Positive Versus Reflexive Science: Methodological Grounds for Studying Cycling in

the Urban Context of Zagreb

Damir ŠohResearch AssistantUniversity Center for Croatian StudiesBorongajska cesta 83d10000 Zagrebdsoh@hrstud.hr

Qualitative Transitions: Issues of Methodology in Central and South-East European Sociologies, Rijeka (Croatia), November 19-21, 2010

Every bike ride is structured. We can explore, understand and (if we feel the need) critique these underlying structures to our bike rides.

Dave Horton

Positive versus reflexive science (1/3)

Form of sociological work “Bureaucratic” sociology “Craft” sociology

Model of science Positive Reflexive

Method Survey research method Extended case method

Technique Interviewing Participant observation

Positive versus reflexive science (2/3)Principles (1) Reactivity

(2) Reliability

(3) Replicability

(4) Representativeness

(1) Intervention

(2) Process

(3) Structuration

(4) (Theory) reconstruction*

Execution (1) Stimulus/response

(2) Standardization

(3) Stabilization of conditions

(4) Sample of population

(1) Extension of observer to

participant

(2) Extension of observations

over time and space

(3) Extension from processes to

forces

(4) Extension of theory

Positive versus reflexive science (3/3)

Limitations Context effects:

(1) Interview

(2) Respondent

(3) Field

(4) Situation

Power effects:

(1) Domination

(2) Silencing

(3) Objectification

(4) Normalization

Advantages Procedural objectivity Embedded objectivity

Goal Accurate representation Growth of knowledge

Research question

• What can bicycle riding tell us about structuring forces that define urban space of Zagreb?

– Everyday life experience as a starting point– Focusing on urban change

Urban space as place (1/2)

Three necessary and sufficient features of place:

• Geographic location

• Material form

• Meaningfulness

Urban space as place (2/2)

• Places are doubly constructed: most are built or in some way physically carved out; they are also interpreted, narrated, perceived, felt, understood, and imagined

• In spite of its relatively enduring and imposing materiality, the meaning or value of the same place is labile – flexible in the hands of different people or cultures, malleable over time, and inevitably contested

The case of Zagreb

• Rapid urban change in transitional period (from 1990s onward, especially from the year 2000)

• Hierarchical model of urban planning – a gap between developmental activities and the totality of planned space

• Detachment of public and private investments• Lack of developmental strategy – public space

opened up to who’s intervention and for whom?

Why bicycle riding?

• Cycling as an activity enacts public space and forms contested place(s)

• Development of public space meant for bicycle riding (namely roads, bike tracks and lanes) reflects wider forces of urban development in a specific way

• Cycling tactics as “deviant”:• In a dominant car culture/car-centric society• Concerning paradoxes in traffic regulation

Focusing urban cycling – methodological issues

• Phenomenon informs us about which method to use or vice versa?

• Under-researched phenomenon in Croatia – lack of data

• Number of cyclists and cycling rates– On the rise in developed countries (of Western

Europe), dropping down in developing countries; what about Zagreb?

• Grasping urban change “in motion”/”in action”• Context versus place – tackling meaning(s)• Participant observation• Power effects• Procedural objectivity

Possible venues for further research

• Under-researched tension between cycling as an enforced and as an elective practice

• Law abiding citizens breaking the law…and get caught – “putting things in place”

• Negotiating labels in contested space – loosing or expanding place(s) for cycling (both as an activity and as a culture)

• Cycling as a performative act – embodied understanding of the bicycle