Twentieth century policies affecting Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland: archival research

Appendix 2: Research Methodology

Introduction

This research was undertaken by a team of six researchers, with an additional two team members focused upon quality assurance. Two team members (Eastwood and Jernigan) focused on identifying and collecting relevant archival materials, which were then analysed by another two team members (Bodine-McCoy and Rasmussen). One team member (Watson) worked between both the archival team and the analysis team, whilst the final member of the research team (Wood) designed the auditable database that is also provided as part of the research tender. An additional two members of the team provided quality assurance (Collins and Hinch). For the report writing phase, all eight members of the team contributed, with seven members of the team having a writing credit, and one sole editor (Hinch).

Collection of archival materials

Appendix 3 outlines the range of archives consulted and the times that these archival visits took place. The research team had already been conducting similar research for 14 months prior to the contract start, a fact that was important to the progress of the research overall, and especially in the early stages. Although the government contract expanded the scale of this work immensely, the research team already had a strong foundation in knowing which areas and archives to explore and how best to conduct the research. This experience was enhanced through consultation and training from the University of St Andrews’ Special Collections team as well as discussions with archivists across Scotland, and in Canada, who were able to provide expert advice on best practice as well as on what was reasonable to expect from archival research given our time frame and budget.

Identifying relevant sources of information

The first step in the data collection process was identifying the locations of archival materials and of relevant sources within these archives. This took the form of three approaches:

1. Known archival sources: this included traditional locations of government and non-governmental archives including but not limited to: Scottish Council archives; local and national (Scotland) and UK wide newspaper archives; University research holdings; and archives held by faith communities, e.g. Church of Scotland; governmental records in the National Records of Scotland and The National Archives.

2. Community and expert consultations: members of the team consulted with members of Scottish Gypsy/Traveller communities, and with academic experts to elicit information on additional archival sources as well as potential keywords that could be used in searches (examples listed below). Consultations also took place to best understand how and where archival information is kept within Scotland.

3. Internal scoping exercises: these took place as a collaborative exercise between the Archives and Analysis teams. Using the database of archival information, the Analysis team conducted keyword searches to identify potential locations of archival material – the choice of keywords was dependent on both the time frame and the location under investigation. Once completed, both teams met to formulate a plan for archival visits based on the scoping findings. Towards the end of the research process, we also undertook further discussions within the research team regarding any notable archives that we had not so far visited as part of the research process so far (e.g. the Aberlour Orphanage archives held at the University of Stirling).

Keyword examples:

1. Examples of period-specific keywords: e.g. Children’s Act 1908, Tinker Problem, hereditary vagrants (1900-1920); Caravan Sites Act 1968, “Scotland’s Travelling People” report (1960-1980).

2. Examples of location-specific keywords: e.g. Bobbin Mill, Aldour School (Perth); problem families, squatters; army camps (Highlands).

Due to time and resource constraints, the Archives team aimed to only visit locations where their potential relevance could be corroborated via prior knowledge or prior consultation. These time and resource constraints included but were not limited to the opening hours of archives; the location of archives in relation to where the research team are based (St Andrews); the ability for archivists to provide knowledge on collections which included information about Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland; the financial resources required for travel; and the ease of travel using public transportation. Given these constraints, several locations – Glasgow (and the Central Belt in general), Highlands, and Perth – were prioritised as policy documents and census data suggested either a high Gypsy/Traveller population or substantial action being taken towards the communities there. Some sites that were highlighted by the Scottish Government in the original tender document - e.g. the Highland Folk Museum and Auchindrain Township - were not visited as the team was unable to find significant materials, following discussions with archivists, confirming their relevance. Finally, the team did not explore archives within Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. There is archival evidence that these areas had already successfully implemented ‘Tinker Experiment’ style policies in the mid-19th century (see the references in the report to the Kirk Yetholm experiment (KYE) and therefore reported an absence of Gypsy/Traveller communities there (see Blair Castle Archives and Perth Archives for more information).

Upon completion of the data-collection phase of the research, it was recognised that some gaps remained in both our knowledge and in the archival database itself. As census data indicated a high Traveller population in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, the team expected significant archival material to be held on the communities residing there; however, our visits revealed very few references. Additionally, due to the restructuring of local government, several archives – Fife, Glasgow, Stirling – only had material from the latter half for the 1900s. As such, what is known of earlier policies in these areas has only been able to be acquired from other archives.

Archival visit procedure

Our procedure for undertaking archival visits were as follows:

1. Initiate contact with the archival centre: either directly or through an intermediary.

Most of the archives visited required us either to book an appointment or to register for access. Additionally, the council archives required that material be identified prior to visiting. Finally, making ourselves and our objectives known to the archivists allowed them to assist us in getting a sense of the information held in their archives. It is important to note that some archives required special permission to access:

• Blair Castle required permission from the relatives of Katherine, the 8^th Duchess of Atholl.
• Children First required permission from the Charity to access closed records housed in NRS.
• Access to closed SG records of interest held by NRS was granted by the Scottish Government.

2. Finalise preparations for the archival visit - this included booking and budgeting travel to and from the archives; reviewing access restrictions (e.g. data protection, user registration); and finalising a plan for the research. While most archival visits could be completed in a single day, for some there was a need to return the next day(s)/at another time and revisit the materials, either due to the volume of material or to subsequent research in other archival locations that opened new lines of inquiry.

3. After the archival materials were accessed, the process for reviewing them differed according to the type of material available (e.g. police reports, school logbooks, council minutes, etc.). In general, the selected keywords were used to guide the review and ensure that the information gathered was relevant to the research objectives. Apart from instances where photography was not permitted due to data protection reasons, the materials were captured in their entirety as photographs to be reviewed and analysed in depth later. Note that everywhere required permission to photograph documents.

Post-collection analysis

Following the collection of the materials, their organisation and collation, there was a period of desk-based research and analysis followed by the preparation of the written outputs. This analysis typically involved thematic analysis, which allowed for trends to be inferred and for cross-comparisons to be made between archival materials. Discourse analysis was also used, which allowed for underlying meanings and motivations to be inferred from material (particularly policies, legislation and official correspondences). This analysis was primarily carried out by the Analysis team, though the Archives team were available for consultation. Additionally, following the conclusion of archival visits, the Archives team transitioned to assisting with analysis of collected materials.

To develop an understanding of the events that occurred leading up to, and including, the ‘TE’, the Analysis team engaged in a content-based analysis whereby key terms were pulled from archival documents and then entered into the relevant ‘keywords' section of an excel spreadsheet. Additionally, within that spreadsheet, summaries of analysed documents were provided with relevant themes, dates, and locations identified. A section pointing to the location of the document within the drive was also provided. The intention of this analysis was to find names, organisations, locations, and policies which were then compiled in a spreadsheet that was used as a reference document when conducting discourse analysis as well as contributing to the database.

Documents were received from the Archives team via Microsoft (MS) Teams with each member of the analysis team having designated folders - by archive location - that they would have then have responsibility for. Documents were highlighted according to a theme (see below) and then uploaded to a Teams when analysis was complete). MS Teams does not have embedded annotation software, and therefore members of the analysis team were required to download documents to personal hard drives/iPads and to then annotate via applications such as Notability. To ensure appropriate data handling, team members were then cautious to delete downloaded documents from personal hard drives. As per the procedures required by the University of St Andrews Teaching and Research Ethics Committee (School of International Relations) from which the research team received ethical clearance for this research, these materials are retained on password-protected files on OneDrive.

While reading a document, information was tracked in an Analysis Team Spreadsheet with the document name identified as well as the type of document (letter, report, image, etc.), the date of document, the themes, an objective summary, a determination of its relevance to the final report, key words, who had analysed it, and when. In undertaking analysis of the archival documents, the analysis team created a coding framework that would be utilised to both aid analysis and work in conjunction with the auditable database. Regarding the overall search strategy, this research was as comprehensive as the archives allowed. This was an iterative process in that findings in one archive may have allowed us to more easily engage in other locations. Moreover, one team member spent time near the end of the data collection process reviewing both the collected data and the archival catalogues (where available) to include new information (for example, the use of the term 'problem families') to avoid missing out on anything we learned through the research process. Further to this, the stakeholders were always very clear and purposeful when discussing SG/Ts. Discussions in the archives would pretty much always be e.g. in a report titled 'Report on Gypsies and Travellers" or in council minutes under a specific subheading of 'Housing for the Traveller community". It was very rare that SG/Ts were casually mentioned, so focusing our search on specific terms we believe yielded comprehensive results.

Community consultation and quality assurance

To ensure the quality of the collection and its evaluation, our archival and desk-based research was supplemented by a number of consultations. As we noted in the bid document we were already in contact with members of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland prior to the start of the contract. We held one ‘community’ consultation with three members of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland early in the research process to discuss existing materials and key sources. At the same time, we also took advice from academic colleagues and from practitioners who work in cognate areas. From those early discussions and that initial consultation, one key issue that came up was the fact that there was no-one on the Scottish Government’s Research Advisory Group who was themselves from a Gypsy/Traveller 'community', or who had first-hand experience of the policies being researched. For that reason, we created an Internal Scrutiny Board (ISB) consisting of four people: three members of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland who had first-hand knowledge of the policies being researched, and one senior academic from the University of St Andrews (who was the ISB Chair). We have consulted with members of the Scrutiny Board throughout our research as well as with historians (Gypsy/Traveller and non-Gypsy Traveller); and have also discussed our work (not findings) with experts working with Roma communities, with archivists, and with other academics; as well as with allies of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland. At the end of the research process, we also met with representatives from Gypsy/Traveller communities in Fife, Perthshire, Argyll and Bute and Aberdeenshire. This represented the second community consultation as stated in the bid document and involved discussion of the research process as well as an opportunity for the members of Gypsy/Traveller communities in Scotland who were present to outline any considerations that they felt would be pertinent to the discussion. At the end of the research process, once the findings were finalised, we also began a process of re-engagement with archivists of key stakeholders identified in this report. This process was paused when asked to cease further planned engagement with Gypsy/Traveller contacts following submission of the first draft of this report to the RAG. We felt that if community engagement was to be paused it was only fair that stakeholder engagement should also be paused at the same time. Prior to publication, we were asked at very short notice (ca. two weeks) by the RAG to contact key stakeholders mentioned in the report to seek their input on errors and factual inaccuracies. Unfortunately, due to the publication deadline set by the RAG, we were unable to seek substantive input from stakeholders on the report's findings. We remain grateful to those stakeholders who were able to come back to us with feedback and correction. The report presented reflects consideration of these comments and corrections.

The Drawbacks of Archival Research

As a team, we recognise the inherent subjectivity of archival research. Many steps of decision-making occur to store material in an archive, all of which involve active choices around the value of a certain item by those who collect, curate, and use archives. We agree that archives are the ‘result of specific political, cultural, and socioeconomic pressures – pressures which leave traces, and which render archives themselves artifacts of history’. This means that archives usually curate information and the perspectives of actors that these institutions consider valuable. Within the archival materials that we collected there was little to no representation of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers, either in terms of self-representation through submitted materials or through testimonies collected by non-Traveller stakeholders. In addition, the historical hierarchy that existed between Scottish Gypsy/Travellers and settled society/government(s), creates a significant gap in this study as the lives and experiences of Scottish Gypsy/Travellers have only been captured from the perspective of external actors who carry with them their own motives and agendas.

We agree with sociologist Stuart Hall that archives ‘always stand in an active, dialogic relation to the questions the present puts to the past; and the present always puts its questions differently from one generation to another’. We would be remiss if we were not clear that our guiding questions and assumptions (informed primarily from the Scottish Government tender and secondarily from our experiences of being non-Gypsy/Traveller academic researchers) impacted our investigation as we conducted our research in the archives. A different demographic makeup of researchers might have viewed or been able to ascertain different conclusions than we have. Archives collect documented history and memories and are prone to miss the experiences of those marginalised at the hands of the government and wider public. They are also prone to being destroyed, tampered with (either purposefully or accidentally) and made inaccessible through their disorganisation. Those more closely connected temporally and culturally to the ‘TE’ might have been able to see references to Gypsy/Travellers that we were unable to. Archaic euphemisms and slurs, geographical locations, and cultural productions are examples of a few things other researchers might have uncovered that we may have missed.

Because we had to make deliberate choices on which items to capture, analyse, and include within this report, we recognize that our positionality might have affected this decision process. We strived to ensure that these decisions were made by considering the context of each piece, their wider implications on the report, and the relevance to the key themes that the analysis team focused upon. As we researched and analysed documents this process became more refined - becoming influenced by our growing knowledge and ability to connect documents with each other across archives. However, we also understand that at times we may have missed connections. We may also have missed connections due to material that was impossible for us to access. The archives we accessed for this study were primarily governmental (national, regional, and local) archives, which usually store public records that are accessed without hurdles. However, we also used private archives which were more difficult to access as it was contingent on the cooperation of those facilities to allow us to do so.

These archives, and private documents within public archives, have more restrictions around the viewing and use of archival materials, which in some instances limited our ability to utilise these sources or to see them at all. These limits do not, however, reflect the quality of the materials we were able to retrieve from the archives. Rather, they are stated to contextualise this work in wider discussions on archives happening within the academy, government, and other public sectors. Additionally, we underline that there were hard decisions made given the sheer volume of archival holdings, where we had to prioritise which materials to examine within our limited timeframe. In the end, the team examined a wide selection of sources, with several members making repeat visits to certain archives to ensure that we collected as many materials as possible.

We note how crucial archivists, across Scotland, were in assisting our search, both in and outwith the archives. Prior to our visits we contacted archivists to outline the nature of the research that we were undertaking (using wording approved by the initial Contract Manager), and sought advice on their holdings to ensure our visits would capture as much of the available evidence as possible. One Scots (Doric) speaking member of the team also accessed (online) audio and video materials from the Elphinstone institute (Stanley Robertson Project) at the University of Aberdeen, and from Tobar an Dualchais/Kist o Riches, both of which provided personal testimonies from members of Gypsy/Traveller communities. These testimonies were invaluable in providing wider context for the research, including recollections of housing, education, and everyday life.