Connecting Communities through research

1. 6th ESRC Research Methods Festival • St Catherine’s College, Oxford 10th July 2014 • Democratisation of Research Methods : Connecting Communities through research • Democratisation in theory • and (one example of) practice • Graham Crow, University of Edinburgh • Jaimie Ellis, University of Southampton

2. Democratisation in theory and practice • Part of ‘Imagining different communities and making them happen’, a 5-year ESRC-funded Connected Communities consortium on civic engagement, involving various universities and community partners. • Context of: • the growth of inclusive research/ collaborative research/community-university partnerships/co-production; • the Research Excellence Framework impact agenda; • debates about methodological consequences of democratisation. : Connecting Communities through research

3. Democratisation in theory and practice • Research Question • How can Connected Communities be conceptualised, researched and promoted, so that they have the potential to accommodate and benefit from social, cultural and economic differences and diverse opinions and practices? • Exploring reactions to research outputs to reveal what the democratisation of knowledge about communities means in practice : Connecting Communities through research

4. Democratisation in theory and practice • ‘Democracy means different things to different people, and just what distinguishes democracies from non-democratic regimes is not as clear as it might seem’ (Christian Haerpfer et al. 2009: 5). • Michael Coppedge (2012: 13) identifies six overlapping models of democracy: Socioeconomic; People’s; Participatory; Representative; Liberal; Deliberative. • ‘Democratization… means net movement toward broader, more equal, more protected, and more mutually binding consultation… a dynamic process that always remains incomplete and perpetually runs the risk of reversal’ (Charles Tilly 2007: 59, xi). : Connecting Communities through research

5. Democratisation in theory and practice • Growing literature on democratisation of research methods, as part of the consideration of the future of research relationships (Oakley 2000: 21; Crow and Pope 2008) • Common argument about methods giving ‘voice’: ‘Engaging in community based research is difficult when we are committed to representing the true voices that we hear’ (Andy Williamson 2007: 5). • Methods of ‘democratic dialogue’ (Julie Kent 2000). • Radical prospect of people being researched becoming ‘agents of their own inquiry’(Phil Mizen 2010: 255). • Policy relevance (David Gough 2007) • Driven in part by technological change: e.g. web surveys; ‘Twitter as Democratizing?’ (Dhiraj Murthy 2013: 30). : Connecting Communities through research

6. Democratisation in theory and practice : Connecting Communities through research

7. Call for Participants : Connecting Communities through research

8. The task for community partner organizations: • To evaluate the research outputs generated from community research in terms of how interesting (or not) and how useful (or not) they are from a community partner’s perspective. • Four community organizations in England recruited, and focus groups/ group or individual interviews conducted late 2013. • Local History Group - (South East) • Community Theatre Group - (North East) • Local History Group - (Midlands) • Youth Group - (London) : Connecting Communities through research

9. ResearchOutputs • Authority, knowledge and performance in participatory practice • The age of we • AHRC/RSA citizen power in Peterborough collaborative research project: understanding the impacts of citizen participation in Peterborough • Bridging the Gap between Academic Rigour and Community Relevance: Fresh Insights from American Pragmatism • Building resilience through collaborative community arts practice: a scoping study with disabled young people and those facing mental health complexity • Careau and Ely rediscovering heritage project • Community gardening, creativity and everyday culture • 1.Community web2.0: creative control through hacking / • 2.Community Hacking • Community music: history and current practice, its constructions of ‘community’, digital turns and future soundings • Connected lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans communities? A scoping study to explore understandings and experiences of ‘community’ among LGBT people • Conceptualisations and meanings of “community”: the theory and operationalisation of a contested concept • Connecting communities via culture-led regeneration – exploring incentive and momentum with UK city of culture 2013 shortlisted candidates • Connection, Participation and Empowerment in Community-based Research: the case of the Transition movement. • Connecting communities through food: the development of community supported agriculture in the UK • Connectivity and Conflict in periods of Austerity: What do we know about the middle class political activism and its effects on public services? • Creative communities, 1750-1830 • Creative practice as mutual recovery: connecting communities for mental health and well-being • Cymunedaucysylltiedig 2: researching the industrial and post-industrial heritage of the Swansea valley • Digital building heritage • Enfield exchange • Georgian Glasgow • Gypsies, Roma and Irish travellers: histories, perceptions and representations. A review • Imagining the place of home • In harmony Liverpool research network: exploring the cultural value of the orchestra as a community intervention • The involvement of children and young people in research within the criminal justice area • Know your place • Language as talisman • Legacies of war 1914-18/2014-18 • Linking communities to historic environments • Maintaining a faith community: the role of the law • Measuring big society • Memories of ‘Mr Seel’s garden’: engaging with historic and future food systems in Liverpool • New connectivities: civil society, the ‘third sector’ and dilemmas for socially and economically sustainable healthcare delivery • The Orkney and Shetland dialect corpus project scoping study • Performing impact • Philosophy of religion and religious communities: defining beliefs and symbols • Places for all? A multimedia investigation of citizenship, work and belonging in a fast changing provincial city • Reframing state-citizen relationships in a time of austerity • Rural connective • Tackling ethical issues and dilemmas in community-based participatory research: a practical resource • Tailored trades: clothes, labour and professional communities (1880-1939) • Taverns, locals and street corners: cross-chronological studies in community drinking, regulation and public space • Temporal belongings • Time of the clock and time of the encounter • Understanding everyday participation – articulating cultural values • Understanding the role of ICT use in connectivity of minority communities in Wales • The university of the village: universities connecting with rural communities • Valuing community-led design • Writing Our History: Digging Our Past • Year of Shakespeare • Activity Buddies: Promoting quality of life for older people together • Bouncing Back Projects • Black, Minority and Ethnic Group • Community Writers Project • Count Me In Too: Promoting health and well-being with LGBT communities • Drug and Alcohol Abuse Project • Gypsy / Traveller Support Group • Home Start Sittingbourne and Sheppey Project • LifeMusic • Living and Working on Sheppey Project: Past, present and future • Our Space: Exploring spaces to bring deaf and hard of hearing people together • Queenborough and Rushenden Action Together (QARAT) Group • Southampton Personalisation Project • Supporting Social Enterprise • Swale Mediation • Sustainable Community Assets • Singing for Mental Health Project • Swale Carers Project • Swale Community Leisure Project • Swale Domestic Violence Forum • Swale Seniors Forum Project • Swale Young Carers Project • Young Fathers Project • Creating cultural citizenship? Understanding the impact of participatory arts on community health and wellbeing • Creative communities in art & design since the 1960s: lessons for socio-economic regeneration in a globalized world • Evaluating the outcomes of cultural services: a mixed methods investigation • In conversation with…:co-designing with more-than-human communities • The meaning and role of community cinema in rural Norfolk • Performing LGBT pride in Plymouth, 1950-2000 • Productive margins • Writing Our History and Digging Our Past: Phase 2 • Older People as Researchers • Remember Blue Town Heritage Project • Summer Interns Partnership 2009 • Summer Interns Partnership 2010 : Connecting Communities through research

10. Examples of Outputs: CC Linking communities to historic environments Dr Alex Hale (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland) : Connecting Communities through research

11. Examples of Outputs: CC Memories of ‘Mr Seel’s garden’: engaging with historic and future food systems in Liverpool Dr Michelle Bastian, (University of Manchester) : Connecting Communities through research

12. Examples of Outputs: SECC • Living and Working • on Sheppey Project: • Past, present and • Future. • Dawn Lyon, Peter Hatton and Tim Strangleman (University of Kent) • Graham Crow, (University of Edinburgh) : Connecting Communities through research

13. Examples of Outputs: SECC • Our Space: Exploring spaces to bring deaf and hard of hearing people together • John Walker, (University of Sussex) : Connecting Communities through research

14. Activity: Useful/ Interesting? : Connecting Communities through research

15. Democratisation in theory and practice Difference was prominent, confirming that: ‘There is an enormous amount of diversity in civil society organizations’ (Elaina Mack 2011: 283). Issue 1: Representativeness – who gets to have voice? ‘one of the things that came out about the participatory element was the types of people who are more likely to participate in these types of study and consultations’ (interviewee from a youth group referring to a study of middle-class activism) : Connecting Communities through research

16. Democratisation in theory and practice • Issue 2: Accessibility of research outputs: • ‘The really interesting ones had a lot of clarity… being concise and also clear helps to keep interest… The majority of other people in this organization would find it even more difficult to read and assimilate information out of these reports’ (interviewee working with young people in an inner-city context, critical of outputs that were ‘just really, really long’) • ‘The written word can be a bit of a struggle for some people… Without dumbing it down, it’s a tricky balance’ (interviewee working in community theatre) • ‘It’s quite punchy, easy to read, accessible’ (interviewee, local history group) : Connecting Communities through research

17. Democratisation in theory and practice • Issue 3: Purpose: • ‘A lot of other people [in the organization] have more practical operationally based roles and in particular some of the longer documents they would just give up’ (youth group interviewee) • ‘It’s interesting because I go, “Oh, that’s something I can use”’ (community theatre interviewee). • ‘as much as they’re interesting you’re not going to pull out a Judith Butler quote to get your next [local authority] grant’ (youth group interviewee) : Connecting Communities through research

18. Democratisation in theory and practice • Issue 3: Purpose [cont’d]: • Concentration on the issue of ‘usefulness’ rather than ‘interestingness’, stressing the importance of ‘practical outputs’ that ‘benefit the community’, that ‘all assist people to live a more fulfilled life’. And an interviewee highlighted the value of methods ‘toolkits’. • GC: ‘What is your understanding of “useful”?’ • I: ‘Something that would either inform project planning or a funding bid or running a session’ (community theatre interviewee) : Connecting Communities through research

19. Democratisation in theory and practice • Issue 3: Purpose [cont’d]: • There was more emphasis on the transfer of skills than the transfer of knowledge. • ‘The community based participatory research one was useful because it gave you a really clear step by step guide of how to go about putting together your own research’ (youth group interviewee). • Usefulness could be more immediately apparent when a point of connection was evident: • ‘We chose things that we felt we knew a bit about’ (heritage centre focus group member) • ‘There were quite a few I read and I said “no” and the why every time is because of ignorance on my part’ (local history group interviewee). : Connecting Communities through research

20. Democratisation in theory and practice • Issue 4: Problematic previous relationships leading to issues with trust. • ‘From my perspective it should be an equal partnership, not the university researcher coming and taking things’ ‘there have been a lot of cases where people have taken advantage’ (heritage centre focus group participants) • I: ‘I’ve seen the results but it’s for the university. • JE: So you haven’t got anything from them? • I: No’ (local history group interviewee). • Findings echoed discussions in the literature about research needing to be informed by ‘democratic values’ (Clark 2012: 18; Macdonald 2009: 22) : Connecting Communities through research

21. Democratisation in theory and practice Summary: the exercise highlighted four things: 1st: The issue of who speaks for ‘the community’ is never far away 2nd: The accessibility of outputs: a) inaccessible language or presentation, and b) literal accessibility. ‘I would never have accessed any of these documents: I wouldn’t know where to go’ (community theatre interviewee) 3rd: Usefulness had more weight attached to it, but usefulness and interestingness could go together. 4th: Community-university relationships require trust, that takes time to build up. : Connecting Communities through research

22. References Clark, A. (2012) ‘Visual ethics in a contemporary landscape’, in S. Pink (ed.) Advances in Visual Methodology. London: Sage. Coppedge, M. (2012) Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crow, G. and Pope, C. (2008) ‘The Future of the Research Relationship’, Sociology 42(5), 813-9. Gough, D. (2007) ‘Giving voice: evidence in informed policy and practice as a democratizing process’ in M. Reiss et al. (eds) Marginality and Difference in Education and Beyond. London: Trentham Books. Haerpfer, C. et al. (2009) Democratization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. : Connecting Communities through research

23. References [cont’d] • Kent, J. (2000) ‘Group inquiry: a democratic dialogue?’ in C. Truman et al. (eds) Research and Inequality. London: UCL Press. • Macdonald, S. (2009) Difficult Heritage. Abingdon: Routledge. • Mack, E. (2011) ‘Aiding policy? Civil society engagement in Tanzania’s PRSP’, in A. Cornwall (ed.) The Participation Reader. London: Zed Books. • Mizen, P. and Ofosu-Kusi, Y. (2010) ‘Unofficial truths and everyday insights’, Visual Studies 25(3) 255-67. • Murthy, D. (2013) Twitter. Cambridge: Polity. • Oakley, A. (2000) Experiments in Knowing. Cambridge: Polity. : Connecting Communities through research

24. References [cont’d]/Contact: • Tilly, C. (2007) Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Williamson, A. (2007) ‘Introduction’ in A. Williamson and R. DeSouza (eds) Researching with communities. Aukland: Muddycreekpress. • Contact: • Graham Crow: gcrow@exseed.ed.ac.uk • Jaimie Ellis: J.Ellis@soton.ac.uk • Twitter:@imagine_connect : Connecting Communities through research