If the Shoe Fits: Footwear, Identity and Transition
Report: Advisory Board Meeting
17th October 2011
Present: Fiona Candy, Rachel Dilley, Caroline Evans, Jenny Hockey, Maria McClean, Victoria Robinson, Alex Sherlock, Efrat Tseëlon, Wesley Vernon, Kath Woodward.
Apologies: Giorgio Riello, Sophie Woodward, Caroline Knowles, Gillian Rose, Rebecca Shawcross.
1. Conferences, Symposia and Training Events Attended (Jenny Hockey)
Methods and Analysis
*presentation given or proposed
· Timescapes (secondary analysis of data and longitudinal studies), University of Leeds, 15th November 2010 (RD)
· Managing and Sharing Data, University of Leeds, 16th November 2010 (RD, AS)
· Methods in Dialogue: Researching Mobilities, University of Manchester, 9th March 2011 (RD)
· Sensory Ethnography Workshop, Loughborough University, 18th May 2011 (AS)
· * 'Exploring the (Re)production and Disruption of Gendered Subjectivities Using Mobile Video Methods with Mountain Bikers', Rachel Dilley & Katrina Brown, presented at theCycling and Society Symposium, Glasgow School of Art, 5th September 2011 (RD) – article in progress
· Ethnography, Language and Communication Research Training Workshop, Kings College London, 21st September 2011 (AS)
· Introduction to Narrative Research, Centre for Narrative Research, London 12th September 2011 (RD)
· Second International Visual Methods Conference, Open University, 13-15th September 2011 (RD)
· * ‘Researching Heterosexual Identities’, Manchester Feminist Theory Network Seminar Series, October 2011 (VR).
Dissemination/Impact
· CMS (website – content management system), University of Sheffield, 20th January 2011 (RD, JH, AS)
· Broadcast and Print Media Interview Training, University of Sheffield, 9th June 2011 (RD and JH)
· The Impact Agenda: The Impact of Culture and Cultural Processes, 28th June 2011 (RD)
Shoes and Related Topics and Themes
· Researching Everyday Life, University of Sheffield, 13th January 2011 (RD)
· *’Who do you think you are?’ presented at Sneaker Speakers, Northampton Guildhall, 7th March 2011 (RD, JH) – article in progress
· Shoes Made for Walking, University of Leeds, 5th April 2011 (RD, JH)
· *'Footwear: Transcending the Mind-Body Dualism in Fashion Theory’ presented at Fashion: Exploring Critical Issues Conference at Mansfield College, Oxford, September 2011 (AS) – article produced
· * University of Sheffield, Sociological Studies Postgraduate Conference: Power and Empowerment, 26th May 2011 (AS)
· * ‘If the Shoe Fits: Footwear, Gender and Identity’ Women’s Studies Research Seminar Series, University of York, 16th November 2011 (RD, JH)
· **Fashion Tales, Milan, June 2012 (RD, VR)
· *Leisure Studies Association Annual Conference - Transformations. Leisure, Learning, Living, University of Edinburgh, July 2012 (RD)
Fiona added that there was an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert called The Power of Making
(http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibitions/power-of-making/power-of-making/ ) that may be relevant for the project and Caroline has given us information about the Association of Art Historians' annual conference in March 2012 (abstract submissions due Nov 2011). She is organizing a strand on fashion, vision and visuality http://www.aah.org.uk/annual-conference/2012-conference/academic-sessions-2012/academic-session-29-ou-2012
2. Fashion: Exploring Critical Issues Conference at Mansfield College, Oxford, September 2011 (Alexandra Sherlock)
Alex reported on the 'Fashion: Exploring Critical Issues' conference at Mansfield college, Oxford. The conference was run by the Interdisciplinary.net organisation, chaired byJacque Lynn Foltyn Professor of Sociology at theNational University, California, and Dr Rob Fisher, previously of Westminster College Oxford. There were 70 papers, delivered by academics from around the world. There were no additional guests at the conference whichpromoted an atmosphere of collaboration. Alex's paper 'Footwear: Transcending the Mind-Body Dualism in Fashion Theory' was received well: many delegates subsequently requested copies of the paper. The paper can be accessed though our website: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/iftheshoefits/workinprogress and will appear in an ISBN e-book published by the conference organisers. Alex invited feedback from any advisory board members that might be interested to read it.
Alex also spoke of 4 other papers at the conference that seemed to share common ground with the If the Shoe Fits project, namely Michael Ivy’s study of train surfers, Donna Bevan’s study of hair salons and Danielle Bruggeman’s paper on lingerie, feminism and embodiment: details of which can be found at the interdisciplanry.net website (http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/critical-issues/ethos/fashion/conference-programme-abstracts-and-papers/ ). One potential criticism of the conference was that there appeared to be a division between more traditional historical perspectives and those with a more sociological approach. Alex asked the AB members for ideas as to how we can situate our research so that it can appeal to and engage with an interdisciplinary audience, particularly fashion theorists that come from an art history background.
Caroline suggested there may be fruitful links between history and sociology methodologies particularly in relation to the history of emotions, sensibilities, embodiment and movement. She suggested finding out about Queen Mary’s research centre that is currently working on the historical study of emotions, the senses and sensory culture. Also the work of Pierre Nora on historical memory and the body, Georges Vigarello on the pedagogy of the body, cultural historian Angela Lathamon and the sociologist Paul Connerton (on cultural memory and the body).
Kath raised questions about how Alex’s work brought representation and the materialities of shoes and bodies together, suggesting that it was important to start with the object. Our theorizing needed to be tailored to explaining the object and data surrounding it, particularly since something like footwear is so taken-for-granted.
3. Progress with PhD Project (Alex Sherlock)
Alex presented her PhD progress since the last meeting. The aim of her PhD is to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between representations of shoes - in popular culture, the media, art, folklore, literature and linguistic representations - and embodied experiences of shoes. One common assumption is that the media and shoe producers assert a powerful influence over our choices of shoes and our reasons for buying them; as is assumed to be the case in consumer culture more broadly. However, everyday experiences of shoes are far more complex and demonstrate a dialogue between the public and the personal, structure and agency, mind and body. While the main research project is focusing on people’s everyday experiences of shoes, Alex’s research will focus on participants who work in various roles of a shoe company. She will explore the relationship between production and consumption and how, and in what ways, producers own choices and experiences are related to representations of footwear. Furthermore a comparison between the experiences of the consumer participants of the main research project and her own participants will help to gain a broader and more balanced view of people’s own subjective experiences of representational shoe discourses. As a result of the comments at the last Advisory Board meeting, Alex has narrowed her field of research down to one company and will also include a participant that is involved with the divestment of the shoe. Her research will be conducted in three phases:
Phase One: To conduct a content analysis of representations of shoes on television and in music, film, newspapers and magazines. I will also perform and inventory of shoe related products and merchandise in a major UK department store. This will be to understand common representational themes.
Phase Two: To select nine participants that work in the footwear industry, the participants will be self-selected from the following areas: design, development, buying, manufacture, marketing, retail, consumption, divestment and post-disposal shoe analysis. She proposes to work with each of these individuals for the period of approximately one week in order to gain a contextual understanding of the industry, their roles, and of the participants themselves. Field notes will be taken during this process.
Phase Three: To conduct two video-recorded interviews with each of the participants, one at the participants’ homes and one at work. The interviews will be conducted using the data gathered in phase one, around which the discussion will be based.
Alongside the categories of people involved in different aspects of shoe production, Wesley suggested Alex include shoe analysts who examine shoes after they’ve been worn.
Kath raised issues around the place of the shoe itself in Alex’s work on representation and the notion of a conversation between the two, and between semiotic and phenomenological approaches, was suggested – a sentient response to an image. Here the phenomenological work of Vivian Sobchack on the loss of a limb was cited.
Fiona pointed out the play on representation in Magritte’s work (currently exhibited at the Tate Liverpool), particularly his image of feet that become boots, an artefactual foot. She suggested that his painting ‘this is not a pipe’ could as well be ‘this is not a shoe’.
4. Update on Fieldwork for Main Project (Rachel Dilley)
Focus Groups
Twelve focus groups have been completed in all, working with 80 people from different socio-economic backgrounds and with different relationships to shoes. They were as follows:
1. Pilot
2. Older people (over 65)
3. Generic
4. Young women
5. Women who like shoes
6. Young men
7. Health/foot problems
8. Bereaved
9. Climbers
10. Men who like shoes
11. Parents
12. Muslim women
Most of the focus groups have been thematically coded in NVivo. The project team jointly came up with a coding framework based on us all reading and coding one of the focus groups. Rachel has coded 10 of the 12 focus groups and has been adding new themes as they emerge from the data. Illustrative examples of some of the main themes are as follows:
• Barefoot
- Associations with pleasure and freedom, tactile, sensation of ground/grass beneath feet and elements on the feet.
- Others see as contamination, unprotected foot unsanitary, especially in public places.
- Customs of wearing and not wearing shoes in the house/other people’s houses
- As a result of pain – taking heels/other uncomfortable shoes off at end of night
• Climbing – in-depth knowledge of technical features of different brands, design, production and market
- Trust and confidence in the shoes – most important piece of kit
- Rubber
- Performance/impact on ability
- Type of climbing/type of shoe
- Footwork
- Preparation/rituals/superstition
- Learning to climb/improving/ambition
• Consumerism
- Buying shoes – impulse buying, over consumption, restraint, ethical consumption, bargains, brands, choice
- Fit, technology, function, comfort, durability
- Negotiation and compromise
- Persistence
- Experience of shoe shops
- Where – online, catalogues, charity shops, high street stores
• Emotions
• Feet
- How people feel about their feet and anatomical differences e.g. irregular shapes feet, wide, narrow, big, small, webbed toes.
- Cleanliness
- Vulnerability of the unshod foot
• Health
- Arthritis, bunions, ganglions, plantar fasciitis, deformity, diabetes, hammer toe, foot pain, knee and back pain.
- Verrucas, athletes foot, blisters, hard skin and calluses
- Managing foot problems, podiatrists and other health professionals, treatment
- Acceptance of foot pain in later life as inevitable
- Little thought given to foot health and consequences
• Identity
- The body, movement, biomechanics and kinaesthetics
- Context – so what people are doing and where they are e.g. work, leisure, holiday, religious festivals etc.
- ‘Doing’ fashion – aesthetics, caring or not caring, creativity, ensemble and dress, individuality, recycling of styles (e.g. retro), specificity of style – the detail
- ‘Doing’ shoes – the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ shoes, feeling like me, affect, collecting, projection (of ideas of self/imagined self).
- Interpreting fashion and style – diversification and fragmentation of meanings/associations, different access to knowledge (subcultures, generational, interest or lack of)
- Life course
- Similarity and difference – exclusion, fitting in, standing out, subcultural affiliation, judging others.
- Social locations – class, disability, gender, national identity, occupation, status, respectability, sexualities
• Maintenance – cleaning, repair etc
• Other people’s responses
- Family, friends and wider peer group as well as strangers – laughing, noticing, complimenting, teasing and bullying
• Popular culture
- References to e.g. Ugly Betty, Sex and the City, celebrities and musicians
• Role in interpersonal relationships
- Dispute and conflict
- Different family members, friends and distant relatives – passing on, buying as present, wearing, borrowing
- Sharing taste
• Sensory experience
• Storage
- Places/spaces and display
- Shoes that aren’t worn
- Shoe boxes
• Transitions
- Daily
- Life course
- Seasonal
- Life cycle of the shoe
• Types of footwear
- Purpose – work, school, driving, dancing, golf, football
- Descriptive – boring, fancy, cheap, trusty, sensible
- Type – sandal, trainer, boot, DMs, decking, winkle pickers
In response Kath commented on the emergent classifications of shoes and the difference between these and the categories potentially used by shoe manufacturers. There was discussion of ‘Corp’ shoes in the young women’s focus group, a category they all understood but which had to be explained to us as a reference to a Sheffield nightclub where wet, dirty floors meant that women wore shoes they were prepared to get spoiled. Other points raised included: the way shoes are ‘downgraded’ over time, from best to very casual wear; the notion that for some participants shoes were in some ways animated and could therefore ‘die’; the sharing of shoes, particularly among family members, was common (though some might find this problematically akin to sharing a toothbrush).
Fiona raised the question of what might be distinctive about the way people talk about their shoes, when compared with other possessions – she described her experience of an inherited knife that she personified. Rachel talked about their distinctiveness in terms of affecting the body and how it feels, what it’s capable of. Also the particular issues around consumption – shoes tended to cost more and their fit had to be more exact than clothing. We discussed the effects of shoes, their symbolic or magical and their practical nature (i.e. making the wearer taller). Efrat asked about the thematic questions underpinning the focus group categorizations and we talked about identity and transition as key underpinning interests.
Case Studies
The number of case studies has been reduced from 20 to 15 as we carried out more focus groups than originally anticipated and we are working with each case study participant in a very in-depth way using a ranch of methods. Rachel has conducted 11 of the 15 first interviews to date. Each participant will complete: