Tag Archives: Public Space

Let’s talk about sex

By Sam Miles, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

How do researchers go about interviewing people about sex and sexualities? To what extent do we – or should we – share our own experiences? And what kind of ‘spaces’ do these highly personal conversations fit into?

The (in)famous male-male dating and hook-up app Grindr recently celebrated its 10th birthday. To mark the anniversary, a whole range of articles have cropped up variously celebrating and lamenting Grindr’s influence across the world (by which I mean literally across the world – it counts nearly 4 million active users across 234 different countries (Grindr, 2019)). What makes this generation of mobile phone matchmakers different from the online platforms that went before them, for example Gaydar, match.com, Yahoo chatrooms? Apps such as Grindr are GPS-enabled, which enables users to ‘rank’ other users of the app by proximity, ensuring that potential matches can be discovered and introduced in real-time across physical space.

Reflecting on Grindr’s first decade, The BBC identifies a ‘rocky relationship’, whilst VICE magazine explores Grindr’s relationship with identity fraud and drug-based ‘chemsex’; meanwhile, Gay Times reports that 56% of Grindr users believe they can find true love on the app. Whatever your opinion on it – and there are many – there is no doubt that this mobile phone matchmaker, along with its competitors Hornet, Scruff & Jack’d, has had a profound impact on gay and bisexual communities. These apps have also opened up new avenues for men seeking sex with men (MSM) who for whatever reason – familial, cultural, or religious – do not identify as gay or bisexual.

The bigger question raised by these recent articles seems to be: how do dating and hook-up apps impact on same-sex and queer relationships today? This question cannot be answered by quantitative usage data alone. After all, we know that high usage does not necessarily mean high popularity. We need to explore peoples’ real life experiences in order to more fully understand the impact of dating and hook-up apps on same-sex and queer relationships.

I decided that the best way to get a detailed understanding of how these apps influence sexual and social behaviours would be to interview users about their experiences online, offline, and in the ‘hybrid’ space bridging the two, where virtual introductions result in real-life encounters. My doctoral research revealed some important findings: (1) that dating and hook-up apps play a significant role in how men now meet other men, especially within wider debates about the ‘death of the gay bar’, and (2) that the relationship between mobile phone dating app users and the people they meet can be awkward, with social cues yet to catch up to the sophistication of the technologies in use.

The sensitive nature of the research topic meant that there was an array of ethical and practical challenges for me to grapple with during my doctoral fieldwork. In my recent Area paper, I reflect on some of these challenges and explore how researchers and participants can work together to create a meaningful space that not only enables data collection, but facilitates honest and valuable conversation.  In this context, my Area paper offers one way (of many out there) in which social science researchers can make a productive, protected space for sensitive interviews. I also consider what the researcher’s responsibility should be for a participant’s safety in this discursive space.

I reflect on how ‘involved’ I should be as a researcher. I’m a person, not a robot, and several decades of feminist research has already explored the strengths and issues bound up in bringing ‘yourself’ into the research field (for example, see Bain & Nash (2006) and Smith (2016)). But the opposite extreme of the objective, positivist robot researcher is the inappropriately involved one, a role which would be both institutionally unethical and personally unacceptable. I therefore identified my own boundaries as well as the participants’s boundaries. The result was a co-constructed discursive space that we worked together to construct, perhaps surprisingly, in totally public venues and in one-off, hour-long interviews rather than more private or longer-term meetings. These were not ‘intimate’ spaces in a traditional sense, but nevertheless the space-within-a-space that we constructed invited app users to speak about highly personal experiences, some for the first time ever.

I also make the case for the using public places for staging sensitive conversations. The assumption that private matters cannot be discussed in public requires a rethink. Public spaces like libraries or cafes enfold within them more private spaces – not just actual booths or nooks, although these can contribute – but I’m thinking here about more conceptual spaces. These are built simply via one-to-one, in-person conversation in a space where a hubbub of background talking, or the hiss of coffee machines brewing, provides a backdrop to conversation that can be very productive.

Finally, when it comes to dating and hook-up apps in particular, I suggest that people are particularly keen to share their views because the social norms of dating app use are so complex and still so poorly understood. For lots of people online dating remains taboo. In this context, the chance to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences when it came to the digitally-introduced, physically-involved relationships these platforms offer may have been liberating.

Love dating apps or hate them (or both), what I hope the article communicates is that we need to talk more with users about the ways in which technologies impact on our personal lives, in order to think about the social codes developing from their use that will inform a whole range of wider contexts.

About the author: Sam Miles is a qualitative social sciences researcher who focuses on young people, sexual and reproductive health (SRH), and technology. Sam is based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

References:

Bain, A., & Nash, C. (2006) Undressing the researcher: Feminism, embodiment and sexuality at a queer bathhouse event. Area, 38, 99–106. https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00663.x

Damshenas, S. (2019) 56% of Grindr users believe they can find love on the app, study finds. Gay Times. Retrieved from: https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/community/119691/56-of-grindr-users-believe-they-can-find-love-on-the-app-study-finds/

Fox, L. (2019) 10 years of Grindr: A rocky relationship. BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47668951

Grindr. (2019) Grindr.com. Retrieved from: https://www.grindr.com/

Miles, S. (2017) Sex in the digital city: location-based dating apps and queer urban life. Gender, Place & Culture, 24, 1595-1610: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1340874?tab=permissions&scroll=top

Miles, S. (2018) Still getting it on online: Thirty years of queer male spaces brokered through digital technologies. Geography Compass. e12407. ISSN 1749-8198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12407

Miles, S. (2019) “I’ve never told anyone this before”: Co‐constructing intimacy in sex and sexualities research. AREA. https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/area.12550

Smith, S. (2016) Intimacy and angst in the field. Gender, Place & Culture, 23, 134–146.

Staples, L. (2019) Grindr Users Talk Highs and Lows After Ten Years of the App. VICE Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59x83d/grindr-users-talks-highs-and-lows-after-ten-years-of-the-app-1

Visibility and Crime: Doing More Than Just Looking

by Jen Turner

By Terry from uk (Clear up day uefa 15 May 2008 manchester) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

A recent BBC report has revealed that, according to Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy, Greater Manchester Police does not investigate 60% of crimes. He said GMP followed a strategy also “adopted” by other forces and recorded crime had halved in 10 years. Data released in July showed that crimes recorded by police in England and Wales fell by 7% in the year to March 2013.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Sir Peter said “We look at every crime when it is reported, whether there is a line of inquiry – it might be around witnesses, house to house, forensic, CCTV, but if there is no reasonable line of inquiry, I don’t think the public would expect us to pursue that”. He added: “That’s a balance between of investigating crime after it has happened and targeting known offenders. Most crime is committed by a relatively small group of persistent offenders.” In April, Tom Winsor, the chief inspector of constabulary for England and Wales, said focusing on would-be offenders, likely victims and potential crime hotspots in future would save taxpayers’ money and keep more people safe. “We look at all crimes to identify patterns of offending and to build the picture of where we need to target police patrols. In many crimes there are no witnesses, no CCTV and no forensic opportunities.” Tony Lloyd, the force’s Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “Let me be clear that I expect, and the chief constable expects, that with all serious crime no effort will be spared to bring the criminals to justice.

These thoughts are particularly interesting if they are considered in relation to a 2011 Geography Compass paper by Ian Cook and Mary Whowell. Their paper recognises that, from studies of ‘panoptic’ CCTV surveillance to accounts of undercover police officers, it is often mooted that visibility and invisibility are central to the policing of public space.  Yet, Cook and Whowell aimed to critically analyse this relationship. Drawing on the practices of a variety of policing providers and regulators, and the work of geographers, criminologists and other social scientists, their paper examines how and why visibility underpins the policing of public space. First, the paper considers the ways in which policing bodies and technologies seek to render themselves selectively visible and invisible in the landscape. Secondly, it explores the ways in which policing agents attempt to make ‘incongruous’ bodies, behaviours and signs variously visible and invisible in public space. The critique of this then calls for a more deeper understanding in two areas: (i) how other senses such as touch, smell and sound are socially constructed as in and out-of-place and ‘policed’ accordingly; and (ii) how the policing of undesirable bodies and practices is not simply about quantitative crime reduction, but conducted through qualitative, embodied performance. It is this point that takes us back to the figures provided by GMP and leads us to question whether police forces across the country should be doing much more than simply ‘looking for’ crime.

books_iconIan R. Cook and Mary Whowell (2011) Visibility and the Policing of Public Space. Geography Compass, 5: 610–622.

60-world2

Greater Manchester Police does not investigate 60% of crimes, BBC News (ONLINE), 5 Sept 2013.

Content Alert: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Volume 37, Issue 4 (October 2012) is Available Online Now

Cover image for Vol. 37 Issue 4

Volume 37, Issue 4 Pages 477– 657, October 2012

The latest issue of Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers is available on Wiley Online Library.

Click past the break for a full list of articles in this issue.

Continue reading

Street art is in the eye of the beholder

Banksy street art 'saved' by public vote in Bristol

Banksy street art 'saved' by public vote in Bristol

William Hasty

Due in large part to the phenomenal success of Banksy, the city of Bristol has become synonymous with a certain kind of public art;  the kind that, as Jon Kay of the BBC puts it in his report, uses the ‘street as it’s canvas’. Graffiti, the report contends, has been elevated to an ‘art-form’ in Bristol, adorning public space disproportionately and, as one might expect, dividing opinion among the city’s residents, with adjectives such as ‘degrading’ and ‘beautiful’ commonly applied to the same piece. In a recent move to democratise the process of deciding which pieces of graffiti are ‘art’, and therefore preserved, and which are mere ‘vandalism’ to be removed, the local council held an online vote to decide whether a Banksy work (pictured above) should be maintained. An overwhelming majority of 93% decided that the graffiti constituted ‘street art’ and should not be removed. A rather more mixed reception to such art is apparent in the short report by the BBC.

Tim Hall, in a recent paper in Geography Compass, argues that geographers must consider the ‘multiple relationships between art and the city… [and]… the various ways in which public art is woven into the lives of cities and their citizens’. Artful Cities is an attempt to understand the ‘various roles that public art has played in the city’, focusing on the ways in which art and audience are entangled in diverse registers of meaning. What is clear from both the BBC’s report on Bristol’s street art and Hall’s paper on public art is that more work needs to be done on understanding the diverse ways in which  people engage with art in their streets.

60% world View the BBC report

60% world Tim Hall (2007) Artful Cities Geography Compass