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.