FACULTY OF DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIETY

BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THE POLITY

A Study of face-to-face canvassing in the 2010 General Election campaign

by Jason Cosmo LEMAN

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of

MRes Sociology Planning and Policy

by examination and dissertation

Sheffield Hallam University

May 2010

i

FACULTY OF DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIETY

BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THE POLITY

A Study of face-to-face canvassing in the 2010 General Election campaign

by Jason Cosmo LEMAN

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of

MRes Sociology Planning and Policy

by examination and dissertation

Sheffield Hallam University

May 2010

ii

Acknowledgements

Without the kind help of my employer and colleagues, interviewees, tutors, fellow

campaigners, and my family, this research would have not seen the light of day.

Therefore, I give thanks to my colleagues in the Learning and Teaching Institute for not

minding when I was more absent than there; and thanks to the tutors on the course and

Sheffield Hallam University in general for support and funding. Thank you to those who

welcomed me into their homes and put up with my rambling questions. The very best to all

I have campaigned alongside, every moment that we strive for life will never be lost. Great

big armfuls of love to Dinah, and to Verity; who like her dad, is trying to understand what it

all means.

iii

Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ ii

Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Motivations and outcomes ............................................................................................. 2

Ontology and epistemology ........................................................................................... 2

Extensive structures ....................................................................................................... 4

The people .................................................................................................................... 4

The polity ...................................................................................................................... 5

Agency ............................................................................................................................. 5

The people .................................................................................................................... 5

The polity ...................................................................................................................... 6

Relational ......................................................................................................................... 7

The people .................................................................................................................... 7

Canvassing ................................................................................................................ 8

Media and the transmission of the polity .................................................................... 9

The polity ...................................................................................................................... 9

Canvassing .............................................................................................................. 10

Methodology.................................................................................................................. 11

Observing canvassing - the canvasser ........................................................................ 12

Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 12

Methodological issues .............................................................................................. 13

Observing canvassing - the canvassee ....................................................................... 14

Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 16

Methodological issues .............................................................................................. 16

Participant observation ................................................................................................ 17

Semi-structured interviews with householders ............................................................. 18

Analysis of participant observation and interviews. ...................................................... 20

Explorations of canvassing .......................................................................................... 21

Canvassing in time and space ..................................................................................... 22

The right of access ................................................................................................... 23

Language and culture ................................................................................................. 26

Canvasser as polity ..................................................................................................... 29

Canvasser as a symbol of the party ......................................................................... 31

Party identity ............................................................................................................ 31

Canvasser as advocate ............................................................................................... 33

Advocate to institutions ............................................................................................ 34

Advocate to the party ............................................................................................... 35

Cavasser as speaker .................................................................................................. 37

Canvasser as pollster .............................................................................................. 38

The professional communicator ............................................................................... 39

Dissemination of information .................................................................................... 40

The hard sell ............................................................................................................ 43

iv

Discussion and Suggestions for Further Research ................................................... 45

The polity calls ............................................................................................................ 45

Canvassing as the voice of the party ........................................................................... 46

Canvassing as advocacy ............................................................................................. 47

Effective for whom? ..................................................................................................... 48

The future of canvassing ............................................................................................. 49

Epilogue ......................................................................................................................... 51

References .................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix 1 - Interview Schedule for Canvassing Research ...................................... 60

Appendix 2 - Research audit ........................................................................................ 63

Reflections on participant observation ......................................................................... 63

Reflections on interviews ............................................................................................. 65

Reflections on analysis................................................................................................ 69

Overall reflections ....................................................................................................... 70

v

Abstract

Face-to-face canvassing has been recognised as the most effective means political

parties have at their disposal of directly mobilising voters. The majority of research into the

effectiveness of canvassing has been carried out with extensive surveys, finding

associations around pre-defined taxonomies. Establishing why face-to-face canvassing is

relatively effective may shed light on wider questions of political participation. Originating

from a Critical Realist approach, it was proposed to explore the mechanisms behind this

observed association through a full description of what was happening within the

canvassing act. I have carried out an in-depth investigation using qualitative semi-

structured interviews with householders and participant observation as a canvasser in the

run up to the 2010 local and general election. Nine semi-structured interviews were

carried out with householders in two areas, one of low deprivation and one of high

deprivation. Participant observations were carried out across ten canvassing sessions,

seven prior to the announcement of the general election, and three in the run up to

election day. Canvassing was found to be limited by issues around physical space,

access granted by householders, and differences in culture and language. Canvassing

was contextualised by the canvasser's membership of the polity, and affiliation to a

particular party. The canvassing act can be described as two broad roles: a canvasser-as-

speaker who projects the power of the polity onto the people, whether through explicit

attempts at persuasion or through selective provision of information; and, a canvasser-as-

advocate who acts as a representative for the people to institutions and political parties.

1

Introduction

Face-to-face canvassing1 has been recognised as the most effective means political

parties have at their disposal of directly mobilising voters (Hansen and Bowers 2009). It

also appears to be a key method of persuading voters to vote for a particular party (Pattie

and Johnston 2004, Cutts 2006). In an era where people appear less aligned to political

party groups, and therefore more open to switching allegiance (Denver 2003), face-to-face

canvassing could be more important than ever. There has, however, been little direct

research into why it is relatively effective compared to other methods of direct

communication from political parties to potential voters (Pattie and Johnston 2003 p322

for example). The following research aimed to describe what is occurring in the relations

between canvasser and canvassed, and how the effectiveness of face-to-face canvassing

for increasing the likelihood to vote, or to vote for a particular political party, is bounded by

these relations.

Theories of democracy and what influences the "will of the people" are as old as formal

philosophy (Held 2006 pp13). To investigate what is happening at the moment of the

canvass, and how that affects the subsequent process of voting, we need to take in the

complexity of political participation and choice. Previous investigations include: research

based on election results and large scale surveys, primarily within the field of political

science; research into individual experience and motivation, primarily within the field of

psychology and social science; and investigations of social networks. Within and across

these are different foci and languages of research, aligning with disciplines, national

boundaries, and schools of thought.

The background research has been developed throughout the time of research, framing

some of my participant observation and informing the content of the interview schedule.

The active process of searching for different theories and languages to express

canvassing has hopefully enriched the observations and interviews.

Characterised as the closest contest in many years, the 2010 elections were significant in

being a close contest between Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats, with the

result of a hung parliament. The 2010 elections were also unusual in that local council

elections were carried out at the same time. The research was carried out within a ward

1 Throughout this dissertation “canvassing” will be used as shorthand for “face-to-face” canvassing unless

stated otherwise. “Canvassee” denotes the householder who is being canvassed by the canvasser.

2

where three political parties were actively competing at national and local level for

representation.

Motivations and outcomes

In 2006, after several years being politically active but avoiding joining any political party, I

became motivated to join a local party group after reading their local manifesto. Shortly

after joining I became active in the party. I believe most political parties have good people

within them and good things about them, and so I am not a fan of adversarial style party

politics. Whilst I believe very much in what my party believes in and does, I feel

uncomfortable with “nailing my colours to the mast”.

As I progressed through my masters course, the subject of the dissertation was always of

interest to me. It had to be around politics as that is my main interest, but what aspect was

not clear for some time - whether activist group or party politics, and whether around the

structure of a group or activity of a group. Having had friends who had used their

academic studies to further the aims of organisations or campaigns in which they were

part, I was interested in doing something that would be of practical use. The forthcoming

elections in 2010 appeared to answer this. I knew canvassing was an important campaign

tool for the local party, and a study of canvassing including participant observation would

allow me both to support the political party, and offer ways to improve campaigning.

The planned outcomes for this dissertation were:

• Increased knowledge of political participation and canvassing, as related through this dissertation;

• Time given to local party canvassing in advance of elections;

• Strategies to improve the efficacy of canvassing.

Ontology and epistemology

This research project will have an ontological basis that may be characterised as Critical

Realist (Bhaskar 1979), although this is not to deny that similar epistemological and

methodological positions may arise from other ontological schools (for example

pragmatism, see Klein 2004).

Existing evidence and that arising through research will be considered through the Critical

Realist interpretation of social relations, i.e. that individuals both transform and reproduce

3

pre-existing social structures through agency. Design, research, and analysis will be

carried out within the understanding that:

• Research should focus on the complex socialising relations between individuals (agency) and society (structure);

• Pre-existing social structure is continuously reproduced and transformed by individual agency;

• Multiple causal mechanisms will be responsible for any observed social relation, which limits claims of causality;

• Suggested social structures, such as taxonomic groups, need to arise out of evidence rather than being presupposed;

• Social structures emerge from individual behaviour and are not empirically reducible to individual behaviour;

• Partial aspects of the social structures can be explained by causal mechanisms, which when combined can act as an explanation of observations;

• In depth qualitative investigation can explore causal mechanisms, whilst extensive quantitative investigation can assess how widespread those mechanisms might be.

(Yeung 1997, Sayer 2000)

As part of the analysis there will be a focus on power and status relations. The research

will a-priori assume the existence of power and status stratification between individuals,

and between individuals and society. However, where these power relations emerge and

how they are structured will be determined by evidence and critical analysis. In general it

is planned that some of the areas explored will arise out of doing and reflecting upon

canvassing.

I shall construct the analysis of evidence through consideration of several levels of study.

First, observations of associations through the study of extensive structures. Secondly,

observations of factors around agency. Thirdly, the socialising relations between people.

Canvassing may be interpreted as a socialising act with the potential for both transforming

and reproducing social structures and will be considered as part of the third section.

In the paradigm of understanding taken here, empirically defined social structures may

have causal powers in that they pre-exist individuals, define the limits of individual agency,

and are reproduced such that individuals do not have power over them but rather than in

reproducing the social structure it has power over the individual (Lewis 2000, Harre and

Bhaskar 2001). That said, empirically found structures may be an artefact of empirical

4

investigation, found because existing models expect to find such structures but have not,

or cannot, detect structures reflecting reality. The process of qualitative evaluation and

triangulation will aim to identify descriptions that reflect causally related social structures

through induction from data.

Extensive structures

A great deal of research has been focussed on investigating why people switch vote, and

why they vote at all, based on structural associations and explanations for voting

behaviour. The investigations are largely extensive, that is, investigations that aim to find

associations that are persistent across many people, but which are limited in their

investigation of the causal mechanisms behind observed associations (Sayer 2000 pp16-

17).

The people

To describe voting choice as largely a product of social structures around the voter is

termed the social determinism model. In this model, groupings such as social class are

assumed to have needs and interests arising from their shared circumstances. The past

fifty years has witnessed a myriad of social changes leading to a fragmentation of a

uniform socialising experience within a class, so class identity with regard to political

parties has also fragmented (Denver 2003 pp76-92, pp182, Pattie and Johnston 2004).

Over this period there has also been a decline in the levels of voting, partly due to

cynicism about the trustworthiness and efficacy of elected representatives (Power Inquiry

2006, Dermody and Hanmer-Lloyd 2008) and a decreasing perception that voting is a

"duty" (Denver 2003).

Observed associations between socio-economic status and the tendency of people to

vote have remained despite the fracturing of class. There has not been a decline in

declared political interest, indicating that it is not disengagement with politics overall that is

driving the decline in participation (Sanders et al 2005). The associations observed have,

at least to some extent, assumed the meaningfulness of existing taxonomic classifications

without assessing the reasons why such classifications might be a representation of

reality.

5

The polity

The decline in turnout for elections is coupled with a fall in the active membership of

political parties since the 1950s (Moran 2006). There is evidence of some resurgence of

membership for some parties; however, the growth may be in members less strongly

affiliated to the party, who are less likely to actively participate or remain members for the

long-term (Whiteley and Seyd 1998, Fisher and Denver 2009).

Research has found increasing scepticism about politicians and formal political structures,

and negative perceptions of the party political system (Eden and Roker 2000 cited by

O'Toole 2004, Power Inquiry 2006) have led to a decline in party affiliation, which is

strongly associated with party activism (Whiteley and Seyd 2003). However, it has been

argued that the main cause of declining membership is a growing choice of alternative

leisure pursuits generally (Jones 2006) and campaign groups in particular (Seyd and

Whiteley 2004, Whiteley 2007). There is some indication that the most active members

are those with greater resources at their disposal, being those who are younger, not in

full-time work, and/or middle class professionals (Whiteley and Seyd 1998).

Agency

In considering motivations we might consider the person as an agent, able to reason and

make choices over how to act. The person can be described as a causal agent that

reproduces and transforms social structures in ways that are guided by the tendencies of

psychological and neurological structures, themselves shaped by socialisation (Bhaskar

1979).

The people

While structural descriptions of voter behaviour have reduced in their predictive power,

descriptions located on voter agency have been more successful. There is wide evidence

that voting decisions are increasingly made on the basis of issues (Sanders et al 2005,

Whiteley et al 2005). This suggests that the voter can be more readily characterised as a

rational agent deciding upon issues that are important to them. However, a purely rational

model does not seem to describe the decision process of most voters (Dowding 2005).

People base their decisions on a very limited range of information (Pattie and Johnston

2004), with many voters not coherently matching personal issue based beliefs to party

6

choice, particularly where they are less skilled in handling information (Stimson 1975,

Sondheimer and Green 2010).

The information that would inform rational choices is intentionally or otherwise framed by

context such that the attitudes of voters around particular issues are not coherent or

stable (Druckman 2004). Further, Lodge et al (1989) suggest that information is

selectively attended to and selectively remembered, dependent on whether it supports the

models of the polity held by the voter (see also Denver 2003 pp 137, Taber and Lodge

2006). In making voting choices, people use this summary, flawed and subjective

information, rather than referring back to detailed and accurate "profit and loss" accounts

regarding particular policy positions (Lodge et al 1989). After the pioneering work of

Abelson et al (1982) into emotional responses to political candidates, researchers have

found that emotional responses to political context directs attention to information and

partially determines political choice (Marcus et al 2000 p132).

The research above is generally extensive, studying similarities in response to political

context across large populations, or seeking to measure common information processing

mechanisms. However, conceptualising the person as an agent is instructive in that rather

than being logical and all knowing, people are found to act in response to political

information in ways that are complex and fuzzy, defined by psychological processes and

responses within a wider social context.

The polity

The motivations driving political participation have been found to be diverse. They have

been classified around wanting to find influence through the party towards certain group

goals (collective activism), gaining or reinforcing social status and contact (solidary or

contact activism), or gaining personal benefit around wealth or resource (material or

individualistic activism) (Clark and Wilson 1961, Pattie et al 2003). Evidence indicates that

all three work to an extent, dependent on context (Pattie et al 2003), indicating that such

classification may not reflect reality, but does outline the breadth of motivation that exists.

Reflecting the work of Marcus et al cited above, Miller and Krosnik (2004) found that

threat to the status quo motivated higher political engagement compared to the

opportunity to improve on the status quo.

In the 1990s the Labour party shifted towards having greater direct communication to the

voter on party policy through direct and mass media, sidelining local party groups. The

policy direction of the party was also mainly determined by private opinion polls and much

7

less by activists. The party activist was therefore not considered as having a key role with

regards to communication from the party to the people, or from the people to the party

(Whitely and Seyd 2002 pp93-94, Copus 2004 pp199, Kavanagh 2006). By contrast the

Liberal Democrats have a much greater focus on "Community Politics", with an aim to

engage the electorate all year round through canvassing and local campaigns (Copus

2004 pp65-67). Local group activists have a role in determining policy through the national

conference. This implies that active members have different roles and experiences

depending on their party allegiance. The approach and "ethos" of different parties is quite

distinct, both in trying to attract voters and attracting active members (Copus 2004).

Highly intensive activity, such as canvassing, might exclude a range of people, particularly

the young, from party activism (O'Toole and Gale 2009). There is evidence that members

of newer social movements prefer to engage with politics in a way that they find personally

enjoyable, concurrent with their lifestyle, and on their own terms. There may be issues

about how such people are able to engage with adversarial party politics at all, the extent

to which party structures might not allow them to be active in the way that they wish, and

the extent to which they would wish to be publically identified with a party group (O’Toole

2004). Many members may join campaigning groups because they support the

campaigning activities of that group but do not want to actively participate in the

campaign. Factors around the extent of affiliation or identification with the party appear to

be of primary importance in motivating activity (Whiteley and Seyd 1998).

Relational

Critical Realist analysis places importance on the role of socialisation, the process of

individual agents continually transforming and reproducing pre-existing social structures.

Such social structures might be classified as institutional, being generated by the

practices of institutions, embodied, being generated by the habits and skills of the

socialised person, and relational, being generated through social relationships (Scott

2001). It is these relation structures that appear most relevant to canvassing. The

research cited below involves extensive studies of social networks, media, and

canvassing.

The people

Research suggests social networks play an important role in transmitting politically

relevant information and expertise that leads to greater participation in politics, although

8

the mechanisms and interaction with agency are complex (Lake and Huckfeldt 1998,

McClurg 2006, Siegel 2009). The highest intensity of discussion is within the household,

with nearly half of people reporting they discuss politics with family members, compared to

just over a quarter who report discussing politics with non-family members (Pattie and

Johnston 2008). The tendency to participate (Cutts and Fieldhouse 2009), attitudes to

politics (Pattie and Johnston 2008), and party political preference (Johnston 2005), are all

transmitted by in-household socialisation. It is unclear whether motivation is through

normative social pressures, greater attention to politics, or transmission of information.

Pattie and Johnston (2008) found that the influence of talk on political choice from

household and non-household members was the same, only being dependent on the

amount of talk.

Canvassing

Face to face canvassing has been found to be the most effective direct campaigning

method for getting people out to vote (Nickerson et al 2006, Hansen and Bowers 2009).

Whilst the wider context of the election may have a far greater impact in encouraging

turnout in terms of marginality or perceived importance (Denver 2003 pp151, Bergan et al

2004), research indicates efforts by each political party to mobilise their voters can be

decisive in both local and national elections (Whiteley and Seyd 2003, Denver et al 2004,

Pattie and Johnston 2004).

There is evidence that face-to-face canvassing transmits a message around the

importance of voting (Mortimore and Kaur-Ballagan 2006). Niven (2004) found that

repeated contact with the same canvasser increased the likelihood of voting, supporting

an interpretation of canvassing as a socialising mechanism. The efficacy of canvassing is

linked to many other potential mechanisms that influence whether and how a voter will

vote: socioeconomic status and context of campaigns (Denver et al 2003), social ties,

persuasiveness of message, perceptions of the canvasser, and party affiliation of voters

(Niven 2004).

It is less clear how effective canvassing is in persuading people to change their vote to a

particular political party. Canvassing varies from utilitarian "get out the vote" door knocking

in the run up to the election, to year round contact that aims to build up such a relationship

with constituents through grass roots advocacy (Copus 2004 pp62-67, Cutts 2006). The

latter method appears to have been successful for winning electoral advantage in local

elections as part of a “community politics”, particularly for smaller parties (Cutts 2006,

Wilks-Heeg 2009).

9

The timing of canvassing may also have an impact, with most voters making their mind up

before the campaign proper begins. Walgrave and Aelst (2005) found perceived

ideological distance between parties narrows for those in the process of switching party

allegiance, and grows for those who gravitate to a clear decision.

The role of canvassing as an information provider is uncertain. All other things being

equal, voters may be swayed by knowing the identity of the individual candidate (Pattie

and Johnston 2004). A common tactic employed by political parties is to encourage

tactical voting through the dissemination of campaign leaflets stating "only party x or party

y can win here", and a chart of votes received at a previous election (Harrison and

McSweeney 2005). Such contextualisation is also likely to form part of canvassing.

Media and the transmission of the polity

The media can be conceived as "independent comment", "political spin", and direct

communication from polity to people through mailings, adverts, and so on. Media can

frame issues and set the agenda such that particular issues or attitudes are given more

prominence in the considerations of voters (Weaver 2007). Media bias in support of

political parties has been shown to have an impact on voters, particularly the balance in

terms of positive or negative coverage (DellaVigna and Kaplan 2006, Gerber et al 2007,

Norris et al 1999 pp185). That said, the effects are unpredictable (Gerber et al 2007,

Areceneaux and Kolodny 2009), and dependant on election context (Denver 2003 p143).

Away from the national media, local context plays a strong part in the messages

communicated by local parties to the electorate (Harrison and McSweeney 2005).

The polity

Many of the influences of networks on political participation around voting also apply to

more active political participation (Siegel 2009). The active members typically form a

small and coherent group within the wider membership, where status and power is often

afforded by being able to devote more time to party activities (Copus 2004 pp59-61, 79-

81). The organisation of political campaigns differs, both across political parties and

between different areas within a party. Some have a high degree of central direction and

control, whereas others have much greater local autonomy (Whiteley and Seyd 2003,

Copus 2004 pp123-126). Central direction is enacted through standing orders, provision

of literature and issue setting. Such mechanisms could be characterised as a socialisation

of local party members within the wider party, to achieve the aims of the wider party. The

political party group is not a closed system, and to consider it as such would not be

10

meaningful (Davis 2005 pp349). Members act within a wider context of social change,

external campaigns, and the experiences of those they meet.

Canvassing

The use of face-to-face canvassing has been in decline due to falling active party

membership and increasing availability of alternative methods for contacting voters

(Whiteley and Seyd 2003, Fisher and Denver 2009). Canvassing is perceived by active

party members to be an effective campaigning method (Whiteley and Seyd 1998), as a

local councillor in Canada stated "There is no better vote getter than knocking on doors

and talking to people" (Gavan-Koop 2007). Other councillors in that study related how it

was an enjoyable experience and a matter of pride to meet as many residents as possible

face to face, however it has also been described as "not for the faint at heart" (Hall 1995).

11

Methodology

This research above has been mainly around identifying and quantifying impacts upon

political choice of canvassing, within a wider research that has given a broad

understanding of extensive associations around political choice but has not investigated to

any great extent the causal mechanisms underlying them. Taxonomic groups such as

socio-economic class and political affiliation are used to group people together without

detailed investigation of causal factors that operate within and across these groups.

Observed associations are typically described in terms of such groupings and have been

related to psychological mechanisms, however, caution has been voiced on the extent to

which they relate to intransigent psychological structures (Lavazza and Caro 2009). These

groupings may be a crude indicator of causal structures, or could be entirely misleading.

Investigation needs to acknowledge that political choice occurs in an open system, and

the focussing on one aspect to the exclusion of all others ignores the continual churn of

the social world (Sayer 2000 pp22-26).

Critical realism asserts that research into the social world can aim to describe

representations of reality as held by societies, and if such representations are found to be

false, that will advance knowledge such that the human condition is also improved

(Bhaskar 1979 pp62-65). To succeed in such an aim, intransigent mechanisms must be

established that are persistent outside of the specific point of investigation. However,

investigation of the social world generates knowledge that typically struggles for validity

outside of the particular context from which it was gathered (Guba and Lincoln 2005). The

rigour with which methodology and analysis are applied is central to the validity of results.

Within qualitative research the methodology requires a depth of understanding gained

through close and prolonged attention to a particular facet of the social world, with the

understanding that it is inextricably embedded in that world. Through this a deep

understanding of structures and relations can lead to an understanding of the causal

mechanisms that may persist beyond the area of study (Sayer 2000 p20-22).

To understand why canvassing has the observed impact it does; we must therefore

describe the canvassing act fully using a qualitative approach. The canvasser is the

motivator of the canvassing interaction, they determine the where and when of

canvassing. The canvassee is the person to be influenced, but also approaches the

canvassing interaction with agency and pre-conceptions. The viewpoints of both around

the canvassing act, and wider causal connections with the canvassing act, need to be

understood. Through a full description of the interaction we will answer the question of

12

what is occurring within canvassing that makes it relatively effective at influencing political

choice.

In this analysis we are supposing a level of commonality between canvassing acts, that

"canvassing" describes a thing that has particular to it certain features that could not be

ascribed to any other act. However, we must also acknowledge the apparent similarities

and overlaps between canvassing and other acts. To paraphrase the Critical Realist

interpretation of causality, to attain a full description of canvassing means being able to

state what must be removed from canvassing for it to no longer be canvassing (Sayer

2000 pp16-17).

Observing canvassing - the canvasser

The focus of research into canvassing so far has mainly been through the observation of

associations by a removed third party, exploring associations in surveys on canvassing

contact, local party activity, and voting behaviour. A more intensive investigation would

imply the researcher closely observing an interaction between canvasser and canvassee

as a third party, or the researcher observing from the point of view of a canvasser. In this

way a researcher could access numerous canvassing acts, and reflect on the process of

canvassing. Such participant observation has a long heritage within sociology (Freidrichs

and Ludtke 1975 p8), but is not without many complications.

Participant observation with the researcher as canvasser has the advantage of gaining

insight into the experience of canvassing as an active participant rather than a passive

observer. However, this would be located around a single experience, whereas observing

as a third party would enable canvassing acts for different canvassers and canvassees to

be observed, potentially accessing a wider range of interactions. To fulfil the aims of the

research project through actively helping the party group with canvassing, the participant

observation was carried out as a sole canvasser. This intensive investigation would allow:

a study of the canvassing act in the context of which it normally takes place; first hand

access to the canvassing act; and, a reflection over time on the canvassing role.

Ethics

The declaration of my role to fellow canvassers apparently presents few issues. Being in

regular contact outside of the context of canvassing means that concerns could be voiced

or tensions noted. As part of the research planning process my research had been

discussed with fellow members of the party group, and feedback was very positive.

13

The declaration to the canvassee of my role as researcher would present far greater

difficulty in that stating both roles openly would likely cause confusion and would change

the dynamic of canvassing. Conversely, there is potential for myself as a covert

researcher to cause harm to the canvassee. The canvassee would not be aware of the

extent to which I would be reflecting upon my interactions with them, and relaying these

reflections and perceptions through analysis and dissemination. One possible mitigation is

the social benefit of such research (Bulmer 1982 p162). However, the people, as

represented by the canvassee, have little potential benefit from the research being carried

out. Whilst they would benefit from an improved democracy, the extent that this research

could deliver such an outcome is very questionable, even at a local level. Their access to

power might benefit from the study of canvassing, but equally likely, the polity would gain

a better understanding of how to further its own aims with regard to power, not necessarily

in the interests of the people.

My central argument that these concerns can be balanced is that I would not be gaining

access beyond that which I would normally gain as a canvasser. There is no deception

around myself being an active member of a political party, or that I represent concerns

back to councillors or other members of the party group. However, reflecting these

concerns, the anonymity of those canvassed within my participant observer role will be

protected. For this reason, details around the area and timing of canvassing are largely

omitted from the reporting of results. It is hoped that the lack of particular context does not

lead the reader to assume any level of generalisability beyond that suggested.

Another important ethical factor, which touches upon both this part of the study and the

study around canvassee experiences, is the truthfulness of relating the research. In

participant observation the reflections are necessarily personal. Whilst there will be a level

of censorship to avoid harm, it will also be necessary to ensure a default of openness

such that observations are not obscured by the wish to protect or construct a desirable

self-image for the researcher.

Methodological issues

There will be a level of role conflict between myself as canvasser and myself as

researcher. Whilst any canvasser may feel that they fulfil several roles, the one of

researcher will generally not be one connected with canvassing, and there is a risk that

the canvassing act will be performed as a researcher rather than canvasser. One priority

for the research is to allow myself as canvasser to act without needing to inhabit the

researcher role.

14

The central methodological concern with an ethnographic participant observation is that it

relies on the perceptions and recall of the researcher. The researcher must be able to

reflect on their own experiences, but also recognise what factors may influence their own

observations. It will be impossible for a researcher to place their own observations outside

their socialised and individual experience of the world. Furthermore, this study is located

within one council ward, and within one political party group. The analysis of the

observations and notes generated by the participant observation will seek to describe the

act of canvassing in detail and understand the causal relations that are present. Whether

such causal relations will exist outside of the social and political and personal context will

be evaluated as part of analysis through triangulating with other research and with

multiple iterations of analysis (Patton 1999, Sayer 2000).

Observing canvassing - the canvassee

To access the canvassing act from the point of view of the canvassee is arguably more

difficult than for the canvasser. Whilst canvassers may be interviewed with the knowledge

that they have been involved in canvassing acts, we do not know that canvassees have

been canvassed or canvassed within memory. Below are set out several methodological

suggestions for gaining evidence from canvassees:

1. Canvassees could be interviewed on their experience of a specific recent canvass. To

request from canvassers lists of recently canvassed households raised complex

questions of confidentiality and disclosure. Householders who consented to being

canvassed did not consent to then receiving a follow-up request for participation with

research. It was also explored whether I as a canvasser could then return, as a

researcher, to those I had canvassed. There is a risk that a shift from canvasser to

researcher could be perceived as deception, and would also constrain the responses

given by the interviewee on the experience of canvassing as it would be direct

feedback;

2. Random householders could be questioned on their experience of canvassing. Given

the irregularity of canvassing it is not clear what proportion of people would have been

canvassed and the extent to which a canvass would be memorable;

3. Street interviews of people, querying if they have been canvassed and carrying out

more in depth interviews with those that have had a recent canvassing experience.

The advantage of such a procedure would be a greater potential sample, however

15

there would be disadvantages over: unquantifiable selection effects, properly

recording an on-street interview, and the desired length of interview;

4. Canvassees could be brought together to discuss canvassing as an act. Such a

conversation might allow for a dialogue of the people around canvassing that would

allow for a depth of dialogue around experience that may not be elicited by an

interviewer. There would need to be awareness of the group dynamic so that it did not

promote only those with strong political beliefs or interests (Fontana and Frey 2005);

5. Potential canvassees could be asked to diarise their perceptions on being canvassed.

Such an approach would require a level of motivation that might predispose towards

the politically involved, or require funding so participants could be compensated for

their time. Unlike canvassers, I could not guarantee that any one person would be part

of a canvassing act. Further, the canvassing act would be placed within an additional

context of the canvassee being a participant researcher.

It cannot be said that any of these options is superior to another, each will elicit different

kinds of information from canvassees, and each has a different level of resources and

issues attached. The methodology chosen was an interview format with a random sample

of householders, option 2 above. This option would aim to generate a range of

respondents and gain some insights into reasons for non-response. It would have lower

selection effects than would likely be the case with a focus-group, street-based interview,

or diary study where no compensation for time could be provided. It would also allow for

revision of method as the research progressed. The household interview format was also

decided to be most appropriate given the projected length of the interview was around 20

minutes. Whilst there were advantages in interviewing householders a short time after

they were canvassed, the ethical and practical issues surrounding option 1 were thought

too great.

The interview schedule (see Appendix 1) was constructed with reference to the

background literature review. It aimed to explore memories of specific canvassing acts,

with an option to explore hypothetical opinion should the interviewee not be able to recall

a particular instance. It aimed to explore perceptions of canvassing and canvassers,

alongside views around political participation, priority issues, and knowledge of the

forthcoming elections. There were a few contextual questions at the end of the interview

exploring aspects of relative health and wealth, social capital, political understanding, and

political efficacy.

16

Ethics

Whilst there would be no problems with disclosure and consent under the selected

methodology, there could be issues over the dual roles of the researcher as party activist

and interviewer. As an interviewee I would not disclose my party affiliation at the start of

the interview, however I did disclose this information to several interviewees at the end of

the interview. There is an ethical issue in that whilst the experiences of the interviewees

were granted for use within the dissertation, they were not granted for use for any specific

political party. Any research generated as a result of their experiences should, therefore,

be open and available to all party political groups.

In general, the interests of the interviewees, in what they would perceive as a benefit from

the research, would not necessarily be what is perceived as beneficial to the polity. The

role of researcher must be as an advocate for those who have less power, and bear

responsibility for those who have donated their selves to the research (Bulmer 1982 p162,

Fontana and Frey 2005). Therefore, my analysis and conclusions must be sensitive to the

perceived needs of the interviewees, rather than necessarily fulfilling the needs of the

polity. A caveat must be placed in that any aim towards emancipation would be defined by

myself as a researcher and outsider, and could be termed as colonialist given it will be

emancipation on my terms (Denzin 2005 p952). It is hoped the voices of the interviewees

will remain clear enough such that the research is guided by them, rather than acting to

obscure or silence them.

Methodological issues

Given the subject matter to be investigated was quite specific, but also given there was

little prior research into the topic, a semi-structured interview would give sufficient

guidance but also allow for exploration around the topic. As stated above, a qualitative

approach would be required to investigate in sufficient depth to establish possible causal

relations. The interview is a way to access events removed in space and time from the

interviewer, however the interviewee acts to reproduce and transform those events

through the filter of their agency and prior socialisation. Furthermore, the interviewer sets

the context of this retrieval act, through questions and presence that to an extent

determine the answers. The interviewee and interviewer therefore become indelible parts

of the research findings, such that analysis should acknowledge and seek to determine

any obvious contextualisation. No analytical removal of such context is possible given we

cannot suppose what responses a particular interviewee would give removed from the

social world within which they are responding (Bhaskar 1979 pp44-51). Analysis can

17

remove those parts of evidence that are misleading, for example due to leading questions

and misunderstanding, relying instead on data that is robust within the limitations of

reflexive talk.

It may be questioned why the interviewer does not simply ask whether canvassing is

effective and, if so, why. However, people can deny the influence of social mechanisms

that have evidently had an effect on their behaviour (Nolan et al 2008). For example,

people generally deny that media influences their vote, however as shown above, the

media does frame and influence party choice. We might view the tendency to give such

responses as a conceptualisation of personal choices that restates socially constrained

behaviour in the socially desirable terms of individual agency (Jetten et al 2006). This is

compounded by the lack of access we have to underlying mechanisms in our everyday

experience where we observe associations between events but not the causal structures

that produced the association, thereby creating naïve interpretations of causality (Bhaskar

1979). Relying on self-evaluations of what has influenced political behaviour can therefore

be partial or misleading.

Participant observation

I have been an active member of a local political party since 2006, during which time I

canvassed on around five occasions, however it has been over two years since I last

canvassed for the party. I therefore approached canvassing largely "cold", with just some

prior conceptions and memories framing my experience.

For making notes whilst canvassing I used a mobile phone or dictaphone. After

canvassing had finished I would go to a library and type up my recollections. The length of

these recollections varied, ranging from a couple of thousand words to 10,000 words, with

a typical length of around 5000 words. Ten canvassing days were observed in all, seven

instances of between-election canvassing, and three instances of election canvassing.

Canvassers would usually meet in a central location of the ward. This was arranged some

time in advance, with time and place communicated by email. I would leave home and

often make notes on my thoughts and feelings on my way to the meeting place. At the

meeting place we would talk and arrange where the canvass was going to be. Canvassing

proper would last around one and half hours. Canvassers would then meet back at a local

café for some lunch or tea, swap stories, chat, and pass any issues raised back to

18

organisers. This would usually last around an hour, with some people needing to leave for

other engagements earlier, others drifting off.

The amount of time spent canvassing varied, with a typical between election canvassing

workload being around 2 hours per week, perhaps taking around 4 hours out of a day

including travel time and discussion post canvass. Canvassing increased towards the

election period, with councillors, council candidates and some members canvassing

nearly every day.

The socioeconomic status of both ward and constituency are mixed, and whilst generally

average, it contains areas ranging from high to low deprivation (LASOS 2010). The most

important contextual factor was that the party for which I was canvassing had been active

in the area for several years, including maintaining regular contact with residents through

newsletters, leaflets, and face-to-face canvassing. Other party groups also had wide

support in the area.

My inexperience with participant observation has limited the quality of these observations,

however a sufficient level of detail has been collected to enable analysis. More reflections

on the process and the validity of results is given in Appendix 2.

Semi-structured interviews with householders

Around eight interviews were thought sufficient to generate a variety of reflections on

canvassing, whilst providing an amount of data that would be amenable to proper analysis

within the timeframe allowed. Allowing for the short timescale of research and the limited

opportunity to revisit households, 100 households were selected for the research using

cluster samples within two areas of the ward that I canvassed as part of participant

observation. One area was of high multiple deprivation, one of low multiple deprivation, as

measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (LASOS 2010). This was expected to elicit

differences in life history that would give a wider range of perceptions of canvassing.

Letters informing householders of the research were hand delivered to addresses, marked

"The Resident", in the week prior to the interviews commencing. Each area was visited

twice, once on a weekday afternoon and once on a weekend afternoon. As expected, the

response rate was fairly low, with nine interviews completed out of ninety households

visited, a response rate of 10%. In the area of high multiple deprivation, three interviews

were carried out with a response rate of just 6%, reflecting higher rates of non-response, a

19

slightly higher refusal rate, and several householders who did not have sufficient English

language skills to take part in an interview. There were several vacant addresses in the

area of low multiple deprivation, reducing the response rate achieved to 15%,

representing six interviews.

The overall refusal rate was 27%, with a common response being that the householders

did not have the time or were not interested. Analysis of the interviews indicate that all

interviewees were interested in politics to an extent, and participated in elections. Such a

selection effect was anticipated, particularly due to the limited follow up of non-

respondents. However, the interviewees' perceptions of politics did vary markedly.

All but one interview was carried out in the home of the householder, with that interview

carried out near to the householder's workplace. The median length of the interviews was

around fifteen minutes, ranging from ten to thirty five minutes. Interviews were recorded

from the point of permission to record to the end of the script; no interviewee declined the

request to be recorded. The interview script included the request for an interview, the

request to record the interview, and directions that the interviewee could refuse to answer

questions, decline to take part or withdraw from the research at any time (see Appendix

1). Interviews were recorded onto a digital recorder, before being transferred onto

computer for analysis. No identification of the interviewee or their address was present on

the recording or filename so as to preserve anonymity. Files were converted using

Goldwave Audio, transcription was carried out using SnackAmp, and typed into Microsoft

Word. Transcriptions were then re-checked against the audio file to reduce error.

Similar to that for participant observation, the most important contextual issue is that a

local party group regularly canvassed face-to-face within the ward outside of the election

period, mainly communicating to residents about local ward and sub-ward issues. The

experiences of those who had contact with canvassers appeared mainly located around

contact with one political party, and sometimes just one canvasser. Whilst this

methodology hoped to access general impressions of canvassing, it is clear in retrospect

that, outside of general elections, the rate of canvassing is very low. This had an impact

on the ability of householders to relate their actual experiences of being canvassed,

although more could have been done to access what remained. There was a lack of

reflection upon the extent to which concrete experiences were being accessed and that

has reduced the efficacy of the research. A more detailed review is given in Appendix 2.

20

Analysis of participant observation and interviews.

Analysis used two concurrent methods; one was to code the transcripts and observations

in NVivo, using a coding frame constructed from the literature research. The other was to

read through the documents and reflect on them as a continual narrative, adding

comments in MS Word. This allowed for a thematic approach splitting observations and

interviews into particular reflections, alongside an approach recognising interviews and

participant observations as continuous and whole.

Below I group evidence into themes that arose out of the evidence. Such a classification

structures, guides, and so constrains analysis. Items were coded through the grouping of

observations and experiences around context, relations, and practices. Qualitative

analysis requires that particular areas be focussed on in great depth, rather than aiming

for an overall summary view (Silverman 2000). For this reason there was an iterative

process that aimed to bring out relations existing within the data, beyond a surface

interpretation. Weight of analytical strength was given to where aspects are reinforced

through being present in both the reflections of interviewees and my reflections as

canvasser, and more so when these are further identified within existing evidence,

although this is not necessary condition for confidence to be placed on the results (Patton

1999). Evidence for concrete experiences will be given more importance than hypothetical

constructed attitudes.

The final analysis process will aim to relate the description of canvassing the to wider

knowledge and context of canvassing and political choice, using those causal

associations that have been identified.

21

Explorations of canvassing

The initial coding, mostly deduced from the literature review, identified broad topics

divided into those relating to the polity and those relating to the people. These were

adapted as the data were worked through. Some topics appeared highly dependent on

myself the observer, such as particular emotional perceptions of canvassing, or closely

linked to the context of the local party group I canvass with, such as details of the

processes surrounding canvassing. Causal relations that might persist outside of the

cases investigated are of most interest as such relations might inform wider concerns

around political choice (Sayer 2000), therefore descriptions of relations likely to be

particular to a single group or located around a individual emotional response without any

corroboration are not of great interest in the terms of this analysis. After initial analysis the

coding frame was redrawn, the final themes concentrating on the act of canvassing, but

retaining a wider view of causal relations and overall narrative.

Canvassing is located in particular spaces and times, with the associated limitations and

definitions of experience for the canvasser. Analysis around "physical space", "temporal

space", and the canvasser's "access to the people" were combined into a single "time and

space" theme of analysis, with analytically defined sub-themes emerging from it.

"Language and culture" has been a significant theme throughout the analysis, including

ideas of prejudice, perceived difference, and barriers to communication.

Analysis around themes of "perceptions of canvassers and canvassing" and "party

identity" were combined to form the theme of "canvasser as polity". This defines a role for

the canvasser in being part of both a political party and a wider political machine, the

polity.

The "canvasser as advocate" arose from the canvassee's "perceptions of canvassers"

and "access to the polity" and a previously defined role of "canvasser as listener". The

advocate theme includes where the canvasser acts as a representative of the canvassee

to the party group, and to wider institutions such as the council.

A role of "canvasser as speaker" has persisted through the analysis, defined by where the

canvasser acts as the voice of the polity and disseminates information about the party

group, although this has been informed by analysis of "connections" that have been

attempted or prevented between canvasser and canvassee. A specific canvassing role

22

was isolated in "canvasser as pollster", where the canvasser is seeking to establish the

householders identity and political affiliation.

The analysis has inductively generated themes and sub-themes describing particular

relations within the canvassing act. The analysis is set out below, with some reflections

using wider research, prior to a longer discussion.

Canvassing in time and space

Canvassing takes place in spaces that are not known to the canvasser. The unfamiliarity

meant that I was unsure where certain streets or houses were, whether to go to the front

or back door, whether the door bell will work, whether sounds were coming from this

house or another, whether the home was vacant, whether the door I was knocking on was

to a home at all:

Across the road someone enters a house with shopping bags, when I call in on them shortly there will again be no answer, even to two quite insistent knocks. […] I knock more assertively, strain to hear noises and am often unsure if the noise is close or far away, unsure footing on the doorstep. (Observation 31st January)

I knock on a door with no letter box a couple of times, after which I notice it has no number either. It is not anybody's door. (Observation 29th April)

Canvassing is something that takes place in all weather. Sunny weather is very pleasant

for canvassing, but also makes it likely people will go out or be in back gardens far from

hearing the front door, reducing the likelihood of contact. Cold weather can be

uncomfortable, particularly if there is a long conversation. If it is raining, the canvassing

might move to flats, student blocks, or covered maisonettes:

Cold. Really cold. Was shivering by the end of the canvass, hoping no-one would

answer the doors. Getting down a gennel was a pleasure, but a lot were gated

off. Had a couple of conversations towards the end, which after going down the

side of a street and getting nothing but a "don't vote" was a lifesaver.

(Observation 28th February)

The limited time in which canvassing is carried out means that a (semi-)random selection

of people are in and available at the time of calling. The paths of canvassers and

canvassees intersect along lines driven by different concerns; the concerns of the polity

intersecting the concerns of the people: being with friends, doing the washing up, going

23

shopping. The majority of people in a street that is canvassed would not be contacted

face-to-face, but receive calling cards stating we had called. Given the time demanded

and random nature of interaction, the wish of political parties to find other effective

methods to contact voters is understandable.

Whilst canvassing is mainly located around the door to the household, canvassee on one

side, canvasser on the other, this was not exclusively so. In some canvassing acts I was

invited into the home, or the canvasser would cross the threshold to discuss outside, or to

show me issues in the immediate physical space around the home. When I entered the

canvassees home, or where the canvassee came outside into my space, there is in my

notes an implication of a greater level of bond than when separated by the door. This

perception may be located around these exchanges being typically longer than others,

although I did have conversations that were as long where we remained in our separate

spaces.

The right of access

The political canvasser shares canvassing space with cold callers, con artists, door to

door salesmen, drunks, religious groups, and teenagers. In general, political canvassers

were welcomed or tolerated, by householders interviewed, however there were

expectations over the householders right to refuse access and that political canvassers

would be "friendly". Access is not to be taken, but is granted on the terms of the

canvassee:

the front gate is tied with a purple and silver knot of material that I struggle with, a child I assume, as my head is bowed the front door opens and a young lad stands there … holding a phone to his ear he looks amused at my efforts with the gate and does not advance over the threshold - I am stuck on the road. (Observation 24th January)

I knock on the door to a young man, who invites me in. This takes me back and I wonder if just into the kitchen, an older woman is there, I think with a pan or attending to some cooking, I presume his mother […] I am invited to have a cup of tea, I am tempted, but don't know the time and don't want to be sat there where [the other canvasser] won't know where I am (Observation 24th January)

I see movement, something said, about a key, a middle aged woman with friendly […] face lifts aside a curtain behind the door "I can't find the key" "no worries…" "sorry love". An excuse? I don't think so and wouldn't mind, we have a smile through the thick glass encased in the wooden door. (Observation 31st January)

The door inches open to an English face, maybe late 60s, bulldoggish features […] "not interested […] " the face never gets wider than that slit the door has admitted to their world (Observation 14th February)

24

We try the tradesman's entrance on one side, then see if the back door is open. Finally it comes to ringing round [the flats to try and gain access]. Try and few numbers and no-one answers. […] suddenly realise […] that [a] resident is a member. He lets us in without a pause. Don't know how many others we would have had to try before getting in. (Observation 21st February)

Gates are placed across gennels, front rooms become bedrooms, stickers say "no canvassers, no salesmen, no charities, no religious groups", entire blocks are sited behind gates. To the canvasser the world is slowly receding. (Observation 28th February)

Conversation through a door, a [supporter] who has already voted through the post, I thank her for doing so, the door remains closed as we bid goodbye (Observation 29th April)

Access was linked to culture, security, party affiliation, whether it was a convenient time

for the canvassee, and whether the accessible door was the access point for the house. In

several instances children were the gatekeepers to those being canvassed, sometimes

because they could easily use English, and would relay back to parents what I was

asking, and relay to me what their parents said. Sometimes because they would be the

ones occupying the spaces of the house immediate to the canvasser such as being

outside, being in a front room or back kitchen, or just running to the door quicker than their

parents.

For some interviewees the granting of access was contextualised by the experiences and

expectations around who might call:

RJ: yeah ... (so) ... when’s when, well, I suppose the first thing is, when, when you hear that knock at the door what’s the first thing that goes through your mind as to who it might be and

DH: Erm ... in our building, the first thing you do is you look through the er ... spyglass and you find out who it is first

RJ: Right

[…]

DH: a:::nd, but you do get, a lot of con people coming through (there too) yeah ... a police er:::m initiative to, stop, if you’ve seen the stickers on the on the [doors

RJ: Yeah I have yeah] yeah, that’s a kind of, yeah

DH: Er::m a lot of people in the block are over 50 over 60

RJ: yeah

25

DH: An::d, ... it’s a target basically, so the first thing you do is like (who is it)

(Interview 8)

In areas of high deprivation, such as in the block of flats described above, there were

more conversations where the householder would not open the door, or would only open

the door once I had made efforts to reinforce my "official" status, such as through reading

their name from the electoral register. Other signs of my "officialdom" were a clipboard

and party rosette, which I preferred as being more visible than a badge. The concerns

stated by DH were not wholly limited to areas of high deprivation, but there appeared to

be fewer specific concerns for interviewees in the area of low deprivation where interviews

took place.

On occasion I felt that being part of the polity gave me permission to be in the public

space of the householder:

There is the sound of raucous singing or yelling, probably a drunk or some kids, coming up the road behind me. I wonder whether to turn and do not, not wanting to attract attention. If it was kids, would they ask me what I was doing, I look at my clipboard, standing there with your clipboard mister, like I am an official, it's not just me you know, I am […] a CANVASSER, you should show me the kind of respect you wouldn't show an individual person who was going round knocking on people's doors asking them questions, I am a pioneer for DEMOCRACY (Observation 14th February)

When I call round to one flat I am asked over the blare of the television what I want three times […] When they finally get it they tell me No, with an angry rejoinder that I should buzz them [from the main intercom rather than knock on the door]. I wonder if they will hear me knocking on neighbouring doors and come out angrily challenging me as to my right to be there. As canvassers we intrude on people's lives, yet some welcome that we do it, that we come round asking for their concerns and issues, that we have a presence. (Observation 21st February)

Permission is given by my identity as the polity; and more specifically by my belonging to

a local party group alongside other activists and supported by official and unofficial

structures. Permission is also conferred by the positive reactions of householders who

partly own the spaces I canvass in. In the observations above there is a sense that the

identification as a member of the polity is used as a justification and defence against

perceived threat. Interviewee BA stated that canvassers for the polity had a greater level

of access than canvassers in general:

BA: I don’t send them away] erm...

RJ: mm

26

BA: Not, (er) not Not political parties because I think they are, they are our representatives, or trying to be, so::, but other people I would send away, but them [((laughs))

(Interview 1)

Access is controlled and granted by the householder, it is contextualised by expectations,

interest, party affiliation, and perceptions of canvassers.

Language and culture

A language barrier between canvassees and myself sometimes prevented, or limited to

very simple questions, any communication. Several times I relied on others, such as

children or a partner, to translate for me, usually limiting the exchange. Whilst language

remained a barrier, in these latter cases at least some contact could be made. A

preference for face-to-face communication was voiced by one interviewee on grounds of

language:

RJ: mm], er, would it make a difference if someone say rang up over the phone, or:: wou((ld)) if if they came round to the door, what’s (the)

DG: This is my] opinion, I::, I like always prefer, speak to people face to face

RJ: um hum

DG: I can speak English but sometimes I stuck <you know> it’s easy for me when I speak to people face to fa::ce, it’s easier

There are also issues of disability. One interaction with a canvassee who was hard of

hearing made it clear the difficulty there would have been if the conversation had been

attempted over the telephone. The ability to clarify points as a canvasser and speak in a

language accessible to the canvassee appears likely to be advantageous as part of

communication.

Bound up in the canvassing acts are differences in cultural expectations. Some of these

might be around the expression of politics outside of the household, or at all. For example

one canvassee; "on hearing my announcement and affiliation she says she doesn't

discuss politics" (Observation 14th February). Although there was no direct experience

whilst canvassing, some cultural expectations were located around appearance, as this

observation from a canvassing training session indicates:

[The senior canvasser talks about canvassing.] Dress reasonably smart - how you appear in the first couple of seconds is really important, people will look at

27

face and then at shoes - don't wear a hat, for some reason that makes people think you look dodgy - wear good shoes, not battered trainers. I am wearing battered trainers, I suggest I could wear paper bags over them to laughs from the group. (Observation 14th February)

The time of canvassing may also be important, canvassing on a Sunday afternoon I

encountered several householders who appeared to be having a "traditional" Sunday

lunch, whilst others were apparently out at prayer. The physical behaviour of a canvasser

was also an issue:

I knock on the door […] a child answers "is your mum or dad in", she calls for her mum, I turn to see a youngish woman, at a round(?) table, getting up, looking at me, picking up a length of thick material […] as I smile at her I see that she is putting the material over her head, with practiced deliberation, she is looking at me as I do so and I realise that perhaps I should have averted my gaze. I ask about whether there are issues in the area, and which way she will be voting. The response is "my husband is not here", I leave a card that I hope she will pass to him (Observation 24th January)

In this case, not being a family member, I should have averted my eyes whilst she made

herself decent according to Islam. Cultural transgression is sometimes evident,

sometimes less so, and its effects on the perception of canvassers is not always clear.

The above observation also mentions the role of the husband in the political discussion.

This was observed in other cultural settings, the following conversation began with talking

to the female member of a household:

She calls her husband, a couple of times. You said something about [the political party], she says to him. […] I ask him about issues, he has no issues with [the political party] he says. I clarify. It takes him some time to remember what points there are about the flats. He sometimes tells his wife to shush. She asks him and he tells her that they vote [for the political party] now. (Observation 21st February)

As a canvasser I do not know whether there is a priority within the household; for example

whether male residents, or older residents, go to the door and speak with canvassers

whilst others are excluded. Conversely, there were instances of openness between

members of the household in speaking to me as a canvasser in households across the

social demographic taxonomies.

Assumptions of language and culture go with the names I would read from the electoral

roll, the appearance of the house, and the physical appearance of householders.

Sometimes these would be reinforced; sometimes they would be entirely contradicted:

Difficulty communicating in any way. A young woman, I think white, parks a car and I follow her up the ginnel, a little behind. See that she is wearing fluffy

28

slippers, my initial assumption she was parking after being elsewhere is questioned. I hear a door and coming out the back see a door hanging open. I say hello and am greeted by an older Asian woman in the kitchen at the back of the house. She is not the woman I followed and I realise she is the next door family, because clearly the woman I saw, white, did not live here. The Asian woman repeats some of my words, but it is not clear her answers are anything but guess work. On my notes just "language barrier". [Going to the house next door I find] the younger woman is Asian also, I was wrong, but clearly she is Sheffield born and bred, in clothes and accent, "mums not home" she says, uninterested in every way in my questions. (Observation 24th January)

A big woman comes to the door […] I think I might recognise her for a second, and from such partial (although not actual) recognition I relax, a person like this I know. (Observation 21st February)

My prejudices are purely personal; however I would be surprised if other canvassers do

not sometimes experience similar reinforcements and contradictions of judgement. I found

that the physical space shaped my expectations of who the canvassees might be, or

contextualised expectations of the neighbourhood overall. However, perceptions of space

could be changed by the canvassing act. Familiarity meant being more comfortable with

physical space, the procedure of going in a lift or stopping doors from slamming loudly.

But it mainly meant a change in perception of the people who live there:

It is almost middle England here, in these bungalows, such reserve belongs in rows of cottages surrounded by flowers, not squat council houses in a sea of … tarmac. (Observation 14th February)

Walk out and away from the flats. I've found them very welcoming, I feel as if I could be walking through the flats more frequently, certainly on a normal day. Perhaps not late at night, but in the daytime maybe. (Observation 21st February)

My ill-informed perceptions of the physical space had contextualised expectations of

tenants. These had then been contradicted by actual experiences, which provided richer

and more accurate conceptions of the spaces and who lived there. In this, I as a member

of the polity gained a better idea of the lives of the canvassees, not as a formal intellectual

process, but through the doing of canvassing and the development of my thoughts in

conversation with others.

Canvassing is a process crosses many cultural boundaries with face-to-face

communication around issues that are often local or personal in context. Language and

culture present a barrier to that communication, which restricts the extent the canvasser

can interact with others. However, over time there the potential for the canvassing process

to educate and embed the canvasser within culture and language so that they may better

communicate with and represent the interests of those they canvass.

29

Canvasser as polity

As noted above, the role of the canvasser as being part of the polity, part of an "official"

process orientated around representation, gives a level of permission to access spaces. I

was constantly aware of my place being within the polity, and whilst this awareness was

quite personal, no interaction was free of this context:

We bid goodbye and I wave at the child. There is always the difficulty of using the situation, am I friendly just because I would always be friendly in such a situation, am I friendly because I want to sell the party - and - I wouldn't be in this situation if I wasn't selling the party, but as I am here I will of course be friendly. (Observation 2nd May).

Both in the canvassing experiences and in interviews, perceptions appeared to locate the

canvasser firmly in the polity. Where differences were cited between people and

canvassers, it was around the political motivations of canvassers:

RJ: right ... and what do you think about (sorry) people who canvass for political parties, do you see them as people like yourself or ...

BE: Er:: do I see them as people like myself erm ((lipsmack)) er ((sigh)) not well n:::ot not r:((really?)) no, not entirely I must admit I think ((laughs)) I think people who go into politics erm perhaps er um are maybe a bit more outgoing than than than I am for instance

RJ: right

BE: And and and more interested in that sort of thing, erm, erm, ... er ((short sigh)), yeah ((short sigh)) yes I am interested in politics and the poli((tical)) and the political, you know, (so) whatever political party er <you know> how they can <sort of> influence your lives

RJ: [mm

BE: But er] er::: it, i((t’s)) it’s not the sort of thing I don’t think that I would particularly want to get er too involved in, actively, as they are, (<I mean>) some are very enthusiastic ... very committed I think to er to to the to their to their particular persuasion

(Interview 5)

Other statements from interviewees on the differences between canvassers and the

interviewee included that canvassers were "zealots in some sort of way" (Interview 8) or

"more politically motivated" (Interview 4) or "very fired up they are (very), no doubt

passionate" (Interview 6), and that "they have […] something they believe or something

they have ... but in a nice way they will usually like to dis:: discuss with you or something

like [that" (Interview 9). Only one interviewee stated that they did not perceive any

30

difference, and they had been a canvasser previously. Interviewee BD notes her contact

with canvassers and perceives that those she has had contact with from the party she

supports are a "more ordinary kind of person":

RJ: Ok, erm, and, do you support one party or are you more likely to support one party than another

BD: Yes

RJ: Right, <so>, i((s)), is it just one party do you, erm

BD: Over the last ten years I would say yes

RJ: ok, er, so that’s changed over time

BD: Er::m, I think that’s because the party that I would now vote for, probably I don’t think was a very, much around, I don’t think they particularly had the candidates standing, for, erm, for election

RJ: ok ... erm ... and ... ... would you say, has has canvassing played any part in that or ... <I mean> [((?) that contact

BD: Yeah and I think they] I think they telephone, I think I’ve had telephone conversations as well [with that party

RJ: right], [ok

BD: Erm] I yeah, I think it’s made a, I think it makes a big impact because I think they are::, because they are a smaller party they appear more personable so you feel as though you can relate more to them? And you feel as though they’re, an ordin((ary)), more ordinary kind of a person? Whereas with the larger parties I think, I mean it, could be completely wrong perception, but I think, I feel as though, you’re more detached from them

RJ: ok

BD: And it’s not as easy for you to identify with

RJ: right

BD: The individual

(Interview 4)

Therefore whilst the canvasser is necessarily always perceived to be different with regard

to their motivations as part of the polity and strength of affiliation to their party, the extent

to which they are perceived as genuinely different does vary. From the statement by BD

and the other references above, where the canvassee perceives the canvasser to be

31

more like them and not wholly driven by their membership of the polity, there is a

likelihood of a greater connection.

Canvasser as a symbol of the party

That we were canvassing at all could be described as communication to the canvassee.

For example, BB states that the physical presence of the canvasser gives a message that

the party cares for his vote:

RJ: and is it important, that a political party keeps in touch, mm ...

[…]

BB: ... if, if, for example, [[a political party]] don’t send canvassers around, at the next general election I shall assume they’re not serious in this ward

RJ: um

BB: And I shall take, or indeed in this, in this constituency, and I shall take a view, that shall, that thinking will be included in the way in which I, think about whether I cast my vote

RJ: so do you see canvassers as, erm, if they’re coming erm, round door-to-door then that’s a sign of their interest

BB: They’re an ev((idence)), there’s the evidence of that parties interest and effort in in securing your vote, and if they’re really not bothered, they cannot be bothered to get canvassers round, then, you know, there’s a sense in which well why should I be bothered ((laughs)) to

RJ: mm

BB: vote for them? They’re not interested in me, why should I be interested in [them

RJ: mm]

(Interview 2)

The canvasser is a physical manifestation of the party, adorned with rosettes or badges

their presence is a sign of commitment to an area, or perhaps a projection of power.

Party identity

The party identity of a canvasser was of little importance to some interviewees, as BA

states below:

32

RJ: A::nd, and you say the ((political party)) have <(turned out)>, would it make a difference if it were another party, say ((political party)), [or:: ((political party))

BA: No, not at all]

RJ: Ri::ght, [you’d be

BA: No, no] I’m quite happy to listen to anybodies, points of view, erm, just happens to be they’re the ones that have come round

(Interview 1)

BA does not have any strong party affiliation, perceiving the main parties competing for

her vote as being "centralised" such that she finds it difficult to differentiate between them.

Conversely interviewee BB has certain political allegiances that meant he would not

entertain canvassers from at least one political party.

RJ: […] And ... so thinking about that, er time when someone comes round canvassing, erm, what’s your reaction, as in, who you think it might be::, and

BB: Well it, it very much depends on the political party that they represent

RJ: right

BB; Er::, there are the, ... for the political parties that, for whom we have no sympathy at all

RJ: Um hum

BB: Canvassers are an irritation, and are calculated to make you less inclined to vote for them, but, to be honest that ship has already sailed in an((y)) in any case, so, er::, for political parties you might be interested in, they’re not interested in trying to persuade you into anything they’re [just

RJ: mm]

BB: trying to, find out what your voting intentions are, so, I don’t mind speaking to them

(Interview 1)

Analysis indicates interviewees with philosophical preference, or possibly a strong

aversion towards particular parties, may selectively deny access to canvassers. Others

did not perceive the parties to be far apart in their philosophy and generally did not mind

speaking to a canvasser from any party, even if they themselves were not a floating voter.

The interviewees indicated that for most, party identity was a thing of flux, changing and

33

dependent on a variety of reasoning, including around priority issues, political context,

social networks, and the statements of political parties.

The canvasser themselves cannot be "floating", but is rooted within party and polity for the

duration, or otherwise has to quit the role. Despite being active in my party group for

several years, I find assigning myself a "party identity" as difficult, and still perceive myself

to be a new member to the party. For myself as canvasser I found my political identity

became affixed, defined by the perceptions of strangers as being a representative of my

party. I am aware of it potentially defining my self, and even if I reject such a definition, in

actions I become the body, senses, and mouth of the party. Towards the election, my role

as one of the polity and party was far more evident than it had been previously:

I felt much more on show as a representative of [my political party] - party politics is much more evident now […] There is a sense of excitement from some, for others, they have apparently become entirely immersed in the election. (Observation 25th April)

Kid shouted out of a [car] window "[your party] boo", erm, the nature of the campaign, because it's been formerly announced, is so much, different, erm, all of a sudden, from what it was previously, erm, and people are clearly, about to think about it, very aware of the election, thinking about the election, talking about the election, which they weren't previously (Field notes 25th April)

I also noted my changing conceptions of fellow activists as I got to know them better over

the period. A great deal of talk occurs around the canvassing period, some of it directly

linked with canvassing, some more generally about the party, and the rest around politics

and life in general. There is a dynamic of identification with the party group that potentially

strengthens party identity through greater contact with other activists. Being part of the

group, particularly when we were present in strength, granted an empowering energy and

pride. Feelings of pride in particular made me feel stronger in my affiliation to the party,

more ready to wear my rosette openly on my way home.

Canvasser as advocate

Rather than being a monolithic and unchanging act, analysis revealed several different

roles that either the canvasser assumes or the canvassee perceives. The canvasser-as-

advocate role refers to the use of canvassing as a method of asking about local

community or household issues that the party group might be able to resolve through

representation to institutions, or being perceived as a point of contact for the political party

group around policy matters.

34

Advocate to institutions

Continuing on from above, interviewee BB states that whilst most canvassers are only

interested in what way he is considering to vote, there is an "honourable exception":

BB: There is an honourable exception to that mind you whose, which are [[a political party]]... who are interested in finding out whether their councillors can do anything for you, cause we’re represented by three [[of that party's]] councillors in this ward

RJ: um hum

BB: And they, their canvassers, who ack((?)) appear outside of election times, are tr((y)) simply trying to find out whether there’s anything that er, that you need doing, in other [words

RJ: mm]

BB: they’re a point of contact with a local councillor

The positioning of the canvasser as a person with influence over institutions such as the

council is part of "community politics". The role gathers in casework for MPs, councillors

and activists that they then try to resolve through council structures, wider contacts, or

campaigns. A canvasser-as-advocate is there to be used, a servant of the people but with

an agenda of gaining support:

She […] goes into what is clearly their issue - they want to buy their house from the housing association. I'm honest that I might not be able to do anything (honest is underlined because I feel at the time that honesty is good, that I might promise more than I can deliver just to get their vote, but I do not), I ask who they would vote for in the next election and they say "[your party], obviously", and we laugh, I say that would be fabulous obviously, that I would chase up their inquiry, and fingers crossed. (Observation 24th January)

I assume that [the householders] are voting [for our party] and they confirm, they have delivered leaflets locally, they like the party, "the [political party] workers are good, they helped us out"[…]"we like how they do things" (Observation 24th January)

[The householder] opens her door and steps out, look, pointing closer to the patches. Then she is going up the walkway. " I didn't say there were any issues but I didn't want to be interrupted, but now you have interrupted me, well…" […] I am making notes as quickly as I can, they are partial, aide memoires, I remember that photographs are good and take a photo (Observation 14th February)

[He] has a problem with the litter in the area, from takeaways on a nearby road. Is considering voting [for our party], seemingly quite serious, works for a nearby council so does not need any advice or help from the councillors. (Observation 17th January)

35

Man who looks like one of my neighbours, similar mannerisms also, "have we got any issues love? It's the [political party], the [political party]" "No" a disembodied woman's voice "No" he says, and I thank him forgetting to get his voting intentions. (Observation 17th January)

The final observations above indicate that the role of canvasser as advocate does not

reach every canvassee; many do not have any issues of concern with the area, for others

they do not require or wish to enlist the services of the party. However, the process of

acting as an advocate was of direct benefit to people. This kind of advocacy was

perceived by the party as generating positive support in the community and recruiting new

members, I perceived it as the primary reason for between-election canvassing, and

enjoyed it more than the other roles. There was no feeling of a need to “sell” the party,

even though the connection with the polity is central to the role, as without it I would have

no credibility or perceived access to power. I did note some concerns over not taking

sufficient details at times, particularly contact numbers, and learnt the need to make notes

in a legible manner. There is a concern that my perceptions of fairly limited developmental

needs of the role are defined largely by the skills I gained prior to canvassing, however I

would argue that the role of advocacy to institutions does not have high demands.

Advocate to the party

Another advocacy role that was expected by most interviewees, but not explicit in

canvassing practice, was the role of the canvasser in taking concerns back to the party.

For several interviewees it was felt important that the canvasser should relay issues back

to the party, as interviewee BA states:

RJ: and do you think that’s important that, erm, (you) say there is regular contact, erm, from a, [that a political party

BA: Ye, yes I do]

RJ: Does that

BA: Yes I think they need to be aware what, you know, what issues are for us and what our lives are

RJ: um

BA: So, whether it’s locally or nationally, so yeah, no, I do think it’s important

(Interview 1)

In further conversation, BA conceives of the canvassing process as being around the

polity gathering views and finding a balance between those expressed by the people and

36

their own standpoint. This process is important because it allows the polity to gain an idea

about the issues people are concerned about and "what our lives are". Interviewee BB

stated that canvassing is the opportunity to inform the polity why they did not get support

at the ballot box, expecting canvassers to take feed concerns back to the party group.

Interviewee BD was concerned such representation was important with regard to those

who did not have time to take part actively in politics:

BJ: do you think it’s a good thing that people come round, sort of, canvassing [(for political parties)?

BD: I think it’s] important because I think if they’re representing you then they should, be familiar with the people within, within that erm, area and, it’s important that they represent your views so I don’t know, if they don’t come round, I don’t know how they hope to gain other people’s views because, obviously it’s not truly representational, cause people who are interested are people who are more likely to meetings and things

RJ: mm

BD: But that isn’t necessarily representing the general public, that’s representing people who are more interested on a political level and that isn’t a true representation, I don’t think

(Interview 4)

BD has concerns that the polity is a self-selected group who need to gain the views of

others through mechanisms such as canvassing. Exchanges earlier in the conversation

that contextualise the talk with interviewee BD place a note of caution on how strongly she

feels about the canvasser as advocate role. For interviewee DG there is no such

ambiguity about the need for representation:

RJ: Er, and, and is it more important that they say what they think or is it more important that they listen to what people say

DG: Listen and then do it

RJ: mm

DG: We say not just talking

(Interview 7)

Elsewhere in the interview, interviewee DG makes clear that she has little hope of her

concerns being acted on. She perceives politicians to be "two-faced", in that they only

contact people to gain votes and do not keep most of their promises. However, in the

exchange above she states her need for the polity to be orientated around representation

and action. Also reflecting a more sceptical view of the polity, interviewee BF stated that,

37

whilst he might raise his concerns with canvassers, they would not listen to him, even

though they might listen to other people.

It is not clear from these conversations the extent to which the canvasser is expected to

relay back specific concerns, concerns common to many people, or for the canvasser

themselves be changed in their own views such that they become more aligned with the

canvassee. Whilst several interviewees regard canvassers as a contact point of the polity

to improve representation, I found limited evidence that the polity engages formerly on

that basis, although informal talk could transmit concerns. The lack of evidence may have

been due to my membership of a smaller party. Canvassees could have assumed there

would be little point relaying concerns regarding wider policy issues given there was no

route back to the Government or major presence inside parliament.

Cavasser as speaker

Whilst a friendly presence on the doorstep was part of canvassing, quite early on in my

experience I perceived that this did not meet the expectations of canvassees, or myself

with regard to canvassing:

Well after an initial, raft of success, erm, more or (less) success, (perhaps) could have done the job (bit) better in, trying to persua::de, erm, concentrating too much on, perhaps, trying thinking that, (being (?) and) smiling (would be) a good substitute for arguing the case as to, why [our party is] a good thing, erm, so yes, ((laughs)), oh dear, (one) was doing quite a good job, and then reflect and think hmmm maybe I'm not doing such a good job (Field notes 31st January)

In general there was "a lot of smiling". I also made connections through slipping into a

heavier accent, laughing at jokes, making clear my understanding of experiences when

experiences were being related. These adjustments were largely a natural and honest

part of communication with strangers. However, contextualised by my role as a

representative of the party, I perceived my smiling and laughing to become tools for the

party, a method of engagement as a preface to persuasion. As interviewee DI states: "If

they [canvassers] are not friendly nobody will accept them" (Interview 9), and interviewee

DH: "[if the canvasser is] just one of those people that you don’t get on with ... game

over."

38

Canvasser as pollster

The use of canvassing to find out the voting intentions of householders is the most

common view of canvassing. This is the main focus of canvassing in the run up to the

election, and so the main focus of canvassing for many parties. It relies on asking the

householder to identify themselves for marking off the electoral roll, a task it took me

some time to find the confidence to do, before asking if they have voted for us previously,

and whether they are considering doing so again. For some exchanges it may be all that

is elicited from the canvassee:

RJ: And and when speaking with them, is it more about listening to them and what

they have to say or is it some of you telling them what you think

DI:: no, not like that, just short period <you know>

RJ: [right

DI: Some] just only their giving idea

DI: um hum

RJ:: will you, for, <you know>, for the election will you, which side will you be, will

you, with us with, something like that <you know> it’s not, long [conversation

or something

(Interview 9)

For several interviewees there are indications that they would be happy with this level of

interaction. Others perceive the role to be greater than that, as interviewee DH states:

the ones who straight away try and sign you up, ooh could we, and it’s, just

getting names on ... (can’t be bothered with them), if you’ve not got an interest in

doing something don’t do it

(Interview 8)

The pollster role identifies support and possible support, who will be followed up on

election day. The task is in a sense technical, but is also the typical opening in election

canvassing in determining whether the canvasser should attempt to persuade those not

voting or possibly voting for our party, or elicit further support from those definitely voting

39

for our party. It contextualises the subsequent discussion, possibly for both canvasser and

canvassee.

The professional communicator

Within the speaking role I needed to communicate key messages and argue the position

of the party. Canvassing training gave me a mnemonic to structure my conversations,

better ensuring that I fulfilled the requirements of the role. I noted an occasion that I found

it difficult to integrate the demands of polity with regard to what messages are

communicated within the conversation. The central role is to transmit the ideas and image

of your party to persuade the voter, yet that potentially interferes with conversing naturally:

it's not just the:: er::m, having that, er:: sticking to the routine, but also, feeling like one has to make certain points, erm, in the canvassing, (I) have to make this point, (I) have to make that point and that itself again breaks up the, the rhythm and n::::aturalness of the interaction (Field notes 7th March)

However, there is a question over whether the conversation within the context of the

canvassing act can in any way be "natural". Below is an account of a conversation with a

canvassee:

I ask if he will be voting in the next election "I don't vote, I don't trust politicans, corruption", I say I'd hope that [our party] would be different (or try and say that), he talks on quite quickly […] he speaks quickly, doesn't really wait for my reply or doesn't let me finish my reply […] talk about Living Wage, he is dubious, saying that those on a higher wage will just get taxed so they earn even less than someone on a minimum wage - this is not correct but I don't directly disagree, saying it would have to be done right. On religion, he […] doesn't want to be told (what) to believe (in God) […] I stumble on a reply about a secular society but it isn't very good. […] I talk about personal experiences, try to open up, agree with things, watch myself agreeing too much. Say the [my party's] policy, but not fully sure […] He states things as facts, I am a little cautious to disagree […] He asks what we would do about crime, I talk about restorative justice […] he is doubtful, but does appreciate the idea of giving people a chance, notes that in Turkey the justice system works because people are afraid of it, afraid of prison, "it would be good if they took away human rights". Assumes I do not agree, which I don't, but do agree the current system is not working. Talks about […] [prison] spaces […] taken up with detained asylum seekers so murderers and burglars have to be freed early - I am cautious around the subject of asylum seekers, allowing him to lead the conversation […] "you responsible for the decision on Park Hill" [flats that have been legally protected as heritage]. I say it is an English Heritage decision. I don't know [our party's] policy. Say it would be good if something could be done to make them look nice, but there are enough one-person flats, need something for families, He seems to appreciate where I end up, but can tell he doesn't like them really. His position seems to move from them being an eyesore just as flats (I say people really liked them when they first went up), to the problem being them being derelict. (Observation 17th January)

40

Within the conversation I am trying to find points of commonality, areas of agreement,

without "agreeing too much". Where I argue from the position of my party affiliation, I am

sometimes silent on policy out of ignorance, or because I feel I cannot argue a point

without access to more information. There are other points at which I am silent in case I

gain strong disagreement, for example around the issue of asylum seekers. The dynamic

of the conversation is unusual in that the issues are being driven by the canvassee, whilst

the canvasser is attempting to actively engage with and persuade the canvassee on those

issues without breaking the connection. However, the avoidance of conflict and

disagreement may not be that unusual within a conversation between strangers, possibly

accounting for some of my silence, and for the canvassee's apparent shift of position in

the final exchange.

There is a common theme across many of my notes of trying to improve my effectiveness

as a canvasser; however there is a question of how stable a concept "effective" is in terms

of canvassing. Interviewees' perceptions of canvassers as speakers were mixed. Some

interviewees preferred to listen to canvassers with whom they had political sympathies,

and around issues that connected with their concerns. One interviewee stated that whilst

the national financial situation was of great concern, they would not raise it with a

canvasser because they did not understand it. Research into face-to-face canvassing

exchanges for sales indicates that canvassers may be more successful where they adapt

their conversation to fit their perceptions of the canvassee's needs and preferences

(Franke and Park 2006). A key need, as evidenced above, is being able to relate

information about the party.

Dissemination of information

Drawing attention to the context of the election, leaflets and newsletters distributed by the

party, and key messages defined by senior activists was a central part of the canvasser-

as-speaker role. The interest in such a role varies:

RJ: ok, erm ... and ... are you interested in what they have to say, as information about the party or

BB: Broadly] speaking not no, er and those canvassers that ah((?)), want to try (and) tell me stuff, I’m not interested

RJ: ok

BB: If they, If all they want to know is wha((t)) how I’m going to vote, that’s fine I’ll take the time to tell ((th))em, or not, as the case may be ((laughs)) but I’m not interested in a conversation with them no

41

Citing an experience where a canvasser had raised a very local issue that was of interest

and unknown to the interviewee, BC wanted a canvasser "to tell me anything that I don’t

know" (Interview 3). Similarly, interviewee DH stated he would be interested in an item of

policy that he had "not even noticed", and thought providing information about points of

policy was what canvassers were "there for" (Interview 8). DH was also negative about

where the canvasser appeared to be parroting the party line, rather than stating policy in

their own words:

RJ: And do you think you understand most things about politics and politicians ((that)) you hear or read ... ...

DH: Eventually

RJ: right

DH: Cause, some of the language they use can be very confusing, finding out what some of the words mean, can be, I think they use, some (of them), just to sound good, a::nd then you find out what the words really means and they could have used very simple words to explain it and you wonder why they’re doing it that way ... ... ...

RJ: Do you find that ever with canvassers <I mean> people who come round [and

DH: Yes

RJ: right [((?))

DH: Yeah, cause you know], you s::((ee?)), you hear them talk to you when they try and get to (the), to get that little <kind of> bit of relationship going to start it all off, and then suddenly the, way they talk changes and it’s obvious they’ve been sat for hours ... learning verbatim, this, two or three sheets of paper

RJ: right

DH: And these questions, a::nd, I do ask them (<sort of s:: s:: says>), wouldn’t it be as easy if you asked these in your own words rather than trying to remember what you, and, some of them get very upset ... (and), and I don’t ... you’re talking to people not

RJ: mm

DH: ... trying to, you’re trying to gai((n)) get a response from them, (no way would that) make you feel comfortable

(Interview 8)

42

This concern is related to the language that the polity expresses itself in, but it is mostly

about how the canvasser as a broadcaster of the polity is not sufficient. The canvasser

needs to mediate the messages through their own language to be perceived as genuine

and open. A positive experience around this was related by interviewee BE:

RJ: yes, erm ... so, how important’s the personality of the person, I mean the canvasser ... when you’re, or perhaps their appearance, (<sort of>) when you see them, when you’re talking to them

BE: Er::: is that important. Erm, we((ll)) yes I think it is and er::m, I I’ve got to say that the chap from the ((political party)) was, we((ll)) was <you know> quite an open sort of personality

RJ: mm

BE: He he was somebody that you could actually <you know> have quite a good discussion with, which we did over a number of topics

(Interview 5)

Knowledge of policy was a concern raised by fellow canvassers in relation to canvassing.

My ability to provide this information was sometimes mixed, particularly when answering

direct questions:

[…] man opens the door, he is a Christian, what is my opinion on abortion? [He says] there is no difference between all the parties though. What is my opinion on unemployment, in that [topic] I feel more able to talk, but still, my arguments are part-formed, my selling points not practiced. (Observation 29th April)

He has concerns about jobs, and the concern about jobs leads to what we are going to do about it. I outline our national plans, but try and swing round to what we are doing in council, not very successfully, forgetting to mention our support for local business. I have to refer to a leaflet of policies for prompts, it might not look professional, but I can do little else. (Observation 2nd May)

Whilst I was concerned about my effectiveness in relating information, the work of Lodge

et al (1989) and Druckman (2004) suggests that any information provided will be heavily

framed by the perceptions of the canvassee, prior conceptions of the canvasser's party,

and would be used to inform broad summary narratives of party and policy. The role of

canvasser as information provider was further mediated by the influence of the national

media and literature disseminated by the political parties, which could provide information

needed to make judgements around policy and party choice. However, one interviewee

stated the literature disseminated by political parties was not informative and "doesn’t

really mean a lot" whereas having a face-to-face conversation means "you have an

opportunity to ... ask their views" (Interview 1).

43

The hard sell

There was a more personal concern for me around where an acceptable boundary is in

challenging the canvassee or asking them to explain their statements:

The conversations have tended to be much shorter, perhaps partly because I am working my way into this quite different way of canvassing. The line between being too reticent, overcoming people's "natural reserve" and ensuring that I do not overstep into being "pushy" is a hard one to tread. Yet I see how engaging and engaged people are with a more positive approach, and I do wonder if I am not selling us short a little. There are many different ways to canvass. (Observation 25th April)

It may be that my lack of "push" meant that I failed to properly contextualise the exchange,

not making clear that I was attempting to argue our case, and therefore would welcome

questioning on our actions or policies. During election canvassing there were a couple of

occasions where I thought I had probably "persuaded" a canvassee to vote for our party. I

questioned whether this was because of any conversational skill, or because I had simply

provided a structured time where a canvassee could vocalise and work through their own

thoughts. The methods of other canvassers varied, and I did observe another canvasser

being far more insistent around communication than I had been. Inerviewee BD questions

whether some people might feel "pressured" by such contact:

BD: we do get quite a lot of flyers and things

RJ: [um hum

BD: Which are] supposed to inform us so I know that, that also is important and probably people prefer that in a way to:: personal visits because they don’t feel, pressurised

RJ: mm

BD: Perhaps by that

RJ: ... ... and is that ... er do you sense that pressure (<I mean>) do you sense, that sometimes they are trying to get you to vote, for them [((?))

BD: Well I suppose] that’s their ultimate aim [((laughs))

RJ: ((laughs))]

BD: I think it depends on [your

RJ: Right]

BD: personality as whether you find it ... intimidating or not should I say

(Interview 4)

44

BD suggests that some people might find canvassing intimidating. Such an interpretation

could be placed on the reaction of interviewee BF to canvassers, who finds them

"aggressive" (interview 6). BF perceives that he is receiving "attention" from the

representatives of political parties for being outspoken. The perception of the self being

under attack from the polity is valid in that they are trying to change his mind in a way that

is co-ordinated through the wider context of the forthcoming election. Whilst such actions

are not targeted or aggressive in terms of a purposeful action, it could be argued that in a

sense canvassing is an organised aggression by the polity upon the people. This will be

discussed further below.

45

Discussion and Suggestions for Further Research

In this research I investigated face-to-face canvassing through participant observation and

interviews with householders. Although the research did not achieve a depth that might

have been desired, within the data is a much fuller description of the canvassing act than

was previously available. The research indicates that canvassing can be an effective

method of political mobilisation, supporting the conclusions of previous research.

The primary aspects identified were mechanisms that could prevent the canvassing act

from taking place, such as the householder denying access, or reduce the efficacy of the

canvassing act, for example due to cultural differences. The canvasssing act itself is

characterised as demanding different roles of the canvasser, some of which overlap.

The canvasser as polity cannot separate themselves from perceptions of self-interested

motivation, but might have greater status than, for example, tradesmen trying to sell

goods. The canvasser as speaker acts such that the direction of causality is pushed from

the polity to the people through information and attempted manipulation. The canvasser

as advocate is more complex, retaining some power for the polity through gaining support,

but acting as a causal process from the people to the polity and other institutions. Each

role has particular implications for what happens within and subsequent to the canvassing

act. These roles are proposed to be intransigent causal relations that will potentially exist

across all canvassing acts, although their precise nature and expression may vary within

other contexts.

The polity calls

Canvassees perceive canvassers to be more or less, but always to some extent, located

in the polity. Being a representative of a political party, and wearing and carrying

identifiable symbols of the party and polity, gives the canvasser permission to enter

spaces that may be denied by individuals acting alone, or by canvassers acting for other

interests. This permission may be taken with regard to public spaces, but the householder

has absolute right to deny access. Access might also be denied through the canvasser

being physically blocked from being able to contact the householder, or the householder

not being at home.

As a physical presence within the space of the householder, the canvasser is a sign that

the party wishes to contact them and to represent their area. There can be an expectation

46

that effort on behalf of the political party should be expended in return for consideration,

as one interviewee stated "They’re not interested in me, why should I be interested in

them?". The possibility that the presence alone of canvassers raises the perceived

importance of voting has been suggested previously (Mortimore and Kaur-Ballagan 2006).

This implies that the physical act of a person contacting the canvassee is perceived as

something that is effortful, a sacrifice by party and the canvasser, signifying the

importance the party attaches to their vote. The canvassee may then be motivated to

reciprocate to this homage, through voting or giving their vote to a particular party.

Reciprocation has been widely observed to be a powerful social motivator, and would be a

candidate for explaining some of the effectiveness of face-to-face canvassing (Gouldner

1960). However, the canvassing act may be an unwelcome offering due to differences in

political affiliation, or be denied status due to the perceived self-interested motivations of

the polity. Whilst some interviewees welcomed canvassers and thought canvassing

important, others tolerated them as an inevitable occurrence within the election process.

Issues around language can mean there is little or no communication possible at all

between canvasser and canvassee. Where communication is possible, but there are

strong cultural or language differences, canvassing may potentially be a more effective

method of communication between a party and the people because of its reflexive nature:

the canvasser can adapt language to correspond with that used by the canvassee; use

visual gestures to clarify meaning; or, rely on another to interpret. More subtle cultural

barriers may place restrictions on the understanding of shared experiences, or of norms

with regard to behaviour and custom. The results of Stimson (1975) and Sondheimer and

Green (2010) suggest that the ability of canvassers to rephrase and communicate with

canvassees who might be put off or confused by formal political discourse could increase

the extent to which people can participate in an informed way in the democratic process.

However, there are questions over the extent to which such partisan information would, or

indeed should, be trusted.

Canvassing as the voice of the party

The context of the talk within a canvassing act, orientated around goals of information,

advocacy, and/or persuasion is not like "normal" conversation. The talk is bounded and

defined by context and expectation, particularly that the canvasser wants the

householder's vote, and the householder wants their interests represented. The role of

canvasser as speaker begins with being a friendly presence, then requires the canvasser

to communicate key messages, to find points of connection, and to avoid points of

47

disagreement where possible. Information could be disseminated through discussion, or in

response to direct questions. The information needs of the canvassees were mediated by

approaches to decision making, social networks and media. The ability of the canvasser

to meet information needs might be limited. Research suggests that a positive canvassing

experience may count more heavily in the parties favour if there is a lack of information

gained from elsewhere (Norris et al 1999), suggesting that smaller parties, which are

covered less in the media, may benefit more from canvassing.

It is unclear to what extent the conversation with the canvasser will be part of the normal

influence of political talk within social networks (Pattie and Johnston 2008). As a social

contact the talk could transmit messages around the desirability of voting, and the

desirability of the canvasser's party. However, the conversation is strongly contextualised

by the location of the canvasser in the polity, such that any influence might be consciously

rejected. Certainly, several interviewees denied the influence of the canvasser on their

decision, at least apart from signalling the existence of information, which could then be

independently verified.

Canvassing as advocacy

The advocacy role was stated as important by several interviewees, and may have

contextualised several exchanges with canvassees. The canvasser as advocate role is

not bounded by the canvassing act but persists beyond into the sphere of the polity and

the personal.

With regard to canvassers as advocates to the party around policy issues, some parties

have largely excluded activists from a direct policy making route, probably because of

fears around ideology, but such exclusion risks cutting off the summative gathering of

feedback through canvassing. Local party groups would still be better informed about the

concerns of residents, even if the feedback from canvassees is communicated as informal

talk between party activists. There is evidence from my experience that perceptions

changed through canvassing, such as preconceptions about who lived in certain spaces,

and preconceptions about people from visual and cultural signals. In this sense there is

the potential for the canvasser to become an advocate because they gain an

understanding of the lives of people from a much wider spectrum than a typical social

network.

48

As the canvasser becomes more experienced and knowledgeable around practices

rooted in local social networks or issues arising common to the local public space, the

barriers around language and culture referred to earlier may be partially alleviated. We

could conceive of canvassing as a socially situated learning interaction between

canvasser and canvassee. The canvassee learns about the language and structures of

the polity through the canvasser, the canvasser learns about the concerns and culture of

the canvassee, scaffolding their understanding through reflexive conversation (Wood and

Wood 1996). However, whilst the canvasser is located within the canvassee space during

the canvassing act, they are more permanently rooted within their own social networks

and practices. Ultimately the canvasser engages with people as a volunteer who can

withdraw their engagement at any time. Furthermore, the canvasser may not conceive of

their role as being one where they should be open to persuasion or change, a coloniser

who tries to impose their social system with little regard for the views of the "others".

The role of canvasser-as-advocate in acting to solve issues around institutional practices

was an important part of canvassing, and clearly had the potential to gain support from

canvassees. The party acts as advocates for those they represent: in campaigns, through

networks or influence, through lobbying or action in local or national government. This role

could be critically assessed in that a large part is not around policy but about influencing

essentially administrative institutional functions. It could be argued that the party benefits

from reciprocal support generated through solving individual issues with institutional

practices, but has no motivation to push for general policy changes that would benefit

people on an permanent basis, such that they did not need the party. However, there was

evidence that the role was widely welcomed and that it did help people who had otherwise

found it impossible to get resolution to their issues, or who did not have the resources to

seek representation. Furthermore, wider policy changes may be desired by the party but

be much harder to achieve than individual exceptions.

Effective for whom?

Canvassing requires an amount of skill with regards to communication (canvasser as

speaker, canvasser as pollster) and administration (canvasser as pollster, canvasser as

advocate). This skill is developed over time, and could be encouraged through techniques

to improve the canvasser as a confident and knowledgeable communicator and

community advocate, albeit within the constraints of being a volunteer with limited time

and variable resources. However, such a plan for increasing the "effectiveness" of

canvassers raises the question of "effective for whom?"

49

One interviewee stated how he found canvassers to be aggressive. There is amongst

canvassers differing approaches to canvassees with regards what is being "pushy". It

appears likely that there will be interactions where some interviewees feel pressured, and

possibly intimidated, by some canvassers. Because of the canvasser's status as a

member of the polity and the local party group, their resources as a practiced and

informed communicator with an explicit agenda, and their location within wider institutional

structures, the canvasser may act to impose the power of the party and polity over the

people. Certainly, my experience of canvassing suggests that the communication is

continually contextualised by the wish to place the party in a good light. Such talk is

therefore strongly directed towards persuasion, even if the words themselves are not

directly aimed to persuade.

To argue against such a position, the canvassee as householder determines the level of

interaction, and whether access is given. The canvasser may have greater skill and

authority, but is still the outsider, the trader, the con-man - placed at a distance through

their location and motivation as a member of the polity. The canvassee has the power to

bestow their vote upon a political party of their choosing, or none. Yet it would be naive to

assume that all people will find denying the approaches of the polity easy, or that they

could through conscious scepticism deny any influence of the canvasser as speaker.

The future of canvassing

Local political campaigning has been proposed as not just a method of mobilisation, but

as a way of increasing political participation in general (Pattie et al 2003). The evidence

points towards canvassing playing a potentially important role within such a process. The

canvasser-as-advocate role, acting as a transmission from people to polity, appears to be

mostly positively perceived by canvassees, and will be focussed on as the most ethically

sound of the canvassing roles.

Research has indicated that a “new language” of political participation is orientated around

engagement on the terms of the activist, with roles that allow for political acts to be

integrated with self-identity (O’Toole and Gale 2009). The canvasser-as-speaker role is

located both within the polity and party. It potentially could be made less partisan, but

there would be little gain for political parties to have their canvassers equitably promote

the agenda of all parties. The canvasser-as-advocate role, however, might retain an

implicit identity within the party and polity, but does not require the canvasser to push the

messages of the party, or have extensive knowledge around policy. As such, the

50

canvasser as advocate role may appeal to those who wish to act on behalf of their own

communities but not place themselves explicitly outside the community and within the

polity. Such a role would need to make clear to canvassees the context of the exchange

as it would not involve the canvasser-as-speaker role, but could potentially allow an

extension of activism to those who otherwise might be dissuaded from party political

activism. There would also need to be a commitment from political parties to genuinely

accept representations from such canvassers. The risk is that the role would be extended

purely to increase the chance of reciprocal support, preserving the imbalance of power in

the favour of the polity.

Wider explorations of the association of canvassing with political choice do not appear to

have concentrated on the specific role that is being taken with regard to the canvassing

act. It is recommended that any extensive research needs to take into account what

canvassing role is being promoted by the party, specifically whether the roles of pollster,

speaker, or advocate are enabled or promoted. The canvassing act does appear to offer

an interesting opportunity for exploring political choice. A closer examination of the

experiences of canvassees would be desirable. A long-term diary study of a number of

householders in an area likely to be canvassed, indicating perceptions and experiences

around emotion, reasoning, status, representation, and choice, would shed more light on

the complexities of political choice.

A practical investigation of between-election canvassing concentrating on canvasser

perceptions around being an advocate would better define the possibilities for the role,

particularly with regard to: location in relation to the community being represented;

potential downsides, such as the possible co-option of community campaigning by the

polity; and the potential for improvement in representation and active participation.

Over the past fifty years communities have mixed, party affiliation fallen, agency become

socially desirable, and social networks more diverse. The opportunity this represents for

the political canvasser is mitigated by some obstructions: physical access has become

more controlled, language and culture more diverse. There is the potential for canvassing

to be part of a campaigning tool for the polity to project their message, but the real

potential is for it to be part of a mechanism of representation for the people that is

personal, located within communities, and truly democratic.

51

Epilogue

We stand shuffling in the cold drizzle outside the polling station, smiling billboards, the presence of the polity. My purple shirt spotting with raindrops, another rosette shining against it, a shadow of dry step underneath me. I share telling duties with other parties to allow for conversations with supporters, trips to get food, and handle things when it gets busy. Finding our way as people through the hopes and fears of the polity.

Later I run round the homes of supporters not recorded at the polling station. This is not my neighbourhood. I avoid a large group of youths as Daily Mail headlines run through my mind. Our supporters have already voted or will vote. I thank unfamiliar faces and voices coming through closed doors.

In one way this is the endpoint of canvassing, after the talk and the campaign, the time has come to see if our contact has swayed or persuaded enough people. But those faces living in places that would cause me to hide behind closed doors, to avoid this or that stairwell, to dread the coming of the weekend. Canvassing lets them have access to power when it might seem so remote, when life is full of powerlessness. Canvassing should not be just about how we do elections, but about how we do democracy.

(Observation, 6th May 2010, edited 9th May 2010)

DG: this is my opinion, if I am <going to> see one Government people come in my house, I swear to god I <want to> tell them I say, first of all, first of all you going to sort out this one. After, what you going to do, do it, I don’t care. This is important for me. I don‘t know, for me for everybody, maybe for you too sir

RJ: ... well, yeah, it’s er, yeah

DG: You know you can’t come in sit in home all, twenty four hours you can’t watch I mean, how much you <going to> watch TV? When is weekend coming you need the money, where is your social life, nothing... […] I kept finding job, I can apply but I didn’t hear, most people say “we will call you soon as possible”. Nobody call me, <you know> I angry, you know what I don’t like to now this Government, they have to do something. But, nothing.

(Interview 7, edited 9th May 2010)

DH: One vote either way may change, the outcome of one election somewhere, but generally isn’t, but nice to think you can.

RJ: mm

DH: It’s that promise, it’s not, cakes great, but the promise of cake is even better.

RJ: ((short laugh))

DH: Terry Pratchett

RJ: Ok, (that’s a) lovely point to leave it

(Interview 8)

52

References

Abelson, R.P., Kinder, D.R., Peters, M.D. and Fiske, S.T. (1982) Affective and semantic

components in political person perception Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

42:4 pp.619-630 [Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.619

Kevin Arceneaux, K. and Kolodny, R. (2009) Educating the Least Informed: Group

Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign. American Journal of Political Science 53:4

pp.755-770 [Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00399.x

Bergan, D.E, Gerber, A.S., Green, D.P., and Panagopoulos,C. (2004) Grassroots

Mobilization and Voter Turnout in 2004. Public Opinion Quarterly 69: p.760-777. [Online]

available at: http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/69/5/760

Bhaskar, R. (1979) The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the

contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester.

Bulmer, M. (1982) Social research ethics. London: Macmillan

Clark, P.B. and Wilson, J.Q. (1961) Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations

Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:2. pp129-166 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2390752

Copus, C. (2004) Party politics and local government Manchester: Manchester University

Press

Cutts, D. (2006) Continuous campaigning and electoral outcomes: The Liberal Democrats

in Bath. Political Geography, 25 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.003

Cutts, D. and Fieldhouse, E. (2009) What Small Spatial Scales Are Relevant as Electoral

Contexts for Individual Voters? The Importance of the Household on Turnout at the 2001

General Election American Journal of Political Science 53:3 pp726-739 [Online] available

at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122465113/

DellaVigna, S and Kaplan, E. (2007) The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting.

Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122:3 pp1187-1234 [Online] available at:

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187

53

Davis, G.F. (2005) Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Denver, D. (2003) Elections and Voters in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Denver, D. Hands, G. and MacAllister, I. (2004) The Electoral Impact of Constituency

Campaigning in Britain 1992-2001. Political Studies 52:2 pp289-306 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00480.x

Denzin, N.K. Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed) pp933-

958. London: Sage.

Dermody, J. and Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2008) An empirical investigation into the relationships

between British young peoples’ trust, cynicism and efficacy in explaining youth

(Non)voting attitudes and behaviour (presentation) 5th International Political Marketing

Conference, Manchester, UK, 27-29 March 2008 http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1055

Dowding, K. (2005) Is it Rational to Vote? Five Types of Answer and a Suggestion The

British Journal of Politics & International Relations 7:3 pp.442-459 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2005.00188.x

Druckman, J.N. (2004) Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the

(Ir)relevance of Framing The American Political Science Review 98:4 pp. 671-686

[Online] available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145331

Fisher, J. and Denver, D. (2009) Evaluating the Electoral Effects of Traditional and

Modern Modes of Constituency Campaigning in Britain 1992–2005 Parliamentary Affairs

Vol. 62 No. 2, pp196–210 [Online] available at:

http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/62/2/196

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2005) The Interview. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds)

(2005) Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed) pp695-727. London: Sage.

Franke, G.R. and Park, J-E. (2006) Salesperson Adaptive Selling Behavior and customer

orientation: a meta-analysis Journal of marketing research pp.693-703 [Online] available

at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.693

54

Friedrichs, J. and Ludtke, H. (1975) Participant Observation. Farnborough: Saxon House

Gavan-Koop, D. (2007) Obstacles and Opportunities: The Experiences of Female

Councillor Candidates in Metropolitan Vancover and Ottowa 1999-2006. Unpublished MA

Thesis Simon Fraser University [Online] available at: http://lib-

ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/9681/1/etd3253.pdf

Gerber, A.S., Karlan, D. and Bergan, D. (2007) Does the Media Matter? A Field

Experiment Measuring the Effect of Newspapers on Voting Behavior and Political

Opinions. Applied Economics, 1:2 pp.35–52 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.1.2.35

Gouldner, A.W. (1960) The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement American

Sociological Review, 25:2. pp. 161-178 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2092623

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and

emerging confluences. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative

Research (3rd ed) pp191-215. London: Sage.

Hall, R.B. (1995) Door-to-door canvassing and personal contact in library referenda

campaigns The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 8: 4. pp21 -25 [Online] available

at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/eb025456

Hansen, B., and Bowers, J. (2009) Attributing Effects to a Cluster-Randomized Get-Out-

the-Vote Campaign. Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 104, No. 487

[Online] available at: http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/abs/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap06589

Harre, R. and Bhaskar, R. (2001) How to change reality: story vs structure. In Lopez, and

Potter, G. After postmodernism: an introduction to critical realism. London: Continuum

International Publishing

Harrison, L. and McSweeney, D. (2005) Persuasion in Local Campaigns: a case study of

the South West, Paper presented to the Elections, Parties and Public Opinion Specialist

Group Annual Conference, University of Essex, 9-11 September, 2005 [Online] available

at: https://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/EPOP%202005/Papers/EPOPfinal.doc

Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press

55

Jetten, J.,Hornsey, M.J. and Adarves-Yorno, I. (2006) When Group Members Admit to

Being Conformist: The Role of Relative Intragroup Status in Conformity Self-Reports

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32: 162-173 [Online] available at:

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/162

Johnston, R. Jones, K. Propper, C. Sarker, R. Burgess, S. Bolster, A. (2005) A missing

level in the analyses of British voting behaviour: the household as context as shown by

analyses of a 1992-1997 longitudinal survey Electoral Studies 24:2 pp.201-225 [Online]

available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2004.04.002

Jones, B. (2006) Why are we such apathetic voters? In Jones, B. (Ed) 2006 Politics UK.

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Kavanagh, D. (2006) Political Parties. In Jones, B. (Ed) 2006 Politics UK. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited

Klein, H. K. (2004) Seeking the new and the critical in critical realism: deja vu?,

Information and Organization. 14:2 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004.02.002

Lake, R.L.D. and Huckfeldt, R. (1998) Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political

Participation Political Psychology, 19:3 pp567-584 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792178

LASOS (2010) Local Area Statistics Online Service http://www.lasos.org.uk/

Lavazza, A. and Caro, M.D. (2009) Not so Fast. On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims

Concerning Human Agency. Journal Neuroethics 3:1 pp.23-41 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9053-9

Lewis, P. (2000) Realism, Causality and the Problem of Social Structure Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour 30:3. pp 249-268 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00129

Lodge, M. McGraw, K.M., Stroh, P. (1989) An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate

Evaluation The American Political Science Review 83:2 pp. 399-419 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962397

56

Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W.R., and MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political

Judgement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

McClurg, S.D (2006) The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement

and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation American Journal of

Political Science, 50:3 pp.737-754 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3694246

Miller, J.M. and Krosnick, J.A. (2004). Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism: A Field

Experiment Political Psychology, 25:4, pp507-523 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792406

Moran, M. (2006). Pathways into politics. In Jones, B. (Ed) 2006 Politics UK. Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited

Mortimore, R. and Kaur-Ballagan, K. (2006) Ethnic Minority Voters and Non-Voters at the

2005 British General Election. [Paper] EPOP Conference, September 2006. Nottingham:

University of Nottingham

Nickerson, D.W., Friedrichs, R.D., King, D.C. (2006) Partisan Mobilization Campaigns in

the Field: Results from a Statewide Turnout Experiment in Michigan Political Research

Quarterly 59: pp.85-97 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900108

Niven, D. (2004) The Mobilization Solution? Face-to-Face Contact and Voter Turnout in a

Municipal Election. The Journal of Politics, 66 : p.868-884 [Online] available at:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=1960416

Norris, P., Curtice, J., Sanders, D., Scammell, M., and Semetko, H. A. (1999) On

message: Communicating the campaign. London: Sage.

O’Toole, T. (2004) Explaining Young People’s Non-participation: Towards a Fuller

Understanding of the Political University of Birmingham, United Kingdom [Online]

Available at:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/uppsala/ws24/Otoole.pdf

O'Toole, T. and Gale, R. (2009) Contemporary grammars of political action among ethnic

minority young activists, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33:1 [Online] Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870903118122

57

Pattie C. J. and Johnston R. J. (2003) Hanging on the Telephone? Doorstep and

Telephone Canvassing at the British General Election of 1997. British Journal of Political

Science, 33 , pp 303-322 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123403000139

Pattie, C. and Johnston, R. (2004) Party knowledge and candidate knowledge:

constituency campaigning and voting and the 1997 British General Election. Electoral

Studies 23:4 pp 795–819 [Online] available at:

http://www.informaworld.com/index/757749672.pdf

Pattie, C. J. and Johnston, R. J. (2008) It's Good To Talk: Talk, Disagreement and

Tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 38, pp677-698 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000331

Pattie, C., Seyd, P., Whiteley, P. (2003) Citizenship and Civic Engagement: Attitudes and

Behaviour in Britain Political Studies 51:3 pp 443-468 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00435

Patton, M.Q. (1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health

Services Research. 34:5 Pt 2 pp1189–1208 [Online] available at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089059/pdf/hsresearch00022-0112.pdf

Power Inquiry (2006) Power to the People, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and York

Publishing Distribution

Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2005) The 2005 General Election in

Great Britain. Report for the Electoral Commission. [Online] available at:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec%20report%20final.pdf

Sayer A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. London. Sage.

Scott, J. (2001) Where is social structure? In Lopez, and Potter, G. After postmodernism:

an introduction to critical realism. London: Continuum International Publishing

Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2004) British Party Members: An Overview Party Politics 10.

pp.355-366 [Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068804043903

58

Siegel, D.A. (2009) Social Networks and Collective Action. American Journal of Political

Science 53:1 pp122-138 [Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

5907.2008.00361.x

Silverman, D. (2000) Analysing Talk and Text, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.)

Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) Sage Publications inc. London

Sondheimer, R.M. and Green, D.P. (2010) Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of

Education on Voter Turnout American Journal of Political Science 54:1 pp174-189

[Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00425.x

Stimson, J.A. (1975) Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election

American Journal of Political Science. 19:3 pp.393-417 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110536

Taber, C.S. and Lodge, M. (2006) Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political

Beliefs American Journal of Political Science, 50:3 pp. 755-769 [Online] available at:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3694247

Walgrave, S. and Aelst, P.V. (2005) Love and marriage in election times: Inconsistency

and types of floating voters [Paper] General ECPR Conference 9-10 September 2005,

Budapest. [Online] available at: http://webh01.ua.ac.be/m2p/publications/00101563.pdf

Weaver, D.H. (2007) Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming. Journal of

Communication 57:1 pp142-147 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x

Wilks-Heeg. S. (2009) The Canary in a Coalmine? Explaining the Emergence of the

British National Party in English Local Politics. Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 62 No. 3, 2009,

p.377–398 [Online] available at: http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/3/377

Whiteley, P (2007) Are groups replacing parties? A multi-level analysis of party and group

membership in the European democracies. “Britain After Blair”, Conference sponsored by

the British Politics Group of the American Political Science Association, University of

Chicago. August 29th 2007. [Online] available at: http://fafnir.rose-

hulman.edu/~casey1/BAB-Whiteley.pdf

59

Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P. (1998) Labour's grassroots campaign in 1997. Journal of

Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 8: 1, pp191-207 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13689889808413012

Whitely, P. and Seyd, P. (2002) High-intensity Participation: The Dynamics of Party

Activism in Britain

Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P. (2003) How to win a landslide by really trying: the effects of

local campaigning on voting in the 1997 British general election, Electoral Studies, 22:2

pp301-324 [Online] available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00017-3

Whiteley, P., Stewart, M.C., Sanders, D., and Clarke, H.D. (2005) The Issue Agenda and

Voting in 2005. Parliamentary Affairs 58:4 pp.802-817 [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsi062

Wood, D. and Wood, H. (1996) Vygotsky, Tutoring and Learning. Oxford Review of

Education 22:1 pp.5-16 [Online] available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050800

Yeung, H. (1997) Critical Realism and Realist Research in Human Geography. Progress

in Human Geography. 21:1. pp51-74. [Online] available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913297668207944

Appendix 1 - Interview script

60

Appendix 1 - Interview Schedule for Canvassing Research

Interview Schedule for Canvassing Research

Section A

Ask

1. HELLO, I’M CALLING ROUND TO ASK IF YOU WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TAKE PART IN AN

INTERVIEW ABOUT THE CONTACT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE WITH PEOPLE, FOR A UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH PROJECT. YOU WILL HAVE HAD A LETTER THROUGH ABOUT IT. THE INTERVIEW WILL

TAKE AROUND 15 to 20 MINUTES?

If needing clarification

1a. I POSTED A LETTER THROUGH ABOUT THE RESEARCH [show letter] I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW

QUESTIONS ABOUT CANVASSERS, THE PEOPLE WHO COME ROUND DOOR KNOCKING WHO

MIGHT ASK YOU TO SUPPORT A POLITICAL PARTY, OR IF THERE ARE ISSUES YOU WANT TO RAISE.

I'M A STUDENT AT SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY AND THE RESEARCH IS FOR MY DISSERTATION

PROJECT ABOUT POLITICS AND CANVASSING. EVERYTHING YOU SAY WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL AND

ANY REPORTING OF THE RESULTS WILL BE ANONYMOUS, SO NO-ONE COULD IDENTIFY YOU.

No > thank them for their time

Yes > read out clarification statement above if not already done so

2. I WOULD LIKE TO RECORD THE INTERVIEW, IF YOU DON'T WANT IT RECORDED THEN THAT IS

FINE, DO YOU AGREE TO HAVING THE INTERVIEW RECORDED?

No > thank them for their time

Yes > OK, I'LL START RECORDING

3. THE INTERVIEW SHOULD TAKE AROUND 20 MINUTES BUT YOU CAN STOP AT ANY TIME. IF YOU

DON'T WANT TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THEN THAT IS FINE. FINALLY, IF YOU DECIDE

AT ANY TIME THAT YOU DON'T WANT YOUR INTERVIEW IN THE RESEARCH THEN PLEASE SAY AND

I'LL DELETE THE RECORDING. IS THAT OK?

Pause for response

Appendix 1 - Interview script

61

Section B

1. HAVE YOU HAD PEOPLE COME ROUND TO YOUR HOUSE AND CANVASS ON BEHALF OF A

POLITICAL PARTY?

if no CAN YOU REMEMBER A TIME WHEN SOMEONE FROM A POLITICAL PARTY

HAS KNOCKED ON YOUR DOOR? if no, go to 2

if didn't say when WAS IT LATELY OR SOME TIME AGO?

if didn't say how many ONE OFF, OR REGULARLY?

2. THINKING ABOUT WHEN SOMEONE KNOCKS ON YOUR FRONT DOOR, WHAT IS YOUR

REACTION, WHO DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE? (FOR EXAMPLE WHEN I KNOCKED]

If didn’t say how felt WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH YOUR MIND, WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN

SOMEONE KNOCKS ON THE DOOR YOU'RE NOT EXPECTING

3. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE PERSONALITY OF THE PERSON

DOES IT MATTER IF IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH?

4. [WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE CANVASSING FOR A POLITICAL PARTY, WHAT WAS YOUR

REACTION? / WHAT WOULD YOUR REACTION GENERALLY BE TO SOMEONE CANVASSING ON

BEHALF OF A POLITICAL PARTY?]

DO YOU THINK OF PEOPLE WHO DO STUFF FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, OR

REPRESENTATIVES, AS PEOPLE LIKE YOU? THAT YOU HAVE THINGS IN

COMMON WITH?

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT WHICH POLITICAL PARTY THEY ARE FROM?

5. [WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT? / WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?]

[WERE YOU INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY? / WOULD IT MAKE A

DIFFERENCE WHAT THEY SAID, WHAT ISSUES THEY RAISED?]

DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS?

[DID / WOULD] YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM, OR TELL THEM WHAT YOU

THINK?

[DID/COULD] YOU GET ANYTHING OUT OF TALKING TO A CANVASSER FROM

A POLITICAL PARTY?

IS TALKING TO A CANVASSER PART OF HOW YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION ON

WHO TO VOTE FOR?

6. ARE YOU WORRIED OR UNEASY ABOUT LOCAL OR NATIONAL ISSUES?

IF A CANVASSER CALLED WOULD YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES

7. IS IT A GOOD THING FOR A POLITICAL PARTY TO COME ROUND CANVASSING?

DOES IT DEPEND ON WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

DOES IT DEPEND ON THE PARTY?

Appendix 1 - Interview script

62

IS IT IMPORTANT THAT A POLITICAL PARTY KEEPS IN TOUCH?

[DOES/WOULD] IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF IT WERE IN PERSON OR OVER

THE PHONE

7. DO YOU GO OUT AND VOTE AT EVERY ELECTION, JUST SOME, OR DO YOU NOT VOTE?

DO YOU SUPPORT ONE PARTY, OR ARE YOU MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT ONE PARTY THAN

ANOTHER?

HAS THAT CHANGED OVER TIME OR HAVE YOU ALWAYS DONE THAT?

HAVE YOU CHANGED WHICH PARTY YOU SUPPORT OR TEND TO SUPPORT?

8. HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THE COMING ELECTIONS AT ALL?

DO YOU FEEL YOU KNOW THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE STANDING?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEET THE CANDIDATES FACE TO FACE?

Review questions to ensure topics have been covered

THANKS VERY MUCH, I'M JUST GOING TO ASK A FEW MORE QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU

DON’T HAVE TO GIVE AN ANSWER IF YOU DON’T WANT.

Section C

4. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MORE OR LESS HEALTHY THAN MOST PEOPLE YOU KNOW?

5. DO YOU GET INVOLVED IN LOCAL GROUPS OR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES?

6. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE BETTER OR WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY, THAN MOST PEOPLE ROUND

HERE?

7. DO YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND MOST THINGS ABOUT POLITICS AND POLITICIANS YOU HEAR

OR READ?

8. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BETTER IN THE WORLD? BY VOTING?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME

Appendix 2 - Research audit

63

Appendix 2 - Research audit

Reflections on participant observation

For the first few canvassing days I found that my recall of the canvass appeared to be

very detailed, possibly because this was a new and quite stimulating activity to engage in.

I noticed that my recall of conversations with fellow canvassers after canvassing tended to

be far less than for the canvassing acts themselves, which may have been because such

conversations were more everyday, but may have simply been fatigue.

There were certainly instances where my memory was not sufficient to recall instances

that were of importance. Sometimes I noted that initial reflections were improved as I

worked through memories, where wording or impressions had been dictated more by prior

assumptions and models than what I saw or felt:

"Make a couple of notes on the way to the meeting place. All of these typed

notes, they are estimates, reflections of reflections. Conversations put into

models of previous conversations. Descriptions of people fitted in with

previous descriptions. Schema. Typologies and taxonomies. This data is

not concrete but utterly flawed, yet still, surprising in the amount that comes

to me. Sat here, four hours after leaving for the library, having been

distracted by the internet on a few occasions, hungry, a little cold,

contemplating the journey home, still the memories come, the impressions,

how much am I forgetting, and is it the same things that I forget time and

again?" - Observation, 31st January 2010

"[Another canvasser talks] about not having done canvassing for a while,

that she likes it when she is out there but never looks forwards to

canvassing, 'just the unknowns, who's behind that door', her comments

echo strongly with my own feelings (is that why her comment stuck in my

mind? Is it possible a comment that disagreed with what I think would not

have been noted down?)" - Observation, 14th February 2010

"there are no issues with the area but I sense she is pleased I asked (or did

she actually say thanks for asking)." - Observation, 14th February 2010

Appendix 2 - Research audit

64

Whilst I aimed to note every exchange and impression, what was attended tended

towards where it was felt to be 'important' within the context of the research, or where a

conversation with a canvassee was longer than just a couple of sentences.

Despite these limitations, I felt participant observation was a good way of accessing the

canvassing experience. In typing notes I tried to be complete in my recall, using the

canvassing sheets as a cue to remember all the households visited. However, as the act

of canvassing was becoming everyday and mundane, the length of my recollections

became shorter. I became more familiar with the canvassing processes, more confident in

going to unknown areas, less sensitive to apparent indifference in the initial contact, and

better at steering conversations. For two out of the ten observations I felt that little was

being gained by recording each canvassing act in detail - in retrospect that was not a

decision I was in a position to make. That decision has possibly weakened certain areas

of evidence. Part of the reasoning was the heavy time burden placed by a full recording of

the participant observation when my time for the research was limited and the benefit of

additional observations appeared minimal. These experiences generally indicate my

inexperience at participant observation in terms of preparation, memory skills, and rigour

(Patton 1999).

There was a tension between making audio notes as I was canvassing, which blurred the

canvassing experience but ensured that the experience could be recorded in as much

detail as possible, and recording the canvass after the event. When out canvassing I

noticed in just a couple of instances where thoughts of the research intruded into

canvassing acts, which leant support to my decision to generally leave notes to after the

canvassing period and try and put out of my mind my role as researcher. There were also

occasions where I was concerned about being overhead making notes.

As time went on I relied more on recording notes on the phone. I decided to just make

notes of these notes, rather than fully transcribing, to encourage myself to leave

recordings. Where field notes have been reported, I have gone back and fully transcribed

them to ensure proper analysis.

Accepting the variations in memory and information recalled, another limitation is around

how personal my experiences are. For example, as mentioned in one of the observations

above, there is a certain level of anxiety involved in the act of canvassing, which for me

was quite important in my experience. However, what was quite a central part of my early

canvassing experiences was not shared by some other canvassers at all, and only

partially by others. Personal efficacy, conversational skills, self-discipline, and motivation,

Appendix 2 - Research audit

65

would play a part in the experience of canvassing for the individual. This was not limited to

"personality" issues, but also transient moods and feelings towards people, places, or

acts. What I attended to changed over the weeks, sometimes attending more to social

relations, other times to the physical space of canvassing. Some of this was also directed

by my developing thoughts and reflections, as is common in participant observation

(Patton 1999).

Finally, there are issues around the difference between the role of canvasser and role of

researcher. My reflections will have made a difference to how I approached successive

canvassing days. I frequently felt I was failing in my canvassing role my performance as a

canvasser, but improvements in how I canvassed appeared led by strategies taught by

other canvassers through instruction or observation, rather than any academic effort. As

my research focus was around the genuine experiences of canvassing, I never attempted

to modify my role as canvasser by communicating with canvassees in a way other than

what I would communicate in my role as canvasser. Whilst my motivation was in theory

located around achieving success for the party group, my motivation to succeed in my

research made a difference with attending some of the canvassing sessions:

Felt very sluggish today getting up, willing myself to sleep in and miss canvassing … Catching myself thinking of excuses, thinking of reasons why it was all going wrong and I might as well cuddle up on the sofa with a film. And the weather was nice. If I had not been canvassing as part of my dissertation, it would have been a canvass missed. (Observation 31st January)

There is a general cost to canvassing in the hours that are volunteered to the polity, and a

relationship with the polity that is perhaps partially defined by this volunteering of time,

however as a researcher with other motivations for canvassing, this aspect cannot be

explored through participant observation.

Reflections on interviews

I have carried out one formal interview previously as part of research, these interviews

built upon that experience with further reviews of interview methods. In drafting the

interview schedule, I aimed to work around the schedule to a significant extent, and also

revise the schedule as the interviews progressed.

In a household situation where several members are present, particular members may be

deemed more "appropriate" to hold an interview than others, who are still eligible to vote.

In a household situation the interviewee may not be alone; others may be able to hear

them, which could modify responses given.

Appendix 2 - Research audit

66

In my previous semi-structured interview, one allowing for interaction and conversation, I

noted a tendency to re-interpret the interviewee, sometimes denying their flow with my

own impressions and experiences. Whilst this conversational approach had its

advantages, I was concerned that such an interaction with a member of the public outside

of the polity around issues of the polity might lead to the conversation effectively

becoming a validation of my own ideas. This led me to a less interactive format, where

prompts for more information were more directed towards the goal of eliciting further

information on the topics and less structured around personal conversation.

Despite the aims to allow greater input from the interviewee, I have in several instances

still attempted to rephrase what I perceive respondents to be stating and offering up this

rephrased statement for affirmation or denial, denying the respondent the opportunity to

clearly state in their own words what their perceptions are, and potentially leading the

respondent. In the extract below, myself the interviewer, RJ, is reflecting on interviewee

BD's position as a mother and worker within health to suppose that they gain information

from their day to day activities:

RJ: If there’s something particular that does concern you, do you try and find out more about that or is it er [just within your

BD: Yes I would, yeah]

RJ: day to day life I suppose, with schooling and health, that you find out information through that, [or do you, right

BD: Yeah, I suppose] I would, [yes

RJ: right

BD: So I suppose my, my knowledge is quite tunnel vision because I don’t, know much outside those areas [really

RJ: right], ok

To interpret the interviewee's final response above as validating my supposition would, of

course, be flawed. In any case, I have neglected to pause and solicit whether the

interviewee would have proactively sought other information as I supposed. Note also that

in this extract BD states "Yes I would, yeah" to a question on seeking information. This

response indicates not a relation of experience, but a construction of a hypothetical

attitude. There are several instances in the interviews where interviewees appear to be

relating hypothetical attitudes constructed from related perceptions rather than

experiences. This may reflect how experiences of canvassing are located around the

Appendix 2 - Research audit

67

election period and the ability to access such experiences could be quite confined within a

time period, as evidenced in the following exchange:

RJ: what, what would you want to talk about, <I mean>, would you want to::: listen to what they had to say or would you tell them what you had to ((?))

BD: Erm, I think it’s up to them to er start the discussion, erm::, but if I’d, and from that discussion I would obviously raise any points that I felt I had, erm, which are probably more::, it’s probably more likely to be on a local level I suppose, erm, I don’t kn((ow? Sighs)) such a, seems a long time since the last general election so I can’t actually remember what sort of issues ((laughs)) there there w((as))

The length of time from the last canvassing act, and uncertainty about canvassing in

national elections, was a limitation for the research. I moved away from a strategy of

focussing on specific instances very early in the process, however this was a mistake. A

combination of my reticence in working around the script, and the script itself not explicitly

guiding towards particular experiences, led to general impressions rather than attempt to

gain particular experiences of canvassing:

RJ: So::, have you had people come round to your house and canvass::

BE: Not recently, [no

RJ: (not)] recently, erm, when, when last

BE: Er::m, probably:: last year at about the time of the local elections::

…

RJ: Right, ok, erm, <sort>, <sort of> thinking about, .. if if you can remember then or:: just generally, what’s your reaction to, erm

BE: I don’t have any objections to them

Whilst any memories would have possibly been very flawed, aspects of memory were

quite important in some contexts and even some recall would have been of interest. There

were indications from at least two interviews that much more detail around specific

canvassing acts could have been elicited, and evidence that perceptions of specific

canvassers and canvassing acts did not match overall stated perceptions of canvassing.

There is evidence that I interjected and re-interpreted more where I perceived the

interviewee to be less capable of expressing their views. For example where they

appeared unsure around issues of politics, where their knowledge of English was

relatively poor, or where they were slow in response. Capability with English was mainly

Appendix 2 - Research audit

68

an issue with two interviewees, some of the questions having to be repeated and it being

unclear whether they were always understood. Further clarification should have been

sought in these cases.

There are several points within the conversations with all interviewees where, rather than

shifting to another question on the script, I could have further and usefully explored the

interviewees perceptions, for example in the following exchange there is no exploration of

why the interviewee does not perceive themselves to react any differently dependent on

what issues the canvasser is talking about:

RJ: so does it make (an in(?)), a difference, it makes a difference which party they’re from but does it make a difference, erm, what they’re talking about ... what, what issues their raising or

BC: Erm, no, not really, [no

RJ: ok

Whilst the wider conversation often informed why interviewees had answered as they had,

a greater depth of exploration would have been far better for exploring the boundaries of

how interviewees conceptualised canvassing.

Short vocal noises such as "mm", "um hum", "yeah" and "right" were not used uniformly,

but apparently sometimes changed dependent on a particular context and thus might be

interpreted by the interviewee as a particular bias towards certain statements. This may

be of concern if the interviewee is then led to supply such statements as a fulfilment of

demand from the interviewer. Furthermore, there was considerable variation in the tone of

non-word vocalisations, such that they might indicate agreement, encouragement, or

surprise.

From the above transcriptions it may also be evident that the interviewer's expression of

the questions being asked could have been improved. This was sometimes advantageous

as it left the interviewees to supply their own interpretations, however on other occasions

it led to confusion around what question was being asked, or what the interviewees

answer referred to.

Within the interviews I have tended to rely on the interview schedule to too great an

extent, finding it difficult to offer ad hoc prompts outside of a conversational format. This

led to the interview, apart from some instances, becoming effectively closed. Combined

with this, the script was not properly reviewed as had been planned, to establish if it was

Appendix 2 - Research audit

69

eliciting the information desired in the context of the research project. Instead, just a few

minor amendments were made. On analysis it has become apparent that the script did not

act as a good guide towards gaining in-depth recall of experiences, but most importantly

my own ability to elicit experiences around the script needed to be improved.

The qualitative depth of the interviews appears to have been partly limited by my own

skills as an interviewer, partly limited by the length of time between the canvassing act

and the interview, and partly limited by the nature of the interview script. The analysis will

acknowledge and be confined by these limitations.

Reflections on analysis

There is a theme of contextual effects arising out of preconceptions that interferes with the

analysis process. For example, in transcribing the audio recordings of interviews there

were instances were words were incorrectly transcribed, then revised on the review as it

was clear I had misinterpreted the statement to conform to expectations. In coding, the

interpretation I placed on statements was, whilst guided by the coding frame, evolving

over time as my concept of the coding evolved.

When typing up participant observation, transcribing interviews, and coding, I am not

engulfed in calm logic. I emotionally respond to these prompts of memory. For example, a

particularly long canvassing act, involving a tour of various issues in the neighbourhood of

a householder, prompted the following reflection on typing up:

"as I type this I am conscious of the different nature of this memory, more emotive, exciting, but that seems to disturb my memory. Despite being with her for some time my mental image of her is indistinct." - Observation, 14th February

As mentioned above, such emotions may affect what is attended to, the importance of

dynamics of the situation and the use of evidence. I found canvassing emotional and

stimulating, and disengaging myself from those memories is an aspiration, but not a

possibility. My continuing involvement in the party and the wider context of the elections

also interferes with attempts to place myself at a distance from these experiences.

I aim for openness, but am aware of the potential political value of my utterances within

this dissertation. The possibility, however unlikely, of comments being used out of context

against the party group. A further censor is my own automatic censoring, which does not

necessarily mean a deletion of all aspects that are critical to me as a person, I do a fine

Appendix 2 - Research audit

70

line is self-critique, but rather, aspects of myself that are not open to criticism.

Assumptions and embarrassment, normative judgements and limits on self-expression,

act to blind and bind me to what I am. I have noticed such censoring on a couple of

occasions, but am limited in what I can do as an individual researcher to overcome such

limitations.

In the redrawing of recoding I was aware of retreading the previous coding. As familiar

statements and extracts came up it was a temptation to think "how did I code this last

time". Whilst I was generally happy with my recoding, there may be some argument that a

successive finer grained coding around all the sub-themes that emerged through analysis

would have leant greater weight to the findings, although I believe the themes allowed

evidence to be properly assessed without this. Some of the themes that emerged, for

example the canvasser as advocate, reflected questions to interviewees, and there is a

risk the roles found are in fact reflections of the questions asked. However, the source

material defining roles was sufficiently diverse to suggest they did apply beyond what

might have been constructed from personal perception and prompts within interviews.

Overall reflections

There were flaws within the data production process that reduce the extent to which it can

be described as rigorous. However, the amount of detailed material for both participant

observation and interviews did allow for proper analysis. I was able to devote sufficient

time to this analysis to ensure that the conclusions reached from the data were solidly

supported by the data. I therefore have confidence that the research process as a whole

was sufficiently rigorous.