The research resonates with literature on volunteering and other types of participation: that many people get involved (or are more likely to become involved) because they are asked personally. The research also confirms that only a small proportion of the population get involved in local decision making and that when people do, it is often a ‘reactive’ engagement about something that they are unhappy with such as front-line services.

My recent experience of interviewing people in Enfield as part of the Pathways through Participation project agrees with this – several people have said that they are ‘not political’ and haven’t been involved in any type of civic activism…until they remember the time they contacted their MP about the traffic outside their house, or the council about proposals to cut down a favourite tree or build something nearby that they don’t want (be it a car park or, in one case, a mental hospital). This reactive involvement, the TCC report says, doesn’t correspond with many of the ‘proactive’ engagement mechanisms, which try to address broader issues, on offer in most local authorities.

To encourage and increase people’s involvement, TCC recommend that local authorities should communicate better with their residents about the opportunities for involvement, and that local authorities should target their messages so that they will be receptive to every segment of the population.

What is great about this approach is that people’s attitude, personality, values and world view are factored into the analysis – of the problem and solution. It seems sensible that whether someone is inclined to see the glass half full or half empty will affect their feelings about their local council and representatives. However, it is essentially a behaviourist approach that doesn’t factor in broader socio-economic or demographic factors, which are essential to understanding people’s behaviour and views around participation and involvement. Two books that continue to get a lot of interest – Nudge and The Spirit Level – sum up this dichotomy well for me. Both bring value to debates about citizen participation, which in light of the Big Society’s stress on community involvement, will surely remain high on many people’s agenda.

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.

• “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).

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.

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

DM: 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?

DM: 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?

DM: 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?

DM: Post-war suburbia.

 Interestingly for the Pathways project, the research found that individuals’ perceptions of influence change over time and that experiences and circumstances throughout the life course has an impact on perception of influence. The research found that events or incidents such as a successful or unsuccessful attempt to influence decisions, joining a community group, starting university, becoming less interested and having children all have an impact on feelings of influence. The report also finds that the more urban an area is, the lower the feelings of influence; the region that the local authority is in also has an impression; and the higher the ethnic diversity, the higher the feelings of influence.

Click here to download the report.

They certainly look like an interesting charity, and I’ll be keeping an eye on their movements and progress in the coming months.

Calling on employers (from across all sectors) to allow and support staff to undertake volunteering in work time, the report includes a ’myth buster’ about employee-supported volunteering to help emphasise its message: that volunteering benefits the employer, the employee and wider civil society.

Read the report here.

Some commentators and academics (Robert Putnam amongst them) have proposed that the difference in participation levels between different age groups is less to do with people’s age and more to do with which generation they belong to. The argument (simply put) goes that Baby Boomers (born 1946 – 1964) are the great moral and ‘civic’ generation; with Generation X (born 1965 – 1981) being cynical, individualistic and ‘low participators’, whilst the Millennials (born 1982 – 1998) have a deep commitment to community and helping others, and they put their beliefs into action.

Pete Peterson challenges such stereotypes and, using data from the latest (US) Civic Health Index, argues that Generation X-ers not only volunteer more than Baby Boomers and ‘retired seniors’, but had increased their participation in the last year compared to Millennials, Boomers and Seniors. One of the reasons why Generation X-ers are currently derided and Millennials applauded is, Peterson suggests, because of their respective political leanings, with Millennials overwhelmingly self-identifying as Democrats (52%) compared to Republicans (30%). He warns, however, that Millennials also display a strong libertarian streak, and express support for fiscally conservative policies. He concludes that ‘while pundits keep handing out participation trophies to the Millennials, maybe this year they should save a few for the enlightened sceptics of Generation X.’

Whilst we won’t be handing out any trophies on the Pathways project, we will be looking at the influence of life stage and age on people’s participation, as well as a host of other factors! 

For the full article, and some useful references go to: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001374-get-real-aout-generation-x-stereotypes