Connected Communities
Conceptualising community as
a social fix, argument and
persuasion in health, housing
and local governance
Appendicies
Dr Leila Hamalainen and Dr Kathryn Jones
1
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Introduction
This document contains the appendices referred to in the AHRC report:
Conceptualising community as a social fix, argument and persuasion in health,
housing and local governance. The appendices are as follows:
Appendix 1: Phase One Bibliography of Major References
Appendix 2: Method and Search Profile
Appendix 3: Rhetorical Discourse Analysis Policy Documents
Appendix 4: Flyer for Practitioner Event
Appendix 5: Hermeneutical Table: Summary of Stories
Appendix 6: Hermeneutical Story Summaries from Policy Documents
Appendix 7: Local Interpretations of Community
Appendix 8: Contestation in Policy Documents
2
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 1: Phase One Bibliography of Major References
Amin, A., 2005. Local community on trial. Economy and Society 34, 612-633.
Andrews, R., Cowell, R., Downe, J., Martin, S., Turner, D., 2008. Supporting effective
citizenship in local government: engaging, educating and empowering local
citizens. Local Government Studies 34, 489-507.
Atkinson, R., 1999. Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary
British Urban Regeneration. Urban Studies 36, 59-72.
Atkinson, R., 2000. Narratives of policy: the construction of urban problems and
urban policy in the official discourse of British government 1968-1998. Critical
Social Policy 20, 211-232.
Atkinson, R., 2003. Addressing urban social exclusion through community
involvement in urban regeneration, in: Raco, M., Imrie, R., 2003. Urban
renaissance?: New Labour, community and urban policy. Policy Press, Bristol.
pp. 109-119.
Bache, I., Catney, P., 2008. Embryonic associationalism: New labour and urban
governance. Public Administration 86, 411-428.
Bailey, N., 2003. Local strategic partnerships in England: the continuing search for
collaborative advantage, leadership and strategy in urban governance. Planning
Theory & Practice 4, 443-457.
Bailey, N., 2010. Understanding community empowerment in urban regeneration and
planning in england: Putting policy and practice in context. Planning Practice
and Research 25, 317-332.
Barnes, M., 1999. Users as Citizens: Collective Action and the Local Governance of
Welfare. Social Policy & Administration 33, 73-90.
Bauld, L., Judge, K., Barnes, M., Benzeval, M., MacKenzie, M., Sullivan, H., 2005.
Promoting social change: The experience of health action zones in England.
Journal of Social Policy 34, 427-445.
3
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Berkeley, D., Springett, J., 2006a. From rhetoric to reality: Barriers faced by Health
For All initiatives. Social Science and Medicine 63, 179-188.
Berkeley, D., Springett, J., 2006b. From rhetoric to reality: a systemic approach to
understanding the constraints faced by Health For All initiatives in England.
Social Science and Medicine 63, 2877-2889.
Bridgen, P., 2004. Evaluating the empowering potential of community-based health
schemes: The case of community health policies in the UK since 1997.
Community Development Journal 39, 289-302.
Bridgen, P., 2006. Social capital, community empowerment and public health: Policy
developments in the UK since 1997. Policy and Politics 34, 27-50.
Brownill, S., 2007. New labour’s evolving regeneration policy: The transition from the
single regeneration budget to the single pot in Oxford. Local Economy 22, 261278.
Brownill, S., Carpenter, J., 2009. Governance and “integrated” planning: The case of
sustainable communities in the Thames Gateway, England. Urban Studies 46,
251-274.
Campbell, H., Marshall, R., 2000. Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond
the one to the many. International Planning Studies 5, 321-344.
Carlisle, S., 2010. Tackling health inequalities and social exclusion through
partnership and community engagement? A reality check for policy and practice
aspirations from a Social Inclusion Partnership in Scotland. Critical Public Health
20, 117-127.
Carpenter, J., Brownill, S., 2008. Approaches to democratic involvement: Widening
community engagement in the English planning system. Planning Theory and
Practice 9, 227-248.
Chahan, G., 2002. Searching for Solid Foundations: Community Involvement in
Urban Policy, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. London.
4
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Clark, D., Southern, R., Beer, J., 2007. Rural governance, community empowerment
and the new institutionalism: A case study of the Isle of Wight. Journal of Rural
Studies 23, 254-266.
Cochrane, A., 2010. Exploring the regional politics of “sustainability”: Making up
sustainable communities in the South-East of England. Environmental Policy and
Governance 20, 370-381.
Cole, I., Etherington, D., 2005. Neighbourhood renewal policy and spatial
differentiation in housing markets: Recent trends in England and Denmark.
European Journal of Housing Policy 5, 77-97.
Cole, I., Goodchild, B., 2000. Social mix and the “balanced community” in British
housing policy - a tale of two epochs. Geojournal 51, 351-360.
Colomb, C., 2006. Towards an urban renaissance in new labour’s Britain:
Fragmentation or sustainable reurbanisation of British cities? Archiv fur
Sozialgeschichte 46, 389-794.
Colomb, C., 2007. Unpacking new labour’s “Urban Renaissance” agenda: Towards a
socially sustainable reurbanization of British cities? Planning Practice and
Research 22, 1-24.
Craig, G., 2007. Community capacity-building: Something old, something new...?
Critical Social Policy 27, 335-359.
Crawshaw, P., Bunton, R., Gillen, K., 2003. Health Action Zones and the problem of
community. Health and Social Care in the Community 11, 36-44.
Damer, S. , Hague, C., 1971. Public Participation in Planning: A Review. Town
Planning Review 43, 219-232.
Dargan, L., 2009. Participation and local urban regeneration: The case of the New
Deal for Communities (NDC) in the UK. Regional Studies 43, 305-317.
Davies, J.S., 2005. The social exclusion debate: Strategies, controversies and
dilemmas. Policy Studies 26, 3-27.
5
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Davies, J.S., 2007a. The limits of partnership: An exit-action strategy for local
democratic inclusion. Political Studies 55, 779-800.
Davies, J.S., 2009. The limits of joined-up government: Towards a political analysis.
Public Administration 87, 80-96.
Davies, W., 2007b. The governmentality of new labour. Public Policy Research 13,
249-256.
Davis, H., Daly, G., 2004. From community government to communitarian
partnership? Approaches to devolution in Birmingham. Local Government
Studies 30, 182-195.
Deacon, A., 2004. Justifying conditionality: the case of anti-social tenants. Housing
studies 19, 911-926.
Diamond, J., 2004. Local regeneration initiatives and capacity building: Whose
“capacity” and “building” for what? Community Development Journal 39, 177189.
Diamond, J., 2008. Capacity building in the voluntary and community sectors:
Towards relative independence - Limits and possibilities. Public Policy and
Administration 23, 153-166.
Dinham, A., 2005. Empowered or over-powered? The real experiences of local
participation in the UK’s New Deal for Communities. Community Development
Journal 40, 301-312.
Duffy, K., Hutchinson, J., 1997. Urban policy and the turn to community. Town
Planning Review 68, 347-362.
Durose, C., Lowndes, V., 2010. Neighbourhood governance: Contested rationales
within a multi-level setting - a study of Manchester. Local Government Studies
36, 341-359.
Emmel, N., Conn, C., Nuffield Institute for, H., 2004. Towards community
involvement : strategies for health and social care providers. Nuffield Institute
for Health, Leeds.
6
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Flint, J., 2006. Maintaining an Arm’s Length? Housing, Community Governance and
the Management of “Problematic” Populations. Housing Studies 21, 171-186.
Foley, P., Martin, S., 2000. A new deal for the community? Public participation in
regeneration and local service delivery. Policy and Politics 28, 479-492.
Fremeaux, I., 2005. New Labour’s appropriation of the concept of community: a
critique. Community Development Journal 40, 265-274.
Fuller, C., Geddes, M., 2008. Urban governance under neoliberalism: New labour and
the restructuring of state-space. Antipode 40, 252-282.
Furbey, R., 1999. Urban “regeneration”: reflections on a metaphor. Critical Social
Policy 19, 419-45.
Geddes, M., 2006. Partnership and the limits to local governance in England:
Institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 30, 76-97.
Goodlad, R., Burton, P., Croft, J., 2005. Effectiveness at what? The processes and
impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 23, 923-938.
Gray, J., 1995. Hollowing out the core, The Guardian, 8 March, 7.
Hall, S., 2003. The “third way” revisited: ’New labour, spatial policy and the national
strategy for neighbourhood renewal. Planning Practice and Research 18, 265277.
Harris, J., 2002. Caring for citizenship. British Journal of Social Work 32, 267-281.
Haughton, G., While, A., 1999. From Corporate City to Citizens City? Urban Affairs
Review 35, 3.
Henderson, S., Bowlby, S., M, R., 2007. Refashioning local government and innercity regeneration: The Salford experience. Urban Studies 44, 1441-1463.
7
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Hickman, P.G., 2006. Approaches to tenant participation in the English local
authority sector. Housing Studies 21, 209-225.
Hodkinson, S., 2011. Housing Regeneration and the Private Finance Initiative in
England: Unstitching the Neoliberal Urban Straitjacket. Antipode 43, 358-383.
Houghton, B., 2011. Poverty, power and policy dilemmas: lessons from the citizen
engagement programme in England. Journal of Urban and Regional Renewal 4,
207-217.
Jewkes, R., Murcott, A., 1998. Community representatives: Representing the
“community”? Social Science and Medicine 46, 843-858.
John, P., 2009. Citizen Governance: Where it came from, where it’s going. In:
Durose, C., Greasley, S., Richardson, L., 2009. Changing Local Governance,
Changing Local Citizens. Bristol. Policy Press.
Judge, K., Bauld, L., 2006. Learning from policy failure? Health action zones in
England. European Journal of Public Health 16, 341-3.
Kearns, A., Parkinson, M., Galster, G., Forrest, R., Butler, T., Robson, G., Wallace,
M., Meegan, R., Mitchell, A., Allen, J., Cars, G., Purdue, D., Docherty, I.,
Goodlad, R., Paddison, R., Buck, N., Atkinson, R., Kintrea, K., Ellaway, A.,
MacIntyre, S., 2003. Urban neighbourhoods. Urban studies 38, 2103-2316.
Kearns, A., Tannahill, C., Bond, L., 2009. Regeneration and health: Conceptualising
the connections. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 3, 56-76.
Keddie, J., Tonkiss, F., 2010. The market and the plan: Housing, urban renewal and
socio-economic change in London. City, Culture and Society 1, 57-67.
Lawless, P., 2004. Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New Deal for
Communities in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
22, 383-399.
Lawless, P., 2006. Area-based urban interventions: Rationale and outcomes: The
new deal for communities programme in England. Urban Studies 43, 19912011.
8
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Lawless, P., Foden, M., Wilson, I., Beatty, C., 2010. Understanding area-based
regeneration: The new deal for communities programme in England. Urban
Studies 47, 257-275.
Leary, M.E., 2008. Gin and tonic or oil and water: The entrepreneurial city and
sustainable managerial regeneration in Manchester. Local Economy 23, 222233.
Lees, L., 2003. Visions of “urban renaissance”: the Urban Task Force report and the
Urban White Paper, in: Raco, M., Imrie, R. (Eds.), Urban Renaissance? : New
Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 61-82.
Loney, M., 1983. Community against government: the British Community
Development Project, 1968-78, a study of government incompetence.
Heinemann Educational, London.
Long, J., Bramham, P., 2006. Joining up policy discourses and fragmented practices:
The precarious contribution of cultural projects to social inclusion? Policy and
Politics 34, 133-151.
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., Stoker, G., Institute for Public Policy, R., 2006. Locality
matters: making participation count in local politics. IPPR, [London].
Lowndes, V., Sullivan, H., 2008. How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for
neighbourhood governance. Public Administration 86, 53-74.
Lupton, R., Fuller, C., 2009. Mixed communities: a new approach to spatially
concentrated poverty in England. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 33, 1014-1028.
Lupton, R., Tunstall, R., 2008. Neighbourhood regeneration through mixed
communities: A “social justice dilemma”? Journal of Education Policy 23, 105117.
Lupton, R., Turok, I., 2004. Anti-Poverty Policies in Britain: Area-Based and PeopleBased Approaches in: Walther, U-J., Mensch, K., (eds) 2004. Armut und
9
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Ausgrenzung in der ‘Sozialen Stadt’, Darmstadt: Schader-Stiftung, pp.188208.
MacLeavy, J., 2008. Neoliberalising subjects: The legacy of New Labour’s
construction of social exclusion in local governance. Geoforum 39, 1657-1666.
MacLeavy, J., 2009. (Re) analysing community empowerment: Rationalities and
technologies of government in Bristol’s new deal for communities. Urban Studies
46, 849-875.
Madden, A., 2010. The community leadership and place-shaping roles of English local
government: synergy or tension? Public Policy and Administration 25, 175-193.
Maginn, P.J., 2007. Towards more effective community participation in urban
regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography.
Qualitative Research 7, 25-43.
Marinetto, M., 2003. Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of
community involvement. Sociology 37, 103-120.
Matka, E., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., 2002. Health Action Zones: “creating alliances to
achieve change”. Policy Studies 23, 97-106.
Matthews, P., 2010. Mind the gap? The persistence of pathological discourses in
Urban regeneration policy. Housing, Theory and Society 27, 221-240.
McAreavey, R., 2009. Community regeneration: An elite or a “Real” community
space? International Planning Studies 14, 311-327.
McIntyre, Z., McKee, K., 2009. Creating sustainable communities through tenuremix: the responsibilisation of marginal homeowners in Scotland. GeoJournal 113.
McKee, K., 2007. Community ownership in Glasgow: The devolution of ownership
and control, or a centralizing process? European Journal of Housing Policy 7,
319-336.
10
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
McKee, K., Cooper, V., 2008. The paradox of tenant empowerment: Regulatory and
liberatory possibilities. Housing, Theory and Society 25, 132-146.
Milewa, T., Valentine, J., Calnan, M., 1998. Managerialism and active citizenship in
Britain’s reformed health service: Power and community in an era of
decentralisation. Social Science and Medicine 47, 507-517.
National Audit Office., 1990. Regenerating the inner cities. London, HMSO.
Pearce, G., Mawson, J. b, 2003. Delivering devolved approaches to local governance.
Policy and Politics 31, 51-67.
Pinto, R., 1995. Revitalising communities: a moment of opportunity for local
authorities. Local Government Policy Making 21, 30-41.
Powell, M., Moon, G., 2001. Health Action Zones: the “third way” of a new areabased policy? Health and Social Care in the Community 9, 43-50.
Raco, M., 2005. Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable
communities. Antipode 37, 324-347.
Raco, M., Flint, J., 2001. Communities, places and institutional relations: Assessing
the role of area-based community representation in local governance. Political
Geography 20, 585-612.
Raco, M., Imrie, R., (eds) 2003. Urban renaissance?: New Labour, community and
urban policy. Policy Press, Bristol.
Raco, M., Parker, G., Doak, J., 2006. Reshaping spaces of local governance?
Community strategies and the modernisation of local government in England.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, 475-496.
Reddel, T., 2004. Third Way social governance: Where is the state? Australian
Journal of Social Issues 39, 129-142.
Robinson, D., 2005. The search for community cohesion: key themes and dominant
concepts of the public policy agenda. Urban studies 42, 1411-1427.
11
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Rose, N., 1996. The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government.
Economy and Society 25, 327-356.
Rose, N., 2000. Community, Citizenship, and the third Way. American Behavioral
Scientist 43, 1395-1411.
Rowe, J., 2000. The Local Agenda 21 Issue Commission in Bath and North-East
Somerset: review of a community consultation exercise towards sustainability.
Local Government Studies 26, 71-92.
Rowe, M., Devanney, C., 2003. Partnership and the governance of regeneration.
Critical Social Policy 23, 375-397.
Schofield, B., 2002. Partner’s in Power: Governing the Self-Sustaining Community.
Sociology 36, 663-683.
Scott, M., 2011. Reflections on the big society. Community Development Journal 46,
132-137.
Scourfield, P., 2007. Helping older people in residential care remain full citizens.
British Journal of Social Work 37, 1135-1152.
Shaw, K., Robinson, F., 2010. UK urban regeneration policies in the early twentyfirst century: continuity or change? Town Planning Review 81, 123-150.
Smith, D., 2008. The politics of studentification and “(un)balanced” urban
populations: Lessons for gentrification and sustainable communities? Urban
Studies 45, 2541-2564.
Smith, G., 2004. Faith in community and communities of faith? government rhetoric
and religious identity in Urban Britain. Journal of Contemporary Religion 19,
185-204.
Somerville, P., 2011. Understanding community: politics, policy and practice. Bristol,
Policy Press.
12
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Sprigings, N., Allen, C., 2005. The communities we are regaining but need to lose: A
critical commentary on community building in beyond-place societies.
Community, Work and Family 8, 389-411.
Sullivan, H., 2001. Modernisation , Democratisation and Community Governance.
Local Government Studies 27, 1-24.
Sullivan, H., 2003. New forms of local accountability: coming to terms with “many
hands”? Policy & Politics 31, 353-369.
Sullivan, H., Downe, J., Entwistle, T., Sweeting, D., 2006. The three challenges of
community leadership. Local Government Studies 32, 489-508.
Sullivan, H., Stewart, M., 2006. Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation 12, 179199.
Syrett S., N.D., 2010. between economic competitiveness and social inclusion: new
labour and the economic revival of deprived neighbourhoods. Local Economy 25,
476-493.
Taylor, M., (2003) Public Policy in the Community. London, Palgrave
Tooke, J., 2003. Spaces for community involvement: Processes of disciplining and
appropriation. Space and Polity 7, 233-246.
Turner, D., Martin, S., 2004. Managerialism meets community development:
Contracting for social inclusion? Policy and Politics 32, 21-32.
Wallace, A., 2010. New neighbourhoods, new citizens? Challenging “community” as a
framework for social and moral regeneration under new labour in the UK.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34, 805-819.
Walker, M. 1995. Community Spirit. The Guardian, 13 March, p.10/11.
Whitehead, M., 2007. The architecture of partnerships: Urban communities in the
shadow of hierarchy. Policy and Politics 35, 3-23.
13
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Williams, P., 1995. Housing management and community development models in the
UK. Housing Review 44, 52-56.
Wistow, G., 2001. Modernisation, the NHS Plan and healthy communities. Journal of
Management in Medicine 15, 334-351.
14
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 2: Method and Search Profile
Phase One
A literature search of constructions of ‘community’ across three policy areas in the
UK since the 1960s, was undertaken to produce hermeneutical accounts
underpinning phase two (see table below). Content analysis was used to identify
discursive shifts at national level to contextualise local documents and to understand
how local policy-makers are able to rearticulate dominant national understandings.
SEARCH PROFILE
Title:
Conceptualising community as a social fix, argument and persuasion in health,
housing and local governance
Scope of Search:
Databases: SCOPUS, EBSCO (ASP), ASSIA, IBSS, Social Sciences Citation
Index (to follow up useful references)
Websites: JRF, Kings Fund, Nuffield, Direct Gov
Newspapers: The Guardian (1960-), The Independent (1984-), The Times
(1960-)
Articles on community in health, housing, local governance/local government,
in academic literature published in sociology, public policy, politics and social
policy from 1960s onwards to understand changes across the timeline.
Read title, abstract and keywords to identify key papers. Follow up key
references.
Local policy: identify through search of local archives, catalogues of East
Midland’s universities and British Library catalogue.
Parameters:
Date: 1960 to date
Languages: English
Country: UK – focus on policy in England to account for policy difference
around devolution.
Format: journal articles, reports, books
Key Words:
Community, local policy, local governance, local government, public health,
health, housing, conceptualisation, discourse.
Known References: Somerville (2010); Taylor (2003); Jewkes and Murcott (1998)
Note: The general aim was to look at constructions of community in order to
understand more about the contestation and negotiation of the term over time in
relation to poverty. The project adopted an inductive approach to refining search
15
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
categories/analytical components in relation to the problem. By using content
analysis of policy discussions in secondary sources in the first stage, we built on this
inductive approach, in order to define our categories more closely in relation to our
operationalisation of rhetorical discourse analysis, and subsequent analysis.
Phase Two
Having found that national discourses were adequately covered in phase one it was
decided to focus the RDA on local policy documents selected from various East
Midland’s councils. The region covers a range of socio-economic features by which
community could be defined in relation to the problem of poverty. Fifteen
documents were selected using the following criteria:

Visioning documents as a source of outward-facing appeal through rhetorical
argumentation.

Headline government policy areas (covering local governance, health and
housing) in relation to poverty.

Time periods to cover transitional moments between national governments and
the main government eras of 1960s-1970s, 1980s-1997, 1997-2010, 2010-.

Comparative documents across local authorities.

Policy documents with significant scope for local voices (i.e. locally-driven (e.g.
Local Agenda 21) or where local voices were suggested to be a key to success
(e.g. New Deal for Communities (NDC)).
Where it was not possible for practical reasons to make a selection, we used the
‘next best’ available document (Appendix 2).
The RDA was operationalised around the following questions:

How community is defined?

What policy area is being discussed?

What wider socio-political context is the document bounded by?

What functional purpose is attached to community?

What key words metaphors/structure of argument/type of rhetoric is used?

What assumptions are inherent in the text?

How is authorship and authority framed?
16
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Phase Three
Three focus groups (FG1, FG2, FG3) were held with practitioners to explore
resonance of our insights and practices. Twenty two participants from the East
Midlands attended (Appendix 3). We had initially intended to use a problem
structuring methods approach in this session, but found that the timing of the event
did not allow us to do so. This method requires a number of pre-session discussions
with some of the attendees and a significant amount of commitment from those
involved (Carreras and Franco, 2010). The availability of practitioners over the
summer period in the context of spending cuts/job insecurities in the public sector
meant that it was difficult to gain this level of commitment. Therefore we opted to
use focus groups and presentations as a means by which we could still achieve our
broad research objectives related to this phase. This is a common approach used to
explore practices in critical analyses (Wodak and Meyer, 2002: 158).
17
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 3: Rhetorical Discourse Analysis Policy Documents
Selection criteria:
Policy
area
Time
Local
period Authority
Local
voice
Nottingham Corporation Yes
(1969) Bulwell,
Nottingham: a scheme for
improvement.
Nottingham: Nottingham
City Council
Housing
1960s
Nottingham
yes
Benington, J. (1975) CDP no*
Final Report: Parts 1 and
2. Coventry: CDP.
Cross
1970s
Coventry**
yes
Leicester City Council
(1979) Leicester Inner
Area Programme 19801983 Submission
Document. Leicester:
Leicester City Council
no*
Cross
1980s
Leicester
yes
Leicester City Council
(1988) Leicester Inner
Area Programme 19891992 Submission
document. Leicester:
Leicester City Council.
no*
Cross
1980s
Leicester
yes
Derby City Council (1989) no
Derby Inner Area
Programme 1989/1994.
Derby: Derby City Council.
Cross
1980s
Derby
yes
Nottingham City Challenge yes
(1991) Nottingham
Meeting the Challenge Bid.
Nottingham: Sherwood
Press.
Cross
1980s
Nottingham
yes
Leicester City Challenge
(1992) Leicester’s City
Challenge. Leicester:
Leicester City Challenge.
Cross
1990s
Leicester
yes
Document
18
Outward
focus
yes
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Document
Outward
focus
Policy
area
Time
Local
period Authority
Local
voice
Derby City Challenge
yes
(1992) Pride in the future
of Derby: the Derby City
Challenge bid to the
Secretary of State for the
Environment. Derby:
Derby City Challenge.
Cross
1990s
Derby
yes
Leicester City Council
(1998) Leicester’s local
agenda 21 Action Plans
Leicester - our city, our
future!. Leicester:
Leicester City Council.
yes
Cross
1990s
Leicester
yes
Derbyshire Dales District yes
Council (1998) Local
Agenda 21 A Strategy for
the New Millennium in the
Derbyshire Dales.
Derbyshire Dales District
Council: Matlock.
Cross
1990s
Derbyshire
Dales***
yes
Greater Nottingham
Partnership (1999) New
deal for communities: a
vibrant and thriving new
urban village for Radford
and Hyson Green.
Nottingham: Greater
Nottingham Partnership.
yes
Cross
1990s
Nottingham
yes
Derwent Community
Partnership (2001)
Derwent New deal for
communities: strategic
plan 2001-2011. Derby:
Derwent Community
Partnership.
yes
Cross
2000s
Derby
yes
LSP for Leicestershire
yes
(2008) Leicestershire
Sustainable Community
Strategy 2008. Leicester:
Leicestershire LSP.
Cross
2000s
Leicestershire yes
19
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Document
Outward
focus
Policy
area
Time
Local
period Authority
Local
voice
One Leicester Partnership yes
(2008) One Leicester
Shaping Britain’s
sustainable city. Leicester:
Leicester Partnership.
Cross
2000s
Leicester
yes
Derby City Partnership
(2011) The Derby Plan
2011-2026 A vision for
Derby’s future. Derby:
Derby City Partnership.
Cross
2010s
Derby
yes
yes
* IAP chosen as covered policy areas, time periods and local authorities, more
outward facing documents were unavailable **Coventry CDP chosen because CDP
was a major programme and this was the nearest comparative area to receive
funding ***Derbyshire Dales chosen because Derby Local Agenda 21 was
unavailable
Appendix 4: Flyer for Practitioner Event
Big society and the East Midlands
Community as a Social Fix?
This is a focussed discussion for practitioners from the statutory and third
sectors who are engaged in working with communities in their day to day work.
The target audience is workers from all levels engaged in housing, health,
regeneration, community development, community safety, cohesion, and
environmental improvement. Outcomes will be a critical understanding of initiatives
which appeal to or enact community as a solution to policy issues and so inform your
practice. You will make network contacts with others engaged in this challenging
role. Finally, you will feed directly in to current AHRC funded research which aims to
understand how best to mobilise the potential of community within the current policy
context. Research outputs will be shared with you.
Friday 14 October2011
20
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
9.30 am - 2.00 pm
De Montfort University, Leicester
9:30
Agenda
Coffee and refreshments
10:00
Welcome and Introduction Dr Kathryn Jones
10:10
Appeals to Community Since the 1960s - Dr Leila Hamalainen
10:20
11:40
The Big Society and Localism Agenda Robert Beard, Policy Advisor National Association for Voluntary and Community Action
A Grassroots Perspective – Rajo Saira, Volunteering and Community
Action Manager, Voluntary Action Leicestershire
National Government Perspective - Alison Adams, Policy Manager East
Midlands, Office for Civil Society, the Cabinet Office
Questions and discussion chaired by Dr Kathryn Jones
Refreshments
12:00
Focussed round table discussion
1:00
Networking and lunch
1:30
Feedback from round tables
There are no charges for this event but places are limited. Some ‘reasonable’ travel
expenses are available. To register, please email swalker@dmu.ac.uk, providing your
organisation and role, by noon, Friday 7th October.
21
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 5: Hermeneutical Table: Summary of Key Stories
Government
era:
Poverty Problem/Solution:
Community viewed as:
Values/role
1950s-1960s
Conservative
Primary poverty non-existent, Welfare
solved through universal access state/universal
to welfare: “you’ve never had it provision
so good”.
1960s-1970s Policy problem - rediscovery of Development of
Labour/Conse poverty at a neighbourhood
social for economic
rvative/Labou level. Caused by individual and culture
r Governments group pathology/lack of selfhelp. Solved through special
(community-based) initiatives.
Later contestation whether
poverty concentrated in
communities, stronger focus on
individual pathology.
22
Role
Scale/type
Dominant
story:
Passive
Small scale/spatial Community
observers/recipient
and the
s [infantilised
welfare state
public]
Empowered groups Area Based
of individuals
Initiatives/spatial
[uneducated/
ignorant public]
Policy/Key
References:
Atkinson,
2000; Cole
and
Goodchild,
2003, Taylor,
2003
Community
Community
and the
Development
welfare state; Programme
Community
and social
Damer and
development Hague, 1971,
Loney, 1983;
Atkinson,
2000;
Robinson,
2000, Cole
and
Goodchild,
2003, Taylor,
2003;
Somerville,
2011;
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
1970s-mid
1990s
Conservative
Governments
The idea of primary poverty
Development of
Consumers/
contested, but some recognition consumer culture individuals
of effects of deStakeholder culture
industrialisation. Individual
Economic culture
poverty caused by dependency
culture/lack of self-help. Solved
through spatially-defined Urban
Development Programmes
“Enterprise City”/Self-help and
private sector (rather than
public sector) investment.
Business/
enterprise boards
/urban
development
corporations/
spatial.
Communities as
consumers of
services.
Community
and the
welfare state;
Community
and control
Inner Area
Programme
City Challenge
Hoggett and
Hambleton,
1987;
National Audit
Office, 1990;
Atkinson and
Moon, 1994;
Gray, 1995;
Kearns, 1995;
Walker, 1995;
Duffy and
Richardson,
1997;
Haughton and
While, 1999;
Foley, 2000;
Taylor, 2003;
Somerville,
2011
23
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Mid-1990s2010 New
Labour
Governments
Policy problem. Caused by local
areas being ‘leftbehind’/poverty of aspiration.
Solved through community
participation/
regeneration/social inclusion
(social capital)/community
cohesion/responsive
citizens/neighbourhood focused
initiatives/partnerships
2010Coalition
Government
Social problems as
Volunteering /
Responsibility
consequence of choices people Community taking
make /dysfunctional
responsibility e.g.
families/failure of
community
multiculturalism
ownership
24
Stakeholder culture Individuals as
Social/individual
members of
culture
communities
Economic culture Instrumental
Development of
participation
social capital/social Responsibilities/
individual culture empowered
and group culture individuals /
Economic culture
opportunity
Shift under New
Labour to groups
of identity as well
as individuals
(representatives)
responsible
individuals
(deliberation)
/empowered
groups
(participation)
Area Based
Community
Local Agenda
Initiatives/Action and the
21
Zones (health,
welfare state; New Deal for
education etc.)
Community
Communities
Communities as
and the
Sustainable
consumers of
common good; Community
services/providers/ Community
Strategies
population groups and control
as special
Rose, 2000;
needs/spatial
Raco and
Neighbourhoods
Imrie, 2003;
Faith groups etc./
Taylor, 2003;
Group
Brigden,
interest/Identity/
2006;
spatial/Network/Pa
Sprigings and
rtnership
Allen, 2005;
communities
Dargon, 2009;
John, 2009;
Somerville,
2011
Big Society,
Localism
Community
Scott, 2011;
and the
Somerville,
welfare state; 2011
Community
and control
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 6: Hermeneutical Story Summaries from Policy
Documents
Document
Welfare State
(1969) Bulwell,
Nottingham: a scheme for Found
improvement.
(1975) CDP Final Report:
Found
Parts 1 and 2.
“By building
upon the web of
relationships
which make up
the life of a
locality, a
(1979) Leicester Inner
community can
Area Programme 1980provide
1983 Submission
assistance to its
Document.
own members,
rather than be
dependent on
the services of
the local
authorities”
(p.42)
(1988) Leicester Inner
Area Programme 19891992 Submission
document.
Found
Common Good Community
and Control
Found
Found
Found
“Low morale,
lack of influence
over and sense
of alienation
from the public
authorities will
Found
be tackled
through
community
development
(p.ii)
“any new
building
“Renewal hit by provided...
financial cuts”
should be for
(p.63)
community use
and not for.. one
group” (p.19)
(1989) Derby Inner Area
Found
Programme 1989/1994.
(1991) Nottingham
Meeting the Challenge
Bid.
Social
Development
Found
“Seventeen
residents groups
meet regularly
with the City
Council in areas
previously devoid
of participation”
(p.22)
Found
“participate as
equal partners
with mainstream
private and
public sectors in
both developing
and sharing its
fruits” (p.22)
“Empowering
people to help
themselves...
encourage
residents to take
ownership)
(p.22)
25
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
(1992) Leicester’s City
Challenge.
“many of the
partnerships
formed through
City Challenge
are based on
long-term
Found
community
representation,
consultation and
participation”
(p.18)
“Ideas and
advice from
people trained to
Found
help them get
the best out of
community life”
(p.24)
Found
(1992) Pride in the future
of Derby: the Derby City
Challenge bid to the
Found
Secretary of State for the
Environment.
(1998) Leicester’s local
agenda 21 Action Plans
Found
Leicester - our city, our
future!.
(1998) Local Agenda 21 A
Strategy for the New
Found
Millennium in the
Derbyshire Dales.
(1999) New deal for
communities: a vibrant
and thriving new urban
village for Radford and
Hyson Green.
Found
(2001) Derwent New deal
for communities: strategic
Found
plan 2001-2011.
26
Found
Found
Found
Found
Found
Found
“By this we
“Our plan is
mean building
shaped by the
the capacity of
needs and
individual
“Our vision is to aspirations of
residents... to
create a strong ordinary people
deal with their
community”
– and in
own problems
(p.5)
particular groups
and the
traditionally
problems
regarded as hard
common to the
to reach” (p.7)
area” (p.5)
“Enable local
people to
“Build their
become actively capacity to gain
Found
involved in
power in their
community
own lives” (p.24)
initiatives” (p.24)
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
(2008) Leicestershire
Sustainable Community
Strategy 2008.
(2008) One Leicester
Shaping Britain’s
sustainable city.
(2011) The Derby Plan
2011-2026 A vision for
Derby’s future.
“Sense of
community often
centres on
village.. and is
reliant on
everyone,
including new
communities,
being
empowered and
getting involved”
(p.28)
“volunteers... are
active citizens
and therefore
stakeholders in
local
communities”
(p.31)
Found
Found
“We want our
citizens to
recognise their
interdependence
”. (p.23-4)
Found
Found
Found
Found
27
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Appendix 7: Local Interpretations of Community
Our research identified three main different senses of local community (and one partial)
that cut across our policy documents and in a broad sense, across our time periods:
Leicester:
Leadership role: Unifier of the community – seeking ethnic harmony as recognising
diversity in one Leicester community.
Community: Particular focus on ethnic Minorities/ new immigrants/ faith groups. This is
a predominantly group-based sense of community. There is a shift from spatial to
community group, in relation to the shift from government to governance in the 1980s.
Detailed overview:
In 1970s-80s documents unity is sought through giving voice to multicultural
communities through building community institutions and ensuring equality of access to
resources, as well as establishing a unifying culture of hospitality through public festivals
and some focus on shared resources. Minorities are repeatedly described as not being
the problem, but as offering great cultural potential for enrichment. There is a:
‘recognition that ethnic minorities are not a problem in themselves but present the city
with a potential (…) for the benefit of all.’ (LCC, 1988: 9)
In the 1980s new migrants in particular, are seen as victims of recession and economic
discrimination. Social development in terms of equality takes precedence over economic
developments: ‘The only time the needs of industry may take precedence over local
residents would be with respect to schemes which would preserve existing jobs in the
area or create new ones’. (LCC, 1988: 15) / ‘The area is characterised by a high level of
mobility…rapid turnover of population, the upheaval of major roads have meant in the
past that few well-developed social networks have built up. There is a lack of confidence
in the area and a lack of knowledge or influence where the action of public authorities
are concerned.’ (LCC, 1979: 27)
In the 1990s-2000s there is a shift towards Community Cohesion, for instance the
Partnership states: ‘we want our citizens to recognise their interdependence’ (OLP, 2008:
23-4). This is now placed above a focus on diversity and multiculturalism (since:
‘Leicester is (already) a place where multiculturalism works’ (OLP, 2008: 8)), in line with
New Labour’s agenda.
28
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Nottingham:
Leadership role: Seeks a return to golden age of community through building social
capital at grassroots level through a local neighbourhood identity.
Community: Sense of mourning for ‘lost’ ethical community. Nostalgia for cultural,
skilled artisan community. Focus is on spatial neighbourhoods where community needs
to be rebuilt in this ethical way.
Detailed overview:
In the 1960s-1970s there is a desire to retain community in the context of
redevelopment at this time. In plans for the redevelopment of housing infrastructure in
Bulwell, the council refers to the area as having “a strong community spirit and
individual character” that must be retained (Nottingham Corporation, 1969:1).
Community is ethically defined in this way within the local area.
In the 1980- early 1990s the City Challenge sought to ‘put heart back into the Challenge
area’ (NCC, 1992: 24) through building ‘a strong local identity’ (NCC, 1992: 9) and ‘a
more positive sense of belonging’ via ‘meeting places where feelings of neighbourly spirit
can develop’ (NCC, 1992: 28). Repeatedly the community fortunes are linked to this
return to a golden age combined with a desire to: ‘want to help achieve the rebirth of a
beleaguered community into one that is locked securely into the fortunes of the wider,
mainstream economy of the city as a whole’. (NCC, 1992, 8) The city’s particular
economy is described in terms of boutiques and an artisanal heritage.
In the 1990s similar ideas of an ‘urban village’ idyll (GNP, 1999) are sought for an area
that ‘entered the national consciousness as the setting for Alan Sillitoe’s Saturday Night,
Sunday Morning’ (GNP, 1999: 3). The area still houses ‘older residents (that) still recall a
tight knit, homogenous, working class community’ (GNP, 1999: 3) as well as being: ‘an
area that still abounds with artistic talent and has a strong tradition in Community
activism’ (GNP, 1999: 4). The NDC at this time aims to build on these embryonic
stirrings of a community by addressing social exclusions and building social capital (GNP,
1999). This area is described as being geographically cut off from the rest of the city.
29
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Derby:
Leadership role: To enable Derby as a community to catch up with the economic
mainstream. There is nostalgia for the industrial past in terms of a successful economy
in Derby, but there is a sense that the future is forward development.
Community: Focus on building a community of citizens as individual economic actors.
Specific needs groups or areas are defined at times within this wider framework.
Detailed overview:
From the 1980s through to today, in Derby there is a sense that the skills of the
community in general need to be enhanced so as to allow actors to catch up in economic
terms with those elsewhere. There is a particular focus on young and unemployed people
as needing to do most to help themselves in this way, through training and educational
programmes as well as through the ideas and advice of professionals who will help
young people ‘get the best out of community life’ (DCC, 1992: 24).
There is the idea that disadvantage is: ‘experienced in all groups’ (DCC, 1988: xx) so
certainly in the 1980s-early 1990s there was no preference for focusing on supporting
any particular group to engage in economic opportunities above another. Quote: ‘the
particular conclusion in Derby was that the scheme should not have a strong sense of
social dimension by way of facilitating business start up amongst disadvantaged groups’
(DCC, 1988: 8-9).
In order to attract the general development of the city and its inhabitants not only is
external investment sought on a city-wide basis, but also the development of more of a
middle class professional base is sought through the development of a university and its
student population (DCC, 1992). The development of all facilities is on the basis of the
development of the economic citizen. For instance, day care facilities need to be
enhanced for children to attend nursery to allow parents to work. Community spaces
are similarly defined as those required for economic development in a business centre or
the University (DCC, 1992).
30
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
County
We also attempted to determine if there was a local sense of community in the county
level documents from Derbyshire and Leicestershire. This was much harder to discern. In
addition to this, we did not cover the range of time periods in any particular location to
discuss a longitudinal perspective.
The documents we did cover both more bureaucratic in their style, structure and
definitions of community. For instance, in Leicestershire (LCC, 2008) the definition of
community was driven by the national indicators and the selection of projects on the
national reporting framework for the LAA. The only sense of community that did come
across specifically within the county was that of a rural idyll. This appeared both in
relation to the significant rural areas within the counties (which were revered as such),
as well as being mentioned as an ideal sought within the challenging town areas of the
county. In this way there was some overlap with Nottingham’s search for a rural idyll of
Community lost.
Practitioner comments on Leicestershire supported this analysis and added further
insight:
Leicestershire is considered in terms of rural and semi-rural areas (beyond the city). In
rural areas the population is predominately elderly, so they have time to do face-to-face
contact, they are a largely homogenous, middle-class population of the 50-60s era
culturally. In terms of semi-rural areas they offer particular challenges as they lack the
communication of urban areas, but are part of the commuter belt so socially dislocated
(paraphrased from FG1)
The focus on community building is therefore in what is referred to here as semi-rural
areas (this definition seems to include small towns with limited services that are seen to
operate in the same way in the documents).
Appendix 8: Contestation in Policy Documents
Document:
Coventry CDP (1972)
Party control of local
area:
Unknown
Contestation around:
Definition of the problem by
local authorities and
nationally – areas are the
victim of political economy.
31
CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNITY AS A SOCIAL FIX
Leicester IAP (1988)
Labour (vis-à-vis
Conservative)
Definition of the problem is
not correct – individuals are
victims of economic
development, recession and
benefit changes. Health
inequalities caused by
poverty. National
government’s centralised
approach combined with a
lack of resources is not
helping.
Leicester City Challenge
(1992)
Labour (vis-à-vis
Conservative)
Ethnicity and groups.
Leicestershire Sustainable
Community Strategy (2008)
32
Conservative (vis-à-vis
Labour)
Contest group definitions of
community in favour of
individual ones, lots of
emphasis on individual selfhelp and a hands off
approach to moral social
capital.
The Connected Communities
Connected Communities is a cross-Council Programme being led by the AHRC in partnership
with the EPSRC, ESRC, MRC and NERC and a range of external partners. The current vision for
the Programme is:
“to mobilise the potential for increasingly inter-connected, culturally diverse,
communities to enhance participation, prosperity, sustainability, health & well-being by
better connecting research, stakeholders and communities.”
Further details about the Programme can be found on the AHRC’s Connected Communities web
pages at:
www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundingOpportunities/Pages/connectedcommunities.aspx
1