustrating the ways in which research can successfully be
carried out and interpreted by non-insiders, the measures Blackman was required to
take also serve to highlight that social distance can create obstacles, uncertainties and
hazards that may be bypassed by insider researchers.
In the first instance, insider researchers may be particularly well placed to use a
combination of their academic background and their experience of the culture in
question, to make reasonable judgements as to which elements of the grouping might
be worthy of their explorative energies in the first place (Roseneil 1993, p. 189). As
well as saving time, this may help to avoid the early imposition of unsuitable
conceptual frameworks, or what Wolcott refers to as ‘detour[s] of my own or other’s
making’ (1994, p. 348). During the early planning stages of my research on the goth
scene, for example, I was heavily influenced by an increasingly popular body of
existing ethnographic work that examined popular music-related practices and
identities through focusing upon the local specificities of individual cities (Finnegan
1989; Cohen 1991; Shank 1994). However, a temptation to replicate the locally
specific emphasis of these and other studies in my own work on the goth scene was
tempered by my previous experience as an enthusiast. Having regularly travelled from
place to place to attend goth gigs in this role and having experienced strong feelings
of commonality with goths outside the places I lived, I was able to recognise from the
beginning of my research that confining my analysis to the in-depth dynamics of a
single locality may have resulted in a neglect of the translocal elements of this culture.
I therefore focused my research on the goth scene in a number of different cities and
placed initial emphasis both on the specificities of each locality and on the ways in
which they were connected with one another. Induced fairly directly by my insider
experience, this explicit focus upon translocal as well as local elements generated
invaluable data that illustrated levels of translocal connectedness that even I had not
expected (see Hodkinson 2004). Whether the potential importance of this research
direction would or would not have been picked up on immediately by a non-insider
influenced by the same literature is not clear of course. My contention merely is that,
as an insider researcher, my chances of recognising its significance at an early stage
were particularly high.
To have maximum initial awareness of what aspects of a youth culture may most
usefully be examined is of significant value, but ultimately it may be less significant
than the ability to reach plausible interpretations of research data during and
subsequent to the conduction of fieldwork. In this respect, although they do not have
access to the insider truth, insider researchers may again find themselves in a useful
position. This is because, having experienced activities, motivations, feelings and
affiliations that are liable, at least, to be comparable with those of many respondents,
they have a significant extra pool of material with which to compare and contrast
what they see and hear during the research process. No matter how skilled or adaptive
144 P. Hodkinson

they are, non-insider researchers, seeking to learn about and temporarily immerse
themselves in an unfamiliar cultural grouping, are liable to find themselves heavily
reliant upon what they are told by participants and, in particular, ‘key informants’
(Davies 1999, p. 71). As a consequence, there is a danger that they may be drawn
towards problematic interpretations by respondents who, through dishonesty,
exaggeration or misplaced speculation, offer misleading or unrepresentative accounts
of their own or other people’s experience. In contrast, the ability of insider researchers
to examine the accounts they receive from respondents in the context of their own
history of experiences and interactions may enhance their ability to judge the
sincerity, motivations, applicability and significance of what they are told (Roseneil
1993, p. 189). While it is widely accepted that initially distanced researchers who ‘go
native’ may become unable critically to assess their data, it seems equally likely that
those who begin in an insider position and at least partially ‘go academic’ may find
themselves in a strong position both to empathise and to scrutinise. In order to
illustrate the potential significance of this point in youth cultural research, I present
an extended example from my case study.
A number of goths I spoke to during my ethnography initially were uncomfortable
with the idea that their style and behaviour could be attributed to collective
normative pressure or to the need for group belonging. Many insisted that the goth
scene was characterised by considerable diversity, by a comparative lack of normative
pressure and by an atmosphere that, more than anything else, encouraged individual
freedom of expression. One can imagine, perhaps, that* particularly in the context
/

of a theoretical climate dominated by notions of fluidity and individualism* the /

receipt of consistent comments of this sort may be taken to suggest that the
experience of these respondents was one of involvement in an essentially loose-knit
grouping characterised as much by the experience of heterogeneity, diversity and
individualism as by collective values or normative boundaries. Indeed, partly on the
basis of having received not entirely dissimilar comments about individual self-
expression in his own non-insider interview study of young people, Muggleton
argues that the identities of so-called subculturalists in fact tend to be dominated by a
rejection of collective identity and a celebration of individual distinctiveness (2000,
pp. 55 80).
/

In contrast, my existing role as a goth participant provided elements of experience

that led to greater caution regarding participants’ claims about individuality.
Alongside many of my peers, I had rather unthinkingly made such claims about
myself in the past, in spite of strong feelings of affiliation with other goths and
extensive reliance upon established subcultural conventions in the practical devel-
opment of my style and behaviour. I also had taken part in conversations where,
during moments of self-criticism, some participants had joked that the truest
devotees to the goth scene could best be identified by their frantic denials of
affiliation and assertions of individuality! Through use of academic reading, I began
to question whether this discursive emphasis on individualism might be interpreted
as a form of subcultural ideology or rhetoric (Hodkinson 2002, pp. 76 80). Without
/
 Journal of Youth Studies 145

providing reason to dismiss respondent claims to individuality, then, elements of my

insider experience combined with appropriate theoretical tools, prompted greater
scrutiny of such claims and more extensive and varied questioning around issues of
individual and collective distinctiveness. As a result of this approach, the vast
majority of those who attempted initially to distance themselves from notions of
collective identity, subsequently indicated through their answers to a myriad of other
questions, both strong levels of group commitment and significant levels of
adherence to existing goth values (see Hodkinson 2002). This enabled a careful
and, I believe, strongly justified theorisation of the complex tension experienced by
many goths (and, I suspect, participants of similar youth groupings) between intense
feelings of collective identity and shared discursive aspirations to individuality.
Examples such as this one, I hope, illustrate the potential value of insider
experiences as a significant additional resource through which to help interpret what
one may see and hear in the course of research. However, over-reliance upon such
experiences may lead to equally significant difficulties. Most obviously, those who fail
to achieve the aforementioned transition from insider to insider researcher may
indeed suffer problems of ‘over-rapport’ and lack the ability or motivation critically
to analyse the perspectives or activities of participants (Hammersley & Atkinson
1995, p. 111). In the case of youth cultures, there may be a danger that insider
researchers are unable to disconnect themselves from group ideologies or that, as a
result of a sense of loyalty, they begin to take on the role of what Bennett terms
‘subcultural spokesperson’, rather than that of critical analyst (Bennett 2003).
Meanwhile, for those who, like myself, do find themselves able and willing to take
a critical perspective, there remains a more general danger of over-reliance upon one’s
previous insider experience as the basis for such a perspective. This may result in
failure to recognise or sufficiently to ‘unpick’ elements of culture that insiders tend to
take for granted, or in the excessive imposition of existing viewpoints and experiences
in the course of verifying and interpreting data more generally. In other words, rather
than being regarded as a valuable additional resource, there is a danger that insider
experience may start to become ‘an end in itself ’ (Bennett 2002), and, as such, a
liability.
In the interests of maximising the usefulness of their interpretations, then, those
who conduct insider research must learn to utilise their personal experience
selectively, without being confined to it. An ability to adopt a more distanced,
analytical perspective, or to ‘see the familiar as strange’ (Foster 1996, p. 59), may be
crucial both in respect of the research agenda and the interpretation of data. Such
‘stepping back’ may require more than merely a period of deliberate separation from
the field prior to or during the course of writing up, as is sometimes recommended in
the case of non-insider ethnographies. Ideally, the insider researcher should combine
insider experience with more distanced perspectives throughout the project. In the
case of Roseneil’s research on Greenham women, a gap of four years between her
involvement with the protests and her research project is regarded by the author as
having been essential to her ability to gain sufficient critical distance (1993, p. 192).
146 P. Hodkinson

Meanwhile in my own case, there was no such initial gap, yet I found that the
practicalities of taking field notes and conducting interviews, alongside my continual
attempts to reconcile observations with theoretical questions (and vice versa),
enabled my viewpoint fairly smoothly to shift from that of insider to that of insider
researcher.
While the means through which ‘distanced’ viewpoints are accessed may vary from
case to case, it is clear that insider researchers must learn to avoid over-estimating the
extent of their initial ‘insight’. Ensuring that one’s position of social proximity is
beneficial rather than problematic requires an ongoing reflexive and reactive
approach to the ways one is positioned and the potential implications of these
throughout the research process. As Charlotte Davies has argued, the extent to which
researchers are involved in the groupings they study is less important in the
evaluation of ethnographic interpretations than the overall quality and reflexivity of
their research approach (1999, pp. 73 74). Previous experience and preconceptions,
/

then, can often be utilised as a means to guide elements of the investigative process
and to assist in the interpretation and verification of data, but should not be relied
upon to the extent that, by themselves, they start to shape findings and conclusions.

Conclusion
It has not been the intention of this paper to propose the notion of insider research as
an appropriate descriptor for every situation in which there is some semblance of
cultural similarity between researchers and their respondents. Neither have I sought
to argue that the elements of social distance, which sometimes will position
researchers as outsiders to the cultures they study, ought to be regarded as
insurmountable barriers to effective research. Needless to say, research by non-
insiders has been and will remain essential to the understanding of youth cultures,
not least of course in the case of projects focused upon those young people whose
socio-economic backgrounds are least likely to be represented within the world of
academia.
Yet for those researchers who do occupy a position of initial proximity consistent
and substantial enough to warrant the notion of insider research as set out here, there
is clear value in attempting to share understandings and reflections on the
possibilities and problems that may emanate from such a circumstance. In essence,
this paper has argued that the position of insider researcher may offer significant
potential benefits in terms of practical issues such as access and rapport, at the same
time as constituting an additional resource that may be utilised to enhance the quality
of the eventual understandings produced. Crucially, however, the securing of such
benefits is at least as dependent upon the ‘researcher’ element of this dual identity as
the ‘insider’ element. Insider researchers, then, must utilise a careful, reflexive
research approach to ensure that any potential benefits of their initial proximity are
realised without the emergence of significant difficulties. Finally, like all ethnogra-
phers, insider researchers should attempt to discuss their position and the ways it
 Journal of Youth Studies 147

may have affected their research. It is hoped that in the case of those who research
youth cultures, this paper may encourage such reflections.

Notes
[1] Moore’s (2003) recent reflections on some of the practical implications of her personal
proximity to those she studied provide a notable exception, and are referred to from time to
time in this article.
[2] In contrast, I was given a sense of the difficulties that might be faced by those perceived as
outsiders when one of the respondents to a self-completion questionnaire administered as
part of the project */which contained no clues as to my own identity */provided a series of
highly defensive responses, including one that read ‘if you were one of us, you would not
need to ask’.
[3] Karenza Moore, for example, has suggested to me that because there is normative pressure
within club culture for participants to be rather blasé about, or even proud of, their
experiences with illegal drugs, it is possible that clubbers taking part in interviews may be
wary of disclosing personal anxieties about the effects of drugs to an interviewer they
perceive as an insider (email communication 2004).
[4] Of course, often the feminist argument was not merely that women were better suited to
understand women, but that, in relation to patriarchal society as a whole, they occupied a
unique ‘outsider within’ position, providing unrivalled insight into both male and female
elements of that society (Harding 1991). The reader will appreciate that this more general
argument falls outside the particular remit of this paper.

References
Agar, M. (1996) The Professional Stranger, 2nd edn, Academic Press, San Diego.
Anderson, N. (1923) The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man , University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Armstrong, G. (1993) ‘Like that Desmond Morris’, in The Field: Accounts of Ethnography, eds D.
Hobbs & T. May, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bauman, Z. (2001) The Individualized Society, Polity, Cambridge.
Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance , The Free Press, New York.
Bennett, A. (1999) ‘Subcultures or Neo-tribes. rethinking the relationship between youth, style and
musical taste’, Sociology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 599 /617.
Bennett, A. (2002) ‘Researching youth culture and popular music’, British Journal of Sociology, vol.
33, no. 3, pp. 451 /466.
Bennett, A. (2003) ‘The use of insider knowledge in ethnographic research on contemporary youth
music scenes’, in Researching Youth , eds A. Bennett, M. Cieslik & S. Miles, Palgrave, London,
pp. 186 /200.
Blackman, S. (1998) ‘The school: ‘‘poxy cupid!’’: an ethnographic and feminist account of a
resistant female youth culture: the new wave girls’, in Cool Places: Geographies of Youth
Cultures , eds T. Skelton & G. Valentine, Routledge, London.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method , Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Brewer, J. (2000) Ethnography, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Carby, H. (1982) ‘White women listen! Black feminism and the boundaries of sisterhood’, in The
Empire Strikes Back , CCCS, Birmingham.
Cohen, A. (1955) Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang , Collier-Macmillan, London.
Cohen, P. (1972) ‘Subcultural conflict and working class community’, Working Papers in Cultural
Studies , vol. 2, pp. 5 /70.
148 P. Hodkinson

Cohen, S. (1991) Rock Culture in Liverpool: Popular Music in the Making , Clarendon, Oxford.
Davies, C. (1999) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Ourselves and Others , Routledge,
London.
Edwards, R. (1990) ‘Connecting methods and epistemology: a white woman interviewing black
women’, Women’s Studies International Forum , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 477 /490.
Fielding, N. (1981) The National Front , Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Fielding, N. & Thomas, H. (2001) ‘Qualitative interviewing’, in Researching Social Life , ed. N.
Gilbert, Sage, London.
Finnegan, R. (1989) The Hidden Musicians , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Foster, P. (1996) ‘Observational research’, in Data Collection and Analysis , eds R. Sapsford & V. Jupp,
Sage, London.
Gillespie, M. (1995) Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change , Routledge, London.
Gold, R. (1958) ‘Roles in sociological field observation’, Social Forces , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 217 /223.
Hall, S. (1994) ‘The question of cultural identity’, In The Polity Reader in Cultural Theory, Polity,
Cambridge.
Hall, S. & Jefferson, T. (1977) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Cultures in Post-War Britain ,
Hutchinson, London.
Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong With Ethnography, Routledge, London.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice , 2nd edn, Routledge,
London.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature , Free Association
Books, London .
Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge , Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Hayano, D. (1982) Poker Faces , University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hebdige, D. (1977) ‘The meaning of mod’, in Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-
War Britain , eds S. Hall & T. Jefferson, Hutchison, London, pp. 87 /99.
Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style , Methuen, London.
Hetherington, D. (2000) New Age Travellers: Vanloads of Uproarious Humanity, Cassell, London.
Hodkinson, P. (2002) Goth. Identity, Style and Subculture , Berg, Oxford.
Hodkinson, P. (2004) ‘Translocal connections in the goth scene’, in Music Scenes: Local, Translocal
and Virtual , eds A. Bennett & R. Peterson, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, pp. 131 /
148.
Humphreys, L. (1970) Tearoom Trade: A Study of Homosexual Encounters in Public Places ,
Duckworth and Co., London.
Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism , Verso, London.
Khan-Harris, K. (2004) ‘Unspectacular subculture? Transgression and mundanity in the global
extreme metal scene’, in After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture , eds
A. Bennett & K. Khan-Harris, Palgrave, London, pp. 107 /117.
Kremer, B. (1990) ‘Learning to say no */keeping feminist research for ourselves’, Women’s Studies
International Forum , vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 463 /467.
Locher, D. (1998) ‘The industrial identity crisis: the failure of a newly forming subculture to identify
itself ’, in Youth Culture: Identity in a Postmodern World , ed. J. Epstein, Blackwell, Malden,
MA, pp. 100 /117.
Lummis, T. (1987) Listening to History, Hutchison, London.
Malbon, B. (1999) Clubbing: Dancing, Ecstasy and Vitality, Routledge, London.
Mercer, K. (1990) ‘Welcome to the jungle: identity and diversity in postmodern politics’, in Identity:
Community, Culture, Difference , ed. J. Rutherford, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Merton, R. (1972) ‘Insiders and outsiders: a chapter in the sociology of knowledge’, in Varieties of
Political Expression in Sociology, ed. R. Merton, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 9 /
47.
 Journal of Youth Studies 149

Moore, K. (2003) ‘E-heads versus beer monsters: researching youth people’s music and drug
consumption in dance club settings’, in Researching Youth , eds A. Bennett, M. Cieslik & S.
Miles, Palgrave, London, pp. 138 /156.
Moore, K. (2004) ‘‘‘Sort drugs, make mates’’: the use and meanings of mobiles in club culture’,
Seminar presentation at DigiPlay 2: Mobile Leisure and the Technological Mediascape ,
University of Surrey.
Muggleton, D. (1997) ‘The post-subculturalist’, in The Club Cultures Reader: Readings in Popular
Cultural Studies , ed. S. Redhead, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 185 /203.
Muggleton, D. (2000) Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style , Berg, Oxford.
Oakley, A. (1981) ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms’, in Doing Feminist Research , ed.
H. Roberts, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 30 /61.
Pilkington, H. (2004) ‘Youth strategies for global living’, in After Subculture: Critical Studies in
Contemporary Youth Culture , eds A. Bennett & K. Khan-Harris, Palgrave, London, pp. 119 /
134.
Roseneil, S. (1993) ‘Greenham revisited: researching my self and my sisters’, in Interpreting the Field:
Accounts of Ethnography, eds D. Hobbs & T. May, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 177 /208.
Schwandt, T. (2000) ‘Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: interpretivism,
hermeneutics and social constructionism’, in Handbook of Qualitative Research: Second
Edition , eds N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, Sage, London, pp. 191 /203.
Shank, B. (1994) Dissonant Identities: The Rock ‘n’ Roll Scene in Austin, Texas , University Press of
New England, Hanover.
Shutz, A. (1970) On Phenomenology and Social Relations , Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Smith, J. & Deemer, D. (2000) ‘The problem of criteria in the age of relativism’, in Handbook of
Qualitative Research: Second Edition , eds N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, Sage, London, pp. 877 /
894.
Song, M. & Parker, D. (1995) ‘Commonality, difference and the dynamics of discourse in in-depth
interviewing’, Sociology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 241 /256.
Thornton, S. (1995) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital , Polity Press, Cambridge.
Valentine, G., Skelton, T. & Chambers, D. (1998) ‘Cool places: an introduction to youth and youth
cultures’, in Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures , eds G. Valentine & T. Skelton,
Routledge, London, pp. 1 /34.
Weinstein, D. (2000) Heavy Metal: The Music and its Culture , Da Capo Press, London.
Whyte, W. (1943) Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum , University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wolcott, H. (1994) Transforming Qualitative Data: Description Analysis and Interpretation , Sage,
London.
Wolcott, H. (1999) Ethnography: A Way of Seeing , Altamira Press, Walnut Creek.

View publication stats