1
UNDERSTANDING URBAN
DEPRIVATION: WRESTLING
WITH ACCESS
DR MEERA TIWARI &
SUSANNAH PICKERINGSAQQA
Research & Knowledge Exchange Conference, 26
June 2013
Understanding Urban Deprivation:
background to the study
2
UKIERI supported collaboration between UEL and TISS, Mumbai
 To map and disseminate good practice in overcoming
deprivations in urban communities of London and Mumbai
 Deprivation within literature in Capability Approach
 Lack of entitlements
 Entitlements: Can be economic or non-economic, physical or
non-physical
 ‘Lack the opportunity to be adequately nourished, decently
clothed, minimally educated, or properly sheltered’ (Sen, 1979)
Note: the opportunities here are context specific – Sen’s
unrestrictive list of capabilities


Poverty as capability deprivation
 Income poverty
 Capability poverty
Methodology
3
Capability Approach
 Ostrom’s Commons Approach
Domains of deprivation
 Income
 Employment
 Health
 Education & skills
 Housing
 Crime
 Environment

Methodology – initial framework
4
Deprivation
Pre-case study
condition
Opportunity needed
to overcome
deprivation
Agency needed to
overcome
deprivation
Outcome
Poor literacy
Poor knowledge of
entitlements, unable to
access employment
opportunities,
Opportunity to be
educated, Social
Policy institutional
capacity
Collective,
individual &
relational
Educated
communities, rights,
entitlement
Poor health
Unable to be healthy,
being inactive
Social opportunities
Social Policy,
institutional capacity
Individual & relational Good health of present
& future generations
Social exclusion
Poor self-esteem, no
decision making &
participation
Participative freedom,
political will
Individual, collective Socially inclusive
& relational
society
Poor governance Unable to access public Openness in government Individual, collective,
goods, to have legal
relational
protection
Livelihood/Food Poor nourishment Life Market opportunities; Individual, collective
insecurity
uncertainties
social policy
& relational
Source: Based on Tiwari and Ibrahim, 2012
Effective pursuit of
political, social and
economic freedoms
Well nutritioned adults
& children
Material well-being
Why the access issue?
5



Initial proposal identifies 100 interviews for each India case study and 50
for each of London case studies.
Sept 2012: First London workshop and London case-study visits identify
logistical challenges in interviewing 50 @ OT and ATD.
Jan 2013: First Mumbai workshop: ATD (4); OT (5); LC (0) – first phase of
LC soon after return + recommendation to PGs

June 2013: Second London workshop: PGs report on preliminary meetings

To date India: Sehar (30); GBGB (30); Super30 (30)

To-date UK: ATD (9); OT (10+); LC (4 + 2 in pipeline)
Disciplinary & legal framework for access 1
6

ESRC Framework for Research Ethics (2010: revised Sep 2012)


6 principles:
 Integrity in design
 Research participants informed of purpose, methods & uses
 Confidentiality
 Voluntary participation
 No harm
 Independence of research
+ working within relevant legislation eg FOI Act, Data Protection, Human
Rights Act
Disciplinary & legal framework for access 2
7

Social Research Association: Ethics Guidelines (2003)

Obligations to society


Obligations to subjects




“in the light of the moral and legal order of the society in which they practice”
(13)
Voluntary participation
Informed as possible
“no group should be disadvantaged by routinely being excluded from
consideration” (14)
Concerned about impact of:


HR Act 1998 on research practice
Growth of “research governance”
Disciplinary & legal framework for access 3
8

Developing Areas Research Group (DARG) Guidelines

Responsiveness to contextuality – local values and norms

Reciprocity and partnership
Disciplinary & legal framework for access 4
9

Charities Act 2011 & Public Benefit Requirement
 Institute
for Voluntary Action Research (2012) findings:
 Anxiety
& anger among some charities at being under so
much scrutiny
 Greatest impact on religious/faith-based charities, fee
charging and membership based.
“The reluctant respondent” (Adler & Adler,
2001)
10
“The litigious nature of US society today and the politicisation of research have
influenced the core, basic character of interviewing” (531)

Organisations/groups divide knowledge terrain into those accessible to the
public and those inaccessible.

“spectrum of reluctance”

Researchers need to “navigate” this terrain
Strategies for overcoming reluctance and resistance.
Three London case-studies
11
Using the “reluctant respondent” framework
Strategies for
overcoming
reluctance
ATD Fourth World
Osmani Trust
London Citizens
1. Approach
•
•
•
Via MA project
Emphasised mutual benefits
& partnership
•
UEL Alumni
•
Advice from ex-colleagues
@ MA
Jan 2013 Meeting with excolleague & member of ELM
•
•
•
•
Sept 2012 with TISS
Nov LC Assembly
Jan 2013 key interviews
May 2013 CO leadership
training
•
UEL LSS TELCO
membership
12
•
Existing relationship
with SPS research
Emphasised mutual
benefits & partnership
2. Sponsorship
•
3. Relational
groundwork
•
•
•
•
•
Sept 2012 with TISS
Alain as key contact
PGs @ Thurs lunch
June 2013 workshop
attendance
Frimhurst in July?
•
•
•
•
•
4. Joint
membership
•
Oxfam GB
partnership
Sept 2012 with TISS
UEL Alumni
Layers of tel calls, emails
Dec 2012 interviews with
senior managers but
unwilling to go around
“gatekeeper”.
June 2013 new contact but
no workshop attendance
Tentative conclusions
13



Framework does not acknowledge political and social context
eg Gilligan; diaspora-Bangladesh relations and Charities Act
Public Benefit pressures.
“Gatekeeper” relationship is vital not just for access but in coconstruction of data (Campbell et al 2006).
Challenge of “reluctance” intensified when core research focus
is on people experiencing “relational” and “dignity”
deprivations.