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.