Posts Tagged ‘social capital’

 

Participation and social networks

Friday, June 24th, 2011

The RSA recently published another report in their Connected Communities series – ‘Power Lines’ – exploring: ‘How social networks power and sustain the Big Society’. My colleague Sarah wrote a post on the original paper back in September, which argued ‘that deeper and more sophisticated knowledge of social networks in local areas can lead to more strategic and effective interventions to address local problems.’

Social networks are emerging from our research as critical to shaping individuals and the resources and opportunities they have to participate. The RSA’s latest paper has some thought provoking findings that link very closely in places to our work.

‘Power Lines’ is based on an analysis of social networks in New Cross Gate in south London. A selection of the key findings included:

  • ‘Those with fewer local connections in general were more likely to be isolated from local influence’;
  • ‘Being retired, unemployed, and living in certain areas, all made it more likely that people would be disconnected from local influence’;
  • ‘Even within the relatively small area [there was] considerable variation. Some areas had much denser social networks than others’;
  • ‘Poorly connected areas are characterised by a few very well connected individuals, and many poorly connected people. Well-connected neighbourhoods are composed of individuals who have similar amounts of connections as others’;
  • ‘Community networks are resilient when they have numerous connections both internally and externally’.

The report’s overarching argument is that the government’s current approach to the Big Society is focused too much on ‘citizen-led service delivery’ and not enough on ‘utilising and building people’s social networks’. These social networks – the authors argue – ‘largely determine our ability to create change and influence decisions that affect us’.

They suggest that participation is often defined too narrowly, focusing on ‘so-called “active” citizens’, who are regularly engaged in public participation and are often regarded as the ‘vision of what it is to be empowered and to have influence’.  Rather, the authors argue that in order to increase individuals’ access to local power, the focus ‘must first be on fostering overall social connections and neighbourliness’.

This argument, I feel, fits well with both the approach of our research and our findings. It suggests that rather than focusing on trying to increase participation in narrowly defined activities, we must take a step back and look from the perspective of individuals at the factors and forces that shape participation as a whole, of which social networks are a key part. Then, by focusing on building these resources and opportunities, we can begin to empower citizens to feel able to participate – if and where they wish to – and to feel that their involvement will make a difference.

Social networks and community regeneration

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce (RSA) has just released an interim report on its Connected Communities project: Connected Communities: How social networks power and sustain the Big Society. This three-year project is exploring the value of a social-network approach to understanding communities and how they ‘tick’. The communities in question are in South East London and Bristol.

The report’s authors argue that deeper and more sophisticated knowledge of social networks in local areas can lead to more strategic and effective interventions to address local problems. They suggest that policies and programmes informed by a social network analysis could be more effective at linking the most and least connected groups; target and serve those who are most isolated in an area; encourage ‘pro-social’ behaviour change; and improve channels of communication between local authorities, public service providers, community organisations and residents themselves by using individuals and organisations that are already well-connected to help disseminate knowledge.

This is interesting stuff, all the more so because it raises a couple of questions for me. First, the study focuses more on the density and ‘form’ of the networks (how many links are there between one group of people and another), than on the content (what is it that actually brings people together), and quality of the relationships. But as anyone who has ever felt lonely in a room full of people knows, it’s not the quantity of the social connections that matter for one’s sense of well-being but the quality of those connections. Is increasing the number of social links and the diversity of people belonging to a network enough to bring about social change? How do we account for things like intimacy, reciprocity, and power relations in a social network approach to research and community regeneration?

Second, the project, rightly, presents social connectedness as an important end in itself, but how will increasing and strengthening social links address the structural causes of social isolation and weak social networks such as poverty and unemployment?

The second year of the Connected Communities project will test small-scale social interventions with residents in the research areas. It will be interesting to see how this practical, action research stage of the project builds on the theories and analysis introduced in this thought-provoking report, and whether it sheds any light on the questions I’ve raised here.

Is shopping a form of participation?

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

I’ve just posted on my NCVO blog an article that talks about how consumption is a valid and increasingly practiced way for people to get involved. I’ve copied this below; but for me the main question isnt whether it’s a type of participation, but whether we have prioritised this above other types, and if so, what are the implications?

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.)