Section introduction
Methods and principles of research in working-class studies
Christie Launius
The four chapters in this section aim to break new intellectual ground in the field of working-class studies by offering metalevel reflections on and insights into the methods used in working-class studies research, as well as the principles that inform and guide that research. In the years since the fieldâs founding in the mid-1990s, there have been several broad, âbig pictureâ discussions of the defining features of working-class studies and what sets the field apart from other fields, but not much explicit attention to questions of research methods or methodologies. Twenty plus years in, the field is poised to move that metalevel discussion forward; this section, then, seeks to suggest an agenda for the field and invite others to offer responses of their own. My introduction to this section offers some observations about methods in working-class studies and the principles that guide them, grounded in what has been written on the subject. It situates these four chapters in the larger context of the field and places them in conversation with one another.
It is my hope that the collective work contained in this section of the Handbook, which does a lot of intellectual âheavy liftingâ, will clear a path forward for working-class studies practitioners, particularly its next generation, to take up some of the following questions, as well as pose new ones: How are researchersâ choices regarding methods guided by the ethos of the field? What method(s) help shed light on working-class lives, experiences, and cultures, and âbridge the gap between the concrete, material world of the majority class, the working class, and the more sequestered scholarly practices of the academy?â (Zandy 1997, 159). Conversely, do some research methods potentially make that work more difficult? What tools and methods do we need in order to gain a better understanding of how class works two decades into the 21st century? What tools do we need as scholars to capture the changing nature of work and capitalism, new types of work and workers, and how people understand their own class position?
In considering these questions, an apt point of comparison comes from the interdisciplinary field of womenâs and gender studies, which has generated a robust literature on epistemology, method, and methodology.1 In womenâs and gender studies, researchers use a variety of methods, both quantitative and qualitative, including survey research, in-depth interviewing, ethnography, focus groups, oral history, and textual analysis. A consistent point in discussions of methods within the field is that the methods themselves are not unique to the field, and not inherently feminist or anti-feminist, but instead are used in particular ways by feminist researchers. As such, exploring questions related to what tools and methods working-class studies practitioners need entails a consideration of how to use them, ethically speaking. For practitioners of working-class studies, choices about research methods and how to use them tend to follow from and be in line with the ethos of the field.
As a knowledge project, perhaps the most basic and key aspect of working-class studies is that it puts the working class at the center. As John Russo and Sherry Linkon assert, âworking-class people and their lives take center stageâ (2005, 11), and the field tries to âmake working-class voices a primary source for the study of working-class lifeâ (2005, 12). Likewise, Janet Zandy states that âThe subjectivity of working people is at the center of working-class studiesâ (1997, 162); working-class people are the subject, not only the object, of study in the field. Overall, a focus on the lived experience of class is at the heart of working-class studies, a feature which helps distinguish it from the way other academic disciplines have and continue to study class, and the working classes more specifically.
The centering of working-class people and their subjectivity is connected to the assertion made by Janet Zandy and Jack Metzgar, among others, that there is a working-class epistemology. Zandy, for example sees working-class studies as an âacademic frame for working-class culture, history, language, stories, bodiesâall forms and expressions of working-class knowledge, an epistemology that is generally excluded from institutional constructions of knowledgeâ (2001, 159). Jack Metzgar sketches out a working-class epistemology that he sees as distinct from the âstandard educated middle-class oneâ, and he somewhat playfully suggests that the differences between the two, in terms of how their respective knowledge claims are presented rhetorically, can be captured by the phrases âby my lightsâ and âstudies have shownâ (2012). Metzgar asserts that both working-class and middle-class epistemologies have limitations when taken alone, but that bringing these two âcontrary, but potentially complementary epistemologiesâ together dialogically can be fruitful and productive (Metzgar 2012). Within the field, this can take several forms. At base, practitioners of working-class studies grasp that working-class epistemology is not granted authority in academic settings, and as such, a key part of the field entails granting and asserting that working-class people are knowers who potentially have valuable insights into and perspectives on their own experiences and the world around them that can and should shape our understanding of social class. Working-class studies scholars, then, intervene in academic discourse by granting the epistemic authority of working-class people and integrating their perspectives into scholarly work, thereby expanding scholarly understanding of the working class, which provides a corrective to previous omissions and/or distortions.
A related way that working-class and middle-class epistemologies are brought into dialogue is by working-class studies practitioners who are themselves class straddlers and who write about their own experiences navigating or toggling between middle-class and working-class epistemological frameworks.2 In her contribution to this section, Sherry Linkon argues that scholarly personal narratives by working-class academics are the signature genre of the field of working-class studies, and that these texts âmake working-class people visible and central, as subjects and storytellers but also as interpreters, not only as objects of studyâ (emphasis added). Authors of these scholarly personal narratives bring together working-class and middle-class epistemological frameworks through metalevel reflections on their own lives and through their discussions of working-class people they know.
Christine J. Walleyâs chapter in this section also picks up on this thread about the interplay between working-class and middle-class epistemologies; her formulation of the contrast is characterized in terms of âstoriesâ and âtheoryâ, and she asks whether stories can âbe the stuff of rigorous scholarly work, and in what ways do they count as evidence and relate to theory?â (p. 65). Walley suggests that one way out of seeing stories and theory as opposites and mutually exclusive is to instead emphasize analysis.
Both Linkon and Walley explore these epistemological issues alongside and in relation to their discussions of methods in the field.
A second defining feature of the field has to do with definitions of class. For many reasons, working-class studies has no single, agreed-upon definition of class; its practitioners embrace âdiverse and even contradictory ideas about how class works, why it matters, and how we can best understand itâ (Russo and Linkon 2005, 10). Linkon and Russo assert that âWhat do we mean by class?â is one of four central questions that shape the field. The field âembraces this question but refuses to provide a simple answerâ (2016, 5). A practitionerâs understanding and definition of class, whether âclass as a category of analysisâ or âclass as a social category and a cultureâ, to use Linkon and Russoâs shorthand, surely shapes their choice of method (2016, 5). More broadly, the willingness to keep the question in play rather than trying to pin down a definitive answer speaks to another aspect of the ethos the field. In this section, Joseph Entinâs chapter explores this terrain, as clearly broadcast by his title, âReconceiving class in contemporary working-class studiesâ. In Linkon and Russoâs formulation, Entin squarely situates himself in the âclass as a category of analysisâ camp, though he shares with Linkon and Russo a desire to eschew âdrawing lines between theoretical approaches and traditionsâ, instead advocating for the adoption of âa willfully creative and promiscuous approach to conceptualizing class formation and class struggleâone that embraces intersectional, post-colonial, and poststructuralist approaches, and a wide range of Marxismsâ (p. 34).
A third defining feature of the field has to do with how class is understood and taken up in relation to other categories of analysis, as alluded to by Entinâs quote above that invokes the framework of intersectionality. From its beginnings, practitioners of working-class studies have defined the field as focusing on the intersections between class and other categories of identity. The assertion of this focus has often operated on a dual level: as a positive description of what the field is and does, and as a corrective to misperceptions of it. As Janet Zandy puts it in âToward Working-Class Studiesâ, âWorking-Class Studies is not white studies; it must be multiculturalâ (1997, 161). Twenty years later, Sara Appel uses the theoretical framework of intersectionality rather than multiculturalism in posing the question, âHow can working-class studies be a form of intersectional studiesâŚ?â (2017, 408). She writes,
In two early pieces, Janet Zandy refers to this as a critical practice of âreciprocal visibilityâ (2001, 250) and an âexpanded relational visionâ (1997, x). A commitment to intersectionality is frequently reflected in practitionersâ choice and use of research methods.
A final core principle of the field is that it has a social justice component; as Russo and Linkon assert, working-class studies is ânot just an academic exerciseâ (2005, 15). Janet Zandy is prescriptive in her assertion that âIf Working-Class Studies becomes merely an object of study, and not a means of struggle, then it would lose purpose. Working-Class Studies is intended to continue the struggle of earlier generations for an economically just society for us allâ (1997, 162). Since its beginnings, the âbig tentâ approach to the field has explicitly included activism and activists outside academia, but as both Russo and Linkon and Zandy make clear, there is also an expectation that the scholarly work produced by its academic practitioners be a type of praxisâthat is, that it support the aim of social justice.
This part of the ethos of the field can be seen in all four chapters in this section, though it is perhaps attended to most explicitly by Jane Van Galen and Christine Walley. In âMediating stories of class borders: First-generation college students, digital storytelling, and social classâ, Van Galen uses the work of Vivienne to discuss four levels of social change that are potential outcomes of her digital storytelling project. She writes about âthe potential of these stories to provoke changeâ (p. 53), starting from the individual level (i.e. how the students are personally changed by the experience of participating in the workshop), then outward to change that occurs from them sharing their stories both with their fellow students and their friends and families, and finally with a public audience, potentially resulting in institutional-level change. While Walley isnât as explicit about overt social justice aims, she writes extensively in her chapter about her commitment to diversifying the audience for her work and further incorporating working-class perspectives into academic conversations and scholarship through her creation of multimedia work in tandem with a variety of collaborators. She writes of making a documentary film as an extension of her monograph, Exit Zero: Family and Class in Postindustrial Chicago (2013), as well as developing an online archive and storytelling site for the Southeast Chicago Historical Museum.
Working-class studies scholars use a variety of methods; practitioners with training and interests in the humanities have focused on finding adequate methods for analyzing and interpreting working-class texts (literature, film, art, photography, etc.), while those in the social sciences have focused, for example on adapting methods for interviewing working-class people and studying working-class communities through ethnography, as well as interviewing and/or surveying people about social class. Historians with interests in studying working-class people, places, and movements have also discussed how best to adapt their fieldâs methods to this area. And across disciplines, those in working-class studies have adapted models of service learning and civic engagement to bridge the divide between their classrooms and the community.
As the above description suggests, most working-class studies practitioners utilize methods that stem from their primary disciplinary training; a much smaller number engage in research that spans disciplines and/or would be considered truly interdisciplinary. Linkon and Russo are among that number; in âBorder crossings: Interdisciplinarity in new working-class studiesâ, Linkon and Russo describe and advocate the use of a method of âcomparative, connective...