Discussions around social mobility have increasingly gained traction in both political and academic circles in the last two decades. The current, established conceptualisation of social mobility reduces ‘success’ down to individual level of educational achievement, occupational position and income, focusing on the successful few who rise up and move out. For many in working-class communities, this discourse is undesirable or antithetical to everyday life. Drawing upon 13 interviews with 9 families collected as part of an ethnographic study, this article asks, ‘how were social (im)mobility narratives and notions of value constructed by residents of one working-class community?’ Its findings highlight how alternative narratives of social (im)mobility were constructed; emphasising the value of fixity, anchorage, and relationality. Three key techniques were used by participants when constructing social (im)mobility narratives: the born and bred narrative; distancing from education as a route to mobility; and the construction of a distinct working-class discourse of fulfilment. Participants highlighted the value of anchorage to place and kinship, where fulfilment results from finding ontological security. The findings demonstrate that residents of a working-class community constructed alternative social mobility narratives using a relational selfhood model that held local value. This article makes important contributions to the theorisation of social mobility in which it might be understood as a collective rather than individual endeavour, improving entire communities that seek ontological security instead of social class movement and dislocation.

Within qualitative research, much can be learned from the influence of researcher positionality on the research process. Reflecting upon ethnographic fieldwork undertaken for a doctoral study, this paper explores how researcher positionality not only shapes research motivations but also situates the researcher and the ‘researched’, impacting how data is created and interpreted. There is a long history of engaging with positionality in qualitative research, however, oftentimes this engagement is purely descriptive, providing a ‘shopping list’ of characteristics and stating if these are shared or not with participants. It is important for engagement with reflexivity to go beyond providing a ‘shopping list’ of positionality statements to develop deeper discussions about the fluidity of positionality across the research process. Using the previously established concept of ‘kitchen table reflexivity’, I reflect on how talk allows researchers to outline shifts and adaptability in positionality as research progresses. I expand this concept to argue that kitchen table reflexivity can occur in conversations during fieldwork with participants, utilising a range of in/visible tools at the researcher’s disposal. For example, the spaces between fieldwork encounters, the ‘waiting field’, is often where observations and informal discussions with participants take place. Using fieldnotes and interview data, this paper outlines how positionality fluctuates and interweaves with the theoretical, methodological, and analytical approach taken. The paper concludes by restating the importance of meaningful engagement with positionality throughout qualitative research, in order to avoid static and hollow positionality statements.

A lack of basic resources and financial difficulties affect many families and increase risks to children. Social workers’ ability to help is limited by scarce resources, and managers usually control the financial and material help that is available, making it difficult to access directly. This article reports on a mixed methods evaluation of ‘devolved budgets’ (DBs), an intervention where social workers could use up to £10,000 to help families directly and reduce the need for children to enter care. The devolution of decision making to workers was a key feature of the intervention, and many needed encouragement and support to use DBs, exercised caution and spent less than expected. Resources were used to access additional help quickly, though often in circumstances where there was no immediate likelihood of a child entering care. We present a logic model which delineates two pathways through which we theorise DBs to operate: by (1) resources being dedicated to a family’s needs and (2) improved worker–family relationships. By illustrating the erosion of practical support within the social work role, our findings substantiate critiques of managerialism. As a way forward, we argue for greater trust in social workers’ judgement.

The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement.

No abstract