This thesis seeks to understand women’s support choices whilst homeless through exploring how their dignity and sense-of-self is affected by, and affects, their experiences of informal support. Dignity is largely unexplored in homelessness research and, despite an increase in research on women’s homelessness, few studies explore women’s experiences away from services in-depth. Inspired by recent social care best practices foregrounding the psychological wellbeing of those accessing support, this study employs a dignity-centred methodology. Fourteen women with experiences of homelessness participate through interviews (face-to-face, written or walking) and observations. Seventeen support workers and informal supporters, a perspective rarely included in research, participated in semi-structured interviews. An organisation observation was conducted with five workers.
These perspectives are used to develop an original conceptualisation of informal support in the context of women’s homelessness. The definition captures more nuance than in existing research by considering quality and motivation for support. It sees informal support as wider than family/friend support relationships, with examples of communities mobilising, and support workers going beyond or outside their professional roles. 
The study’s theoretical framework combines societal discourse and capital theory to construct an understanding of dignity. Using this framework, informal support conceptualisation, and diverse avenues of participant recruitment, this study contributes unique insight into women’s homelessness. It finds societal discourse on women, motherhood, asylum seekers and homelessness to affect women’s dignity, sense-of-self and consequently their support choices. Women’s support choices largely result from dignity maintenance and risk management strategies, but the strategies available to women, and the impact of societal discourse on them, vary depending on their embodied capital. The study concludes that informal support honours women’s dignity, viewing them as deserving of support and resources. Yet it can position them as victims of structural disadvantage affecting their agency, ability to build capital and raise their societal status.