Table of contents

Key documentary products: what we recorded

During ENTRUST´s two and a half years, the process was un-programmed, meandering, even 'messy'. This was a consequence of the methodological approach: qualitative investigation instruments have to mould themselves to their objects; communicative methods may only be semi-structured if they are to promote creative interaction; iterative principles involve – by definition – returning to the same object or issue again, but with wiser eyes; and finally, taking participatory values seriously means decisions will be reconsidered and changes made to a project 'design' in mid-course.

Nonetheless, the principal documentary products generated by the ENTRUST work process exhibit a linearity which give the appearance of clear and direct route:

Stage one: 56 cross-visit reports. We made on-site analyses of the practices in the neighbourhoods of the partners

Stage two: 8 case studies. We looked at the empirical evidence of the partners' cases in each of the eight participating cities

Stage three: 4 thematic analyses. We identified and explored key themes as thematic evidence on a comparative basis;

Stage four: 2 recommendations/guidelines. We developed policy recommendations and guidelines for practitioners in urban regeneration.

The stages are a development of each other, but follow a different logic. The first stage stresses the subjectivity of experience, collecting perceptions of cases 'from the outside'. The second stage has a vertical or 'longitudinal' logic; what mattered here were the individual cases and their history and context 'from the inside'. Not only documents, but also observation and communicative instruments are the elements of the evidence base. The third stage supported a horizontal or 'latitudinal' approach across the individual cases and their uniqueness by identifying common themes of more general interest. The fourth stage brought together key messages from the thematic analyses.