LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Evaluating the effectiveness of 'The Big Issue' in
combatting the social exclusion of homeless people in
central London.
Vincent Harrold
Nabilah Karim
Jonathan Koh
Muriel Levy
Kullanit Nitiwarangkul
Acknowledgements:
We wish to thank Dr Pritchard and Dr Gordon, along with their team of supervisors, for
providing us with the opportunity to carry out this research via the LSE GROUPS
programme, as well as for their valuable feedback throughout. We are also grateful to the
vendors of The Big Issue and the general public for their time in completing our surveys.
Finally, this research paper was made possible through the support and comments of our
research supervisor Marina Franchi, to whom we wish to express our greatest appreciation.
Abstract:
Homelessness is a pervasive and troubling issue for the United Kingdom. The scope of the
issue is broad and this paper specifically examines rough sleeping in central London, a
recognised problem area. Policy responses and evaluations appear to focus predominantly
on alleviating homelessness through resource-provision. However, existing literature
highlights the importance of non-material issues relating to homelessness such as social
marginalization. This paper, therefore, adds to existing research by focussing on how social
exclusion can be mitigated amongst rough-sleepers. This is done with a focus on the Big
Issue Foundation, an organization aimed at re-integrating the homeless with mainstream
society through the sale of ‘street newspapers’ by homeless vendors. The paper provides a
definition of social exclusion that allows the concept to be investigated along four axes –
consumption, production, social and political engagement. Surveys were constructed in
order to target measurements along these axes of exclusion and carried out amongst both
Big Issue vendors and the general public. Results indicate the greatest impacts of The Big
Issue in promoting social engagement in both groups. However, most vendors see The Big
Issue as only a step towards more independent living and political disengagement remains
entrenched in the group.
Keywords: homelessness, rough-sleeping, social exclusion, The Big Issue
1
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Introduction
Inherent in the notion of community is inclusion and participation, for a community
exists only through the collective engagement of the individuals that compose it. The
corollary of inclusion is exclusion, and it is on this distressing barrier to community that this
paper directs its attention, focussing particularly on the homeless, a group which embodies
many aspects of social exclusion. Existing work identifies exclusion as an area impacted by
initiatives tackling homelessness but fails to elaborate on how this is done. This paper,
therefore, attempts to fill a practical research gap, seeking to evaluate which, and how
effectively, different aspects of social exclusion are mitigated by The Big Issue Foundation,
an organization aimed at re-integrating the homeless into the mainstream of society
through the sale of street newspapers. This goal was achieved by forming a multidimensional concept of social exclusion that is operationalized along four key axes. The
outcomes of The Big Issue initiative were then tested against each axis to indicate how
different areas were impacted. Subsequent to analysis, this paper is able to evaluate how
effectively different aspects of exclusion are tackled. Practically, this investigation allows for
a more thorough understanding of how social exclusion can be overcome as well as
indicating important areas for future research.
Literature Review
Communities represent aggregations of active citizens. Whilst the individual and
community are not mutually exclusive, participation amongst individuals is central to a
community’s actualization (Daly, 1996). Participation of a fully active citizen occurs at a
variety of levels, such as: employment, owning assets, and engaging in local and national
2
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
decision-making (Percy-Smith, 2000). This research paper engages with a particular group
that is excluded from community in some of the most profound ways, the homeless. The
homeless are often pinned to a locality but lack the ability to participate with detrimental
consequences for the strength of the local community. As a key public and political concern,
there is no paucity of literature surrounding the causes and alleviation of exclusion amongst
homeless persons. Whilst extensive, this academic body is by no means exhaustive.
Defining homelessness
This paper looks specifically at homelessness as rough-sleeping or homeless persons
dependent upon hostels and shelters to prevent rough-sleeping. Rough-sleeping is defined
by the Department for Communities and Local Government as people who sleep in the open
air or other places not designed for habitation whilst those vulnerable to rough-sleeping
living in hostels and shelters are accounted for in 'The Homeless Monitor, 2011-2013'
conducted by Crisis charity. Rough-sleeping displays homelessness in its most visceral form,
and, as such it is a central concern amongst politicians, the public and academics alike.
The homeless as a socially excluded group
A review of relevant academic literature highlights that participation amongst the
homeless is hampered not solely due to a lack of resource access (such as access to housing,
healthcare and so on) but also by immaterial factors such as social exclusion. For example,
Mitchell (2003) and Johnsen et al (2005) emphasise how contemporary attitudes towards
the homeless, particularly in cities, encourage a loss of social identity and citizenship
amongst the group. Moreover, Torck (2001) notes a “growth of violence” in media and
political rhetoric surrounding the homeless, with the “dominant official position” regarding
3
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
rough-sleepers as “bums and drunks”. However, Ife (1997) notes that the “political order”
has been dominated by economic rationalist and market discourses that have led to policy
and service responses directed at homelessness being largely focussed on resource
provision. The less tangible aspects of social exclusion, however, remain key in the
effectiveness of services aimed at tackling rough-sleeping.
Bringing social exclusion into the research – The Big Issue
Whilst identifying social exclusion as a key problem area in tackling homelessness,
the literature lacks practical analysis of how this issue can be addressed. It is in assessing
services effectiveness in mitigating social exclusion amongst homeless persons that this
paper hopes to add to the existing research. Specifically, the paper addresses the work and
effectiveness of The Big Issue Foundation as a service that is self-described as seeking to reintegrate homeless persons within “mainstream society” (The Big Issue Foundation, 2013).
Existing literature focussing on “street newspapers” (Hanks et al, 2001) - being newspapers
sold on the street by homeless persons - has noted the success of such initiatives in
empowering homeless persons. Hibbert et al (2002) note that customers view positively the
direct involvement of homeless persons in the scheme that seeks to change their
circumstances. Meanwhile, Torck (2001) focusses on the way in which street newspapers
give “voice” to the homeless whilst Hanks et al (2001) highlight the effectiveness of such
schemes in raising the profile of homelessness amongst the public and government.
This paper attempts to further this body of work by providing an explicit focus on
social exclusion. Whilst social exclusion is recognised as a “contested term” (Atkinson,
1998), it is possible to establish some consensus when defining the concept. Social exclusion
is generally characterised as a “lack of recognition of basic rights” (Burchardt et al, 2002).
4
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
This definition is operationalized by analysing how specific groups fail to participate in key
aspects of society (Burchardt et al, 2002), these aspects acting as proxies for the different
areas of individual engagement that form a community. The development of social exclusion
indicators used in this paper is elaborated upon in the 'Methodology' section below. By
investigating specific indicators of exclusion, this paper establishes in which ways and with
what effectiveness exclusion is mitigated by The Big Issue initiative.
Methodology
Measuring social exclusion
As highlighted by Room (1995), social exclusion is a “multidimensional disadvantage” that
cannot be assessed by a single indicator. However, establishing indicators to be applied
remains problematic. Pantazis et al (2006) note there is a “necessary normativity” in
establishing such criteria, as they require judgments to be made regarding the common
socially accepted forms of participation. Burchardt et al (2002) use a four-tier approach to
define an individual’s participation. These four dimensions are: consumption – being the
capacity to purchase goods and services; production – being the participation in
economically or socially valuable activities; social engagement – integration with family,
friends and the community; and political engagement – being the involvement in local or
national decision-making. These criteria are adopted in this paper as a means of defining
and operationalizing social exclusion, as each dimension is “widely regarded as central to
the concept of social exclusion”. Consequently, our surveys for data collection were
constructed in order to target each axis of exclusion independently in order to assess the
different effects of The Big Issue scheme.
5
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
The survey:
In order to measure and assess the effectiveness of The Big Issue, questionnaires were
designed to investigate both the impacts of the scheme directly on the vendors as well as to
assess the perceptions of the general public on the initiative. Public perceptions were taken
into account because, as the majority group from which the homeless are considered to be
excluded, they represent a key indicator regarding the success of The Big Issue (Donnell and
Toro, 1992).
Both surveys consisted predominantly of question using a 5 -point Likert scale on the
extent to which participants agree or disagree (i.e. 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being
strongly agree) with different statements on the implications of the scheme in combatting
each of the four social exclusion dimension (see Appendix 1). Nonetheless, the choices for
response to certain questions in both questionnaires were changed from such a scale into
‘yes and no’ option after a pilot survey (Appendix 1) which indicated the inappropriate
nature of a scale to register response. Also considered were the length of time that the
vendors have been working for The Big Issue and their expectations regarding how long they
would continue to do so.
Strengths and limitations of the survey
The fact that the questionnaires contain only closed questions may be considered a
limitation. During the survey, the Big Issue vendors gave details of their personal stories in
the scheme, giving testimonies to their experience of homelessness. Meanwhile, the public
gave more detailed information regarding their personal opinions about The Big Issue
scheme. Such qualitative data could not be gathered solely by closed questions (Bryman,
2008) and this represented a missed opportunity to gather some more detailed information
6
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
for our analysis. Nonetheless, closed questions helped overcome the issue of time
constraint as they took less time to respond to than open questions that leave spaces for
more written or worded responses (Gilbert, 2008). This allowed the survey to be conducted
with a larger sample to enhance the findings’ generalizability. Closed questions also enable
the collection of quantitative data as responses were limited to given choices (Gilbert,
2008). This quantitative data could be more easily processed as well as thoroughly analysed
using statistical methods. In addition, social desirability was also an important issue in
surveys (Phillips ad Clancy, 1972). Some Big Issue vendors showed an inclination to agree
with the statements on the effectiveness of the scheme, hoping to offer positive answers
whilst attempting to sell the magazines and to promote their work. Many participants from
the general public were likely to ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with the statements to display
‘neutrality’ to the scheme. Such neutral responses could lead to further problems in data
analysis to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of The Big Issue scheme.
Samples and bias
The questionnaires were administered to 15 Big Issue vendors and 105 people from
the general public. Convenience sampling (Blaikie, 2009) was applied in order to facilitate
data collection in a short length of time. Central London areas were selected due to the high
density of homeless persons and thus higher density of Big Issue vendors (Daly, 2013).
However, there remained issues of selection bias. The majority of the samples, both from
the vendors and the general public came from the areas closer to the LSE, which may not
allow for generalization to other areas of London where Big Issue vendors are not present in
such high frequency. Furthermore, the sample of the Big Issue vendors was relatively small.
These issues can lead to a problem of generalisation to the whole of London. Another
7
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
limitation is that some groups in the general public sample may be under or overrepresented due to the convenience sampling method. For example, in the general public,
there were a significantly higher number of women surveyed as well as those aged 24-34
and with University education. (Appendix 2)
Findings and Analysis
The data gathered indicates that The Big Issue has positive but variable impacts across the
different indicators of social exclusion, as expected. In order to analyze the data, the score
of the statements regarding each of the axes were added and transformed into an average.
This gave a single measure of the level of agreement for the general public and The Big Issue
vendors. These values have been summarized in the histograms below.
Social engagement
Figure 1 - Bar Chart of the respondents’ level of agreement with the statements on Social Engagement
The data indicates that the area of social engagement received the most beneficial
outcomes of The Big Issue. The Big Issue fosters a strong sense of community between
8
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
vendors but also creates dialogue between the public and the homeless. 14 out of 15 Big
Issue vendors knew at least 3 other people who sold the Big Issue in the area. They were
also likely to know members of the general public, 13 out of 15 vendors reporting they knew
at least 3 non-vendors in the area. Furthermore, vendors reported frequently engaging their
customers in conversation. Moreover, relationships of engagement are mutual. 55% of the
general public surveyed responded positively to indicators of social engagement with 60%
believing the service offered a good way to generate relationships between homeless
people and the general public. This makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature
which has perhaps underestimated the importance of street newspapers in developing
social interaction between homeless groups and the wider society. Overall, social
engagement is offered the most complete solution to any of the aspects of exclusion
measured.
One note of interest is that, whilst The Big Issue seems to foster a greater level of
social interaction between the general public and homeless, the public were not necessarily
more likely to donate to Big Issue vendors than non-vendors. This may be explained by the
perception of greater plight on behalf of rough-sleepers not engaged in a relief scheme.
9
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Consumption and production
Figure 2 (left) - Bar Chart of respondents’ level of agreement with statements on Consumption
Figure 3 (right) - Bar Chart of respondents’ level of agreement with statements on Production
On behalf of the general public as well as the vendors themselves, the data seems to
indicate that consumption and production factors are positively affected. However, these
areas of exclusion are not as thoroughly addressed as social engagement by the initiative.
9 out of 15 Big Issue vendors agreed that by selling the magazine they had better
access to public support and services, and a further 13 out of 15 Big Issue vendors saw their
work as providing useful skills such a confidence building, communication and training.
Nevertheless, whilst 11 out of 15 vendors were satisfied with the income they received,
they perceived their work to be a stepping-stone to more permanent employment and most
did not hope to continue in their role for more than 6 months to a year. Hibbert et al (2002)
previously noted that consumers that purchased The Big Issue were motivated by the
practical work being undertaken by Big Issue vendors, however, this paper adds to this
understanding. The data indicates that 80% of the general public showed a stronger
response to the idea of Big Issue selling as a constructive activity for the homeless as
opposed to a proper form of employment. We can therefore see that for both groups of
10
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
respondents, selling The Big Issue is seen as a valuable undertaking, but one short of full reintegration.
Political engagement
Figure 4 - Bar Chart of respondents’ level of agreement with statements on Political Engagement
As a result of these findings, future research may provide useful insights by
investigating how many vendors go into permanent employment following their time with
the organization and investigate how selling The Big Issue promoted this progress.
The factor of political engagement showed the most mixed results. In particular, responses
were divided between the response groups.
Perhaps one of the most positive factors of The Big Issue comes in enabling the
homeless to engage with the running of the organization. 10 out of 15 vendors reported
their ability to give feedback to the Foundation . On the contrary to the positive responses
involved with the engagement of the homeless in the operation of The Big Issue itself, the
data indicates a 100% negative response with regards to political activity. None of the
11
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
vendors recording that they voted locally or nationally. On the other hand, the public
showed that The Big Issue increased awareness of homelessness in society. Moreover, 11
out of 15 vendors had actively participated in the magazine itself. Torck (2001) had noted
the effects of street newspapers in giving “voices to the homeless” and this certainly seems
to be evidenced by the attitudes of the vendors and public towards The Big Issue. If the
public concern generated by the initiative was sufficient, it may lead to greater political
involvement with issues of homelessness which may, in turn, promote a more favourable
attitude
towards
politics
amongst
rough-sleepers.
Nevertheless,
political
disenfranchisement remains entrenched in the group, therefore, indicating other policies
approaches are necessary to overcome this barrier to exclusion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has established The Big Issue is most effective at combating social
exclusion by promoting social engagement in its vendors, an outcome understated by the
previous literature. Meanwhile, the initiative offers beneficial influences in the areas of
consumption and production with a mixed outcome for political engagement which leaves
homeless individuals with a strong feeling of disenfranchisement from traditional political
avenues. These findings build on the existing research into social exclusion amongst the
homeless and the effectiveness of street-newspaper schemes. By compartmentalizing social
exclusion, this paper has elaborated in more detail the specific areas of exclusion that are
most effectively engaged with by The Big Issue Foundation. Practically, this enables both
areas for future research as well as policy implications. Future research would build upon
our findings by looking at the longer-term implications of involvement with the scheme,
12
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
particularly focussing on how successfully Big Issue vendors move into established
employment. Similarly it indicates the need to dedicate resources, both within the
organization and without, to achieving this end and ensuring a more complete integration of
homeless persons. Finally, further research may help establish alternative ways of engaging
the homeless with conventional politics.
13
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Bibliography
Atkinson, A. B. (1998), 'Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment', in A. B. Atkinson and
J.Hills (eds.), Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity, CASEpaper 4. London: London School
of Economics.
Blaikie, N (2008), ‘Selection of Data’ in N. Blaikie, Designing social research. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Bryman, A. (2008,. ‘Asking Questions’ in A. Bryman, Social research methods. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Burchardt, T. (1999), The Evolution of Disability Benefits in the UK: Re-weighting the Basket.
CASEpaper26, London: London School of Economics.
Daly, G (1996), Homeless – Policies, strategies and lives on the street, Routledge, London.
Daly, G (2013), Homeless: Policies, Strategies and Lives on the Streets. 3rd ed. Routledge.
Gilbert, G (2003), Researching social life, 3rd ed. London: Sage.
Hanks and Swithinbank (1997), The Big Issue and other street papers: a response to
homelessness, Environment and Urbanization, 9:149.
Hodgetts, D, Ottilie Stolte , Kerry Chamberlain , Alan Radley , Linda Nikora , Eci
Nabalarua & Shiloh Groot (2008) A trip to the library: homelessness and social inclusion,
Social & Cultural Geography, 9:8.
Hibbert Sally, Gillian Hogg and Theresa Quinn, 2002, Consumer response to
social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland, Department of Marketing,
University of Strathclyde.
Ife (1997), IFE J (1997), Rethinking Social Work Towards Critical Practice. Addison-Wesley
Longman, Australia.
Johnsen, S, Paul Cloke & Jon May (2005) Day centres for homeless people: spaces of care or
fear?, Social & Cultural Geography, 6:6.
Magallanes-Blanco, C and Juan Antonio Pérez-Bermúdez (2009), Citizens' Publications That
Empower: Social Change for the Homeless, Development in Practice, Taylor and Francis, Vol.
19, No. 4/5.
Mcdonell, D. and Toro, P. (1992), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge About Homelessness: A
Survey of the General Public. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20 (1).
14
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Mitchell (2003), The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space, Guilford
Press.
Pantazis, C, David Gordon and Ruth Levitas (2006), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain –
The Millennium Survey, The Policy Press, University of Bristol.
Percy-Smith, K (2000), Policy Responses to Social Exclusion – towards inclusion?, Open
University Press, Berkshire, England.
Phillips, D. and Clancy, K. (1972), Some Effects of "Social Desirability" in Survey Studies.
American Journal of Sociology, 77 (5).
Room, G. (1995), Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion,
Policy Press, University of Bristol.
Torck (2001) Voices of Homeless People in Street Newspapers: A Cross-Cultural Exploration,
Discourse Society, 12: 371.
The Big Issue Foundation, 2013, http://www.bigissue.org.uk/about-us (accessed, June 29th,
2013).
Department for Communities and Local Government https://www.gov.uk/homelessnessdata-notes-and-definitions#rough-sleepers (accessed, June 29th, 2013).
Crisis (2013) The Homeless Monitor, 2011-2013, Tracking the impacts of policy and
economic change in England 2011-2013.
15
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire for the Big Issue vendors
RESEARCH PROJECT: COMMUNITY AND THE BIG ISSUE
We are undergraduate students from London School of Economics (LSE), and as part of a research
project we are conducting a study on The Big Issue vendors. Please complete this questionnaire as
honestly as possible. It will approximately take 3 minutes. We assure you that all responses will be
held strictly confidential and anonymous. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
SECTION A (Optional and Anonymous)
Please circle the answers to the following questions
1. Age
Under 25
25-50
Above 50
2. Gender
Male
Female
3. Level of education
Up to Secondary Education
above
Up to Sixth Form
University and
SECTION B:
For each of the following could you tell us to what extent you agree with the statement?
1. I know at least 3 other people who sell The Big Issue
YES
NO
2. I know at least 3 people in the area where I am selling The Big Issue
YES
NO
3. I feel I share an identity with other Big Issue vendors/ I recognize my self as part of a group
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
4
5
strongly agree
4. I often speak with the people I sell The Big Issue to.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
5. I have a good relationship with my The Big Issue Foundation.
16
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
1
disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5 strongly
strongly agree
6. I think that selling The Big Issue gives me useful skills.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
7. Selling The Big Issue gives me better access to public support/services (health care services, job
training…).
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
4
5
strongly agree
8. I have the opportunity to give feedback to The Big Issue Foundation.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
9. I have contributed an article to be published in “Street Lights” of The Big Issue.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
10. I think contributing an article to “Street Lights” gives more voice in community.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
4
5
strongly agree
11. Have your voting habits changed since selling The Big Issue?
YES
NO
12. I am satisfied with the income I receive from selling The Big Issue.
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
Please circle the answers to the following questions:
13. When did you start to sell The Big Issue?
Less than 6 months
year
6 months-1 year
more than 1
17
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
14. How long do you think you will be selling The Big Issue?
Less than 6 months
year
6 months-1 year
more than 1
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for the General Public
RESEARCH PROJECT: COMMUNITY AND THE BIG ISSUE
We are undergraduate students from London School of Economics (LSE), and as part of a research project we
are conducting a study on the general public’s attitude towards The Big Issue vendors. Please complete this
questionnaire as honestly as possible. It will take approximately 3 minutes. We assure you that all responses
will be held strictly confidential and anonymous. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
Section A:
AGE
Less than 24
35-44
24-34
Over 45
GENDER
MALE
FEMALE
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Secondary Education
(GCSE or equivalents)
Sixth Form
(A-Levels)
University and above
Section B: General knowledge on The Big Issue
Please circle your answer
1. How often do you buy The Big Issue?
Never
Infrequently (about once every 6 months)
Frequently (once a month)
2. Do you know that The Big Issue has a section called “Street Lights” for homeless people to write
an article?
YES
NO
3. Do you know that the vendors buy The Big Issues with their own money?
YES
NO
18
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
4. Do you know that The Big Issue Foundation connects vendors to support services (health,
finance, housing, training)?
YES
NO
Section C: Attitude towards The Big Issue
For each of the following please tell us to what extent you agree with the statement?
1) I am more likely to buy a Big Issue than to give money to a homeless person
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
2) I think that selling The Big Issue is a constructive choice/practice on behalf of homeless people
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
3) I consider selling The Big Issue to be a form of employment
YES
NO
I DON’T KNOW
4) I am more likely to speak to a Big Issue vendor than to a non Big Issue homeless person
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
5) I think the Big Issue is a good way to generate relationships between homeless people and the general
public
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
6) I think that Big Issue vendors share an identity/ I recognize them as part of a group
1
strongly disagree
2
3
4
neither agree
nor disagree
5
strongly agree
7) I think that selling the Big Issue gives homeless people more of a voice in wider society
(e.g. writing for “Street Lights”)
19
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
4
5
strongly agree
4
5
strongly agree
8) I think that Big Issue vendors highlight the issue of homelessness in society
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
9) I think that selling the Big Issue provides practical skills for homeless people
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
10) I have a more positive attitude towards homeless people that sell The Big Issue than those who don’t
1
strongly disagree
2
3
neither agree
nor disagree
4
5
strongly agree
20
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Appendix 3: General Information about the sample of the General Public
21
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Appendix 4: Charts summarizing the data collected from the questionnaire for the
General Public
22
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
23
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
Appendix 5: Charts summarizing the data collected from the questionnaire for the
Big Issue vendors
24
LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2013 – GROUP 3
25