There were two highlights for me. The first was a session on researching lives and relationships, which generated some really interesting conversations around researching intimate aspects of people’s lives. The second was a session on participatory research methods, which explored some of the very real challenges and dilemmas, as well as the benefits and, in some cases,  necessity of participatory research.

Details on session content and presenters, as well as links to many of the presentations themselves, are available on the National Centre for Research Methods website.

Seven projects are being rolled out in Peterborough under the umbrella of Citizen Power Peterborough.  Each project has a different focus: climate change, addiction and recovery; the arts; education and local history; social media; the creation of spaces for local debate and activism; and civic health. In different ways, these projects are exploring how people in Peterborough can live more sustainably, be more connected to one another, and more involved in making decisions that affect their city and their lives.

As Programme Head Sam McLean wrote in The Guardian earlier this month, international examples of citizen power and innovation in public service – from legislative theatre in Brazil to pledgebanking in the UK – give reason to be hopeful in times of government cuts to public service spending.

Click here to download the report.

• “a small nudge can get citizens to follow through on their better intentions”
• “it is possible to get citizens to think through controversial issues in innovative ways that allow for evidence and the opinion of all to count.”

What the researchers found was that while virtually all the nudge interventions worked, the think interventions were far more challenging and less sucessful. Fuller details of the findings, which should interest and challenge policy-makers and practitioners alike, are available here.

You may also want to read Kevin Harris’ blogpost that refers to the discussion that took place following the researchers’ presentation. People invited at the roundtable to reflect on what the research findings might mean for the Big Society were: Phillip Blond (Respublica); Toby Blume (Urban Forum); Greg Clark (Minister for Decentralisation; Communities and Local Government; Sue Goss (OPM) and Matthew Taylor (RSA).

To find out more see here

Find out more here

The Pathways team and the partnering organisations have been monitoring the developments and debates around the Big Society with interest, and it seems logical that for such a concept to work and be sustained, it is crucial for politicians and practitioners to have a good understanding of how and why individuals involve themselves in various forms of participation throughout their lives.

The new government emphasises how one of the key principles of Building the Big Society is to encourage people to take an active role in their communities, as well as encourage charitable giving and philanthropy. Such forms of participation can manifest themselves in very different ways, so thorough and insightful research is needed to explore the connections and patterns between different participatory activities, something that the Pathways project will also begin to explore as we go into the in-depth interview phase of the project.

Unfortunately the final report won’t be available before our project ends!

EB: What made you interested in being involved in the project?

When I heard about the project through the Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association, I’d been thinking about how to develop the Broomfield Community Orchard Project and I was interested to hear other people’s thoughts on how to do this.

I’m also involved in a group called ‘Improving our Place’ – a network of people who trying to improve the area. I thought that the research you are doing sounded interesting and I wanted to hear more about it; both locally and nationally. Having worked as a town planner in London and have some experience of supporting local groups, I am interested in hearing about the ways communities engage in participation and work together.

EB: You’ve taken part in a mapping workshop and been to your first quarterly local stakeholder group meeting – how are you finding being involved in the project so far?

The mapping workshop was fascinating. Although the workshop group was small, I thought the outcome was very interesting: [the map] opened my eyes to my area and everyone seemed to enjoy it. What came across to me was that people have a lot of enthusiasm for sharing information about their local area, and that we all have a different perception about what our ‘local area’ is. Trying to map it as a diagram or as a literal map presented our group with an interesting challenge. Luckily it all came together quite well – or so we thought!

‘Mapping’ is a very useful exercise to go through; so often if you’re consulted on something and it’s usually some time before you any tangible results; but by creating a map and putting it up on the wall and talking about it gave us a strong sense of ownership. It also struck me that this approach that could also be useful for Local Authorities in planning their services as it provides a really good snapshot of an area. Although you can never expect to be fully comprehensive with the information, it could be an effective way of involving people in the community who don’t normally participate – such as school children and older people.

I was new to the LSG, and was struck how members were able to take a wide view of the services that their organisations provide together with the comprehensiveness of their knowledge of the area. It’s a very different starting point from that of a local resident. I was also struck by how open the discussion was and how useful it was in terms of feeding info through to you [EB]. I would like to see another resident on the LSG as I have a certain view (as a middle aged male) about things, whereas a woman with young children will see the area differently.

EB: What would you like to see coming out of the project?

Idealistically, one would hope that information and thoughts about the nature of volunteering in the area, and how to encourage the participation of people who don’t get involved, will be fed through to local services and organisations and help open all our eyes about what makes it possible. I’d like to see local organisations being drawn into the research in such as way that they can then make use of the outcomes. I see as one of the opportunities of the project is to consider the connections between highly structured and informal participation.

I’d also like to see the recommendations being something that are both digestible and interesting enough to put in the local paper in the form of a leaflet; something that grabs people attention and shows that the project is not another academic piece of work. It needs to be something that connects with local communities.

EB: If you had to sum up the area of Enfield we’re looking at in 3 words, what would they be?

Post-war suburbia.