Using Narrative Sources from the Mass Observation Archive to Study Everyday Food and Families in Hard Times: Food Practices in England during 1950

Abstract

By using examples from food and domestic life in England during 1950, this paper examines the use of narrative archival sources as a methodological alternative to researching everyday food practices by traditional research methods, such as interviewing. Through the analysis of three diaries written for the Mass Observation Archive, and the everyday food practices expressed in these diaries, we consider the benefits and challenges of using narrative archival diary data to gain insights into food and eating during times of austerity. Before presenting and discussing the cases, we outline some of the challenges of researching food practices as a result of the muted, moral and mundane aspects of such practices. We then describe the study on which this paper is based, including a discussion of our methods and the reasons for using diaries and selecting our cases. Following this, we set the scene for understanding food and eating in 1950s Britain, such as contextual background about rationing during the Second World War, government policy and propaganda of the time. In our analysis of the three diaries, we discuss some of the ways in which the data have enabled us to ‘get at’ and provide insights into habitual food practices.

Revisiting Qualitative Data Reuse

“…Food research is also well represented in qualitative secondary analysis. Knight, Brannen, and O’Connell (2015) studied food and domestic life in England during 1950 by analyzing three diaries written for the Mass Observation Archive. These narrative archival sources offered a methodological alternative to traditional research formats, such as interviews.…”

“…We thought that this information could usefully supplement and facilitate contextualisation of the diary data. (Knight et al, 2015, par. 2.7)…”

Written and spoken words: representations of animals and intimacy

“…Those researching sensitive subjects often have recourse to written methods such as diary keeping, memory books, auto/biography and autoethnography (Knight et al ., 2015; Wright, 2009). Such methods involve a level of reflexivity which may be difficult to achieve in an interview (Alaszewski, 2006) and can be used in combination with interviews in order to generate more intimate and embodied accounts (Thomson and Holland, 2005; Spowart and Nairn, 2014).…”

“…These examples suggest that people are sensitive about revealing the significance of their relationships with animals and that their propensity to do so is hugely influenced by the response of the interviewer in the interview interaction. Admitting intimacy runs the risk of attracting moral opprobrium and, like food practices, human-animal intimacy is ‘steeped in normativity and accompanied by strong emotions’ (Knight et al ., 2015: 1.3).…”