Researching Local Development Cultures: Using the Qualitative Interview as an Interpretive Lens

References

• Adams, D. 1994. Urban Planning and the Development Process. London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, D., R. Croudace, and S. Tiesdell. 2012. “Exploring the ‘Notional Property Developer’ as a Policy Construct.” Urban Studies 49 (12): 2577–2596. doi: 10.1177/0042098011431283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, D., and S. Tiesdell. 2010. “Planners as Market Actors: Rethinking State-Market Relations in Land and Property.” Planning Theory & Practice 11: 187–207. doi: 10.1080/14649351003759631
   Google Scholar
• Amaratunga, D., D. Baldry, M. Sarshar, and R. Newton. 2002. “Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the Built Environment: Application of ‘Mixed’ Research Approach.” Work Study 51 (1): 17–31. doi: 10.1108/00438020210415488
   Google Scholar
• Ambrose, P. 1986. Whatever Happened to Planning? London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, M. 1998. “Institutions in British Property Research: A Review.” Urban Studies 35 (9): 1501–1517. doi: 10.1080/0042098984259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, M. 1999. “Chasing a Snail: Innovation and Housebuilding Firms’ Strategies.” Housing Studies 14 (1): 9–22. doi: 10.1080/02673039982975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, M. 2002a. “Cultural Explanation of Regional Property Markets: A Critique.” Urban Studies 39 (8): 1453–1469. doi: 10.1080/00420980220142727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, M. 2002b. “The Organisation of Property Development Professions and Practices.” In Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property, edited by S. Guy and J. Henneberry, 115–136. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, M. 2006. Markets & Institutions in Real Estate & Construction. Blackwell: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Beauregard, R. 2002. “New Urbanism: Ambiguous Certainties.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 19 (3): 181–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentley, I. 1999. Urban Transformations: Power, People and Urban Design. Routledge: London.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2005. “The Political Field, the Social Science Field and the Journalistic Field.” In Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by R. Bension and E. Neveu, 29–47. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs, C. 2003. “Interviewing, Power/Knowledge and Social Inequality.” In Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, edited by J. Gubrium and J. Holstein, 495–506. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, G. 2008. “Advocating an Ambivalent Approach to Theorizing the Built Environment.” Building Research & Information 36 (3): 280–289. doi: 10.1080/09613210801928164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coiacetto, E. 2000. “‘Places Shape Place Shapers? Real Estate Developers’ Outlooks Concerning Community, Planning and Development Differ Between Places’.” Planning Practice & Research 15: 353–374. doi: 10.1080/02697450020018790
   Google Scholar
• Cuff, D. 1991. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• D'Arcy, E., and G. Keogh. 2002. “The Market Context of Property Development Activities.” In Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property, edited by S. Guy and J. Henneberry, 19–34. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, H. 2006. The Culture of Building. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desmond, M. 2004. “Methodological Challenges Posed in Studying an Elite in the Field.” Area 36 (3): 262–269. doi: 10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00223.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doak, J., and N. Karadimitriou. 2007. “(Re)development, Complexity and Networks: A Framework for Research.” Urban Studies 44 (2): 209–229. doi: 10.1080/00420980601074953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elwood, S. A., and D. G. Martin. 2000. “Placing Interviews: Locations and Scales of Power in Qualitative Research.” The Professional Geographer 52 (4): 649–657. doi: 10.1111/0033-0124.00253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischler, R. 1995. “Strategy and History in Professional Practice: Planning as World Making.” In Spatial Practices: Critical Explorations in Social/Spatial Theory, edited by H. Ligget and D. Perry, 13–58. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2002. “Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher's Praxis Story.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 353–366. doi: 10.1177/0739456X0202100401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2004. “Phronetic Planning Research: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections.” Planning Theory & Practice 5 (3): 283–306. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000250195
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gann, D. 2001. “Putting Academic Ideas into Practice: Technological Progress and the Absorptive Capacity of Construction Organizations.” Construction Management and Economics 19: 321–330. doi: 10.1080/01446190010020480
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1959. Presentation of Self in Every Day Life. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, D. L. A., and K. Tamminga. 2002. “Large-Scale Traditional Neighbourhood Development and Pre-emptive Ecosystem Planning: The Markham Experiences, 1989–2001.” Journal of Urban Design 7 (2): 321–340. doi: 10.1080/1357480022000039367
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. 2002. “From ‘Sugar Cookies’ to ‘Gingerbread Men’: Conformity in Suburban Design.” Planners Network Bulleting 151: 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. 2006. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greed, C. 2000. “Women in the Construction Professions: Achieving a Critical Mass.” Gender, Work and Organization 7 (3): 181–196. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00106
   Google Scholar
• Gubrium, J., and J. Holstein, eds. 2003. Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, S. 2002. “Developing Interests: Environmental Innovation and the Social Organisation of the Property Business.” In Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property, edited by S. Guy and J. Henneberry, 247–266. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, S., and J. Henneberry. 2000. “Understanding Urban Development Processes: Integrating the Economic and the Social in Property Research.” Urban Studies 37 (13): 2399–2416. doi: 10.1080/00420980020005398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, S., and J. Henneberry. 2002a. “Bridging the Divide? Complementary Perspectives on Property.” Urban Studies 39 (8): 1471–1478. doi: 10.1080/00420980220142736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guy, S., and J. Henneberry, eds. 2002b. Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Haigh, R. 2008. “Chapter 10 Interviews: A Negotiated Partnership.” In Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, edited by A. Knight and L. Ruddock, 51–63. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkesworth, M., and R. Imrie. 2009. “Organisational Change in Systems of Building Regulation and Control: Illustrations from the English Context.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36 (3): 552–567. doi: 10.1068/b34036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1991. “Models of the Development Process: A Review.” Journal of Property Research 8: 219–238. doi: 10.1080/09599919108724039
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1992. “An Institutional Model of the Development Process.” Journal of Property Research 9: 33–44. doi: 10.1080/09599919208724049
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1998. “Regulating Property Development and the Capacity of the Development Industry.” Journal of Property Research 15 (3): 211–227. doi: 10.1080/095999198368374
   Google Scholar
• Henneberry, J., and S. Parris. 2013. “The Embedded Developer: Using Project Ecologies to Analyse Local Property Development Networks.” Town Planning Review 84 (2): 227–250. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2013.13
   Google Scholar
• Jones, E., and T. Pitman. 1982. “Toward a General Theory of Strategic Self-presentation.” In Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 1, edited by J. Suls, 231–262. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, A., and L. Rudduck, eds. 2008. Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L. 2008. “Is a Theory of the Built Environment Needed?” Building Research & Information 36 (3): 211–215. doi: 10.1080/09613210801936530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leary, M. R. 1996. Self-presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behaviour. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leary, M. R., and R. M. Kowalski. 1990. “Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (1): 34–47. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, U. A., and R. Milgrom. 1996. “New (Sub)urbanism: Countersprawl or Repackaging the Product.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 7 (2): 49–64. doi: 10.1080/10455759609358678
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• de Magalhaes, C. 2002. “Global Players and the Re-shaping of Local Property Markets: Global Pressures and Local Reactions.” In Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property, edited by S. Guy and J. Henneberry, 224–246. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Markham, T. 2011. “The Political Phenomenology of War Reporting.” Journalism 12 (5): 567–585. doi: 10.1177/1464884911410016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, E., and K. Ward. 2012. “Assembling Urbanism: Following Policies and ‘Studying Through’ the Sites and Situations of Policy Making.” Environment and Planning A 44 (6): 42–51. doi: 10.1068/a44178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDowell, L. 1998. “Elites in the City of London: Some Methodological Considerations.” Environment and Planning A 30 (12): 2133–2146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed, R. 2006. “The Psychology of Residential Developers: Lessons from Behavioural Economics and Additional Explanations for Satisficing.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 28–37. doi: 10.1177/0739456X05282352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, S. 2010. “‘More Toronto, naturally’ but ‘too strange for Orangeville’: De-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto.” Cities 27: 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, S. 2012. “Re-evaluating ‘public’ and ‘private’ in Local Development Cultures: Converging Vocabularies of Public Good and Market Success in Toronto's New Urbanism.” Town Planning Review 83 (5): 575–595. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2012.35
   Google Scholar
• Moore, S. 2013. “What's Wrong with Best Practice? Questioning the Typification of New Urbanism.” Urban Studies 50 (11): 2371–2387. doi: 10.1177/0042098013478231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orum, A., J. Feagin, and G. Sjorberg, eds. 1991. A Case for the Case Study. London: The University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pieterse, J. N. 2001. “Hybridity, So What? The Anti-hybridity Backlash and the Riddles of Recognition.” Theory, Culture & Society 18: 219–245. doi: 10.1177/026327640101800211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryke, M., and P. Du Gay. 2002. “Property Companies and the Remaking of Markets: Stories from the 1990s.” In Development and Developers: Perspectives on Property, edited by S. Guy and J. Henneberry, 267–284. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
   Google Scholar
• Rabeneck, A. 2008. “A Sketch-Plan for Construction of Built Environment Theory.” Building Research & Information 36 (3): 269–279. doi: 10.1080/09613210801928115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, L. 2000. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 923–948. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, D., R. N. Harris, and C. R. Snyder. 1988. “An Individual Differences Measure of Attributive and Repudiative Tactics of Favourable Self-presentation.” Journal of Social and Cultural Psychology 6 (2): 159–170. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1988.6.2.159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. 1996. Social Practice: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sin, C. 2003. “Interviewing in ‘Place’: The Socio-spatial Construction of Interview Data.” Area 35 (3): 305–312. doi: 10.1111/1475-4762.00179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaburskis, A. 2006. “New Urbanism and Sprawl: A Toronto Case Study.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 25: 233–248. doi: 10.1177/0739456X05278985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thévenot, L. 2007. “The Plurality of Cognitive Formats and Engagements: Moving Between the Familiar and the Public.” European Journal of Social Theory 10 (3): 409–423. doi: 10.1177/1368431007080703
   Google Scholar
• Ward, K. G., and M. Jones. 1999. “Researching Local Elites: Reflexivity, ‘Situatedness’ and Political-Temporal Contingency.” Geoforum 30 (4): 301–312. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00022-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellings, F. 2006. British Housebuilders: History & Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S. J., and P. Morton. 2007. “The Emerging Importance of Feminist Research Paradigms in Built Environment Research.” Structural Survey 25 (5): 408–417. doi: 10.1108/02630800710838446
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S., and R. Reed. 2008. Property Development. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar