Are inner-cities bad for your health? Comparisons of residents' and third parties' perceptions of the urban neighbourhood of Gospel Oak, London

13Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This paper analyses representations of the neighbourhood of Gospel Oak (London, UK), by contrasting views of residents with views expressed by third parties. Data from residents were gathered through in-depth qualitative methods. Data from third parties were gathered through documentary analysis. Third parties' descriptions of Gospel Oak were significantly more negative than residents'. In contrast, residents were overwhelmingly positive about the neighbourhood, often taking a diametrically opposed view to third parties on the same factor, for example, quality of housing. We argue that third parties' negative social construction of Gospel Oak is functional rather than descriptive; a pathological orientation is usually taken to assist efforts to win regeneration funding. Though this is sometimes successful, we discuss possible negative affects of this social construction, for example, stigmatisation. Finally, we warn against making assumptions of collective social and physical pathology in urban neighbourhoods, urging a more critical approach to the study of the inner-city in the health sciences. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd/Editorial Board 2005.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Whitley, R., & Prince, M. (2005). Are inner-cities bad for your health? Comparisons of residents’ and third parties’ perceptions of the urban neighbourhood of Gospel Oak, London. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00431.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free