The study of gentrification has never really specified a definition in the true sense of the
word; a statement that precisely delimits its nature. Rather, gentrification has been
studied in a way that has resulted in an emergent definition arising which has become
assumed rather than defined in such a way that a criteria for its existence may be
applied. This is cause for concern; the lack of some form of benchmark means that it is
possible to distort the meaning of the word and indeed question whether the word has in
fact any connotative meaning at all! Common elements to be found in the literature
reveal gentrification often to be a male, white, professional, owner occupier and inner
city process. This leads to an emergent definition which guides enquiry to these
processes and not others. It may be argued that the class replacement and displacement
dimension of gentrification has been left in the background while researchers have
examined those processes which most closely match the emergent definition of
gentrification.
By focusing on the nature of the process rather than typical symptoms of the process it is
possible to understand that gentrification may occur as easily in the suburbs or rural
environment as in the inner city, that it could be constituted of black middle classes as
white. What has actually happened is that gentrification has been defined in terms of its
most likely or frequent occurrence leading to a stereotypical theory of the ‘archetypal’
case rather than an understanding of its contingencies and varieties of its manifestation.
Levels of analysis in the study of gentrification
As Williams notes ‘gentrification is a complex and varied process which can be
conceptualised at a number of different levels’ (p65, 1986). Williams argues that the
dominant mode of analysis in the study of gentrification has largely been at an empirical
level which has lacked an appreciation of the processes involved.
Levels of analysis are more clearly demarcated when carrying out research proper, for
example the census has provided a key methodological tool (Galster 1986, Bourne,
1993) for gentrification research in the past. The smallest level of analysis in the British
census is the ED (enumeration district) that consists of only two hundred households but
at this level measurements of social variables such as class (which are ten percent
sample variables) may lead to high levels of inaccuracy due to the preservation of
anonymity. At an electoral ward level significance is stronger yet blunter in its
pinpointing of certain areas as size is much larger and variable. There is therefore an
interaction between levels of analysis and the validity and bias of research.
As an example, one can visualise a situation where the researcher hypothesises a picture
of low levels of gentrification activity while many individual households may be
moving undetected. This is an extreme hypothetical situation but worth bearing in mind,
it may be that contemporary gentrification is made up of a large number of individual
households that remain in obscurity while researchers complacently announce the death
of gentrification. While theory can remain aware of gentrification activity it may be
more difficult to operationalise a definition and provide empirical evidence for such
theories.
As can be seen in the discussion in the first part of the chapter, the definition of
gentrification is made at a fundamental micro level of analysis with specific reference to
an abstract household’s movements. This is not the same as saying that the study of
gentrification may only be carried out at this level, rather, it shows the microfoundations of what may form a much wider phenomenon. It is precisely this
examination of the basis of gentrification that may lead to a better understanding of the
forces at work behind its outward appearance and from which bigger units of analysis
may be built.
Recognising that ‘levels’ of analysis exist is important in structuring accounts and
theories of gentrification. Loretta Lees (1994) has noted that gentrification can be
studied at three distinct levels; nation, city and locality. Lees observed the areas of
property transfer in understanding national differences in gentrification between London
and New York at these different levels. What is particularly interesting about Lees’
work is that it demonstrates the way accounts may differ according to the level at which
analysis is carried out. Focusing on broad aggregated levels such as national data sets for
example may reveal very different and divergent pictures to research that looks at a
micro level. While the revealing of the dynamics and population involved may be better
understood within a locality this does not suggest that all research should be pinned at
this level.
It is clear that wide approaches cannot exist in isolation from an approach which
observes the phenomenon directly. Such levels of analysis and conceptual headings
could be extended and more widely applied in understanding differences and similarities
between other contexts. Problems do exist however in such analysis, Dangschat (1991)
has shown that it is immensely difficult to understand the interrelationships and
directions of causality between different levels of analysis since the interpretation of
those directions may often be open to question.
Levels of analysis may also be culturally bound, for example a regional level may be
more useful in a European context as used by Dangschat but would more likely be seen
as a city level in America or in Britain as used by Lees whose attention is directed
between these latter two countries.
Little consideration in the literature has been given about what scale of gentrification
activity should be considered a defining characteristic; if a middle class couple move in
to a working class home this by definition is a case of gentrification but as a single case
is unlikely either to be considered gentrification as popularly conceived (as a group
phenomenon) or identified through the methodological tools available to us. The area
needed to be able to study gentrification may often be bigger than the area needed to
fulfil the requirements of the definition since, by definition, one instance may count as
an ‘act’ of gentrification while certain research may need larger samples to observe the
phenomenon.
If one defines gentrification in the way offered above it suggests that it may occur at any
level, from a micro to pan-global level at which contingent factors could be vastly
different. Writers have also acknowledged for some time that gentrification by
‘pioneers’ has paved the way for more cautious and investment seeking gentrifiers.
