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.

The findings in Bradford are of great interest to the research coming out across the Pathways project, and of particular interest to the inner city case-study in Leeds, another Yorkshire city where we are exploring participation on estates home to different degrees of deprivation and some socially excluded groups. Similarly to the Pathways project, the JRF research also used a form of participatory mapping to access different types of information from residents. It makes for an interesting read to see how the two research teams have used visual data in different ways.

Download the JRF report here, and download the Pathways report on participatory mapping 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

In addition to information on the sales of ethical products and services the report includes data on boycotts (food and drinks, travel, eating-out and clothing).

“Buying Red merchandise to fight Aids in Africa promotes the delusion that shopping can be the solution to serious social problems. Consumer activism by affluent individuals increasingly replaces collective political action. The campaign also perpetuates the individualistic fantasy that our lives are not connected but entirely detached. So consumers can become heroes without having to sacrifice anything as if we have nothing to contribute to global injustices.”

For more on ethical consumerism have a look at Karl Wilding’s previous post on the subject or visit the NCVO Third Sector Foresight website that looks at the key strategic drivers influencing the UK voluntary sector, one of which is ethical consumerism.

My first charity Christmas gift catalogue arrived through the post yesterday. Browsing through the pages made me reflect on the increasing body of research out there on why and how people choose to get involved with causes, and in particular the rise of shopping as a form of – or should that be proxy for? – getting involved. (At this point I might as well shamelessly plug Pathways Through Participation, a research programme I’m involved in that looks at how people get involved over the courses of their lives.)

I’ve heard a range of terms used to describe this trend, but one of the most resonant is ‘direct debit citizenship’, a phrase I first heard whilst contributing to research on civil renewal and active citizenship (a turn of phrase I havent heard since the Home Secretary resided in Sheffield). Public policy makers and politicians alike have been concerned for some time now that people are getting less involved in the institutions and democratic processes of society – most visibly a decline in voter turnout and political party membership. Beyond this ‘civic’ engagement, I think evidence is weaker for a decline in ‘civil’ engagement with voluntary organisations, but regardless of the evidence the narrative remains both powerful and popular.

Some are in turn arguing that an increase in buying ethical or charitable goods, and avoiding products from companies doing wrong (‘buycotting’) are indicative of us all finding an alternative to time-consuming engagement. In other words, choosing to express our activism through consumerism – the organic vegatable box instead of the ballot box. Even charitable giving, it is argued, has been consumerised for the time-poor citizen: just give £2 a month and you have discharged your commitment.

I’m not arguing that shopping around for a better society is a poor alternative to getting engaged as an activist, volunteer or campaigner. In fact, our Pathways research is keen to understand the links between these different types of involvement, with the potentially enticing idea that we can understand how one activity might lead to the other.  But one of the questions we have been thinking about is whether we have priveliged one type of activity over another: in other words, would we rather supporters buy stuff or write letters? Purchase or protest?

I don’t need to point out here some rather obvious contradictions for a sector that should hopefully be reducing its carbon footprint. I also know that earned income is going to be crucial in a time when other sources of funding are going to be under pressure. But I can’t but help wonder what will be the ‘impact of the recession’ (© every blog on the web over the last 12 months) on the trend of spending money to achieve your social goals instead of giving time. There’s certainly plenty of evidence to suggest that volunteer enquiry levels have increased significantly – and notwithstanding difficulties of finding placements, presumably levels of involvement have increased. Might this spread beyond formal volunteering? A recent article in the Washington post (cited in Thomas Sanders’ excellent social capital blog) argued that the recession was leading to an increase in ‘neighboring’. I quote:

“There’s been an overwhelming increase in participation overall,” said Kisha Wilson-Sogunro, neighborhood services manager for Manassas. “People want to get back to the basics. They understand, especially with the housing crisis, you just don’t know who is living next to you, and all of a sudden it’s a foreclosure. . . . If you would have been neighborly, you’d know who to call if something’s going wrong.”

One would hope this might also be the case in the UK, but some of the discussions I’ve heard have centred around the threat of downturn to community cohesion: I’d be interested to hear about any evidence here. There’s certainly a burgeoning body of research about well-being and happiness, some of which has been highlighted by the Lodestar Foundation. I’m not going to pretend I know or understand it all, but it might be worth us all reflecting on Thomas Sanders’ observation that involvement in social activities (not buying more stuff we can’t afford anyway?) probably makes us happier and contributes to a better society.

(Thanks to the excellent John McNutt for alerting me to the blog on social capital! You can see how John is making the world a better place at www.policymagic.org where you’ll find some great resources to help you with online advocacy.)