MEARNS AREA PARTNERSHIP (MAP)
Researching Success
Karen McArdle
University of Aberdeen
March 2011
For further information about this report, contact:
Dr. Karen McArdle
Senior Lecturer
University of Aberdeen
k.a.mcardle@abdn.ac.uk
(01224)274654
2
SECTION 1
1. Introduction and acknowledgements
This report is an attempt to document the achievements of the Mearns Area Partnership
(MAP). Established in 1992 as a rural regeneration partnership, it is widely considered to be
a successful partnership in a rural Scottish regeneration context, as evidenced by in its use as
an example or model for other projects in the region. I use the term ‘rural regeneration
partnership’ to summarise the purposes of MAP as outlined in its constitution. I was
interested to see how this success was understood and was apparent in outcomes and
achievements. In Section 3, I address the question of how success may, in fact, be defined.
This report has 3 main purposes:
-
To report on the findings of the research undertaken;
To provide the community with an overview of achievement to date;
To provide partnerships in other areas with ideas and insight into successful
community partnership projects.
I wish to acknowledge the support I received from members of MAP, who contributed their
time willingly and gave me substantial insight into their work. I wish to apologise that the
scope and timescale of this project did not permit talking to everyone who might have been
well able to contribute. I wish, in particular, to thank Sue Briggs who proposed this project to
me and provided invaluable expertise, knowledge and support in the course of my work
with MAP. I need to place on record an interest I have in this geographical area of study. I
am a resident of Marykirk, one of the villages in MAP’s catchment area, and am Secretary to
one of the community groups in Marykirk.
2.
Methodology
This is a qualitative study of a rural regeneration partnership located in the North East of
Scotland in rural Aberdeenshire. A description of the area is provided in Section 2.
I chose a qualitative approach as there are many Government sponsored reports, mainly from
the 1990s and early this decade on rural regeneration and perceived indicators of success.
There is, however, limited data that looks at regeneration from the perspective of the partners
involved. I sought to redress this balance and to undertake an inquiry that focused on
perceptions and understandings of success from a partnership dimension, emphasising
community.
As I was also seeking to celebrate the perceived success of this rural project, the approach I
adopted may be understood to be in part linked to appreciative inquiry which seeks to
evaluate from a positive perspective. This report does not, however, engage participants in
the inquiry process, as is fundamental to appreciative inquiry, rather it works from the
assumption that the project does, indeed, have some outcomes that may be perceived to be
successful and seeks to identify what these are. I was not, however, totally focused on the
positive to the extent that negative perspectives were ignored. Evaluation was not the
3
purpose of this research; rather I sought to secure data linked to understandings of success
from partnership participants. This is a qualitative, interpretative study.
The methods I undertook included immersion in the local community. I worked
intermittently in the local Mearns Community Centre over the course of a year with a broad
agenda of ensuring that my higher education teaching and research linked to community
learning and development remained grounded in current policy and practice. This enabled
me to immerse myself in MAP’s community; to develop an understanding of the key issues
affecting MAP’s community; and to identify the relevant parameters for the research. I also
learnt informally from local people how MAP is understood and perceived in the community.
My initial method was documentary analysis. Fortunately, the Mearns Community Centre
held a comprehensive archive of minutes, reports and miscellaneous information on MAP
projects. I reviewed all of this data and identified the chronology of events and emerging
themes linked to regeneration activities. It was a source of helpful background to my
research that MAP over the years had itself shown a commitment to research projects and my
work builds on the work of other contributors to the research field.
I also conducted semi-structured interviews with 7 people linked to MAP. These people were
selected to cover community, council employed and voluntary sector staff and they included
people who had both a new and a long standing commitment to MAP. There were 3 men and
4 women. Characteristically, interviews were scheduled to take around half an hour but
frequently lasted much longer. Ethically, the researcher sought permission from the
University’s ethical approval committee and confidentiality was assured to all participants
and I have attempted in this report to protect the identity of research participants except
where permission to identify a participant has been granted. Interviews were taped, partially
transcribed and analysed thematically.
3. Research Questions
The aim of the research was to identify in what ways MAP could be considered a successful
rural regeneration project.
The research questions were as follows:
-
How do partners in MAP define success?
What are the successful outcomes of MAP’s activities?
What are the contributing factors to MAP’s perceived success?
4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The data generated from the study was in-depth and highly illuminating. The range and
number of participants in the interview method was sufficient and varied, from the point of
view of scope and breadth of data generated. If time had allowed all of the MAP partners
would have been interviewed. A further dimension of the study that could have been carried
out, and was not, was a more formal approach to assessing the impact of MAP on community
representatives who were not engaged with MAP. This dimension was available to the
researcher through informal community contacts and reports from MAP staff and
participants.
4
5. Structure of the Report
Section 1 of the report forms an introduction and description of project and research
methodology.
Section 2 of the report is an introduction to the demography of MAP and its communities and
an introduction to its main activities over the last decade. This is by no means complete; it is
intended as a representative sample of key activities.
Section 3 of the report is a consideration of the literature and thinking linked to rural
community regeneration and how these ideas and models link to MAP and its outcomes,
achievements and processes.
Section 4 of the report presents the findings of the research and the answers to the research
questions described above and my interpretation of this data.
Section 5 presents conclusions to the MAP project and areas for further study.
5
SECTION 2
1.
Introduction to MAP
Mearns Area Project (MAP), formerly known as Mearns Area Partnership was formed in
1992 when the constitution was formally adopted, as one of 4 pilot projects to target rural
disadvantage,. It is the only surviving partnership.
The Project aims through a partnership between statutory, voluntary and private
agencies, and community organisations to assist local residents to identify needs and
issues and develop strategies to address these with the purpose of improving the
quality of life in the Mearns.
Location
It is situated in Aberdeenshire in the North East of Scotland and embraces the
settlements of:
Artbuthnott
Auchenblae
Drumlithie
Edzell Woods
Fettercairn
Fordoun
Glenbervie
Laurencekirk
Luthermuir
Marykirk
St. Cyrus
It is a largely rural area with the main centre being the town of Laurencekirk. The
population is approximately 9,000.
2. History of MAP
Grampian Regional Council in 1992 established the project with the aim of “tackling
the priority problems experienced by residents in rural areas.” The project involved
staff from the Grampian Regional Council’s Social Strategy Unit, the Social Work
Unit, Education Department as well as the Grampian Healthboard, Regional
Councillors and the Voluntary Sector.
MAP was established due to concerns regarding:
6
Poor uptake of public services and state benefits;
Higher than average numbers of older people;
Low expectations of change and involvement in effecting it:
Outward migration of young people;
-
Lack of provision of childcare and other related social work issues;
Limited transport services;
Diluted delivery of services due to peripheral location.
(Source: MAP Social Accounts for August 2004 – March 2006)
3. Values
The values of MAP are summarised in a Social Accounting Project undertaken by the
Arkleton Trust.
The values are:
Community
Partnership
Openness
Equality
Approachability and Honesty
Confidentiality and Respect
Accountability.
4. Management and Membership
Membership at November 2010 involves representatives of:
Mearns Community Council
St Cyrus Community Counci
Arbuthnott Community Council (vacant)
Villages in Control
Edzell Woods Planning for Real
Mearns Youth Forum
Mearns and Coastal Healthy Living Network
Aberdeenshire Central/South Council of Voluntary Services
NHS Grampian
Social Work and Housing: Aberdeenshire Council
Area Manager: Aberdeenshire Council
Elected representatives: Aberdeenshire Council
1 co-opted individual
7
MAP is run by a committee of 14 people who are community representatives,
representatives of the voluntary sector and elected and employed members of
Aberdeenshire Council.
A MAP representative sits on the Area Community Planning Group creating links to
wider decision making.
Map employs one clerical/admin worker for 4 hours per month.
5. Activities
MAP over time has run a wide range of activities on behalf of its communities.
5.1 Transport
Community conferences were held in 1998 and 2005 which identified rural transport issues
as being of concern to local residents. These conferences were community led, bottom-up
approaches to working in partnership.
MAP liaised with the Road Safety Unit to bring the Young Drivers’ Training Scheme to
Mearns.
A register of minibus permit holders was established; funding was secured for a Community
Minibus and a 17 seater vehicle was purchased.
1999 Mearns Public Transport Survey
The Scottish Office Rural Challenge Fund in 1999 funded a Mearns Public Transport Survey.
80% of the population were surveyed. Following the Mearns Public Transport Survey, the
council changed its transport priorities in and engaged with MAP to develop 2 additional
pilot services. No one in the North East of Scotland had produced such a comprehensive
survey of local needs. The findings endorsed the community minibus service which provided
a shuttle minibus to all the villages of the Mearns Area and shopper services to Montrose. It
formed the basis of a further successful bid to the Community Transport Association. It
provided sturdy evidence for funding bids.
5.2 Advice and Information
A Howe of the Mearns Directory was first produced by MAP in 1994 to help people be aware
of the services, facilities and opportunities near their homes.
A Directory of Childcare in Kincardine and Mearns was produced by MAP and
Aberdeenshire Social Work to detail for families the day care provision in the local area.
8
What’s On Leaflets for young people were produced by MAP with a youth worker to let
young people know what there was to do in the local area.
Community Planning Project
A 2 year project funded by Communities Scotland led by MAP sought ways to get hard to
reach groups involved in planning and developing services. Known as the Community
Planning Project it consulted local people about their needs. It ran an event for people with
physical and sensory disabilities in March 2005. 40 people attended and reported their needs
for affordable, accessible transport; day and respite care and more user friendly pavements
amongst other things. Another event looked at issues amongst the 19 – 25 year age range and
15 participants put their names down to volunteer in the local community.
5.3 Special Groups
The requirements of special groups has always been a focus for MAP activities.
Food Initiative 2010
MAP was concerned at the impact of closure of village shops on the communities. They
recognised that these shops are not just businesses, they also have important social functions.
Since 1995 there had been 8 shop closures. MAP applied to the LEADER Lottery and
Health Improvement Fund and secured funding for a 2 year project which delivers produce to
4 villages with no shop:
Marykirk
Luthermuir
Fordoun
Edzell Woods
It is heavily used and improves access to good locally produced fruit and vegetables; it
focuses on settlements where there is limited transport.
For families a survey was done on the need for an After-School Club which resulted in 1996
with the start of the Club which continues to this day.
A Women’s Support Group was run in conjunction with the WEA as part of the adult
education opportunities in the Mearns.
Play schemes were established at Luthermuir and Auchenblae in response to identified needs
and a Playscheme Information Pack was developed to help volunteers run playschemes.
9
A part time youth worker was appointed and drop-in events were organised at Mearns
Academy.
The Mearns Drug Project in 1998 provided drugs awareness and information services;
diversionary activities; a drop-in cafe and a summer programme.
Mearns Healthy Living Network
The Mearns Healthy Living Network was established by MAP in 2002 with funding from the
Big Lottery. It provides mainly volunteer services to older people in the Mearns area. Its
remit is to improve older people’s health in the Laurencekirk and surrounding areas. It
currently has around 80 volunteers and is managed by elderly people. It meets the needs of
approximately 200 elderly people each week doing services including shopping and
gardening. It employs 3 part time staff
It became independent of MAP in 2007, which is important because MAP is not a provider of
services where this can be done with alternative structures. MAP seeks to avoid the
bureaucracy of managing large services. It was however responsible for the consultation and
instigation that led to this important service provision and managed the transition to
independence. The Healthy Living Network has recently won a community capacity
building contract for the whole of Aberdeenshire to set up older people’s networks and a
social return on investment study has just been completed which found that many of the
services it provides provide a £6 or £7 return on investment.
5.4 Research and Consultation
MAP over the course of its life has been active in staying close to community needs and
wants. It has conducted many research and consultation activities to ensure that its work
remains relevant and to provide data to explore effectiveness and for funding purposes. A
Mearns Community Conference was held in 1995. This included workshops on the need for
a website; young people in rural areas; rural transport; health/community care; rural
economic development. This resulted in local surveys, a newsletter and a website. A youth
worker was employed and a bid was developed for an improved minibus service that was,
indeed, secured. The needs of older people were addressed through lottery funding of
£168,000 which resulted in newly developed services and volunteering described above. The
conference workshop on rural economic development influenced VIC and influenced in turn
the new primary school, rebuilding of the square in Laurencekirk and the production of a
business directory.
A village appraisal was carried out in Auchenblae through use of a questionnaire.
Youth consultation events were organised.
A survey was done of the need for After School Clubs, which subsequently were set up.
In 1998 an assessment was done of the difficulties in rural passenger transport in the Mearns
area
10
In September 2005 MAP held another community conference. They undertook a Green
Audit and 394 people were involved who had not been previously included.
A review was commissioned in 2005 of Villages in Control (VIC) to assist VIC after 10 years
to refocus its local economic and environmental interests. It recommended an enhanced
future for VIC. VIC focused on transport and the reopening of the railway station achieved
in 2009
Edzell Woods Planning for Real project sought the views of this community on local services
and activities. This resulted in the participation on 73 people from this small community.
The purpose was to produce better relationships within the community; to develop
partnership working with the community; bring together statutory and voluntary agencies; to
engage the community in community planning.
A study was undertaken of volunteers in 2009 and their role in sustaining social and
economic activity through management of community resources. It focused on volunteering
linked to village halls. It showed how important volunteering is to the community.
2003 Scoping Study
A scoping study was commissioned by MAP from the Arkleton Trust examining partnership
in the Kincardine and Mearns area. MAP was able to produce an academic but accessible
resource which looked at community partnership across the area, 115 community groups
were consulted by questionnaire and 4 rural area partnerships and 9 groups working in
partnership were interviewed. It concluded that the kind of work MAP was doing should be
consolidated in Kincardine and Mearns and this led to the establishment of the Kincardine
and Mearns Area Partnership (KMAP).
Social Accounting August 2004 – March 2006
MAP employed a professional on a half time contract to undertake social accounting. In the
action research process and evaluation, 394 local people were consulted. The social accounts
found that the finances were in good form and that aims and objectives were being met. The
results were shared with all relevant agencies and a DVD was made and distributed widely,
which was a resource to assist with practices of engagement with the community.
(See pp. 73-5
11
SECTION 3
1. The Rural Regeneration Context
Over the last 2 decades rural regeneration and development projects have become
increasingly common (Osborne et al : 2002); in particular projects which involve community
participation. These are seen to have the capacity to:




Broaden support for area regeneration;
To lever in a range of resources from the private and non-profit sectors;
To co-ordinate disparate initiatives and agencies all working towards local
regeneration;
To promote social inclusion.
(Osborne et al: 2002)
Regeneration policy in the UK in general, and in Scotland in particular, has been what
Barnett et al (2000) called a complicated context of programmes targeted at a tangled mosaic
of partially overlapping areas, spearheaded by different departments. It is in this complicated
context, which has continued throughout this decade, that MAP has found a path to follow
and has set regeneration priorities.
2. Defining rurality
Most attempts to define rurality start by contrasting it with ‘urban’ in effect saying what it
isn’t rather than what it is (Osborne et al : 2004). Osborne et al go on to explain that many
people have tried to define rurality along a number of sophisticated dimensions such as
accessibility and settlement patterns. A more pragmatic approach is adopted by the English
Countryside Agency (1999) who define a rural community as having less than 10,000
people. In this context, MAP’s catchment area is undoubtedly rural. Caffyn and Dahlstrom
(2005) point out the importance of seeing rural and urban centres as interdependent. They
argue that compartmentalizing urban and rural has its limits. To promote sustainable
regional development means addressing issues such as the movement of goods and transport
as well as people travelling for shopping and buying services. This is an aspect of rural urban
links that MAP has addressed through its concern with transport links between villages and
Laurencekirk and Montrose as well as the rail links to denser urban settings.
Caffyn and Dahlstrom point out the stereotypes that relate to urban and rural communities:
“’Urban, for example, tends to be associated with ‘built-up’ areas, diverse employment,
shopping, cultural industries, administration, political power, but also with social exclusion,
deprivation and regeneration. ‘Rural’ on the other hand, has connotations of open
countryside, landscape, agriculture, sparse population, outdoor recreation, limited
employment opportunities, and also wealth and the rural idyll.” (p.284)
Like all stereotypes there is a modicum of truth, but it falls far short of the reality of rural
life. Social exclusion, for example is certainly not a problem confined to urban areas and is
12
an issue that MAP has tackled in a wide range of initiatives involving young people, women
and families and elderly people. In the context of social exclusion one of the differences
between rural and urban communities is that in urban areas the socially excluded frequently
live at a distance from the more mainstream member of society. In a rural community, these
people are more likely to live cheek by jowl with the social consequences that can raise of
inequality of experience and aspiration.
Issues are not necessarily dissimilar in rural and urban environments but the rural issues have
a ‘distinctive edge’ (Osborne et al : 2002). Osborne et al (2002) found 3 elements to be
important. Namely, the influence of geography – the sheer size of rural communities and the
impact on transport and communication; secondly, the influence of rural demography such as
the loss of young and able bodied individuals to the educational and work opportunities in an
urban environment; thirdly, the strength of community of place identity of villages which can
often militate against their joining in with or learning from other villages. MAP faces all
these rural issues in its catchment area and has instituted activities to address this rural
dimensions through communication and transport activities; through youth inclusion
activities and through supporting settlements (e.g. Edzell Woods) to develop as included
communities.
3. Defining Community
It is important in discussing MAP to think about what a community actually is. Barnett and
Crowther (1998) cite Plant who argues that community is both an evaluative and descriptive
term; evaluative meaning it is either a lost ideal past or a future to be aspired to. Shucksmith
(2000) defines community as a group of people living in the same geographical area, with
common interests and frequently feeling a sense of belonging. Osborne et al (2004) point out
that in rural communities poverty and affluence can exist side by side so there is not
necessarily a common interest. I think this is a fair point but an issue affecting one part of
society can be a common issue in that social exclusion or deprivation affect all members of
that community so in this report I see community as being a geographical concept which
links MAP’s activities as well as being a community with shared issues.
A psychological sense of togetherness is important, I propose, though this togetherness can
be a multiple experience. I live in a village in the Mearns where I have a sense of
togetherness with neighbours but also relate to Mearns Community Centre in Laurencekirk
where I experience being part of the broader Mearns community in a professional role.
Barnett and Crowther (1998) indicate that an individual considers him/herself to be a
member of a community for a particular purpose and a member of a different community for
different purposes with community identity being defined in terms of commonality of
interest for specific purposes rather than being an overriding part of a definition of self. It is
this complex multiplicity of communities that MAP seeks to engage and this demands
reciprocal communication through a wide range of means; a challenge MAP meets through,
for example, its constituent networks represented on the Management Committee, through
its conferences, through its central headquarters and through its activities throughout its
villages and the town.
Regeneration, MAPs original and continuing purpose is used here, after Osborne et al (2004),
to mean activities which intend to lead to the social, economic and /or community
development or rejuvenation of a local area, where that area has experienced decline and
depopulation in the past. An interesting dimension of rural regeneration is that community
13
structures can be seen as a reaction to the dominance of centralised government in planning
processes (Rule: 2005). Rule (2005) also presents a converse view, which is that they can be
seen as an extension of governing arrangements and unaccountable to anything but self
motivation. This latter perspective is not true of MAP where there is evidence of work to
influence and extend governing arrangements and an accountability through communication
and consultation with a wide membership of the communities it works with.
4. Community led regeneration
In contrast to government funded schemes (Haq: 2008), the emphasis has remained in MAP
on working on community-led, community-identified priorities rather than governmentthemed priorities. This does not mean that government priorities and community priorities
are always different and there are examples of MAP working with elected members to
achieve outcomes, such as the re-opening of Laurencekirk railway station. Haq discusses the
challenge to the status quo of community engagement and refers to the importance of links
from the micro/local level to the macro/socio-economic political levels, whilst potentially
risky for participants, policy makers, practitioners and politicians, he suggests, the benefits to
the community can be great. The relationship in MAP with elected members of local and
Scottish Government is to be commended, in my opinion, as these relationships lead to this
link between micro and macro levels.
I now wish to return to the starting point for this section of the report, where I discussed the
capacity rural regeneration projects have to:

Broaden support for area regeneration;
The inclusiveness and balance of MAP’s membership and the positive support it receives
from the public, private and voluntary sector membership underscores its success in
regeneration generally, and of public transport in the area in particular. MAP has moved
beyond the ‘empty ritual’ (Nelson et al:2006) of participation in regeneration, of being asked
to approve pre-determined plans. By contrast, it has initiated and achieved influence over
Council plans in the area of transport through commissioning rigorous studies of the need and
seeking means of meeting these needs.

To lever in a range of resources from the private and non-profit sectors;
MAP has been successful in securing resources from a wide range of sources and has
conducted studies of the value of its activities revealing a 6:1 pound value of its activities
providing new services and saving Government funding. It has secured funding of over £X
thousand over the almost 18 years of its life.

To co-ordinate disparate initiatives and agencies all working towards local
regeneration;
Co-ordination of activities is a key strength of MAP, as evidenced by its use as a model for
other regeneration area by Aberdeenshire Council, and its use as a co-ordinating body for
funds for other voluntary sector agencies, such as the community funds from a Windfarm
development.
14

To promote social inclusion.
Promoting social inclusion is also a strength of MAP. Common themes of social exclusion in
rural areas are (Osborne et al 2004) the migration of young people away from rural areas; the
isolation of women; the difficulties of engaging the farming community in regeneration
work. MAP has a youth forum representative on its committee to ensure the voice of young
people is heard and has undertaken to provide volunteer support for elderly people through
the Healthy Living Network. It has instituted adult education programmes for women; and
rural issues of isolation from shopping are addressed in settlements through the Food Project.
Osborne et al (2002) find 3 elements to be especially important in supporting community
involvement in rural regeneration partnerships in their study of key issues in a 3 nation study
(England, Scotland and Northern Ireland). These are:



The presence of supportive community and voluntary sector infrastructure;
The opportunity for communities to learn through small scale projects before more
strategic involvement;
The effectiveness of small grants schemes in supporting this learning.
MAP has had a supportive community sector and voluntary sector infrastructure, as will be
evidenced in Section 4 of this report. Rural areas tend to have a larger number of voluntary
groups relative to their population than urban area but they are often smaller, with few paid
staff and are highly dependent on volunteers. Despite this, in rural areas, voluntary and
community organisations play an important role in delivering services and filling gaps in
existing statutory provision including in health and social care services, community transport,
child care, youth projects, education and skills training and the development of community
businesses (Osborne et al : 2002). I found evidence of MAP activity in each of these areas, a
broad and relevant approach to the community’s regeneration. It is important here to cite the
support MAP has received from Aberdeenshire Council’s Community Learning and
Development professionals, whose commitment to community development and enthusiasm
for the project has supported its development. Voluntary sector support is also important and
there is committed and enthusiastic representation of the Council of Voluntary Services on
the Management Committee.
5. Outcomes
Small grants have been important to MAP. Another key strength has been its ability to
access funding from a range of sources. Over the years it has accessed funding in the order
of £847,00 Taking into account funding sourced in which MAP was a partner body, this has
resulted in the value of over £1 million for the local community, another important outcome.
Projects, not all small scale, have formed an important part of MAP’s activities and have
undoubtedly contributed to community capacity. These impressive outcomes are detailed in
Section 2. MAP has also consistently had a strong strategic voice though inclusion of key
strategic partners; representatives of Council departments relevant to infrastructure and
inclusion; as well as, most importantly, effective working partnerships with elected members
of the Council. Partnerships, argues Laverack (2001), serve as catalysts for community
empowerment – community members can take action to effect change in policies and
15
practices that affect their lives. Partnership, as described in Section 4 is a key strength of
MAP.
Outcomes in the context of learning communities are discussed buy Yarnit (2006),some of
which are presented here.

Partnership, planning and collaboration: improving service planning and delivery.
This outcome is apparent across many dimensions of MAP’s work and is discussed in Section
4.

Skills and Employment: breaking the low skills equilibrium.
MAP has provided adult educational opportunities for a wide range of community members.
It has worked with other organisations to generate employment and has itself generated paid
and voluntary work in the community, in particular the Healthy Living Network.

Community engagement: active citizens shaping local services.
Again a clear outcome of MAP’s work. Consultation and action to meet local needs are a
central plank of MAPs activities.

Neighbourhood Services: putting local residents in the driving seat.
Promoting collaboration between service providers and developing locally relevant models of
local service delivery is an important outcome of MAP’s work.
6. Promoting social Capital
It is clear that MAP has been instrumental in promoting a learning community that assists
governance without losing its ‘bottom up approach’ through:
-
helping to contribute to the realisation of regional policies at a local level;
piloting new approaches to meeting local needs;
showing how services can be joined up and dismantle silo thinking;
helping service providers make better use of community networks and good will;
showing how to widen participation in schemes;
engaging hard to reach and marginal groups in service design and delivery.
(after Yarnit: 2006)
Osborne et al (2002) cite the Community Development Foundation (1995) which codified 5
potential levels of involvement in rural regeneration partnerships:
16





As beneficiaries of rural regeneration partnership and users of a service;
As consultees and representatives of local opinion;
As a pool of community resources for regeneration projects;
As a potential delivery agent for regeneration initiatives;
As a full partner in the planning and management of regeneration programmes.
MAP in its work achieves activity in the community at each of these levels of involvement
through consultation with beneficiaries and users of services and dialogue with
representatives of local opinion. Kashefi and Keene (2008) refer to the plethora of
consultation methods that characterise the consultation industry which has characteristically
delivered a sanitised and unproblematic package that could be used by service managers in a
’tick box’ process. It is to MAP’s credit that it has adopted creative and very local, accessible
approaches to consultation emphasising the views of people who are ‘hard to reach.’
Correspondingly, it has also valued the research skills of external auditors and evaluators in
quality studies of it activities and processes.
MAP uses a pool of community resources for regeneration projects, it is not always the same
faces. MAP acts as a delivery agent for regeneration initiatives through funded projects and
embraces a wide and relevant range of full partner in the planning and management of
regeneration programmes.
7. Partnerships
Relatively little is known about how partnerships work.
“ Effective partnership working can disperse financial input and increase participation by a
range of people and organisations, but less effective partnership can incur costs through
extra administration; though difficulties in resolving problems between partners and through
a failure to develop sustainable regeneration projects.”
(Edwards et al: 1998)
They may be formed:
-
As a forum for strategic discussion, representation or consensual planning;
To pool resources for efficient delivery of services;
In response to the requirements of regeneration programmes in order to bid for
funding for identified objectives;
At a local level to create a proactive network around a specific project or social group.
(Edwards et al ibid)
MAP’s history and purpose has been stated in the introduction and relates to the third of these
purposes of formation. It has, however, shown its flexibility and wide perspective on
regeneration by adopting roles linked to the other purposes. It has a role in strategic
discussion particularly with local authority representatives; it has a role in pooling resources
for efficient and effective delivery of services to elderly people in Laurencekirk; at a local
level it contributed to a proactive network around the securing of the rail project.
Edwards et al (1998) also describe effective partnership working in rural regeneration
partnerships and recognise the following benefits:
17
-
increased accountability and inclusivity;
the cross-fertilisation of ideas;
enhanced levels of co-ordination and co-operation between agencies.
Edwards et al (2000) further propose that effective partnership working includes achievement
of cross-sectoral representation; where communities are fully engaged in identifying
problems and solutions; where there is a pooling of resources; where replication is avoided;
and where consensual decision making is achieved. All these benefits were described in
similar terms by the partnership representatives that I interviewed and this is elucidated in
Section 4.
8. Leadership
Osborne et al (2002) identify 3 key leadership roles that support community involvement in
regeneration projects. These were :



Inspirational leadership and entrepreneurship;
Managerial and administrative leadership;
Governance of complex networks.
It would be fair to say that these leadership roles were cited by interviewees but the roles ere
not all held by one person, they were distributed amongst the membership of MAP. Renshaw
(2003) refers to the need to change the dynamic of membership over time. Certain ’degrees
of freedom’ are required, he proposes, to allow members to change their relationship to
communities over time and I propose that this applies to membership of MAP as discussed in
Section 4. Renshaw cites Matusov (1999) who proposed 3 models that produce a
homogeneous community, which is not desirable, as opposed to a community that is inclusive
of difference. The models are the filter model of exclusion; the funnel model of
marginalisation; and the linear model of assimilation. The filter model excludes by having
strict entry criteria so that difference is excluded through selective practices. The funnel
model of marginalisation allows diversity of intake but silences or marginalises difference by
leaving people who do not follow the dominant ideology on the margins. The linear model
foregrounds the assimilatory processes that work over time to make difference appear odd or
damaging to the comfortable consensus that binds the community together.
The reason I raise these notions is because my research found MAP to be a thriving
community. Yes there were varying levels and proximities of participation but MAP
appeared to be a community with a shared set of values and ethos. It had not, however,
excluded difference by any of the 3 methods described above. Strict formal or informal entry
criteria do not limit participation in MAP; rather MAP is inclusive of representation from
different though prescribed fields of interest. The funnel effect was not apparent. All
members interviewed felt included and listened to, including in particular the Youth Forum
representative. The liner model of assimilation is hard to avoid and, yes, as mentioned
earlier, some people are more marginal than others but this was considered to be choice rather
than supremacy of a dominant ideology; indeed I found that MAP actively values difference.
18
19
SECTION 4
This section of the report presents the findings of the research conducted into MAP.
a. What is success?
I began with an assumption that MAP is a successful project and this is based on the
following facts that were apparent to me prior to the research process:
-
It has been sustainable for almost a decade;
It levers in additional resources to the community;
It has a track record of substantial and broad ranging service delivery;
It has been used as a model for planning other partnerships in the region.
I was, however, interested in whether and how the partnership members would define success
for MAP. The following discussions ensued which all looked at factors other than those that
formed by assumptions described above. I asked participants what is success for MAP?
Two respondents described successful in the context of community project as having at its
core community development practice; which was further defined as being able to identify
needs and gaps in services and having the ability to identify solutions to these issues. Both
respondents referred to the complexity of community development practice in contrast to
youth work or adult education, which in Scotland are frequently co-located ideologically with
community development. These same respondents described MAP as a model for rural
development collaboration; it had the right people round the table and had moved beyond
more traditional approaches that just involve the local authority and voluntary sector
representatives. MAP, by contrast, actively includes the local community. Another
respondent took this further, referring to the ‘genesis’ in the community and the fact that it
facilitated action in the community; ‘unleashing local talent,’ and allowing people to do
action for themselves. A commonly used term, indeed already used by me is a ‘bottom-up’
approach, with the community seen as being at the bottom of the pile or the grass roots. In
MAP, the community is at the top of the pile conceptually and in terms of value. Inclusion
was seen as a key aspect of success for the MAP partnership.
One respondent referred quite simply to the fact that MAP was a meeting place for people
from different backgrounds who can come together to interact and share ideas and
information. She further referred to the fact that they can seek help for their own project
from MAP as well as contributing their own expertise and agency resources round the table.
In addition, they can gain different perspectives for their own work from the range of people
there. Whilst this is a discussion of partnership, it emphasises the reciprocal benefits of
partnership; a feature often overlooked, in my opinion, in measures of success, where benefit
is seen as simply the outcomes for the project being discussed. It is my opinion that this
reciprocal benefit is a characteristic of the sustainability of MAP; it contributes to the
professional relevance for the employed members of MAP and to the ambience of MAP’s
working relationship for all other members.
20
Seeing things happen because of MAP was the definition of success for partners; brought into
relief by one respondent because this was not seen to happen in this way anywhere else in the
region. Also the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds had been brought into the area
was considered a success for MAP. This is a feature of success that is linked to outcomes
and is a feature of success that would be shared by sponsors and funders of the MAP project
alike. The tenor of the comments of respondents who referred to these outcomes was
interesting in that the comments referred to identified needs being met; not just things being
done. One respondent stated that MAP’s area was a site of multiple deprivation and still is
but the gap would have widened without MAP. There was a clear link to MAP’s stated
purposes of contributing positively to alleviating rural disadvantage. There was also a link to
community development principles of inclusion of the community in these actions and being
community driven. Activities were valued from a community benefit perspective, not simply
from a perspective of the success of MAP itself, in terms of involving numbers of people in
activities; a frequently used measure of funding and government bodies. One respondent
referred to the way MAP instigates, supports and encourages initiatives rather than trying to
run initiatives itself, hereby avoiding becoming bureaucratic.
b. What makes it successful?
I wanted to explore exactly what it was that promoted the success as defined by the partners.
One respondent described the situation where the project began with people being told to sit
round a table and had developed to a point where people chose to sit round the table. The
reason given for the change is that people had rewards from the point of view of seeing
success and being able to take shared credit for success. The term ‘pay off’ was used. It is a
mature project in the sense that it has a ‘history of credit’, as one respondent described it, to
draw on in order to build community capacity in the form of self esteem and confidence of
partners. So, success was perceived to build success from a learning perspective.
A key feature described as being important to the success was positive interpersonal and
interprofessional relationships. People did not always get on, it was suggested, but an ethos
of collaboration had been built up over time. People respected each other’s roles and did not
push their own agenda, rather they looked for mutual achievement. The key quality that
contributed to this ethos was considered by one respondent to be respect. Yes, personality
matters, she said, and different dynamics were at play as membership changed over the years
but each new person refreshed the dynamic and the ethos was not lost. Another respondent
referred to the ‘chemistry’ of MAP; the fact that people listen and engage with one another
and that people are ‘more important than the process.’ He considered that changing
chemistry could be the downfall of many community projects but felt that MAP people were
focused, energetic, wanted to succeed and were interested in leaving a legacy to the
community. In particular the dynamism, drive and enthusiasm of community development
professionals was cited as key to the chemistry.
The people in MAP were considered by 6 of the respondents to be key to its success. Further
qualities cited were confidence, positive attitude and a willingness to ‘always be looking to
do things’ as well as honesty, enthusiasm and a belief in MAP. Making sure all people were
involved where and when they wanted was considered to be important. They can opt in but
do not have to be involved in everything. A commitment to the area was considered to be
important and a ‘belief in things.’ One respondent described how it is ‘hit and miss’ who you
get but the structure of MAP contributed to its success. It has 14 members of whom about 10
21
attend each meeting and this is a small enough number to manage at meetings and an email
protocol prevents people from being overloaded between meetings to ensure that matters can
progress. The youth voice was considered to be particularly important to MAP by 3
respondents who saw it as evidence that MAP can link to the community and listen as well as
recognising that young people can contribute to regeneration at this level.
Another definition of ethos was given that included core values of effective engagement;
responsiveness to local issues; and facilitative of the community’s capacity. It was
considered to be important that individuals seemed not to bring their own agenda to meetings;
they never have done but the reason for this was not known. This links to discussion of
partnership and the reciprocal relationships that exist for partners.
Leadership qualities were considered to be important by respondents and they referred to the
current leader as focused, dynamic, committed and energetic with a belief in MAP and a
desire not to do everything herself – a willingness to be inclusive. One respondent in
particular felt that the success of MAP was a product of 2 very strong leaders who are
committed to MAP and passionate about the work; this led to a frequently cited concern in
community development contexts that success could be dependent on retaining this kind of
leadership over time.
A further key contributor to success from the point of view of the project’s sustainability was
the fact that there were simply complex and important issues of rural disadvantage to be
tackled. Without community issues there would be no rationale and motivation for the
project. An underpinning core of MAP’s success was considered to be its concern with live
issues and communication with the community to identify these issues. A further factor
linked to successfulness was focus. An initial focus with the closing of a local air base
helped establish the focus of the project but a continuing focus is important and this is linked
to what the respondent referred to as the deprivation in the area. One respondent focussed on
the need for the project as an important contributor to its success; the need for work on rural
disadvantage. It was also considered to be important that MAP never did anything that could
be done by another body; it identified gaps and filled these. The need, she said, drives it and
the need leads to sustainability. Occasionally, it was suggested by 2 respondents MAP had
lost sight of the need and drifted but had always come back to it. One respondent referred to
the natural phases of progression where taking stock could be balanced against times of
considerable acitivity.
What is most interesting to me about this is the developing sense of the importance of ethos
and culture to MAP and the fact that this is the key contributor to the perceived sustainability
of MAP. This is characterised by a way of working that is mutual and collaborative; a strong
focus on purpose and need; and leadership that facilitates this culture. A further feature of
ethos was considered to be MAP’s interest in diversity and its ability to diversify; it has built
up a capacity for involvement, through the work of community development professionals,
from people from a range of backgrounds.
c. What is success for the community?
I was interested in how the partners thought the community’s perception of MAP was
characterised.
22
One respondent thought that MAP was largely invisible and that this was highly appropriate
from the point of view that the community could see the products of community
development, not necessarily the infrastructure of community development. MAP had
organised celebrations for the reinstatement of the local train station and 2,000 people had
attended but the technicalities behind the scene were not important – what was important was
the outcome for the community. Similarly, they see the community minibus but not the
lobbying and research that needed to be done to secure this service. The community sees
MAP at the point of delivery and in the local paper. The new High Street office was
considered to be important to MAP’s profile. People call in and ask about MAP and it acts as
a signpost to other opportunities. Another respondent echoes this perception of the
community, saying quite a lot of the community don’t know about it but this does not matter
as they see the value of its services and achievements such as training and childcare. Those
who do know about it think of it highly, she suggests. Links with the community were
unanimously considered to be important but the profile of MAP was not considered to be
important from the point of view of its workings. One respondent felt that the community
would perceive MAP in a reciprocal way; a coming together of groups and as a potential
resource for the success of their own community projects.
This was interesting and laudable from the point of view of modesty! Partners did not feel
that their actual work needed to be recognised though they did value a frequent presence in
the newspapers. Background work was commonly held to be sufficient. One respondent felt
that MAP did not always recognise the value of its good links enough; the outcomes are a
product of these links, she suggested, and MAP should recognise the profile it has with many
people. I would agree with this perspective; MAP’s community links are excellent and, yes,
people may not understand the inner workings of MAP but my impression was that people
valued the opportunities it provides. Indeed, I encountered jealousy and resentment from one
member of the community at its success and the power dimension that goes with this and
communicating its ethos and workings might work to overcome this inevitability.
d. What are the positive and negative aspects of MAP?
In order to see the high and low points of their experience with MAP, I asked respondents to
focus on the positive and negative features of the partnership project.
Three respondents focused on structure as the most positive point about MAP. It is important
they suggested how the project connects to the community and having a partnership of
community, voluntary sector, local business, elected members and local authority staff meant
that it has a key mechanism to bring the ‘right’ people together to work together. The
understanding of ‘right’ was that the people were from the relevant agencies and at the
appropriate level to effect change. Also the equality of people around the table was felt to be
important, as well as the training and calibre of community representatives who felt able to be
on equal terms with experts from the public and voluntary bodies. One respondent felt MAP
to be an ideal model for community planning activities as it brought together the relevant
parties in this equally relationship to tackle regeneration.
“It is a local project, with local people addressing local issues with a history of local
success.”
One of these same respondents said that the negative side of MAP was that it did not have a
wide enough impact on the bigger picture of rural disadvantage issues and that this was not
23
MAP’s fault as this wider influence is a 2 way process. This was an expression of frustration
at the lack of public sector preparedness to make better use of MAP as a resource.
One respondent referred again to the strength of MAP partnership and the contribution people
make in terms of time and energy to the work of the project. It was felt to be small but strong
and that it had national influence through recognition of the effectiveness of its activity. It is
effective locally but has an increasing role to play in community planning, again a reference
to a greater need for a reciprocal relationship with the public sector. Teamwork was
mentioned by another respondent and the resource of having people from different
backgrounds to work on shared issues. Partnership works, said another respondent, because
although people with different ways of thinking come together, issues are always thoroughly
discussed; once a decision has been taken it has been thoroughly investigated. Once again,
the culture of MAP’s working methods is celebrated. One limitation of MAP was seen to be
the fact that some people do not attend meetings often so miss out on opportunities to
contribute and to gain from MAP.
Another respondent referred to the recent appointment of MAP as the funding agent for
community funds from a windfarm project and said this was a high point for MAP as it
highlighted MAP’s credibility in the community and outside the community and was an
example of the practical implementation of community planning, which is most important for
a community partnership project. This respondent was unable to think of any low points as
MAP is strong and its strength lies in the strength of its members who have the qualities of
intelligence, imagination and purpose. Another project that emerged as a high point was the
Planning for Real project at Edzell Woods. The Steering Groups is now 5 years old and is
perceived to continue to make a difference. Once again the community development
dimension of MAP is perceived to be a major strength. The community transport project
was cited by another respondent; its contributions to the reopening of the station in
Laurencekirk along with Villages in Control.
One area that it was felt MAP could expand in was its geographical base. MAP, at time of
interviewing, was being encouraged to extend further North and into the coastal region.
There were divided opinions on this issue, as some people felt that this would run counter to
its current strong geographical base. It was generally felt that this should be handled with care
and that it was a two edged sword with maturity linked to growth but a risk of losing the
strong community base it already has. It would be important in growth for MAP not to lose
its focus. One respondent referred to the importance of the new communities deciding for
themselves the structures and representation that would be appropriate and linking into MAP
as and when this met their needs.
e. What can other projects learn from MAP?
I was interested in the generalisability of the MAP model and wanted to know what partners
considered the transferable qualities to be. This report presents a positive overall profile of
MAP and I was interested to see what partners had learned about rural regeneration and
whether this could held other communities with this purpose in mind.
One respondent felt that experience is not necessarily transferable – ‘horses for courses’ but
felt conversely that sustainability was reciprocal with achievement; credibility led to
sustainability and sustainability bred credibility. He also felt that the interdisciplinarity was
important; the ability to engage with people from all different walks of life but also the link
24
with other organisations. Here the culture of MAP is crucial, I suggest – its inclusion of the
‘right’ people and its collaborative way of working. Yes, tensions exist with some
organisations, but MAP respects their roles and engages with them as far as possible. MAP is
careful about not stepping on the toes of others. This same respondent referred to MAP’s
lack of pretention as a positive quality in this regard. I suggest he is referring here to the
power dimension that can go with success and that MAP is careful to be facilitative and not
prescriptive or domineering.
Structure from the point of view of inclusion of the community and ethos from the point of
view of collaboration were again mentioned as generalisable qualities. MAP’s success was
frequently ascribed to community inclusion a process which is complex and difficult but has
been managed well by MAP. Similarly, collaboration is desirable but complex and MAP has
established a culture that is inclusive and reciprocal in its functioning. The involvement of
competent and motivated community workers as contributors to success was mentioned by
almost all respondents. This profession saw the project off from the beginning, helped
establish the ethos of inclusion and acted as a catalyst of community development processes
and a source of information, knowledge and expertise on many occasions for MAP activities.
The geography of the area was considered to be important; there was a natural sense of
community and ‘small is beautiful’ was considered to be important – MAP had resisted
invitations to expand its geographical areas in the past. Some partnerships, it was suggested
get too big and become ‘corporate’ whereas others become too small and become a ‘goldfish
bowl’. A common bond was considered to be important - a shared geography and shared
community issues so that local people could see something was being done. An example
given was the Out of School Care Project which now supported 140 families. The need and
investigative work were identified and done by MAP. It started out very small and needed
the support of MAP to prove viability and demand in order to get the model even looked at
for funding purposes.
It is my view that MAP has a lot to offer in terms of its ethos, structure and inclusion of the
‘right’ people. The complexity of these concepts cannot be underestimated and as one
respondent rightly proposed one size does not fit all but MAP has a lot to offer as a model
that fits local conditions and seeks to follow the values of engagement and inclusion. One
public sector respondent can have the final word:
“MAP is a microcosm of how we want to work in Aberdeenshire. If you have a community
conference and list 20 things that need doing, then at the next conference can see them
knocked off the list at least in part then you are doing something right.”
25
SECTION 5
Conclusions
In contrast to the characteristics frequently represented in the literature by funding bodies and
government agencies, the partners in the rural regeneration partnership ascribed success to
culture, ethos, engagement and inclusion. Indeed, they also valued outcomes and
achievement, the measures most frequently used by sponsoring bodies and government
authorities to gauge effectiveness or success, but their overall focus was more on the
experience, process and qualities of the members of the group. There is a dearth in the
literature of discussion on qualities and values that underpin, I suggest, the success of rural
regeneration partnerships. McArdle and Coutts (2010) argue that what makes people good at
what they do is who they are. Qualities and values can be sought and promoted (e.g. Malm
2010) and are crucial according to this research to the effectiveness of the partnership
process. Community development processes in Scotland frequently focus on community
capacity building through skills development but there is a need to focus on the identification
and development of positive qualities and a positive ethos for rural regeneration processes
not just so-called partnership skills. Donnelly (2000) defines ethos as a fashionable and
nebulous term that describes the distinctive range of values and beliefs which define the
philosophy and atmosphere of an organisation. She distinguishes between a positivist and
anti-positivist view point. A positivist views ethos as something which prescribes social
reality. An organisation it is argued possesses an ethos that can be changed at will to make it
more successful. Ethos is thus a formal expression of an organisation’s aims and objectives.
The theoretical antithesis of this presented by anti-positivist theorists who see ethos as
something more informal emerging from social interaction and process. It is a product of
organisational interaction and is produced and reproduced over time. It is my contention that
community development professionals in addressing rural regeneration projects need to
embrace both the positivist and anti-positivist view points. MAP’s ethos of inclusion is
prescribed in its constitution and expressed value base but is also a product of the processes it
has developed over time. The key question for the community development professional is
whether an ethos can be promoted.
Aristotelian accounts of ethos see qualities of character , dispositions and practical wisdom
phronesis, as particularly apt for development via an ethos (McLaughlin: 2005). The
particular kind of influence that may be exerted by an ethos can best be seen as provision of a
context in which learning can flourish including initiation, habituation, training in feeling,
attention and perception, induction into patterns of habit and action, forms of guidance and
experience and exemplification (McLaughlin : 2005). McLaughlin (2005) goes on to talk
about, in a teaching context, the need for an ethos to be justified with reference to an
articulated and defensible set of educational aims and values. Fuller attention is needed I
suggest in community development work to the development and justification of ethos and to
the role of the community development professional in guidance, coaching, initiation in role
modelling in a value transparent way to assist the community to develop an ethos as
successful as that of MAP. Yes outcomes are important to rural regeneration success but the
partners ascribe success to ethos, values and personal qualities. There is a role for the
community development professional in the development of a positive and inclusive ethos
that goes beyond the traditional skills development linked to community capacity building.
26
It has been my pleasure to be associated with a project that has so many positive
characteristics. I lay myself open to criticism that I have not seen the negative dimensions of
the project. Yes, there have been areas where there is room for improvement but I can
honestly say that my purposes with this project have been met authentically. I have been
engaged with community development projects for more than 30 years and consider, on the
basis of this experience, that MAP has much to celebrate in terms of achievement over almost
a decade since its inception. The tenor of my research was positively framed by the research
questions for this case study and this contributes to the emphasis on success and my focus on
what can be learnt by other project contributes to this framing of my activity linked to MAP.
We are generally not always good in Scotland at talking about success and my interviewees
from MAP found it difficult not to ‘blow my own trumpet’ as one respondent put it. I hope,
however, that this report will act as validation of what has already been achieved and
encouragement to continue in this positive vein.
Evaluation was not a purpose of this project and so recommendations are not appropriate. I
do, however, have one key point I wish to make concerning the future for MAP. ‘Small is
beautiful’ is an important dimension of partnership working and current moves to extend
MAP’s aegis need careful consideration of relevant structures and community engagement
processes if it is to go ahead. The suggestion that a committee be established for the new
region appears to be a good one with links to MAP for regional development purposes. MAP
has much to offer a new regional development process but must not lose what it already has.
Finally, I would not be a researcher without seeing opportunities for further study and it is my
opinion that further research into the nature of the engagement with its respective
communities would be interesting and useful to MAP. Yes, there is engagement with adults,
young people, families, businesses, voluntary organisations and other representative groups.
A study of the extent and value of this engagement to MAP and to these people and
organisations would be add a further dimension to the empowerment and community capacity
building that exists as a product of MAP’s activities and would ensure that engagement
continues to drive MAP’s work.
27
References
Barnett, N. and Crowther, D. (1998) Community Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A
postmodernist evaluation of local government structure. International Journal of Public
Sector Management 11:6, 425-439
Beattie, A., Osborne, S., Williamson, A. (2002) Community Involvement in Rural
Regeneration Partnerships: Structural Rhetoric or Reality? Journal of Contemporary Issues
in Business and Government 8/2 15-26
Caffyn, A and Dahlstron, M. (2005) Urban-Rural Interdependencies: Joining up Policy in
Practice. Regional Studies 39:3, 283 – 296
Countryside Agency (1999) The State of the Countryside 1999, Countryside Agency, London
Donnelly, C. (2000). In Pursuit of School Ethos: British Journal of Educational Studies 48(2)
134-154.
Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., Woods, M. (1998) Findings: Partnership Working
in Rural Regeneration. Research in progress. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Edwards, B. Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., Woods, M. (2000) Partnership Working in Rural
Regeneration: Guidance and Empowerment? The Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, Bristol,
Haq, J. (2008) Community Participation: ‘Activists’ or ‘Citizens’? Participatory Learning
and Action June 2008, 91-96
Kashefi, E. and Keene, C. (2008) Citizens’ Juries in Burnley, UK: from deliberation to
intervention. Participatory Learning and Action June 2008, 33-38
Laverack, G. (2001) An identification and Interpretation of the Organizational Aspects of
Community Empwerment. Community Developmetn Journal 38:2 134-145
McArdle, K. and Coutts, N. (2010). Taking Teachers’ Continuous Professional Development
(CPD) beyond reflection: Adding shared sense making and collaborative engagement for
professional renewal: Studies in Continuing Education 32 (3) 201 – 215.
28
McLaughlin, T. (2005). The Educative Importance of Ethos: British Journal of Educational
Studies 53(3) 306-325.
Nelson, A., Babon, A., Berry, M., Keath, N. (2006) Engagement, but for what kind of
marriage?: Community members and local planning authorities. Community Development
Journal 43,1 37-51
Osborne, S., Williamson, A., Beattie, R. (2002) Community Involvement in Rural
Regeneration Partnerships: Exploring the Rural Dimension. Local Government Studies
30:2, 156-171
Osborne, S., Williamson, A., Beattie, R. (2004) Community Involvement in Rural
Regeneration Partnerships in the UK: Key Issues from a Three Nation Study. Regional
Studies 36:9 1083-1092
Renshaw, P. (2003) Community and Learning: Contradictions, Dilemmas and Prospects.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24:3 355-370
Rule, J. (2005) Tracing Discourses of Social Action: inner-city Sydney Neighbourhood
Centres. Studies in Continuing Education 27:2, 135-153
Shucksmith, M. (2000) Exclusive Countryside? Social Inclusion and Regeneration in Rural
Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Yarnit, M. (2006) Building Local Initiatives for Learning, Skills and Employment. NIACE,
Leicester.
29
30