Dungeon as a sub-cultural space

(I) Introduction
Smokers from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) in the National University of Singapore (NUS) have, for several cohorts of students, occupied a space within the school compound as an “unofficial smoking corner”, in the words of one of our informants. This space is situated at level 2 of the AS1 building, beneath the common walkway between the Central Library and “The Deck” (the canteen). It is a stretch of corridor outside seven seminar rooms and includes three wooden benches and rows of brown lockers. It is affectionately known among the smokers as the dungeon, its name alluding from its characteristics as a subterranean area always filled with smoke.

In the context of NUS as a “smoke-free campus”, we postulate that the dungeon stands out as a sub-cultural space, primarily occupied by a group of student smokers who stand in contrast to the wider group of the non-smoking population in the NUS campus. In this paper, we seek to examine: one, why the dungeon is a sub-cultural space, in the sense that it has become a space for expressing resistance against the dominant culture present in the university. Two, we are interested in exploring how the dungeon came to become a sub-cultural space in the first place.

(II) Statement of importance
In considering the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, it allows us to understand in a larger picture, how various sub-cultural groups in the society at large comes to occupy certain spaces in carrying out their resistance to the mainstream dominant culture. The sub-cultural space of dungeon, when juxtaposed against the prevailing non-smoking culture in NUS at large, also allows us to get a clearer picture of the tensions and strains present in the larger society and aids us in understanding why and how sub-cultural spaces had come into existence in the society.

(III) Literature Review
Albert Cohen (1955) perceived the emergence of a new “group standard” as cultural because “each actor’s participation in this system of norms is influenced by this perception of the same norms in other actors”. He also conceived this as sub-cultural as “the norms are shared” only among actors who will somehow “profit from them” and those who find a “sympathetic moral climate within these norms which may come to fruition and persist.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) Hence, the culture is “continually being created, re-created and modified”, generated by similar circumstances, “not shared generally in the larger system” and may “persist”, but not through “sheer inertia.” Its lifespan may “outlast” that of individuals who participated in its creation, but only so long as it “continues to serve the needs of those who succeed in its creators.” (ibid: 51)

Kidd (2002) understood the ideal of subcultures as a “form of resistance”, which offered a “challenge to the structural forces” that had posed problems for their members. Stanley Cohen (1987) explained further “that subcultures are always fighting against dominant cultures, thus developing only amongst the subordinate.” (Kidd, 2002: 119) The space of the dungeon as being claimed by majority of the smokers in NUS, could be seen as an interest in “winning spaces” where this subordinate group attempted to “claim” their “communities… identities, life-style” by winning both “personal and symbolic spaces need(ed)” to live a life without the structural restraints. (Kidd, 2002: 119) In addition, Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1994) had conceptualized the importance of subordinate groups claiming spaces because their membership of an oppressed group had to be claimed “tenaciously”, in contrast to dominant group membership. The latter was readily “taken as given” and did “not require conscious allegiance” in the same way as other subordinate identities due to “its place in mainstream culture.” (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998)

The occupation of free spaces embodied two benefits: (i) “an opportunity” for the oppressed people to “penetrate the sources of their subordination” and (ii) the preservation and building upon a collective record of resistance. (Polletta, 1999) It was also argued by Polletta (1999) that free spaces allowed the opportunity to articulate safely “the assertion, aggression and hostility” and to “test limits of official power.” Lastly, these physical gathering places did build on those ties by “demonstrating the co-presence of others,” strengthening “collective identity by providing tangible evidence of the existence of a group.” (Polletta, 1999) It was, however, the character of the ties that were established or reinforced in those settings, rather than the physical space itself, that the free space concept had sometimes successfully captured. (ibid)

(IV) Methodology
(i) Data generation techniques
In the execution of the research, we had earlier chosen to undertake the study of gendered relations in the leadership of a local Protestant Church in our project. This was decided after a discussion among the group members who were Christians and were interested to explore more about their own religion. However, during the course of research, we encountered differences in the development of the project and in the directions of the continuation of the research. One reason was that Isabelle had faced difficulties in getting interviews with one of the church leaders, on the premise that she was not a Christian. Thus resulted in the split of the group where the two of us have since decided to change our research focus to the space of the dungeon in NUS. First and foremost, we have already been aware of the dungeon’s existence and the long-running practices of smokers in this space since our matriculation in 2004. In addition, due to the lack of time we faced, the dungeon is a more feasible space for us to explore, as it is relatively contained and easily accessible. The dungeon is also more relevant to us, as we are part of the community of regular smokers who often hang out in this space and it represents a special part of our university life. The definitions of regular smokers will be expounded on in the later part of the paper. This paper will, thus, be an attempt to shed light on this particular interesting space in the dungeon.

(a) Participant-observation
The methods of participant-observations and semi-structured interviews have been employed in the study of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. Two observations of approximately one hour each were carried out in the dungeon on two subsequent Friday afternoons, at around twelve noon on 2nd November and three in the afternoon on 9th November respectively. These two timings were chosen after much consideration, as we were aware that spatial changes could possibly occur over time and would affect our data collection. Firstly, our tight school schedules with the heavy load of assignment deemed it necessary for us to carry out observations only in between classes. Secondly, from our personal experiences, we were aware that the dungeon would be often filled with students at twelve noon as this was the time slightly after classes ended or before classes began while three in the afternoon would leave us with the core group of regular smokers in the dungeon. The observation carried out at twelve noon allowed us to capture a larger broader overarching section of the students who would be in the dungeon at this time. At this timing, we wanted to observe the differences between non-regular smokers who would go to the dungeon to smoke and subsequently leave and the regular smokers who stayed in the dungeon unless they had classes. We could also observe the interactions between the regular smokers, and the non-smokers who needed to enter the dungeon because they had classes here. Contrarily, the observation at three in the afternoon would provide a deeper understanding of how the smokers functioned in this space. At this timing, the dungeon would be usually filled only with the regular smokers. In addition, it is also the timing when most of the regular smokers would be around. This is often because most of the regular smokers would only come in the afternoon unless they had classes in the morning and most of them would leave by the evening unless they needed to rush their assignments in school. As such, the timing of three, which is between noon and evening, would be one of the better timings to observe the most number of regular smokers. Hence, we have effectively conducted our observations in the two time frames to facilitate our collection of data of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space.

We chose to carry out a participant-observation in contrast to a non-participant observation in order to most appropriately blend in with the subjects of our observation. From the outset, we were aware that our observational style was bound to have unavoidable impacts on our data collection, as Mason highlighted that the “chosen method(s)” will have “influence” on the “setting and interactions within it as well as the observer’s very “presence.” However, should we have chosen to collect data from the position of a non-participant observer, we might have stood out from the crowd even more and attracted even more unnecessary attention. Not only would the unnecessary attention affect the data in a way that the subjects acted as they would now be paying a certain amount of attention to us, something they would normally not do, but it would also affect the way they behave due to the fact that they realised that they were being observed. Hence a participant-observer approach effectively minimised the alteration of data in this way. It also allowed us to be personally involved in the observation as we could observe the dungeon at a closer proximity. We took our notes while seated at a bench together with the regular group of smokers that we knew and also did it as if we were doing our school assignments there. This was a habit that many of the smokers had and thus we effectively blended ourselves into the group and were not intrusive in the manner of our note-taking. In addition, during our observations, we also smoked as we usually would. This would prevent us from being spotted by the regulars there as behaving strangely. We also engaged in occasional chitchats initiated by the smokers there in order not to reveal the nature of our work.

(b) Semi-structured interviews
For the interviews, six semi-structured interviews were first carried out with informants who were regular smokers in the dungeon. Prior to this, we had designed the interview “ahead of time” with an interview guide with six salient points in “a suggested order” to ensure that we would be able to cover all the topics we were interested in. The interviews were conducted to provide more in-depth information on the way that the informants saw themselves and how they felt about the dungeon. We did this in the non-directive way “to refrain from offering opinions and to avoid expressions of approval and disapproval”. (Haralambos et al, 2000:1004) This way, we could ensure that views received from the informants were that of their own and not of ours. The interviews were also conducted separately on a one-to-one basis as the presence of more than one interviewer or informant would affect the way that the informants responded. Single interviews as compared to group interviews would ensure that each respondent was not “influenced by the presence of other interviewees” (ibid: 1004) or interviewers. Interviews also allowed “words and concepts to be clarified” and “explored in greater depth” (ibid: 1005). Qualitative methods were also able to better “provide true picture of social reality” (ibid: 993) as compared to quantitative methods, and interviews were especially “useful for generating new hypotheses and theories.” (ibid: 1005) We also decided on conducting semi-structured interviews, which could be “modified as appropriate” for each interviewee as it allowed for a greater flexibility where we could digress from the six salient points when the information was “refreshing,” “informative” or “allowed the interviewee to express his (or her) concerns.” (Adler and Clark, 2003) For instance, when asked about what the dungeon meant to him, one interviewee revealed that it was an interesting area because smoking was not the only activity carried out in the dungeon as people also sat down, ate, studied and chitchatted. Wee Loon was then able to probe on about this aspect of other activities in the dungeon, with the flexibility of the semi-structured interview. This gave us a new insight about the dungeon, which we were previously less sensitised to due to our positions as regular smokers there. Thus, the semi-structured fashion of the interview allowed for auxiliary information to surface during the interview by extension of the free space for the informant to express himself or herself. This hence helped us to generate a more in-depth finding in the direction of activities carried out in the sub-cultural space of the dungeon, which we had previously assumed to be only smoking.

The interviews were conducted at various points of time depending on the availability of the informants as well as the availability of quiet and alone places so as to ensure the integrity of information from contaminants as stated above. Repeated interviews were also conducted with informants after we went through the information and discovered some points that needed to be delved on further. Similarly, the repeated interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in a semi-structured fashion in a quiet and vacant place to pre-empt undue interruptions. It was also done in this way as the informants were already introduced to this pattern of interviewing and we did not wish to put them off-guard by introducing a new interviewer or new method of interviewing. We also wanted to build on the rapport previously established in the interviews before, in order to facilitate the interview. All interviews were recorded using a voice recorder and transcribed later to facilitate the writing of this paper.

(ii) Sampling
As mentioned above, the interviews were conducted with regular smokers. By regular, we meant smokers who were in the dungeon not only for the sole purpose of smoking but also spent much of their time outside of class in the dungeon. This group of smokers were often seated together and knew one from another. In addition, they were easily recognisable by other non-regular smokers and non-smokers that we spoke to randomly. We found a need to sample as “studying every single instance of a thing is impractical” and “beyond our means” (Adler and Clark, 2003: 105). Sampling also allowed us to “minimise the number of things we examine” and “maximise the quality of our examination of the things we do examine,” (ibid: 106) which was important for our research as part of a course over one semester.

First of all, the choice of smokers over non-smokers as our sample was precisely the point because of our focus in looking at the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. The activity of smoking was one of the defining features of a sub-culture in a smoke-free campus such as NUS. We were concerned with examining how this subordinate group of smokers attempted to adjust to the non-smoking rule in NUS as a collective group in the dungeon. Secondly, the regular smokers had identified themselves as being present in the dungeon for most of their time outside of class and hence presented themselves as valuable sources of information about the dungeon as a sub-cultural space in NUS. This was in contrast to the non-regular smokers who only entered the dungeon for the purpose of smoking and subsequently leave after that as well as the non-smokers who only entered the area of the dungeon because they had a class here. Thirdly, the regular smokers in the dungeon had a kind of allegiance to the dungeon that the non-regular smokers did not, in view of the many other smoking places in campus highlighted by the informants. Being part of the regular smoking community, we had, through our daily discourse outside of this research, learnt that the non-regular smokers, unlike the regular smokers, did not view the dungeon as a space that they “claimed” but they would also shun the dungeon in view of certain dangers such as security checks. As non-regulars were often not present in the dungeon except for smoking purposes, we decided that this would not be relevant to our paper. Our focus is on the sub-cultural space of the dungeon and these non-regular smokers who could also be found in other smoking areas would not constitute to the bulk of our qualitative research focus.

Moreover, we also tried to minimise gender differences in the data collected by getting a fair representation of both genders in terms of informants. Three out of the six informants were males while the other three were females. Isabelle interviewed the three female respondents while Wee Loon was responsible for the interviews of the three male respondents. This was because we were not interested in the gendered representations of smokers in the dungeon and we wanted to control this variable. In addition, through the arrangement of same-gender interviews, we tried to arrange as much similarities as possible between the interviewer and interviewee, so that we could relate better to the respondents. This is to ensure a better rapport with the interviewees as interviewer and interviewees from similar backgrounds tend to bring about less different responses as when they are from different backgrounds. Based on the commonalities of the gender, background as both smokers and regular smokers in the dungeon as well as our working-class backgrounds, this would attempt to encourage them to share more personal details as we would be more understanding and high-handed. However, we understood that this did not necessarily meant that all differences were circumvented as we realised that no matter the arrangements, there existed the possibility for the interviewees to “do gender.” (ibid: 300) In this way, we attempted to reduce any discrepancies in data that might have arisen due to gendered representations of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space.

(iii) Focus and scope of data collection
(a) Participant-observations
In setting out to do this research, we wanted to explore the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. With this research focus in mind, we proceeded to observe the dungeon, as mentioned above, at two different timings. The first timing, at twelve noon, allowed us to include in our data, not only the activities of the sample of regular smokers, it also allowed us to observe the interactions of the sample vis-à-vis the non-regular smokers and the non-smokers. The observations also allowed us to understand who used this space of the dungeon and what they used it for. This was to facilitate our understanding of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, where Stanley Cohen postulated that subordinate groups would be concerned with “winning spaces” in order to live their life without structural restraints. (Kidd, 2002: 119)

The second observation that took place at a later time a week later was similarly important for us to observe in a more focused manner the interaction between the members of the sample group of regular smokers. We had known prior to the observation, that more regular smokers congregate at this time due to our positions as regular smokers of the dungeon ourselves. It also added to our understanding of the information on the usage of the space that we had gathered in the first observation, as the dungeon was comparatively quieter at this point of time and we could also direct more attention to the group of regular smokers, who would form the subordinate group in this sub-culture in the dungeon.

For both observations, we took note of the surroundings in the dungeon, the arrangement of the tables and benches, to see it would tell us anything about the dynamics of the people in the dungeon. We also aimed to find out about if there were any interesting interactions that we as regular smokers ourselves, could have overlooked in our daily experiences in this space. Due to the research focus of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, we also tried to look for clues as to how the dungeon acted as a sub-cultural space, what might have contributed to this phenomenon, and how it might be different from other parts of the campus. Since the expression “sub-cultural” denoted a resistance against a mainstream culture, we tried as well to look out for any signs that would point out such an exchange, for example when the guards came to patrol. Furthermore, we took pictures of the space of the dungeon to better illustrate the architectural structure of the place. (Please see Appendix)

(b) Semi-structured interviews
In the interviews with our informants, we were interested to add on to our knowledge of the dungeon that we had gathered from the observations. In the interviews, we attempted to find out the reasons why the regular smokers wanted to come to the dungeon in view of the many other smoking places in NUS, how they felt about the non-smokers and the guards that came down to clamp down on smoking activities in the dungeon. We also wanted them to shed light on the norms that were present in the dungeon, which could be different from those in the larger context in NUS. We were interested in how this place has become a sub-cultural space and thus, we were concerned with issues, which would substantiate the culture in the space of dungeon as different from the mainstream dominant culture.
During the interview, we tried to refrain from asking specific questions that limited and led the informants. Instead we asked general and open-ended questions that allowed the informants to express what they felt on a particular subject. For instance, we posed the question of “What does the dungeon mean to you in your NUS life?” The important thing we felt was getting information on how the informants felt about the dungeon and how they perceived the space of the dungeon from their perspective. Through the interviews, it was also possible that the informants could shed light on information that we did not pick up during the observation. As we had been regular smokers in the dungeon, we believed that we would not be as sensitive or curious to the ongoing events in this space; therefore, we looked to the informants to provide observations that we were less observant of.

(iv) Analysis of data
The data collected using the participant-observation method and semi-structured interviews were looked through several times together by both of us. After we got a sense of the information available, we picked out several themes that were recurrent in each set of data. The information pertaining to each theme was then coded using different coloured-highlighters. This technique of interpretive coding was to prove very useful as we could now see more clearly the frequencies of recurring themes and interesting points that were highlighted by informants. The same technique was first applied to the interview data and subsequently to the observation data. The same colour was used for the same themes in the two sets of data. In this way, we could then tell whether a theme was visible in both sets of data and whether it was prominent.

The following colours were employed for the various themes that we picked out from the data. Blue was used for information related to the solidarity between regular smokers and how they felt towards others; green was used to code information pertaining to norms; orange was used for information that explained the dungeon vis-à-vis the other smoking places; pink was for information that related to the environment of the dungeon; yellow was used to code information that was related to the other activities carried out in the dungeon other than smoking; while finally brown was for picking out data that revealed how the informants came to know about the space of the dungeon. These pieces of information were then organised and subsequently presented in the next section as findings, substantiated with existing literature on sub-cultures and spaces.

(V) Findings
(i) Smokers’ experiences in the dungeon and other smoking spots
Through our interviews with six regular smokers in the dungeon, we were informed that they first knew about this place through word-of-mouth or by personal experience. An interviewee revealed that his friends had mentioned the dungeon on the first day he had started school whereas another respondent recalled that his cousin, a second-year student, had recommended him to “go to the dungeon” if he ever needed to smoke as this was “where everyone smoked.” One respondent was pleased that he had chanced upon the dungeon:
“… I had a class over here. And then I walked down and someone was smoking and I was like, ‘Yay! Can smoke!’… when previously I had to go back to PGP (Prince George’s Park Residence) and smoke in my room…”

In addition, when asked if they were aware of other smoking spaces other than the dungeon, five interviewees expressed knowledge, highlighting “a lot of other hidden spots” such as behind LT 11 and LT 8, above the Central Library and the vending machines behind AS6. On a different note, the sixth respondent disclosed that he was “not really aware” of other smoking spaces as he either went to the dungeon or out of school to smoke.

In view of most of their familiarity with other smoking areas, we also posed the question of how the dungeon fared as a smoking area as compared to the others. The dungeon was unanimously chosen among these smoking respondents. Motivations included the “comfort” that they felt in the dungeon, the fact that everyone smoking made them feel “safer”, and how the dungeon was “special” to them. One respondent postulated that it was because “(the smokers) have just been inculcated into the culture of smoking at the dungeon and no place else.” Another interviewee drew a comparison to another smoking area at LT 11 and expounded that “it (was) different there” as it was more “open” and “not so walled up.” Our sixth respondent enunciated very clearly that:
“… will I still smoke at other smoking areas?... No. I have the dungeon.”

(ii) Condition of the environment as an attracting factor to smokers
One common response gathered from the interviews revealed that the environment of the dungeon was a strong motivating factor. Some respondents explicated that it was due to the natural setting the dungeon was located in. To two of them, the dungeon is a “scenic” place with “all the greenery around” and also “shady with circulation.” Some of them felt that it is “a nice place” with “this aura of quietness and familiarity.” One interviewee expressed that “the other places (are) very hot” compared to the dungeon while another indicated that it is “an interesting place which is very soothing.”

Other respondents also expressed gladness at the practical locality of the dungeon, which they unanimously described as “a conveniently located spot.” Another interviewee explained that they would “always pass by (the dungeon) on the way to (their) classes” and thus, they “would naturally smoke there.” Three respondents added that it is “more comfortable” in the dungeon where there are “at least seats” where they could sit “while waiting for their classes.” In general, the interviewees viewed the dungeon as very “accessible” to the other places in school, such as “the Deck (the canteen),” the Central Library and “ADM building (administrative building).”

Interviewees also pointed out that the architectural structure of the dungeon contributed to the cosy environment, where it is “quite out of view” and “quite enclosed.” A respondent illustrated that the dungeon was “reasonably concealed” where they “presumably (would) not be disturbing anyone.” Another interviewee concurred as the dungeon is “secluded” and “not in the general eye of the public.” To her, in spite of the “classes nearby,” the dungeon is “mostly a quiet area” and thus, “people (could) smoke and sit down and chit chat away from the lecturers and the others who do not like smokers.” One respondent felt positively about the dungeon because:
“… it is more homely in a sense, you are cut off from the rest of the school… You are practically walled up on four sides. It feels less intimidating. It’s a small nook… that people come to…”

This sense of cosiness and warmth was pertinent to making the dungeon a comfortable place, which “(grew)” on the smokers who “got used to” smoking there, as one of the respondent fondly explained.

(iii) Dungeon as a space claimed by smokers
The dungeon had been collectively agreed by our interviewees to be a space, which belonged primarily to the smokers in NUS. The extent of this can be seen when a respondent vocalised explicitly that “it has been some time that the dungeon is known for a smoking area” and thus “non-smokers would naturally avoid this place if he or she does not like it.” Smokers have claimed this space, though not “by force”, as an interviewee emphasised strongly. He regarded it as a natural occurrence – “smokers just find (the dungeon) suitable.” Similarly, another interviewee perceived the dungeon as a “created space” for smokers, just like “other spaces are for everybody else” and believed this was the reason why the university authorities had not really clamped down on the dungeon totally. In addition, a respondent identified the dungeon as the creation of “a spot that people identify with,” if they had been there “long enough” to recognise it as “somewhere (they) could have a good time in and people (would) keep coming back.” Comments also revealed that the dungeon is the “only spot that allow(ed) smokers to smoke freely” due to a “seeming on-going culture” and a “place” where smokers could play “hide-and-seek with the security.” One interviewee also expressed his indifference towards the recent spate of recurring security checks in the dungeon and further explained that they “do not really bother” as they had “kind of claim(ed) this place as their own.” Furthermore, because of the “kind of claim” smokers had over the dungeon, he felt that when non-smokers entered, they were “in new territory in some sense.” Similarly, a respondent justified this in his interview that the dungeon was a place that non-smokers would not go to, “unless he or she had classes to attend.” According to his observation as a smoker, non-smokers would choose to “chill” at other benches, avoiding the dungeon as they were “aware that the dungeon is a space for smokers.”

We also noted down interesting objects in the dungeon, which had been there for quite some time based on our past experiences there. Situated beside two of the benches, there is a blue sign with yellow words that states: “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREE CAMPUS”. This was altered with liquid correction pen as the unknown person scrawled “LY” on the sign, making the notice now reading: “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREELY CAMPUS”. In addition, there were stickers pasted on the walls that declared: “Designated Smoking Area”. On another wall, there was a sticker pasted there which read: “Smoking Strictly Prohibited” and there were cancellations and amendments made to it, creating another message: “Smoking NOT Prohibited”.

According to our observations and interviews, apart from smoking, the dungeon was also effectively a space for other activities, prominently because of the benches and tables available. This highlights that smoking was not the only activity carried out in the dungeon. Some respondents indicated that they would “sit (in the dungeon) to do work while smoking,” “sit down and chit chat away” or “eat and work” at the same time. The familiarity of the smokers in the dungeon allowed some to “hang out and chill out.” Three respondents articulated that the benches were a considerably essential part of the dungeon where “people (could) sit down and do their work” and “get work and have their lunch” there. The dungeon was also asserted as “a spot that (one) could have a good time in” and a place where “people would keep (going) back.”

(iv) Smoking: “Point of identity” in the dungeon
The interviewees revealed similar beliefs in the commonality they shared in the dungeon, which facilitated the development of both new and existing friendships. First of all, it was articulated that smokers in the dungeon “tend(ed) to click quite fast” because they “happened to be smokers” and it was their “first point of identity.” Another interviewee also shared that “it (was) pretty easy to pick up a conversation with someone” based on the “commonality that (they smoked).” Four interviewees congruously expressed that “because (they smoked) together, people (were) friendlier” as contrasted against people in other spaces in the school. An interviewee discerned this as “(sharing) this little secret” together of smoking in a “small nook” in the school. From this point onwards, the friendship was grounded and embodied possibilities of development on the same “common grounds of smoking.” Smoking, consistently perceived by the interviewees as “a social activity,” allowed “a bunch of smokers” in the dungeon to “meet rather regularly and frequently.” A respondent demonstrated that smoking “kind of bind(ed) us together” where “in a sense (they had) a shared activity and shared interest.” The sixth interviewee revealed that there was “a certain identity associated with (the dungeon) that (was) very hard to find elsewhere.”

In recent weeks, through our own observations and experiences in the dungeon, new security guards had begun to stamp out smoking heavily on a daily basis. Our respondents had reported to us about how they had grown wary of these “hazards” but this had not stopped them from going to the dungeon to smoke. One interviewee quipped that it would “definitely not” stop smokers from smoking since “it (was) not frequent yet” and he doubted that it was possible to chase away those “very frequent regulars” in the dungeon. Another affirmed that the guards “were not doing anything to (them)” and the other interviewee explained that he would be “tactical” and not smoke “in the presence of the guards” and it did not matter since he “(did) not smoke every five minutes” in the dungeon. He also emphasised that the smokers would “look out for each other” and inform each other when the “hazards” were there. One respondent summed it up by divulging:
“… I think the people here are very cooperative… if they see guards (coming towards the dungeon), they will warn each other…”

In addition, through our observations, we recognised two smokers who had already graduated and were smoking in the dungeon, talking to the regular smokers. Moreover, a respondent had revealed that he had friends who were also graduates but would still go back to the dungeon to see their “smoking friends.” He expressed gladness at seeing his “old friends” who were the ones who introduced the dungeon to him in the first place.
(v) Smokers as the “in-group” versus non-smokers as the “out-group”
Several interviewees caught our attention as to how they distinguished themselves as a united community of smokers in the dungeon. One of these respondents first highlighted that “the smoker community is unique in a sense that (they) are in some ways kind of ostracised” against the larger non-smoking community and proceeded to construe that it is therefore “a sense of identity and unity” in that sense “against the non-smokers.” Despite the alienation the smokers felt, they had, however, regarded themselves as the in-group whereas their non-smoking counterparts formed the “out-group.” This is evident when one of the interviewees, who revealed that he was disgruntled at the negative behaviour of non-smokers in the dungeon, enunciated forcefully that the latter are “being marginalised here.” He described them as “the other people,” those who “walk here (and) cover their noses,” and appeared as though “they are some illegal immigrants” or “god knows what.” He further emphasised strongly that the smokers are “the ones going around and smoking.” In another interview, a respondent elucidated that those non-smokers who are “quite self-righteous” and “start waving their hands in front of their faces” in the midst of the smokers would find difficulties fitting in the community in the dungeon. Another respondent enunciated that “obviously non-smokers would feel uncomfortable with the smell” of “cigarettes and the dungeon” and would not be able to fit in with the community. The other interviewee postulated if the non- smokers are “open to second hand smoke” but further rationalised that even if they “do not mind second hand smoke,” it would “be a funny thing to see them” in the dungeon and they would seem “unnatural.” He illustrated that he had a non-smoking colleague who was constantly “teased” for hanging out with the smokers as to why he would want to “come for a cocktail buffet of second hand smoke.” Moreover, through our observations, the non-smoking students who did stay in the dungeon were often waiting for their classes in the dungeon to begin and would not stay any longer than that.
Another one of our six interviewees cited instances when she sometimes felt inconsiderate towards “the people who have to come (to the dungeon) inevitably” for classes and who might not be smokers. However, she stressed that she did not give so much thought to “people who (go there) to sit and give that kind of irritated look.” Lastly, when posed the question of how one would react in an imaginary situation where another person came up to him in the dungeon and asked him not to smoke, one respondent declared that he would feel “frustrated and irritated.” He perceived this as an “infringement of (his) private space” as “smoking is part of a smoker’s life.” He continued to vocalise how he would “probably stare at the person and give him a blunt face” and then “light another cigarette.”

(vi) Sub-cultural norms of smokers in the dungeon
Through our participant-observations and interviews, we observed and inquired about the norms of smokers in this subculture, which was uncommon or would not be easily understood by non-smokers in the dominant culture. Our respondents have singled out a few for us, namely how they could “actually make friends (there)” and “people would offer cigarettes,” and it was “easier to make friends” as “people are more friendly.” One recalled fondly how they could “sometimes borrow lighters” and thus “strike a conversation easily.”

The respondents consistently highlighted the jargon of smokers such as “bumping off cigarettes,” which they explained as “stealing cigarettes” from “fellow smokers” in the dungeon. One interviewee stressed that he did not think “non smokers could understand these lingo.” He provided another example of how “when someone lights a cigarette for you,” one is supposed to “cover your hand over the fire” and “tap on his fingers twice when it’s done” as a form of “polite gesture.” Another respondent believed that the “norms in the dungeon are very highly contextual” as “these actions are not easily understood by outsiders.” He drew our attention to how if another smoker took out a cigarette, he would follow suit and if another smoker did not have a lighter, he would “naturally feel like passing a lighter or help the other person light.” He concluded that “all these small actions are not understood or practised by non-smokers at all.”

Through our observations, we noticed a paper posted on one of the walls, which wrote: “To the person who left your library book on the bench, no worries as I have helped you returned it already!” After interviews with the respondents, they revealed that it was “common” that smokers in the dungeon would “constantly look out for each other.” For instance, a few explained that if someone was to leave his or her belongings around, they would “naturally” leave the things on top of the lockers, “out of view” so that the person could retrieve it the next day. It was perceived by most of the smokers as a “common practice” and a respondent also recalled how he had left a file behind to find it on top of the lockers the next day. Similarly, if they were aware that there were guards coming into the dungeon, they would “naturally warn the smokers,” even those whom they “hardly know of” but have seen around in the dungeon.

(VI) Interpretations of Findings
Our research had aimed to explore the dungeon as a sub-cultural space in NUS and our observations and interviews have generated findings, which have largely supported our hypothesis. We shall now expound and analyse our data in this section of the paper.

(i) The dungeon as a sub-cultural space for smokers
To begin with, we were concerned with the issue as to why the space of the dungeon had particularly become a sub-cultural space for smokers in NUS, as opposed to the other smoking spots. Thus, we first systematically began our field research through posing questions of how the respondents first knew about the dungeon and how the dungeon fared among the other smoking spots. As seen in the findings above, the interviewees had revealed that they had first been initiated into this sub-culture of smoking in the dungeon through the word of mouth or by personal experience as the dungeon was often touted among smokers and non-smokers as ‘where everyone smoked’. This is pertinent in understanding how the dungeon has first retained its long running tradition of the sub-culture of smoking throughout these years, even though different cohorts of undergraduates had graduated and moved on. This sub-culture has been “continually created, re-created and modified” wherever individuals “sensed in each other’ similar needs”, generated by “like circumstances” as seen in the whole system in NUS which has relegated the smokers into a subordinate group. In addition to this, from our respondents as well as observations, the dungeon had been pointed out as a space for previous batches of NUS smokers and sometimes the graduates would even go back to see their old smoker-friends in the dungeon. This supports Gelder and Thornton’s (1997) conceptualisation that subcultures “once established” may “persist” but not by “sheer inertia.” They may achieve a life, which “outlasts that of the individuals who participated in its creation,” but also so long as it “continues to serve the needs of those who succeed in its creators.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) The dungeon has thus been supported here as a sub-cultural space where the culture continually gets perpetuated and reproduced. In the dungeon, it is not only a smoking spot for regular smokers where it is a one-off event where they congregate to smoke and leave. They have instead claimed this space to resist against the structural forces, which have caused problems – in this case, they have not been allowed to smoke on campus – and this is a sub-cultural space, which may persist as long as the dungeon allows them to share their “similar problems of adjustment” in a group solution. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 51) However, due to our focus in interviewing only the current batch of regular smokers in the dungeon for this paper, this data is limited and would be better substantiated if we had more time and could interview the regular smokers who had graduated as well as the new batches of regular smokers in the next few semesters. Our data can instead shed light on how the sub-cultural space of the dungeon has possibly been sustained as a juxtaposition to the larger dominant non-smoking community in NUS.

In addition, the dungeon stood out as a preferred smoking area for the regular smokers whom we interviewed and this was supported by the majority of them being aware of the existence of other smoking areas in school but still chose the dungeon primarily. When asked to compare between them, most of the respondents tended to draw on the benefits of smoking in the dungeon and expounded less on the disadvantages of smoking in other spots in NUS and this also illustrated how the interviewees first regarded the dungeon positively, above other smoking areas. Drawing on how a respondent asserted strongly that “No. I have the dungeon” in a straightforward and matter-of-fact manner in response to our previous question, this suggests how the dungeon has become a space that he has claimed to have, in contrast to the other smoking spots. This part of the finding emphasises the importance of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space; where at least amongst our interviewees, the dungeon has clinched a favourite spot in their choices of smoking areas. This is also important because to examine if the dungeon is a sub-cultural space, it must first be a space that Schouten and McAlexander (1995) postulated as where a distinctive group has claimed on the “basis of a shared consumption activity”. (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998)

Furthermore, through the interviews we conducted, the dungeon’s environment also surfaced to us as a motivating factor for the respondents to smoke in that space. There were three main components that we noted out from their responses: the dungeon’s accessibility; scenic environment and secluded location made it a suitable basis for a sub-cultural space for smokers in NUS. This is very important, given how smoking had been banned in NUS and the sub-culture which developed there had to be contained in a relatively enclosed space, where it would be out of public view but still accessible enough for the smokers to carry out their smoking openly. The condition of spaces is very pertinent in the suitability for sub-cultures to develop and in our research, it is more important as the main activities conducted in the space of the dungeon is illegal and liable to fines and warnings from the NUS authorities. Spaces in NUS represented the larger, dominant ideology of non-smoking and law-abiding whereas the dungeon represented a space of resistance to this ideology where the regular smokers are relatively away from public view and are able to adjust to this problem of structural constraints. The suitability of the space is thus essential in understanding how dungeon is then able to “serve to objectify the shared meaning” that the subordinate group of regular smokers “need to reinforce” in one another, becoming a sub-cultural space in the context of NUS. (Edelman, 1978) This concept of the importance of the space of the dungeon in developing and maintaining a sub-culture will be further elaborated by Isabelle in the later section of the paper in the Annex.

The dungeon, as perceived by our interviewees, has become primarily a space for smokers and our respondents also postulated that the non-smokers perceived this space similarly. This is supported by how we observed the non-smokers staying in the dungeon only when they have classes there. Interestingly, as a respondent had previously expressed, the dungeon has not been claimed by “force” by the smokers and some of the other interviewees also shared this common belief that it was a natural progression since there are spaces created for everyone. In view of the “claim” that our respondents believed themselves to have over the dungeon, they also posited that the non-smokers were in unfamiliar new territories when the latter stepped into the place. This can be alluded to how Stanley Cohen (1987) identified that subordinate groups are concerned with “winning spaces” in an attempt to claim their “communities… identities and life-styles.” (Kidd, 2002: 19) Through this, Cohen perceived the subordinate group as having won both ‘personal and symbolic spaces’ needed to live a life without the structural restraints. (ibid: 19) Similarly, the dungeon is seen to have become a space fundamentally and specifically for regular smokers. Our respondents’ emphasis of the “claim” that regular smokers have over the dungeon are very telling as it implies that there is a need to assert a form of ownership of the space in the dungeon because of their membership in an oppressed community of smokers in the context of NUS. This is very important as it may have strengthened their connotation amid “flux” and of order amid “uncertainty” in the campus, which restricts their smoking activities. Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1994) conceptualised this as necessary due to how the membership of an oppressed group has to be claimed “tenaciously” in contrast to dominant group membership. (Haslop, Hill and Schmidt, 1998) The latter was readily “taken as given” and because of “its place in mainstream culture,” it did not require “conscious allegiance” in the same way that membership of a subordinate group did. (ibid: 1998) Hence, the claiming of the dungeon for the sub-culture of smoking in NUS is pertinent in understanding how it allowed the smokers to establish a form of identification with the place. It can be implied that the subordinate group of smokers in juxtaposition of the dominant non-smoking community in NUS thus managed to assert their claim over the dungeon through their smoking activities. They have thus created a subculture, as a form of “resistance,” which is a “challenge to the structural forces.” These structural forces can be understood as the larger dominant group which views smoking as deviant and illegal in NUS. However, the data is limiting as these are suggested from six of the many regular smokers in the dungeon and may not represent the whole entire view of the community there. Yet, given that this is an empirically driven paper, this data is useful in shedding light of how some regular smokers perceive the dungeon and can generate a lot of insights which can be further investigated upon.

The above examples have demonstrated that the dungeon is a sub-cultural space for smokers. However, we want to highlight that this does not limit the activities carried out in the dungeon as solely smoking; evident from our interview responses and observations, the smoking community “eat and work” or “sit down and chitchat as well.” The dungeon could thus be seen to facilitate personal activities (such as studying) or social activities (such as chatting and smoking). It is more conducive because of the benches available; without them, the respondents revealed that they would probably “not stay there” and would “just smoke and leave.” Hence, the presence of sitting facilities promotes the dungeon even stronger as a suitable space for smokers. As a respondent had postulated, if the benches are removed, the dungeon would probably be a normal place for students, regardless of whether they smoked, to hang around slightly before classes. The smokers would, thus, not be inclined to integrate socially as a community against the dominant structures because the space of the dungeon would have relatively lost some of its value as a space of “resistance” if they are unable to sit on the benches and hand out. Moreover, the dungeon can be analysed to be a sub-culture space for smokers as they are not only able to smoke relatively openly here; they can also carry out activities such as eating, studying and talking. All these contribute to a sense of community amongst the smokers, as they are able to hang around here even when they are not smoking. As smokers do not smoke at every moment, the dungeon has become a space where they can do other things other than smoking and thus, strengthening the space claimed by the smokers.

In concert with the dungeon being claimed by the smokers as their space, we can witness the resistance that the smokers put up in this space through the physical manifestations of the discontent with existing rules. The signs in the dungeon that demonstrated the ideas of the dominant culture, namely the “Smoking strictly prohibited” sign and the “THIS IS A SMOKE-FREE CAMPUS” sign became tools of such resistance. By altering the message that these signs from the NUS authorities attempt to perpetuate, the smokers, members of the sub-culture tried to impose their beliefs in this space, that NUS should be a “smoke-freely” campus and smoking should not be prohibited. The dungeon has become a place to redress the injustice they feel about their situation and provides the opportunity to articulate safely “the assertion and aggression” against the dominant culture. Hence, this suggests that the dungeon is indeed a sub-cultural space for resistance of the smokers through our observations of the actions displayed by sub-cultural community in NUS. This data is useful and more significant because it is not solely based on the interviews we carried out, but also generated from our observations in general.

(ii) Smoking as a point of identity in the sub-cultural space of dungeon
From our interviews, smokers faced problems due to the ban of smoking in the institution and had been relegated to the subordinate group within a larger community of non-smokers. Hence, they based their membership in the community in the dungeon based on their first point of identity: smoking. As the interviewees had shared, the “commonality” that they smoke became a basis of how easily friendships in the dungeon were built and developed. Collectively agreed that smoking is a “social activity,” the community of smokers served as a “reference group,” where these actors with “similar problems of adjustment” formed membership of a group as they were “similarly circumstanced within the group.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 48) Like how a respondent expounded that smoking “binds” them together as they “share this little” secret of smoking in a “small nook” in the dungeon, smoking helped the smoker to feel that he was “a member of the group” and experienced “genuinely solidarity” which he could “count on.” (Jenks, 2005: 86) Since NUS is a no-smoking campus, this common identity of being smokers helped to bind them together as they faced problems against the dominant structures as well as the fact they were smoking illegally on the campus. The sixth interviewee who had distinguished that a certain identity associated with the dungeon was very hard to find elsewhere” reinforced this notion of the point of identity of smoking, which the smokers found common among themselves. Hence, as Albert Cohen had postulated, this subculture is “serviceable” and “viable” precisely because it “entails the emergence of a certain amount of group solidarity and heightened interaction among the participants in the sub-culture.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 52) It was only through the interaction of fellow smokers who “share” the same values that the individual actor finds “social validation for his beliefs and social rewards for his way of life,” which has been labelled as “deviant” and “illegal” in the context of the dominant non-smoking community in NUS. (ibid: 52) This continued existence of the group and “friendly intercourse” with the members in the subordinate community of smokers thus became “values for the actors” to be motivated and validated for their actions. (ibid: 52) However, our data collection here is limited as it reflects how smoking, particularly in the space of the dungeon, helps to form a first point of identity among smokers in NUS but it is not necessarily indicative of a special phenomenon only contained within this space. After all, smoking has already been commonly perceived as a “social activity” in general which helps to form friendships easily elsewhere. More importantly, our data has been able to support how the identity of smokers help to contribute to this sub-culture in the dungeon and suggests that the sub-culture in the dungeon is formed within the community of regular smokers.

(iii) Smokers as the “in-group” versus non-smokers as the “out-group”
Despite being “ostracised” against the larger non-smoking community in NUS, the interviewees considered themselves as a united community of smokers in the dungeon where it is the smokers against the non-smokers. This highlighted how the respondents conceptualised themselves as the in-group whereas the non-smokers are the out-group. For instance, as one of the respondent vocalised, the non-smokers often displayed negative actions like “covering their noses” and “appearing as though they are some illegal immigrants” or “god knows what.” He emphasised that the non-smokers are the ones “marginalised” in the dungeon. The negative connotations of his feedback shed light on how he perceived the non-smokers as a different group altogether and were the problematic ones whom he did not identify with. Interviewees conducted also revealed the regular smokers’ awareness of non-smokers who were “self-righteous” and often reacted negatively to the smoking in the dungeon. This could have been a catalyst, which further motivated them to posit themselves as a group of united smokers against the non-smokers.

This is supported by how Jenks (2005) viewed the sub-cultural members as “seek(ing) protection from the outside and solidarity on the inside.” The subordinate group of smokers in NUS, being oppressed by the non-smoking restraints set by NUS authorities, do not have the “respect” in which the non-smokers hold in contingent upon the agreement of the beliefs that the former profess and norms that the former observe with the latter’s norms and beliefs. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 47) Facing hostility and the lack of recognition from the outside, they now seek to be validated within the group of smokers. The non-smokers thus have a tendency to “relax” when there are people who think and feel as they do whom they do not have to “defend” themselves from. (ibid: 47) Albert Cohen (1955) believed that consensus is rewarded by “acceptance”, “recognition” and respect” and more importantly, it is the “most important criterion of the validity of the frame of reference which motivates and justifies” their conduct. (ibid: 47) Having the understanding and acceptance by fellow smokers who similarly face the ban of smoking and flout the school rules of no-smoking, this justifies and motivates the smokers who are basing the validity of their beliefs and norms on the “reference group” of regular smokers in the dungeon.

In addition, Gelder and Thornton (1997) expressed that “the new sub-culture of the community will come to include hostile and contemptuous images of those groups whose enmity they have earned.” This explained why the subordinate community of smokers viewed the non-smokers as outsiders in context of the larger non-smoking community in NUS. “Non-conformity with the expectations of the outsiders” is a “positive criterion of status” within the community of smokers and as Albert Cohen (1995) postulated, because of the “hostility of the outsiders,” members of sub-cultural groups were motivated to look for one another for support. (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 52) This thus further “accentuates the separateness of the (sub-cultural group),” the “dependence of the members on the group” as well as “the richness and individuality of its subculture.” (ibid: 52) Lastly, Fritz Redl conceptualised the term “protective provocation” for smokers whose behaviour may “encounter strong resistances” in the larger context of NUS. (ibid: 53) Through “unconscious motivations” to act precisely in ways that would “stimulate others to expressions of anger and hostility,” the smokers could “seize upon” these as “evidences of their essential enmity and ill will” and were then “absolved of (their own) motivations towards these outsiders.” (ibid: 53) They were then freer to “act without ambivalence” and this hostility of the out-group, thus “engendered or aggravated,” would protect the in-group from “mixed feelings about its own way of life.” (ibid: 53) Therefore, the distinction between the non-smokers and the smokers into the respective categories of the “out-group” and in-group” is very important in understanding how the sub-culture in the space of the dungeon has developed according to resistance against the dominant group, which in this case is the non-smokers. It is essential that a binary opposition be imposed against the others (non-smokers) as this would help strengthen the solidarity within the group, which effectively protects them from the larger dominant community in NUS.

(v) Sub-cultural norms of smokers in the dungeon
Through our observations, we were interested to explore if the cultural norms in the dungeon differed from those of the mainstream culture of NUS. As seen in the findings, we noted down examples of how smokers would look after each other in the dungeon. For instance, the paper posted on the wall, which informed the person who had left his or her library book behind that the book was safely returned, appeared that some smokers would help each other and were not selfish or apathetic. Through our interviews, we also discovered that some respondents were on the receiving end of the generally supportive and helpful atmosphere in the dungeon. This, after analysis, stood out strongly as very different from the normal cultural norms in NUS, where most people would mind their own business and help to keep the belongings left behind by others. Given the general detached and cold environment, which the meritocratic and individual academic system in NUS has created, the students generally have no formal classmates due to the modular-based system and the campus does not have a particular space for gathering and social activities. Even in the canteen, space is limited and many people often eat and go. Unless one is active in curricular activities, the academic environment would be detached, alienating and cold to many. In contrast, the helpful gestures of the smokers in the dungeon, no matter how small, suggested how the community of smokers enjoyed a sense of trust and understanding which was often unspoken. Another example of generosity and rapport shared in the subculture of the dungeon was how cigarettes were graciously and charitably offered to those smokers who lacked some. This would stand in contrast to the general cold and detached environment of NUS at large, where people are generally more competitive and individualistic. Another polite gesture of covering the cigarette for another smoker while he or she smoked also indicated a shared sub-cultural norm among smokers. This would be later expounded by Wee Loon in the Annex.

Albert Cohen (1955) postulated that “for every role (in a group),” there are “certain kinds of actions and belief” which functioned, “as truly and effectively as do uniforms and membership cards,” as “signs of membership.” (Gelder and Thornton, 1997: 47) Hence, the sub-cultural community of smokers in the dungeon “covet such membership” to the degree that they were motivated to “assume those signs, to incorporate them into (their) behaviour and frame of reference.” (ibid: 47) The smokers in the dungeon thus exhibited and practised sub-cultural norms; those which interviewees strongly expressed would not be “easily understood by non-smokers at all.” Cohen further explicated that “such new status criteria” as a participant in a sub-culture would “represent new sub-cultural values,” “different from or even antithetical to those of the larger status system.” (ibid: 51) Therefore, in view of how the academic atmosphere of NUS unwittingly promoted individualism and detachment among the students, the sub-cultural norms of the smokers stood out as strikingly distinctive, unique to their community in the dungeon. As part of the smoking community, this was a surprising observation pointed out to us by a non-smoker, who could not understand this friendly and generous phenomenon. This in itself highlighted how the dungeon was indeed a sub-cultural space as Cohen conceived, the norms were “shared only among these actors who stand somehow to profit from them and find in one another a sympathetic moral climate within which these norms may come into fruition and persist.” (ibid: 51) Hence, in NUS where structural restraints limited the smokers, smokers find a “group solution” by forming a community in the dungeon and continually create, re-create and modify this sub-culture through the norms. In essence, this sub-culture was generated by “like circumstances,” not perpetuated “generally in the larger system.” (ibid: 51)

(VII) Strengths and weaknesses
As Mason highlighted correctly, that the “chosen method(s)” would have “influence” on the “setting and interactions” within it as well as the observer’s very “presence.” In the course of research, it was imperative that we understood our own strengths and limitations so that we know the impacts they have on our data collection as well as the strengths and limits of our research and so that we could incorporate them into future researches.

(i) Strengths
Our first strength came from our position as regular smokers of the dungeon. This allowed us to stay around the dungeon without incurring suspicion from the other regular smokers. This was an advantage compared to a non-smoker and non-regular smoker who could be easily spotted by the regulars, as one of our informant highlighted that these people would appear “out of place.” Hence we could carry out our observations easily and unobtrusively. Secondly, because we are regular smokers of this place, we had established the rapport with the informants. This allowed us to gain their trust easily and reduce their inhibitions as they see us as one of their own, making possible the interviews on a subject that was somewhat sensitive as they were after all engaged in an “illegal” activity in the context of NUS. Since this is a sensitive topic to write about for a submitted paper, it was important, as these regular smokers would be more trusting to release information about their unapproved activities. More importantly, the smokers whom we interviewed were not put off by us and this would have been different if we had been non-smokers, who, as seen in our interviews, were seen as the outsiders.

Our second strength stemmed from our position as regular smokers and members of the in-group at the dungeon, though this time it is more relevant in terms of the time that we spent in our site of research. As mentioned in the introduction, this research topic was not one that we had undertaken originally, hence we would naturally have less time available in terms of data collection. However, due to our daily presence in the dungeon, we made up for the loss time by smaller bite-size observations that we could perform while carrying out our daily activities such as studying and eating. We would also have access to data from our daily interactions with the regular smokers in the dungeon that a non-regular smoker and non-smoker would not have.

Our third strength was based on the commonality that we shared with the informants. As regular smokers in the dungeon, our ability to speak and understand the lingo used by our informants was an advantage as they could relate better to us. To begin with, we were already friends and as such, we were already speaking the same language as them. Thus they did not need to adjust their language to accommodate us, this also meant that they could express themselves more freely. For example, we did not need them to explain terms like “bumping off” or “stealing cigarettes”, which our informant used readily. These terms could not be taken literally yet explaining them would have resulted in a loss of meaning. In addition, if the informants had to rephrase their words to express what they wanted to say in terms of sub-cultural norms such as “bumping off” cigarettes, the words would have already lost their meanings.

The next strength we had came, unexpectedly, from the change of choice of research topic. As this was not the first time that we conducted interviews, we had the benefit of additional practice such that we were able to exercise more effective interviewing skills for this research. This is not to say that we were seasoned interviewers; however, the observation exercise and analysis, the interview exercise and analysis, as well as the in-class critique of our previous works did allow us to understand our shortcomings in terms of qualitative data collection, putting us in better stead for this research paper. For example, we now know better to appropriately use probes. For Wee Loon, he was conscious about noting down verbal as well as non-verbal cues during the interview while Isabelle reminded herself not to interrupt her respondents. All these were based on how they had fared in their previous interview exercises for this module and adjustments and improvement were made by us in the attempt to be better interviewers. This was also true for our observations as we were more aware of our weaknesses and strengths in taking notes and we became more conscious of observing the smoking area without being too focused on specific parts. This hence allowed us to generate and support our hypothesis with our empirical evidence.

The last but not the least of our strengths found its source from our choice of research topic. Our topic of research, the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, was one that was just about the right size for a research project of one semester. Its advantage laid in the proximity of the research site, the size of the physical space as well as the scope to be covered. In this case, the topic was suitable as a broader topic would meant that we would not be able to cover the necessary grounds in one semester while on the contrary a narrower topic would turn out insufficient for a module of this size.


(ii) Limitations
One of the first limitations we encountered was that, as members of the regular smoking crowd that we are researching on, our position and knowledge of the subject matter on the one hand brought about insights that outsiders would not understand. On the other hand, we brought with us the same kind of bias that an outsider would not have into the project. For one, in retrospect, we felt that as regular smokers in the dungeon, we were not as sensitive in the discussion of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. As we ourselves were subsumed in the sub-culture, we were less curious about the points that are brought up by the informants. For example, we were not consciously looking out for the sub-cultural norms prevalent in the dungeon as we were often exposed to them and thus took them for granted. It was only until we conducted our first interview that the interviewee had raised the issue of sub-cultural norms that we realised this was an important issue. We thus incorporated this issue subsequently into our questions. This thus highlights how we have been oblivious to important concepts in the dungeon due to our positions as regular smokers and our lack of relative experience in observations. Certain times, we realised that there were areas that we could explore further with the informants but we did not due to the understanding we had and the knowledge of the topic that we might have assumed ourselves to have. For instance, we collectively feel that we could have inquired about how the regular smokers feel about smoking in front of the blue sign that prohibited smoking in the campus, but because of the shortage of time, we were unable to probe further on this issue.

The second problem that we encountered was that the informants and us were personal friends. Hence there might arise a situation in which the informants responded to our queries in ways that they may think we wanted them to respond or ways which would be socially desirable so as not to be judged by us. As a result, they might not be as candid or real in their responses and thus, we may not be able to gather information as accurately as we would have liked. In addition, we also found ourselves shaping our behaviour, as we were conscious of the fact that they might be judging us even though we were the interviewers. In sum, there were the interviewer and interviewee effects, for both interviewers and informants, to respond in more socially acceptable manners, possibly affecting the “realness” of the data collection.

In addition to the interviewer and interviewee effects as stated above, we were also affected by the interviewer and interviewee effect in another way. As we had two different interviewers, we brought with us, different interviewing skills and interviewer effects into the data that we collected. During our examination of the data that we collected separately, we took to issues various points of the interviews such as how some questions could have been explored further or how the direction of the interview should have gone. Although having more than one person working on the project meant that we could provide important feedbacks to each other, it also meant that the data collection process was inconsistent with each bringing his or her strengths as well as weaknesses into the project. For example, Isabelle tended to interrupt her interviewees even though she tried to minimise the frequencies of the interruptions. Wee Loon, however, had the tendency to let the interviewees lead the conversation even as he tried to steer the interviews towards a more focused direction. Even though we had taken notice of it and got better with each interview, this was undeniably an obvious weakness that we carried in.

The next problem that we encountered was the issue with time. Like previously mentioned, we had to change to this topic of research rather late into the semester, which meant that we were greatly disadvantaged in terms of the amount of time we had to carry out our data collection. Even though we pointed out in the “Strengths” section that we could made up for loss time by adding informal, ad hoc daily observations into our data collection, it was undeniable that such observations would not yield the same quality of data as if we had the time to carry out planned and purposeful observations. Adding to that, we realised that the dynamics in the dungeon had changed since the beginning of the semester as a result of the impending examinations. Consequently, the observations that were carried out during this late period had brought about different information from what we would have collected if we had carried out the observations at an earlier point during the semester.

In relation to the previous point, a good qualitative researcher should collect his data, take it back and go through it to look for areas that needed to be strengthen and explored further, go back to his informants, interview them again and repeat this process so as to “produce rounded and contextual understandings on the basis of rich, nuanced and detailed data.” (Mason, 2006: 3) We felt that this should also have been what we should do. Though we did go back to our informants again, we could not do it more than once due to time constraints. The result was the existence of questions that we wanted to explore and develop further but could not.

Another limitation, we felt, was that we did not survey the other smoking sites. As the activity of smoking, which in a way defined the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, is also carried out in other spots in the campus, it would be interesting to survey the other sites in order to understand the differences between the dungeon and the former. This would give us greater understanding as to why the dungeon stood out as a sub-cultural space. It would also give more justification to the title of sub-cultural space of the dungeon as it was not limited to the information gathered from the users of that space, which might be biased towards it.
Because of the nature of our qualitative research, our analysis on data has not been “derived from a sample that is representative of a wider population”, as compared to that of a quantitative research. (Mason, 2006: 195) This could be a limiting factor in this paper but we would like to emphasis that we are not attempting to make “empirical generalisations”. This paper has sought to generate data for us to come up with concepts to perceive the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. On hindsight, we could have compared the “characteristics of our sample of interviewees” to the characteristics of the wider population from which they were drawn from, to further support our case that there is “no reason to suspect atypicality” in helping us strengthen our generalising “theoretically”. (ibid: 195) Hence, this is a limiting factor that due to the lack of time, we were unfortunately unable to establish. This could have helped us to build a stronger foundation for our theories in this paper.

Moreover, because of the sensitive nature of this topic, we had to be extra careful due to how we would be endangering our interviewees’ identities (as well as ours) as the activity of smoking is outlawed in NUS. This was problematic because we could not take pictures with people’s faces clearly shown and we had to be additionally careful about our observations and interviews. We thus decided that even though our photographs were very useful in portraying the dungeon as a sub-cultural space, we were unable to use them and had to crop some parts away. As our interviewees trusted us a lot to not reveal their personal information, there were a lot of responsibilities on us to be ethical and discerning. This was something we had learned through the previous interview exercises, which we believe we have thus managed much better, and is an example of how we have turned this limitation into a strength.

One last point on the limitations of our project hinges on the nature of study on sub-culture. The existence of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space is not a recent development and it had its beginning in cohorts of students that have since graduated. In contrast, our research is time specific in the sense that it is applicable only to this semester. This made us understand the “ahistoricity” of our paper and that a qualitative longitudinal study of the dungeon over several semester would give us better understanding of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space. Nonetheless, our study gave us good insight into this phenomenon and is a good starting point for further research into this area.

(VIII) Conclusion
In this section, we will reiterate what was there to be performed in this essay and how we went about it. In this paper, we aimed to examine the dungeon as a sub-cultural space amidst the overriding norms of the general student population and the spatial arrangements of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore, which supplied the contexts for our in-depth interviews and ethnographic study.

Our qualitative research regarding participant-observations and interviews on smokers who spent a substantial amount of time in the dungeon supported our hypothesis that the dungeon indeed qualified as a sub-cultural space. We deduced that the dungeon was a sub-cultural space because of the following.

It was a space where there was smoking, a social activity that the mores of the larger undergraduate population frowned upon and the hegemonic school administration outlawed. In addition, the social actors that participated in these activities used the dungeon as a space for resisting a regulation that they felt was unjust. Furthermore, through the interactions between the smokers and the non-smokers, there was a boundary that demarcated the in-group and out-group of the sub-culture. This contrast between the two groups demonstrated the resistance through which the in-group claimed the space of the dungeon through non-violent means, and where the members of the dominant culture of the non-smokers in the larger NUS context would avoid. Lastly, the sub-cultural norms, which were specific to the members of the group and not easily understood by outsiders, could be observed among the members. These norms did not only include certain types of behaviours but also certain lingo as demonstrated in this paper.

As previously mentioned, this study, despite its limitations, gave us a good insight into the space of the dungeon as a sub-cultural. As we explained, this phenomenon of the dungeon as a sub-cultural space would be better understood in a qualitative longitudinal study, which would allow us to see its development as well as better qualify it as a true sub-cultural space rather than a one semester, short term event. Even so, this study is a good starting point with which we can proceed on to the longitudinal study. Secondly, by understanding the dungeon as a sub-cultural space and its development and resistance with the mainstream dominant culture as present in the larger NUS context, we can get a glimpse of the development and resistance of sub-cultures in the society at large.