ccording
to a recent analysis of
Essential Science Indicators
data, Professor Tim Butler’s work has entered the
top 1% in the field
of Social Sciences. Professor Butler’s current record in this
field includes 10 papers cited a total of 140 times to date. At
present, he is the Head of the department of Geography at King’s
College, London. In the interview below, we talk with Professor
Butler about his highly cited work on gentrification. |
Please tell us a little about
your research and educational background.
I studied Sociology at the University of Essex in the late
1960s, graduating in 1971. Then—as now—Essex was a leading place
to study social science, and I became interested in social
class. I went back a few years later on a part-time basis to do
an MA in Social History whilst teaching sociology at the North
East London Polytechnic (subsequently the University of East
London) where I worked from 1974 to 2003.
 |
“I am increasingly interested in the
intersection between class mobility, education, ethnicity, and
international migration and how it is playing out in the current
remaking of much of London.” |
|
|
Like many teaching in the ex-Polytechnics, it took me some
years to become interested in undertaking research as these were
essentially teaching institutions based around passing on
scholarship to students from backgrounds where there was not a
tradition of higher education. Much more time was devoted to
teaching than in traditional universities—and students benefited
from this greater contact time.
A great many of your highly cited papers deal with
gentrification. What interested you in this particular line of
research?
I became interested in gentrification living in Hackney
in the 1970s. This was an area in which it was difficult to
buy houses because the building societies generally "red
lined" it, i.e., they didn’t lend on the housing in what
were seen as unsuitable areas. If they were prepared to
lend, it was with many restrictions such as withholding part
of the loan until essential repairs were undertaken.
I observed, however, that increasing numbers of young
middle-class graduates were choosing to live in the area
rather than more established areas. I began to research this
in the early 1980s by undertaking a Ph.D. at the Geography
Department at the Open University. I was fortunate enough to
be supervised by Professors Chris Hamnett and Doreen Massey,
who were both interested in the processes of industrial and
residential restructuring that were occurring at the time.
Your most-cited paper in our database is the 2001 Urban
Studies article, "Social capital, gentrification and
neighbourhood change in London: a comparison of three south
London neighborhoods" (Butler T and Robson G, 38[12]: 2145-62,
November 2001). Would you please walk our readers through this
paper—what were your goals, what did you find, etc.?
This paper was co-authored (like many others at the time)
with Garry Robson and came out of the Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC)-funded project I had as part of the
Cities Cohesion and Competition program. As part of this
research we investigated six areas of inner London that had
been undergoing gentrification. This paper was written as we
were completing fieldwork and was based on our research in
three south London districts (Telegraph Hill, Brixton, and
Wandsworth) which were all quite different. We were
interested in the way in which social capital was often used
in relation to working-class communities and asked the
question about how it entered into processes of middle-class
community building.
We were also interested in the different ways in which
the concept was used and we contrasted the Coleman/Puttnam
approach with that of Bourdieu, who argued for economic,
cultural, and social conceptions of capital. He saw the
latter as a relationship rather than a stock. We applied
these concepts to our three chosen areas and argued that
different kinds of capital were being deployed in the ways
in which they were being gentrified. For example, much of
the gentrification of Telegraph Hill depended on the
deployment of social capital, and to some extent this
compensated for a relative deficit in economic capital
amongst respondents. In Wandsworth, by contrast, there was a
superfluity, or so it seemed, of financial capital and the
most likely form of deploying social capital was in eating
out!
What are the long-term expectations, if any, for the
neighborhoods you have studied—both for the specific area and
for society as a whole?
This is a difficult question to answer, but one of the
most recent papers that I have written with my colleague
Loretta Lees explores some of these questions in relation to
Barnsbury in Islington, where we have both carried out
research over recent years ("Super-gentrification in
Barnsbury, London: globalization and gentrifying global
elites at the neighbourhood level,"
Trans. Inst.
Brit. Geogr. 31[4]: 467-87, December 2006). We argue
that a new form of gentrification has emerged there in
recent years as a result of the rise of super-wealthy
professionals working in law and banking in the city of
London. This has some interesting implications for the way
in which London is developing with the emergence of
super-wealthy areas in which only those working in elite
professions can hope to buy houses or flats. There remain,
of course, large tracts of social housing in such areas and
it is an interesting question about what kinds of relations
develop between the two groups. I am interested in what
happens to gentrified areas as time goes on. I have called
these social relations "tectonic" in so far as the different
groups appear to slide past each other with little, if any,
contact.
If you are free to discuss them, please tell us about your
current projects.
I am currently working on a project on gentrification and
education in East London with Chris Hamnett, and we are
looking at the overarching importance of education to many
middle-class families. Interesting points to emerge from
this research included the increasing importance of the
buy-to-let market in housing and how gentrification is no
longer restricted to the owner-occupied sector. In addition,
much of the competition for housing and school places is now
between sections of the middle class, and in this area
ethnicity is an important consideration. Much work on
gentrification has ignored the question of ethnicity but in
East London the black and minority ethnic groups are rapidly
establishing a middle-class presence. I am increasingly
interested in the intersection between class mobility,
education, ethnicity, and international migration and how it
is playing out in the current remaking of much of London.
Professor Tim Butler
Kings College London
London, United Kingdom
|
Professor Tim Butler's
most-cited paper with 41 cites to date: |
|
Butler T and
Robson G, "Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood
change in London: a comparison of three south London
neighbourhoods," Urban Studies 38(12): 2145-62,
November 2001.
Source:
Essential Science Indicators. |
|
|