Gender, Youth, Community, Methodology and More:

A Symposium Celebrating the Life and Work of Pearl Jephcott

College Court Conference Centre

University of Leicester

July 9th 2015

Pearl Jephcott (1900-1980), in a research career spanning some forty years, made an outstanding contribution to British social science research. Her key works, including Girls Growing Up (1942), Rising Twenty (1948), Some Young People (1954), Married Women Working (1962), A Troubled Area: Notes on Notting Hill (1964), Time of One’s Own (1967) and Homes in High Flats (1971), alongside other reports and articles, paved the way for many of the subsequent developments that were to come in the sociology of gender, women’s’ studies, urban sociology, leisure studies and the sociology of youth. Moreover her work is fascinating as it is very detailed, extensive, methodologically sophisticated and is replete with originality, innovation and sociological imagination. Yet despite this Jephcott’s work has become neglected and relegated to second hand booksellers and ‘studies from the past’. Her legacy deserves more attention and should be more widely celebrated. This free one-day symposium attempts to do just that.

Bringing together researcher from a range of fields, this one-day symposium offers academics and postgraduate students the opportunity to learn more about recent research that revisits and builds upon the work of this social research pioneer. The day represents a unique chance for a dialogue around Pearl’s legacy and to hear how subsequent researchers have extended the rich vein of research she began in the 1940s. Pearl’s legacy cuts across disciplines and research paradigms: across social sciences and humanities, historical and contemporary data, primary and secondary sources, quantitative and qualitative approaches and, as such, we envisage this event will appeal to a wide audience.

This is a free conference with lunch included but pre-registration is required as places are limited.

9:30                Registration and Coffee

9.50                Introduction and Welcome.

10.00              Pearl Jephcott: Biographical Starting Points,

John Goodwin and Henrietta O’Connor, (University of Leicester)

10:30             Pearl Jephcott and Feminist Collaborative Research Practice

Lynn Abrams (University of Glasgow)

11:00              TEA BREAK

11:30              Pearl Jephcott, Married Women Working and the Sociology of Women in post-war Britain

Helen McCarthy (Queen Mary University of London)

12:00              (Re)Imagining Pearl Jephcott’s ‘Time of One’s Own’: Methodological challenges and theoretical insights from a comparative study of youth leisure and social change

Susan Batchelor and Lisa Whittaker, University of Glasgow

Alistair Fraser, University of Hong Kong (in absentia)

12.30              Revisiting ‘Homes in High Flats’: Its inception and Jephcott’s methodology in practice

Barry Hazley and Valerie Wright (University of Glasgow)

1pm – 2pm    LUNCH

14:00              The Early Years

Tony Jeffs (Durham University)

14.15              Jephcott, Bermondsey and the Anthropologists in 1958

Jon Lawrence (University of Cambridge)

14.30             From Nottingham to Notting Hill: Explorations of Delinquency

John Goodwin and Henrietta O’Connor, (University of Leicester)

15:00                         TEA BREAK

15.30             Round Table Discussion: What Next for Pearl Jephcott?


Re-Read ‘Education and the Working Class’ (and other Classics)

C Wright Mills suggested that to avoid the ‘academic pose’ sociologists needed to get rid of the ‘academic prose’. Mills was an ardent advocate of clarity in writing and warned against the obfuscation of both grand theory and abstract empiricism. Mills sought criticism for his work with a view to making his writing as accessible and as incisive as it could possibly be. Yet despite his advice we appear, as a discipline, to have not heeded the warnings with all of us (me included) writing in a way that is often self-serving or in a ‘style’ than can only service the needs of other ‘fellow travelers’. I was prompted to think more about the advice offered by Mills after picking and reading up a copy of Jackson and Marsden’s Education and the Working Class from 1961 (reprinted in 1966). This is a book I had only glanced at previously. However,  a recent trip to the University of Huddersfield, and a brief discussion with colleagues there about it having been set in Huddersfield, promoted me to return to the book and a much closer reading of what Jackson and Marsden had to say. This book ‘is about working-class children turning into middle-class citizens. It’s a tangled picture, and the voices weave their own pattern of delight, snobbery, frustration and love‘ (Jackson and Marsden 1966: 15). It is a compelling book worthy of a great deal more attention. However, only a few pages in Mills came to mind not only because of what Jackson and Marsden were writing but how they wrote it. They wrote in a way that not only conveyed the rich tapestry of their respondent’s lives – the ‘delights, snobberies, frustrations and loves’ as they said – but do so in a way that is accessible and engaging whilst revealing a complex set of relationships. The analysis is accessible and rigorous. This richly detailed combination of narrative and analysis is a form of writing that can only come from a deep immersion into a subject undergirded by a clear passion for the subject matter. Returning to the Millsean critique of academic prose, and the accessibility of this book, prompted my own lament ‘I wish I could write book like this’. Moreover, a questioning as to why we as sociologists don’t write more books like this. There some who do this  –  William Helmreich’s (2013) The New York Nobody Knows: Walking 600 Miles in the City or  Alice Goffman’s (2014) On The Run: Fugitive Life in an American City being notable exceptions – but in the main the promise of post war sociology and the vein of richly detailed studies that emerged have been substituted for more turgid, drier, less passionate accounts of social life. Or as Jason Hughes suggested in a discussion of these issues ‘writing becomes divested of all its colour’. We are often left with drab, colourless technical accounts. Why is this ? There are many possible reasons such as the dominance of short form writing demanded by journals, the increased pressure of publishers to go for textbooks at the expense of monographs but we are the poorer for it.
The clarity of writing is not the only link to Mills. Jackson and Marsden make a clear link to the Millsean links between history and biography. They write ‘in this survey we are deliberately mapping to a stretch of life, an initiatory experience, through which we have lived ourselves. And with this survey we took our bearing’ (Jackson and Marsden 1966: 16). In other words they were casting their own lens on public issues and private troubles as Mills suggests ‘Writing, if you are at it long enough, is of course a set of habits and of sensibilities that shape almost all your experience. Writing is, among other things, always a way of trying to understand yourself. You understand your own feelings and your own ideas by writing them out.’ (Mills to Tovarich, 1959 in Mills and Mills 2000: 280).
We have much to learn from ‘classic’  books from the past – not least how to write good sociology. If we disregard these classic texts we compound the effects of ignoring Mills’ advice and consign so much good sociology to the dustbin simply because it is not from the last five years or, worse still ‘fashionable’.

Goffman, A. (2014) On The Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.
Helmreich, W.B. (2013) The New York Nobody Knows: Walking 600 Miles in the City. Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press.
Jackson, B. and Marsden, D. (1966) Education and the Working Class. Hamrondsworth: Penguin.
Mills, K. and Mills, P. (2000) C. Wright Mills: Letters and Autobiographical Writings. LA: University of California Press

Pearl Jephcott: The Legacy of a Forgotten Sociological Research Pioneer

Our paper on the legacy of Pearl Jephcott is available online first:

While the lives and works of many sociologists have now been well documented, numerous sociologists at the ‘coal face’ of social research remain ignored. Consequently, beyond the contributions of those more ‘well-known’ scholars, considerably more needs to be done to examine the history of our discipline and reassess the significant contributions made by ‘other’ researchers so that we may reappraise what can be learnt from these ‘pioneer scholars’. In this article we focus on Pearl Jephcott (1900–1980), who in a research career spanning 40 years, but now largely forgotten, was at the forefront of methodological innovation in the 1960s. We offer an introduction to her work, focusing on questions such as why were her methods innovative and why is she now ignored within sociology?


Archival Research

In our research we have found archives to be an essential source of data and material. Indeed, for our restudy of Elias’s Young Worker Project and for our on going work on Pearl Jephcott, archival research has been central to all we have done. Archives, although used by some social scientists, could be used to greater effect – especially in times of reduced research funding where making best use of data and material that already exists seems to be the order of the day. Our Jephcott research featured, in the University of Glasgow’s contribution to the UK Explore Your Archive awareness campaign. 

“Our discovery of the illustrations from the Time of One’s Own project, hidden amongst other papers, was one of those truly eureka moments that is only possible when working in archives. As crisp and as clear as the day they were created, the images of young people at work and leisure revealed Pearl Jepchott’s rich legacy of immaculately detailed social science research. The life and work of this once forgotten social researcher, a true pioneer and innovator, at once became available for all to explore and celebrate” – John Goodwin

Find out more at:


Leicester and Married Women Working:

John Goodwin and Henrietta O’Connor

2013-10-10 14.55.49As we have suggested (Goodwin and O’Connor 2013b) our first encounter with Pearl Jephcott was not a direct one. We were not aware of her books, beyond the occasional citation, and we were certainly unaware of the sheer breadth and depth of Jephcott’s contribution to British social science. We became interested in Jephcott be cause of her apparent links to Leicester via the Married Women Working research or what in Leicester became to be known locally as ‘the married women project’. Although not a well-known research collaboration there are tantalising references to this research in the literature. For example, as Smith (1961) reports:

The social science Dept. of the London School of Economics and the Sociology Dept. of the University of Leicester have together been collecting data designed among other things to test the stereotypes in industrial situations….Ours in Bermondsey at first based itself on the Peek Frean biscuit factory and the later extended into a study of family life in a local community. The Leicester study has so far based itself on the St. Margaret factory of N. Corah & Sons. (Smith 1961: 13).

The Richard Titmuss papers at the LSE reveal a shared project, led by Ilya Neustadt1, designed specially to offer a comparative study of the employment of women in a Leicester factory with those women who worked for Peek Frean.  Yet despite receiving a total of of £5986 over three years for a project, requests to DSIR extend the research time supported by Richard Titmuss, and a significant amount of fieldwork undertaken, the Leicester version of the married women project only delivered one paper (see Brown et al 1964). As with the ‘young worker project’ (see Goodwin and O’Connor 2005) the married women study was to enter the ether as yet another substantive piece of fieldwork that ultimately failed to deliver on its promise.  Yet it is the intersections between this failed project, the originally successful Bermondsey study and Jephcott’s innovative research designs that fascinates us the most. Moreover these projects, successful or otherwise, consider themes such as childcare, work life balance, women in management and so forth well before these become the central concern of sociology following the feminist critique of the 1970s and 1980s. As Oakely suggests, Jephcott studied working-class women at a time when the study of working-class culture meant studying men (Oakely 1989: 445). We are revisiting both variants of the married women project not least to ascertain the scope and extent of the Leicester project and to critically examine what Jephcott’s Married Women Working offers contemporary analyses of gender and work (see Goodwin and O’Connor 2013b).


[1] Although in reality it is likely that Richard Brown undertook all of the significant work on the Leicester version of the study.


Brown, R.K., Kirkby, J.M. and Taylor, K.F. (1964) The Employment of Married Women and the role of the Supervisory Role, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2(1): 23-41.

Goodwin, J. and O’Connor, H. (2013a) Embodying Leisure: The Use of Images in Jephcott’s Time of Ones Own, LERN Occasional Papers No. 2

Goodwin, J. and O’Connor H. (2013b) The Employment of Married Women in a Leicester Factory 1959. LERN Occasional Papers No. 3 (forthcoming).

Goodwin, J. and O’Connor, H. (2006) Norbert Elias and the Lost Young Worker Project, Journal of Youth Studies, 9 (2), 159-173.

Jephcott, P. with Seear, N. and Smith, J.H. (1962) Married Women Working. London: Allen and Unwin

Oakley, A. (1989) Women’s Studies in British Sociology: To End at Our Beginning?  The British Journal of Sociology, 40(3): 442-470.

Smith, J.H. (1961) Managers and Married Women Workers, British Journal of Sociology, 12(1): 12-22.

Homes in High Flats

Henrietta O’Connor

mapOne of the striking aspects of Pearl Jephcott’s archive in the University of Glasgow Library is the breadth and depth of her research activity. For her seminal study on high-rise living, ‘Homes in High Flats’, Pearl carried out extensive research on the development of tower blocks in the UK and overseas. Her archive contains numerous folders filled with articles, photographs and maps of high rise living ‘from places such as far apart as Melbourne, Philadelphia, Caracas, Prague and Moscow’ (Jephcott, 1971:2).  Maps are a regular feature of her work and it is no surprise that as part of her study of high-rise flats in Glasgow Pearl began by carrying out a mapping exercise illustrating the locations of the new housing developments. The map featured in this blog is taken from her archive and shows how she used the city map to indicate new housing developments that were complete at the time of her research, each separate tower block depicted by small red squares. Planned or incomplete blocks were illustrated by a red unfilled square.

Although the first tower block in Glasgow was occupied as early as June 1952 it was not until the 1960s that the rapid expansion of this type of building occurred. The main sample for the planned research consisted of those developments that were occupied by July 1968 (143 blocks in total), increasing to 163 by May 1969. The final sample consisted of five estates, narrowed down ‘to enable staff to make sustained relationships with individual households, increasing their chances of finding out which aspects of multi-story life had most bearing on the tenants satisfaction or otherwise’ (p28). The five estates selected were located across the city and two research staff went to live in a high-rise flat, for just over 6 weeks, in four of the five locations. The five estates selected were Wynford (16 blocks), Royston (3), Albion (3) Castlemilk (5) and Red Road (3) (see Jephcott, 1971: 29).


2013-10-11 13.15.33

Map: University of Glasgow Archive, Glasgow Map DC127/17/6

Jepchott, P. (1971) Homes in High Flats: Some of the Human Problems Involved in Multi-Storey Housing. Oliver and Boys: Edinburgh