meaning of a BCCSR brochure in P30 has been inferred. I further cannot account for the use of visual prompts (‘pictures of the neighbourhood’) by the original researchers to facilitate the original interviews and how these may have shaped discussion. There is also a dimension of ethical challenge, is using data which participant’s have not granted me access to in full knowledge of my research project.

Miles (1979: 590) refers to qualitative data as an ‘attractive nuisance’ in its simultaneous richness and the complexity of finding analytical routes. I therefore selected the grounded theory model by Corbin and Strauss for it’s degree of prescription. The use of secondary qualitative data makes a coding based technique desirable so that concepts can be generated directly from the text which was my only source of data. The fairly structured nature of the questioning across different interviews, lacking in follow-up questions meant I considered it not disposed to narrative analysis.

However many criticisms have been waged at grounded theory. Glaser (1992) has written of the selective application of GT methodology into Qualitative Data Analysis research methodology results in a mixed method approach that actually blocks theory. Other criticisms include the ability to conduct complex analysis without comprehension of the pillars of grounded theory (Weitzman 2000; Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge 2004). While reflexivity has been under accounted for in many grounded theory studies, a position which researchers are now seeking to address (Gentles et al, 2014).

The vast majority of sociological projects which take grounded theory approach typically turns up concepts/ substantive theory rather than wider formal theory. To generate formal theory typically requires data collection in contrasting settings. Given the small scale of data set (in not having the corresponding Paris data) I expected and