Research Results

Research Question:

How do groups, vulnerable to social conflict, social instability and social exclusion,produce sustainable security in public spaces?

A comparison was made between Manchester (with a definable ‘gay village’) and Lancaster(with only virtual gay space).

A comparison was made between 3 different groups previously identified as ‘high risk(lesbians/gay men/ heterosexual women) by crime and victim survey.

A significant feature of this research is that we concentrated on safety NOT violence. Wefound safety to be just as slippery a concept as violence: it was frequently defined not justas avoidance of violence but also about ways of being, such as sexual security.

BackgroundWe were interested in how homophobic violence as a new social problem, pointed toundetected practices of social exclusion. Most prior research in this area has focused onvictim surveys. For instance, during the course of our research 3 new victim surveys werepublished (see website for full review). These contribute to the picture of violence andabuse experienced on an everyday basis by lesbians and gay men. For example the ScottishExecutive, Central Research Unit Report (2000) found that gay men in Edinburgh were 6times more likely to have been victims of violence than for the general male population inScotland. These victim surveys have also documented low levels of reporting violence andharassment and low levels of confidence in the police. Bringing together the victim surveysand hate crime initiatives we wanted to explore the difference space makes to generatingsafety for different groups of people (see ACPO’s (Association of Chief Police Officers)‘A Guide to Identifying and Combating Hate Crime: (2000) which defines homophobicviolence as a form of ‘hate crime’.

We drew on emerging research on ‘oay space’ alongside traditional geographical work on thephvsicalitv of the space and more recent geographical work that explores the way groupsmap out space through psychic processes (e.g. (Sibley 1995), (Hoggett 1992), (Pile 1996).This alerted us to how people have a conf lictual and ambivalent relationship to space, onenot entirely straightforward.

To produce a framework that could incorporate differences we developed analysis based on. research on space, race and violence (Back 1996), (Cohen 1997), (Peake 1993) and debates

on ‘multi-culture’. We also drew on research on oender, violence and space, including studiesof masculinitv and how the performance of respectable femininities was central to theavoidance of violence (e.g. (Stank0 1985), (Stank0 1997)). Previous research from the team(e.g. (Skeggs 1997)) had already alerted us to how heterosexual women use ‘gay space’ toincrease their safety from heterosexual violence. Knowing class was a neglected area of

1

..”

sexuality, safety and violence (see (Moran 2000) we brought it into our analysis of theseother differences.

We also drew on research that pointed to the significance of community AND consumption -in the production of gay space (Glennie and Thrift 1996),(Jacobs 1993; Jacobs 1998),particularly gay male consumption, which has generated critiques of the ‘global gay’ andfocused attention on localities (Altman 1996; Altman 1997; Altman 2001). Anothersignificant aspect identified in space formation was political history. Prior studies haveshown how community dis/oraanisation was significant to the production and sustainabilityof gay space. Central to these global/local debates are reqeneration policies and widerdebates about the significance of the symbolic economy to urban regeneration (Zukin 1987;Zukin 1990). The symbolic representation of the space was seen to be a significant featurein how different groups came to know and use the area and felt an identification (or not)with it.

Criminological work ((Taylor 2000), (Garland 2001), (Sparks and Girling 1999) and feministwork, on violence and criminal justice informed the analysis ((Stank0 1985; Stank0 1988;Stank0 and Curry 1997), (Kelly 1987). Legal scholarship on property and propriety was useto explore how different forms of ownership generated different investments in space(e.g., (IJavies 1994; Davies 1998), (Coombe 1993), (Rose 1991)) (See Property paper enclosedin Appendix 10). The other factor we identified as significant was the emerging ‘risk andresponsibility’ literature (Beck 1992) and (Stank0 1997). which links into debates aboutsexual citizenship ((Bell and Binnie 2000),(Evans 1993). To enable a wider social theory thatdrew together spatial access, movement, investment, ownership and consumption, wedeveloped and modified Bourdieu’s metaphors of social space ((Bourdieu 1979; Bourdieu1985; Bourdieu 1986; Bourdieu 1987; Bourdieu 1989), (Skeggs 1997)).

The spaces of the research/the research of the space

Our two spaces were very different: -

Manchester’s gay Village is an established durable, public, visible gay space in the heart ofManchester. It’s a space that has a high local, national and international profile. Supportedand promoted by the local council it has been widely used as a sign of Manchester’sregeneration and emergence as a major ‘cosmopolitan’ city of the new Europe. It has beenused to lure international investment in the city and to promote tourism. Other cities, suchas Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle have all looked to the gay Village as a model for

city centre development.

Another picture of the area, however, emerges in the Manchester Crime andDisorder Audit(1998). The gay Village forms a part of Central ward (Beat area A3R2); a ‘crime hotspot’with the city’s highest levels of reported assault. The Audit explains:

‘Its vibrant club and bar scene and its large hotels attract many people to the areaand so increases the opportunity for crime. It’s a red light area with prostitutionand drug problems. It is becoming more residential. The population is a mixture of

2

.

affluent and deprived’.

It’s defined as a ‘non-sustainable’ community (i.e. not economically and socially active). Whileneither audit nor the resulting strategy paid particular attention to the gay Village, lesbianand gay policing needs were a part of the review.

Lancaster is very different. It is a small provincial city located on the edge of thepicturesque Lake District. Once the capital of the linoleum industry its economic base is nowthe service’sector, mainly health, education and tourism. Higher education is one of thebiggest employers in the area. During the time of our research Lancaster had only one publicspace identified as ‘gay friendly’. In the summer months this bar was predominantly afamily-tourist bar part of a canal-side business. Otherwise Lancaster only offers irregularevents to lesbians and gays. One is organised as a commercial venture, others are organisedby political/campaigning groups, particularly women. Beyond these events Lancaster’slesbians and gay population are an invisible minority: absent as local citizens; absent in termsof an awareness of their needs; absent in terms of service provision. The first LancasterCrime and Disorder Audit and Strategy made no reference to lesbians and gay men at all.

Objectives:Objective I: To use an interdisc+linary team to develop theoretically informed instgh ts thatwill challenge some of the traditional thinking about homophobic violence in order toinvestigate how safe space is sustained and created

This has been fulfilled. Our first success was the recruitment of research assistants whoadded many new dimensions (criminology, literary theory, health studies, transgenderstudies) to an already diverse research team (sociology, cultural studies, feminist theory,social policy, law, queer theory). Interdisciplinarity worked particularly well in theformation and analysis of data. As we read the material through our different backgroundswe all searched for and found different things. Many complex associations of meaning wouldnot have been established without this process (as can be seen in the range of ourinterdisciplinary publications: see website and output se&on). These interdisciplinary toolssimultaneously thicken the complexity, making the material both more intensive and rich,but also more difficult to unpack.

Objective 2: Togenerate a new body of information about individual experiences of andreactions to violence to the person. To be sensitive to differences between groups. To showhow vulnerable groups produce sustainable public space.

We exceeded our original survey response target of 700 by 200 responses (we have 219responses from Lancaster and 683 from Manchester). As a result our data set is betterthan we originally planned. Our survey provides one of the richest quantitative data sets to

. date on perceptions of safety. (Recent studies in Edinburgh had samples of 300 responses.)It offers some major challenges to the way we understand safety (see Results). We addedan extra focus group for transgender people as a result of our growing awareness of thesexual and gender complexity of constituencies using the Manchester space. This hassubsequently had international significance. (See outputs section).

3

We extended our activities in response to an unexpected and unique research opportunity.Queer us Folk, a highly controversial and popular TV drama series set in Manchester’s gayVillage, was screened during the research. It provided us with an incomparable opportunityto explore the impact of media representations of a particular space upon the users of thatspace (a paper has been produced for future publication).

Another unexpected outcome was the results generated from the heterosexual men in oursurvey (see.Results section).

Objective 3: To produce the UK’s first detailed examination and evaluation of communityand institutionalpractices and policies on safer spaces. Evaluate s@nificance of criminal

s justice initiatives.

We exceeded our original plan, interviewing 55 rather than the original 40 informants. Thiswas a response to our growing awareness of the complexity of the two locations, the starkcontrast between their community and institutional practices and policies, and an awarenessof constant change. Change was particularly apparent with regard to policing. The Citizens’Inquiries illuminate these differences, whilst also pointing to common issues and responses.They offer a valuable insight into individual and groups experiences and responses tocommunity and institutional practices and policies. (See Appendix 8)

Objective 4: To develop research methodologies. To continually modify and feedback ourfindings.

We fulfilled this objective using four main methods as specified in our application. SeeMethods and Output section below. The unexpectedly high quality of our survey dataenabled us to develop a GIS analysis that we had not anticipated.

Objective 5: To contribute to the national and international debate on hate crime.

In addition to participation in a wide range of national and international events we madenumerous contributions to practical and policy initiatives in Lancaster, Brighton, London,Australia. Dr Moran has been advising the Home Office and Metropolitan Police on HateCrime Policy. He visited Sydney Australia to advise and participate in research ontransgender violence. Extra funding, secured from a journal, (The Modern Law Review),enabled us to host an additional international conference on Hate Crime Conference(December 2000).

Methods :. Our timetable can be found in Appendix 1.

The project used a multi-method approach and we practiced constant reflexivity, continuallyfeeding the results gained from one method back into the formulation of questions andissues of other methods.

1. Interviews with key informants. Informants were selected on the basis of their

4

. , 1 . .

- - _ _ - - . - - -

. z

commercial, institutional (local government, police) and community expertise, connectionsand involvement. (21 in Lancaster and 34 in Manchester). (See Appendix 2 & 3). Questionsfocused upon:

-l The historical development and contemporary use of space by lesbians and gay

men.l Current safety issues and practicesl Safety policy development.

2. The Survey provided a census snapshot of the populations using lesbian and gay space.The Manchester survey was conducted on a Friday (lunch time and evening) in February1999 after key informants identified Friday as the ‘most dangerous and heterosexual’ timein the Village. The Lancaster survey was carried out on two evenings (Wednesday and Fridaywhen gay eventswere held) in May 1999. The completion rates in both locations areexceptional: 95% Lancaster and 97% Manchester.

The content and design of the questionnaires drew upon key informant interview data, priorresearch and knowledge, group discussions and a pilot study. (See Appendix 5). As thesurvey took place in entertainment spaces (mainly bars and clubs) at peak times we had tobalance our information needs against the need to design a survey that was: easy and quickto complete; readable and manageable in the dark crowdedspaces; protected from drinkspills; stylish and professional to fit into the aesthetics of the place and to give it dueweight and significance. Planning and preparation included liaison with and briefing barowners, the recruitment of experienced survey volunteers, pre-survey training, clearoperational protocols, a well planned safety policy for volunteers, follow up information onthe project for distribution to interested parties, and the skill and dedication of one of ourResearch Associates (Paul Tyrer) who managed the whole process with military precision.(See website for full story ‘Doing the Village in Military Mode’).

,3. Focus groups. These groups were established after the key informant interviews. Theywere used to explore experiences, perceptions, ideas and policies in relation to the mainthemes of the research. Each group met on 6 separate occasions in both sites, apart fromthe Lancaster heterosexual women’s group that was only able to meet on 5 occasions, plusone transsexual focus group. The agenda developed as follows:

weeks 1-2 Experiences of space and safety (Appendix 4 contains personal mapsof danger and safety), issues arising out of key informant data.3-4 Feedback of data from other focus groups and emerging survey data.5 Consolidation of emerging themes as basis for policy papers6 Discussed of policy issues with particular reference to local Crime and

Disorder safety audits and strategies.

Transcripts and research notes of each meeting were analysed prior to the next meeting toclarify points, explore gaps and silences and develop existing and new themes.

4. Citizens’ Inquiries were a unique part of the project’s methodology. In each locality theyfacilitated interaction between our focus group participants and individuals nominated as

5

’ .

key local individuals. The events took place in March (Lancaster) and April (Manchester)2000. Each meeting lasted just over 2 hours.

We drafted a statement of policy issues synthesised from the focus group discussions to becirculated in advance. The invited speakers were asked to address these issues in a shortopening presentation. Following questions and discussion, participants reviewed the policypapers.

Organising and conducting the events raised various challenges. For example in Manchesterthere was clear animosity within the different focus groups with respect to particular keypeople. The two events turned out to be very different. In Manchester the history ofcommunity and local government activism seemed to limit dialogue and give rise toexpressions of frustration. In Lancaster the event had the feel of a new and excitingdeparture generating much enthusiasm and expressions of excitement. (See Appendix 8 forCitizen’s Inquiry Report). The report has been used by both local councils in our locations, inNorthern Ireland and has been discussed with national and international users (see Impactssection).

Other Methods:1. Local knowledge.2. Participant observation at each site.

3. Informal contacts.4. National Networking e.g. Against Homophobia, ‘Keep the Streets Safe Campaign’.5. Using and locating prior research on local sites.6. Representational analysis. e.g. Queer OS Folk, Magazine and Tourist information listings.7. GIS (Geographical Information Systems).8. Literary, Biographical & Internet Searches

Analysis of results by GIS (Geographical Information’Systems) and SPSS (survey) andNUDIST (interview and focus group data).

Ethics and SafetySeveral issues arose:

. ‘Privacy’ of research participants, particularly survey respondents (via postcodedata).

l Some research participants wanted to be able to demonstrate participation; theywant their own voice and agency, We offered our respondents the choice ofanonymity.

. A policy and best practice was devised to protect the researchers.l Safety was a paramount concern in the design and actualisation of the survey.

Snapshot of Key Results:

1. Space makes a difference to experiences of safety:Experiences of safety are different in the two spaces of our study. Our survey suggeststhat:

6

l In Manchester gay men worry about safety in the Village more than any other group.They also seem to worry much more than lesbians. However, nearly all our gay malerespondents feel safe in Lancaster town centre. Lancaster lesbians report similarfeelings of safety.

l In Manchester lesbians in the gay Village are more likely to worry about their safetythan heterosexual women are about theirs. Yet in Lancaster there is no significantdifference between how lesbians and heterosexual women feel unsafe using thetown centre..

l In Lancaster heterosexual men worry much more about safety than Lancasterlesbians and gay men. Yet in Manchester almost all heterosexuals feel safe in theVillage. v

Further interrogation of our data helps to explain these differences:

2.The management of safetyThe management of safety is different in our two research spaces. In Lancaster ourresearch participants develop safety strategies because of their prior experience ofviolence. This is in direct contrast to our Manchester respondents who avoid spaces becauseof perceptions of fear and danaer, not because they have any experience of violence inthese places.

In Manchester it is specific people who occupy the space that come to be identified as themain threat, especially ‘heterosexuals’ who have emerged from our Manchester data as adistinct category of ‘danger’. This is not the case in Lancaster.

One reason for this difference, we suggest, is due to the widespread campaign before andduring the research in the Village about ‘heterosexual invasion’ (see later) in gay andnational press, whereby perceptions of potential threat and danger are attached to aparticular group. This was reinforced by a series of high’profile campaigns (Police,Community Campaigning and Hate Crime) focusing on safety. Manchester respondentsseemed particularly well versed in the language of danger and safety. More research isneeded to explore the connection between these campaigns and levels of concern aboutsafety.

However, it is not just heterosexuals that signal danger, in Manchester perceptions ofdanger are also attached to specific places. Our Manchester respondents had highlydeveloped repertoires of place-danger, registering the bus station, the canal and specificbars as the most dangerous. Routes within the space were carefully mapped (see Appendix4). Again, this was in contrast to Lancaster where worries about safety showed littlevariation. When we fed the data on high perceptions of safety back to our Lancaster lesbianfocus group they expressed surprise and disbelief. They offered alternative explanations:

Theythoughtthatl Perceptions of safety indicated peoples’ skill at managing safety.

7

. -.. .~, ..,.,

l Invisibility in Lancaster feeds perceptions of safety whereas in Manchester thevisibility of the gay Village marks gayness more directly, and hence makes one more likely tobe recognised. The occupation of gay space usually incites a reading of the person aspotentially gay.

Our findings suggest that users of gay space have very different perceptions and ways ofmanaging safety. They also challenge the assumptions about the role of commercial gayspace in providing spaces of safety, a haven from heterosexual violence. Rather it seems toincrease the perception and fear of danger, as if constantly under threat.

This becomes more evident when we see that the most frequent users of the Village,: gaymen (37% of our survey respondents) worry most about. This was reinforced by the findingthat those who live in closest. proximity to the village also find it most unsafe. Socampaigning, knowledge, fam,iliarity and proximity are all significant features in themanagement of safety.

This became more apparent when we examined the debates.on ‘responsible citizenship’.

3: Responsible citizenship beyond risk

Our focus group data suggests that:l Lesbians and gay men have always taken major responsibility for their own safety

and security.l Police advice on ‘safety’, tells them what they have already put into effect.l Being safe can also be oppressive. It can enforce respectability.l When being safe forces them to act as if invisible (e.g. the necessity of passing)

this reinforces lesbian and gay experiences of social injustice.l Attempts by lesbians and gay men to get more involved in local safety initiatives,

such as neighborhood watch schemes, have met with hostility.l Safety policies focus too much on risk avoidance, individualizing danger.l Some people take pleasure in risk. This can be both temporal and spatial (specific

times and spaces).l Notions of responsible citizenship are premised on a ‘rational action’ model; a rarity

in most people’s constitution of contradictory selves.

When we analysed how our groups made political claims on space there was only one strategy‘becoming visible’ that challenged risk avoidance discourse. All other claims were part of thediscourse of responsible citizenship, e.g. assimilation, toleration, victim identity. Thissuggests a shift from queer politics ‘we’re here, we’re queer, so get used to it’, to models ofrespectable and responsible citizenship.

We pushed this issue with our focus groups. They made us think about how differentownership claims are made upon gay space. For instance, comments like ‘it’s our space’, ‘ourprivate space’ and ‘it’s gay space for gay people’, are based upon ideas of property, exclusivepossession and the control of the essential characteristics of the place. We noticed thatthey had a literal and metaphorical significance

l At a literal level the appear in the context of the ownership of land, buildings,

8

’ .

businessl At the level of metaphor they create symbolic relations to space, place and location.

(see Appendix 10 for Property paper).

How people invest in space, however, depends upon the conditions that are available to them.Feeling comfortable, generating sexual security in space was central to this.

4: Comfort and community: challenging ways of thinking about safety

We found that ‘comfort’ not safety dominated our focus group discussions of responses toviolence and the threat of violence. When we tried to unpack this we found that:l Feeling uncomfortable is to feel threatened and in dangerl Loss of comfort threatens a sense of belonging and being, of being able to occupy thespace. e

Comfort challenges traditional thinking about safety:l Comfort is a key feature of safety.l responses to danger cannot be reduced questions of safety.l Comfort refers to wider experiences of danger and insecurity than from physicalviolence. It is about who one can be when in public.l Comfort is a key to understanding safety in all spaces ,(See Moran, 2001).

Comfort is also a key aspect of community according to our focus group data:l Community gives you a sense of belonging, of ‘being yourself’, it is therefore akey factor in experiences of security and safety.

But our data challenges traditional perceptions about the experiences of community:

l Experiences of safety and danger are produced through multiple communities, notmembership of a single community.

l Each community provides experiences of both safety and danger.. People emphasise either safety or danger. This enables them to manage the ambivalence

of each community.l Community as a positive experience seems to be a strategic experience; it emerges in

particular contexts at particular times.l Communities of purity, communities of exclusion: A repeated theme was problem of

‘heterosexuals’ and the solution of exclusion. In an extreme form this was a morepervasive perception of the nature of community as a purified space. Our data addsempirical support to scholars of culture who have documented the importance of purityas an organising principle of social order. (See Appendix 10 for Property paper).

.

Our findings on comfort and community raise particular challenges for hate crime initiativesand policing:

5: Comfort and Policingl If people experience danger to be a loss of comfort this is likely to be beyond the focusof criminal justice (can you imagine comfort laws?).

9

.-

l Policing initiatives that focus upon violence and safety will fail to meet expectations ifperceptions of fear and danger are informed by ‘comfort’.l The police use of the phrase ‘community safety’ refers to danger only as threat ofphysical vio-lence.l Comfort challenges the usefulness of narrow definitions of the phrase ‘homophobicviolence’.

Comfort emerged as even more signif icant when understanding inclusions and exclusionsfrom gay space.

6. Safe HavensWe knew from prior research that heterosexual women used gay space. Now, we have amore comprehensive picture of their reasons for doing so and these reasons are not justbased on safety. They also include:

. comfort; to be in a friendly space; to find comfort in diversityl avoidance of unremitting masculinity (of all classes).l pleasure (the hedonism and dressing up is particularly suitable for working class

women). This involves ‘having a laugh’, i.e. , behaving with little restraint and lookingat gay men’s bodies without fear of reproach and being in an aesthetically pleasing

gentrified area on the canal.l Friendship with gay men and lesbians. In our research a clear division emerged

between good and bad heterosexuals, i.e., those with in the space with friends andthose not.

l Identity experimentation.l to be sexual without compromising respectability. consumption: to try the ‘new’ spaces in the consumer desire for the most recent. sex work

However, their presence created problems for other groups, particularly lesbians (see ’Skeggs, 1999, 2001).

We had been told by our key informants that heterosexual men followed heterosexualwomen into the gay space, but again the picture appears to be more complicated.Gay space appears to be a haven for heterosexual men. They too, were there for avariety of reasons. For instance, Lancaster seems to be place where heterosexual men havehigher experiences of violence and lower perceptions of safety. This seems to haveparticular impact upon them. Gay friendly space offers a haven from that violence. This isan unexpected finding, which calls for further research.

However, a haven for some involves exclusions for others:

7: Exclusions.When groups, owners, users and our respondents were trying to outline how they would feelcomfortable, safe and free from perceptions of danger and violence they pointed to a rangeof exclusions. Exclusions of groups were mainly generated through different forms ofboundary errection. This took obvious forms such as door policies and bouncers, but was also

10

forged through generating ‘discomfort’.

Boundaries were also used to include and consolidate sexual identity. So the reiteratedtheme of ‘heterosexual invasion’ served to: generate fear and anxiety, identify strangers,and consolidate a need for a ‘safe space’. This generated a senses of in and out communities.

Yet, far from being fixed and settled, located at the edge, boundaries, as a key informantfrom Manchester explained ’, . ..tend to be all over.’ Gay men in Manchester who had beenkeen advocates of exclusion also pointed out:

l Exclusion was impossible to achievel Nor was it always a desirable objective, as practices of exclusion imposed

hierarchies based upon sex, gender, race, ethnicity, age.-0 Exclusion created new outsiders and was likely to sustain existing fears and

promote new anxieties and fears.

However, one significant exclusion was based on social class. Threats to comfort were oftenmade through the presence of working-class people in the space. At first this was difficultto detect as class was rarely expressed directly. However, we detected that it was beingspoken about through:

l Geographical reference: estates or areas wereseen as a signifier of working-class space and culture. In Manchester we found that ‘Scallies’ were identified ascoming from Wythenshaw, Salford and Liverpool. In Lancaster it was namedestates which were identified as working class.

l Either ‘lad’, ‘scallie’ or, ‘disco dollies’, or derogatory terms which immediatelyconnote class based practices.

l Or through appearance: tracksuits, pineapple hair, mullets, sports names.

One particular example that was continually cited was the threat to comfort, community,ownership and investment by ‘hen parties’. These groups of women made a major impact onthe space, disrupting all claims that had been made on the space. More often than not it wastheir appearance = class, their noise, their excessive femininity and their heterosexualitythat threatened the safety of the space, i.e., not through physical violence, but through theability to ‘be oneself’.

Another major exclusion was on the grounds of race. Both Lancaster and Manchester wereperceived to be ‘white’ spaces. On both counts this is significant because of the high levelsof racial attacks on the ‘Rylands Estate’, and because Manchester has a long history of Blackpopulations. The Village excluded on the basis of people-presence (all white), directboundaries (door policies) etc, and through learnt risk-avoidance and self-policing. Theequation of gay with white was a normalization repeated throughout the research findings.

Also, more generally reference was often made to ‘not my sort of person’ or ‘my sort of bar’.We interrogated this further in the focus groups to identify the defining features. Weopted for using Bourdieu’s analysis of taste cultures as a way of understanding how classdifferences were being produced and read (see (Skeggs 1998; Skeggs 2000; Skeggs 2001)).

11

L

’ . .

So we found that the presence of gay space does not necessarily produce safety or evenfeelings of safety. It may in fact have the opposite effect, generating awareness andinvestments that mean more is at stake in its occupation. We feel we have only toughed thesurface and that the issue so far raised should have an impact on future planning andpolicing of gay space in an attempt to negate the threat of homophobic violence on everydaylives.

Activities (see website for full details):

Keynote papers based upon the research have been given byBev Skeggs at:Leisure Studies Annual Conference: Gender and Sexuality 0 Leeds 1998;Australian Association for Research in Education @ Adelaide, 1,998: Cultural Studies ofAustralia Conference 0 Adelaide 1998;Annual Women’s Studies Network Conference 0 Warwick University 1999.Leslie Moran at:American Law and Society Conference @ Chicago 1999.

Conference papers based upon the research have been given at a wide range ofinternational and national conferences in Australia, Finland, Mexico, USA, and the UK(Coventry, Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Salford,Wolverhampton.

National user groups who have been given support and research data from the team:Greater Manchester Police AuthorityHealthy Gay ManchesterThe Village CharityManchester Lesbian and Gay Policing InitiativeSouth Manchester Lesbian GroupManchester City CouncilLesbian and Gay Equality ConferencePreston Policing InitiativeNorthern Support Group (Lesbian and Gay foster and adoptive parents)42nd StreetChorley Youth and Community Services Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual YouthGroupManchester Mardi GrasManchester City Centre Residents ForumLancaster Health Promotion ServiceLancaster Police ForceLancaster City Counci INo 6 Cafe Group, LancasterCumbria ConstabularySkelmersdale Police StationEssex Police Force

12

International User Groups:Sydney, Australia, Transgender CentreWild Women (Europe)

A significant proportion of our 53 key informants are also potentialresearch users (as shown in the Citizen’s Inquiry reports).

Immediate Impacts:l Consultancy on the development of a new Community Safety Unit strategy in Brightondealing with Domestic Violence, Racial violence and homophobic incidents. (Home Office :Targeted Policing Consultancy. 2000)

l Research on Violence against transgender people in Sydney Australia (July 2000). *

l Seminar on Criminal Justice, Ellen Gee Foundation Conference Dee 2000.

l Leslie Moran is a member of the Advisory group, AG of .the Metropolitan Police andGALOP management committee.

l In the wake of the Citizen’s Inquiry Lancaster City Council have provided training forstaff on lesbian and gay issues. The are planning to apply for a lesbian and gay charter markof good service provision.

l Dermot Feenan, University of Ulster. Citizen’s Inquiry Reports have been used inresearch undertaken in Northern Ireland on behalf of the NI Human Rights Commission intoLGBT issues.

l Karen Corteen: did consultancy project with lesbians in Lancaster. The project wasaccountable to ACPO Race and Community Relations Committee Lesbian, Gay and BisexualWorking Group and presented findings fo police officers at Hutton Police Headquarters.She also presented the research to the WILD study grouping in Zuelpich, Germany.

Future research

Future research avenues emerging from the research in need of further exploration are:l Develop an analysis of our extensive postcode data to explore links between

social factors, safety and geographical spread in Lancaster and Manchester.l To undertake comparative research in those locations promoting gay Village

planning initiatives, e.g. Newcastle and Leeds.l To examine the relationship between safety skills and perceptions of safety.l To examine the impact of safety literature and safety campaigns on

perceptions of safety.l To examine how heterosexual men use gay space as a haven from

heterosexuality.l To examine concepts of home and location. A sense of belonging and identity

seems to be a mobile concept rather than physically located.

13

.P i

l Further research needs to be done to examine the importance of ideas ofcomfort in police hate crime initiatives.

l To develop a more detailed analysis of the impact of sexuality uponexperiences and perceptions of fear of violence: examine impact upon thenature and form of risk; explore differences in the symbolic aspects offear; pursue a further analysis of the significance of space upon thecomposition of fear.

l To examine the impact of experiences of violence and individual safety

management upon attitudes to policing provision.l To undertake a comparable study focusing upon experiences of violence and

safety in private space; home, neighborhood and work place.l To further develop an analysis of the management of the ambivalence

(safety and danger) of space.l To compare with other commercial gay spaces (e.g. Oxford St, Sydney and

Castro, San Francisco) to see if the globalisation of gay culture producessimilar safety effects elsewhere.

l To interrogate the centrality of comfort to the production of class divisions.Why is it that those who most threatening to comfort are always perceivedto be working-class?

Bibliography:Altman, D. (1996). “Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalisation of Gay Identities.”Social Text 48: 77-94.Altman, D. (1997). “Global Gaze/Global Gays.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 3:417-36.Altman, D. (2001). Global Sex. Chicago, Chicago University Press.Back, L. (1996). “New Ethnicities and Urban Culture: Racism and Multi-Culture in YoungLives.” .Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, Sage.Bell, D. and J. Binnie (2000). Sexual Citizenship. Cambridge, Polity.Bourdieu, P. (1979). “Symbolic Power.” Critique of Anthropoloqy 4: 77-85.Bourdieu, P. (1985). “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups.” Theory and Society 14:723-44.Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judsement of Taste. London,Routledge.Bourdieu, P. (1987). “What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existenceof Groups.” Berkeley Journal of Socioloqy: 1-17.Bourdieu, P. (1989). “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Socioloqical Theory 7: 14-25.Cohen, P. (1997). Out of the melting Pot into the Fire Next Time: Imagining the East End asCity, Body,Text. Imaqininq Cities: Scripts, Sisns, Memory. 5. Westwood and J. Williams.London, Routledge: 73-86.Coombe, R. (1993). “Tactics of Appropriation and the Politics of Recognition in Late ModernDemocracies.” Political Theory 21: 411-33.Davies, M. (1994). “Feminist Appropriations: Law, Property and Personality.” Social and LectalStudies 3: 365-391.

14

Davies, M. (1998). “The Proper: Discourses of Purity.” Law and Critique IX (147-173).Evans, D. (1993). Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. London,Routledge.Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society.Oxford, Oxford University Press.Glennie, P. and N. T. Thrift (1996). “Consumers, Identities and Consumption Spaces in EarlyModern England.” Environment and Planninq A 28: 25-46.Hoggett, P. (1992). “A Place for Experience: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Boundary,Identity and Culture.” Environment and Plannina: Society and Space 10: 345-356.Jacobs, J. (1993). “The City Unbound: Qualitative Approaches to the City.” Urban Studies30(4/5): 827-848.Jacobs, J. M. (1998). Staging Difference: Aestheticization and the Politics of Difference inContemporary Cities. Cities of Difference. R. Fincher and J. M. Jacobs. London and NewYork, Guilford: 252-278.Kelly, L. (1987). The Continuum of Sexual Violence. Women, Violence and Social Control. J.Hanmer and M. Maynard. Basingstoke, Macmillan.Moran, L. (2000). Homophobic Violence: The Hidden Injuries of Class. Cultural Studies andthe Workinq Class: Subiect to Chanqe. S. Munt. London, Cassell: 206-219.Peake, L. (1993). “‘Race’ and Sexuality: Challenging the Patriarchal Structuring of. UrbanSocial Space.” Environment and Plannina D: Society and Space 11: 415-432.Pile, S. (1996). The Body in the City: Psychoanalysis, Space and Subiectivitv. London,Routledge.Rose, C. (1991). Property as wealth, property as propriety. Nomos ; Compensatory Justice.J. Chapman. New York, New York University Press. 33: 223 - 247.Sibley, D. (1995). Geoqraphies of Exclusion. London, Routledge.Skeggs, 8. (1997). Formations of Class and Gender: Becominq Respectable, London, Sage.Skeggs, B. (1998). “Matter out of Place: Visibility and Sexualities in Leisure Spaces.” LeisureStudies 18(3): 213-233.Skeggs, 8. (2000). The Appearance of Class: Challenges in Gay Space. Cultural Studies andthe Workinq Class: Subiect to Chanoe. S. Munt. London, Cassells: 129-151.Skeggs, B. (2001). “The Toilet Paper: Femininity, class and mis-recognition.” Women’sStudies International Forum.Sparks, R. and E. Girling (1999). Crime and Social Chancre in Middle Enqland. London,Routledge.Stanko, B. (1997). “Safety Talk: Conceptualising Women’s Risk Assessment as a ‘Technologyof the Self I.” Theoretical Criminolosv l(4): 479-499.Stanko, E. (1985). Intimate Intrusions: Women’s Experience of Male Violence. London,Unwin Hyman.Stanko, E. (1988). Fear of Crime and the Myth of the Safe Home: A Feminist Critique ofCriminology. Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse. K. Yllo and M. Bograd. London, Sage.Stanko, E. and P. Curry (1997). “Homphobic Violence and the Self ‘At Risk’: Interrogating

’ the Boundaries.” Social and Leqal Studies 6(4): 513-532.Taylor, I. (2000). Crime in Context. Cambridge, Polity.Zukin, S. (1987). “Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban core.” Annual Review ofSocioloqy 13: 129-147.Zukin, 5. (1990). “Socio-Spatial Prototypes of a New Organisation of Consumption: The Role

15

of Real Cultural Capital.” Socioloqy 24: 37-56.

.

16

G _-- 1p

, , . . 1,._.__i

. _ .,-. . “...“_...h _,._,..._ I