Chapter 1
Revisiting âEating Outâ
Understanding 20 years of change in the practice in three English cities
Jessica Paddock, Jennifer Whillans, Alan Wardeand Lydia Martens
Introduction
The original Eating Out project was a study of the consumption of food outside the home, based on extensive original research carried out in England in the 1990s (Warde and Martens, 2000). In 2015, we took what is a rare opportunity in the social sciences to revisit the study, returning to the same three cities â London, Preston and Bristol â to explore changes and continuities in such a practice over time. As will be shown in this chapter, adaptation of the methodology is the result of balancing the requirements of internal validity demanded of repeat studies with re-use of research instruments adapted to the contemporary landscape of market provision and social practice.
A focus upon practices marks a theoretical turn in the sociology of consumption, whereby the kinds of expressions of individual identity play announced by the âcultural turnâ make way for accounts that give less prominence to the agency of social actors, proposing instead that performances of a practice, such as eating, rely more upon automated and practical senses of reasonable action than calculation or deliberation. The unthinking ways in which social actors repeat performances and adjust these according to conditions demanded by various situations lead practice-sympathetic accounts to suggest that people are the carriers of practices, rather than conscious deliberative actors. This âpractice turnâ (Schatzki, 2001; Warde, 2016) marks a new phase in sociological research on consumption, and indeed, on eating (Warde, 2016). Eating is understood to be a highly complex, weakly regulated and routinised activity performed by social actors which in turn create the structures upon which these performances are reproduced. Such a turn to practice brings greater theoretical sophistication to a long tradition of research that has framed food as a lens through which to view other domains of social life (Douglas, 1966), including commensality (Fischler, 2011), gender relations (DeVault, 1991; Martens, 1997), sociability (Jacobs and Scholliers, 2003; Julier, 2013; DĂaz-MĂ©ndez and GarcĂa-Espejo, 2014), social differentiation and taste (Mennell, 1985; Warde, 1997; Johnston and Baumann, 2010; Cappellini, Parsons, and Harman, 2016; Ray, 2016; Paddock, 2016), deprivation and social exclusion (Wills and OâConnell, 2018) and many more. Understood as a practice, eating is brought to bear as an analytic concept in itself. We extend this lens to the practice of dining out: a field relatively understudied in the UK with the exception of Lane (2010, 2018) and Burnettâs (2004) social history of the practice.
To explore changes and continuities in the practice of eating out over time, we take inspiration from the technique of what Burawoy (2003) calls the âfocused revisitâ. This involves revisiting sites studied at an earlier time but is distinguishable from a re-analysis or the updating of previous studies. The purpose of a revisit is to explore and explain variation in what is observed, without being enslaved by the rules that govern âreplicableâ research. By applying the principles of an ethnographic revisit to a mixed method study of âeating outâ and âeating inâ, we were able to re-engage with the topics highlighted by the first visit but bring to it fresh theory and literature to deal with the conceptual priorities of today. In this case, we frame eating out in practice theoretical terms and also address debates in sustainable consumption. To do so, we inevitably open up dialogue between the 1995 and 2015 studies, noting interconnections, developments and departures.
As such, this chapter is mainly methodological in nature. However, we hope that you â the reader â will find it a refreshing change from textbook research methodology, which Glucksmann (2000, p. 1) says focuses âoverwhelmingly on problems, ethics and practicalities of collecting material but offer much less guidance on what to do with itâ. We act upon this provocation by presenting a more dialectical and much messier phase in the research process, a stage that is rarely exposed to external scrutiny. We expose the points âin betweenâ data collection and the polished presentation of findings, which often have the appearance of âfully constituted knowledgeâ. More specifically, this chapter explores the logic of revisiting Eating Out and reflects upon the prospects and challenges afforded by this exciting opportunity. It elucidates a number of the challenges â over which there was much head-scratching and agonising â in conducting a sociological revisit, an opportunity which is rare, thus making methodological waters even more unchartered.
We proceed by outlining Burawoyâs (2003) theory of reflexive ethnography, which we apply to our combinations of interview and survey techniques of data collection. Not presuming reader familiarity with the original project, we begin by outlining the 1995 research design. With this acting as a backdrop, we explain the design of the 2015 revisit, underscoring points of departure, while emphasising challenges encountered in combining two datasets. With all the ingredients measured out, so to speak, we proceed to demonstrate âin betweenâ stages of research by discussing two concrete examples: (1) the meaning of eating out and (2) ethnicity and ethnic style cuisine. These two examples demonstrate the challenge of synthesising material â both qualitative and quantitative, from 1995 and 2015 â that very often did not neatly fit together. We conclude the chapter by returning to Burawoyâs (2003) four principles of reflexivity.
The logic of revisiting
For Burawoy (2003), the focused revisit is epistemologically grounded by principles of reflexive ethnography. This approach, itself inspired by Bourdieusian approaches, seeks to âdisentangle the movements of the external world from the researcherâs own shifting involvement with that same world, all the while recognising that the two are not independentâ (p. 646). Concerns about realism over constructivism â whether the changes we observe in the social world are the result of forces external to the researcher or are the product of how the observer understands and constructs that world through the theoretical lenses they bring to the field â are balanced by reflexive engagement with the interaction of both inevitabilities. Crucially, these principles of reflexivity are as applicable to mixed methods research design as they are to ethnography.
A ârevisitâ involves returning to sites studied at an earlier time but is distinguishable from a re-analysis or the updating of previous studies. That is, rather than controlling the conditions of the research to the extent that we are permitted only to develop debates in line with the theoretical orientation of the prior study, the research design is flexible in so far as the researchers may look backwards to the past as well as at the present with fresh theoretical lenses, should they wish to do so. This has indeed been common practice in anthropology, where ethnographers return to the sites of classic studies â studied by themselves or by others â conducting empirical fieldwork anew and systematically comparing findings to those of their disciplinary ancestors. They even return to their own sites after sufficient time has elapsed, perhaps because events of social, economic, political or cultural significance render a revisit necessary or important.
Revisits, Burawoy (2003) argues, vary in purpose along a continuum of constructivist and realist motivations. The first, of a constructivist form, he calls the ârefutationalâ â where the researcher aims to challenge the claims made by the prior study. The second is concerned with furthering understandings generated by their predecessor, thus âreconstructingâ elements of the prior study. Revisits of a realist kind are incentivised by âempiricistâ and/or âstructuralistâ aims. Whiffs of constructivist concerns may indeed permeate revisits of a realist kind, but Burawoy reminds us that these tend to focus upon external forces at work in transforming societies. In this way, studies guided by âempiricistâ goals may consider the changes and continuities evident between two time periods, while âstructuralistâ revisits may concern themselves with major events, from wars and political upheaval to famines, extreme weather and natural disasters. Such propensity to revisit our own work, and the work of others, Burawoy argues, is relatively uncommon in sociology. Indeed, we, as sociologists, might learn from anthropologistsâ readiness to revisit studies central to their own canon.
Doing so here, we do not reject the findings of the 1995 study but aim to bring (some) new theories to bear upon its findings by revisiting the same places once again, and by turning once more to both the raw data as well as interpretations presented from this work in 1995. We note there are realist concerns to be addressed when accounting for continuities and change between the two periods, including the 2008 financial crisis, subsequent austerity and the rise of the casual dining phenomenon within the restaurant industry. Mintel (2015) notes increase in eating out but reduction in spending across the sector, as âmeal dealsâ, âbuy-one-get-one-freeâ offers and âearly birdâ set menus provide opportunities for many whose beleaguered budgets would otherwise see an end to any superfluous spending. Indeed, Deloitte (2011) reported that the informal dining out sector was set to continue growing, an industry category that contained informal waited service establishments; fast food and take-aways; coffee shops and sandwich bars; retail âgrab and goâsâ such as Spar and M&S Food; pubs; workplace canteens; shopping and leisure centres; and establishments linked to travel such as RoadChef and Upper Crust. Their popularity no doubt bred further market investment in the casual dining restaurant as an ideal type. Foodservice publications point overall to the value for money desired by customers facing cut-backs in spending on leisure activities, but who still wish to find ways to go out and enjoy themselves.
Eating out, albeit in less formal, more inexpensive ways, is understood as one such occasion for âgetting outâ on a budget, and the businesses able to capitalise in such a way were forecast to be the most likely to survive the recession following the 2008 financial crisis. While we take seriously the potential impact of the financial crisis upon the practice of eating, the market has been slowly variegating and expanding over a longer period. Buying meals out in restaurants, hotels and cafes has become increasingly common over the last 40 years in Europe and North America (Cheng et al., 2007; Cabiedes-Miragaya, 2017; DĂaz-MĂ©ndez and GarcĂa-Espejo, 2017; Holm et al., 2016; Kjaernes, 2001; Levenstein, 1988). Recent studies across Europe and the US tell more about up-market restaurants and their oft-times celebrity chefs (Lane, 2011; Leschziner, 2015; Rao Monin and Durand, 2003), but with limited information about customers. We know rather a lot about what is cooked and sold in restaurants and cafes across the globe (Berris and Sutton, 2007; Jacobs and Scholliers, 2003; Ma et al., 2006), there being a special interest in the significance of the spread of commercial enterprises purveying different national, ethnic and regional cuisines and their connection with processes of migration (Berris and Sutton, 2007; Panayi, 2008; Ray, 2016). There is a minor interest in food connoisseurs in Canada (Johnston and Baumann, 2010) and a somewhat dated literature on the more basic experience of eating out in Europe and the US (Finkelstein, 1991; Wood, 1995; Warde and Martens, 2000; Warde, 2016). We understand that the recursive dynamics through which social practices are (re)produced are evident in the interaction of market structures and consumer behaviours. Indeed, separating changing practices from changing external environments is an interpretive issue we are still grappling with, along with internal problems of measurement, external/internal problems of interpretation and shifting meanings of the practice of eating out itself.
In the section that follows, we present the research designs of the 1995 and 2015 studies of Eating Out by way of introducing the data we are working with at present in our ârevisitâ.
The preceding 1995 study
Eating Out was first conducted in 1995 (Warde and Martens, 2000). It was one of 16 projects, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, forming the research programme The Nationâs Diet: The Social Science of Food Choice. At the time, research had been concerned with the nutritional rather than the social aspects of eating out and little was known about eating out as entertainment and as means to display taste, status and distinction. Warde and Martens (2000) conducted one of the first social scientific investigations on the nature and experiences of eating out.
The 1995 research design entailed two phases of data collection. In the first, Martens conducted interviews with 33 interviewees from 30 households, in diverse circumstances, living in Preston and the surrounding area during the autumn of 1994. The sampling was modelled on DeVault (1991) and they sought to speak with âprincipal food providersâ: that is, âanyone, man or woman, who performed a substantial proportion of the feeding work in the householdâ (2000, p. 228). Reflecting the prevailing gender division in domestic work, 28 women and 5 men were interviewed (3 men were interviewed on their own and 2 were present in a joint interview with their partner). Concentration on Preston, a city in Lancashire in northwest England, was opportunistic but there was no reason to think Preston highly unusual. Interviewees were recruited through various organisations including a leisure centre, a community association, a tennis club, an environmental group, a primary school, a trade union branch and a national DIY chain store.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted first because it was thought that in the absence of prior social scientific enquiry it would otherwise be difficult to construct informative questions for a survey instrument. Interviewees were asked questions about aspects of eating at home including descriptions of household routines and distribution of food preparation tasks. Questions about eating out included the intervieweesâ understanding of the term, frequency and reasons for using various places and information details about recent eating out experiences. Preliminary analysis was undertaken on the semi-structured interview data in order to design a questionnaire for the second phase. Thereafter, the interviews were analysed...
