“A Radical Common Sense”

Investigating the use of Direct Action in Dublin since 2014

Brian Mallon

Undergraduate Dissertation in Sociology

Supervisor: Dr. David Landy

Word Count: 14,169 (including bibliography)

Submitted to the Department of Sociology, Trinity College Dublin in April 2016

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the participation of a number of activists from

the Irish Housing Network, Dublin Central Housing Action and An Spréach. I would like to thank the

activists for pointing me in the right direction, providing me with information and giving their time

to partake in interviews.

Nor would this dissertation have materialised without the patience and assistance of my

supervisor, Dr. David Landy. His knowledge of the field provided me with indispensable insights for

the direction of this research, for which I am extremely grateful.

Finally, I would like to reluctantly acknowledge Murphy's Law, which taught me through the

completion of this dissertation that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. I am indebted to

my my family, friends, supervisor and tutor for their patience and assistance in helping me reach

this point, and cross the finishing line with this project.

Table of ContentsAbstract.................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................................2

Chapter 2: Theory and Literature Review.............................................................................................51) Introduction to the Object of Study............................................................................................5

i) Social Movements and Community Organisations.................................................................5 ii) Of Haves and Have-Nots.........................................................................................................7

2) Rules for Radicals: Tactics, Repertoires of Contention and Direct Action...................................8 i) Repertoires of Contention.......................................................................................................9 ii) Direct Action Tactics.............................................................................................................10

3) Positioning the Theory in Ireland: Social Movements, Repertoires and Direct Action.............12 i) Community Activism and Direct Action in Dublin from the 1960s to the 1980s..................12 ii) Community Development Projects: Co-optation, De-Politicisation and Decline.................13 iii) After the Bailout: Where We Are Now................................................................................14 iv) Final Reflections..................................................................................................................15

Chapter 3: Methodology....................................................................................................................161) The Iterative Process of Group Choice......................................................................................162) Research Design.........................................................................................................................183) Data Collection...........................................................................................................................18

ii) Mixed Methods....................................................................................................................19 iii) Semi-Structured Interviews.................................................................................................19 iv) Participant Observation.......................................................................................................20

4) Sampling and Access..................................................................................................................215) Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................226) Ethical Considerations...............................................................................................................23

Chapter 4: Findings.............................................................................................................................241) Direct Action Tactics: Constitution, Nature and Purpose..........................................................24

i) Definition and Use.................................................................................................................24 ii) Purpose................................................................................................................................25 iii) Direct Action as Effective Action.........................................................................................26 iv) Direct Action as Real Community Activism.........................................................................28 v) A Rise in Direct Action?........................................................................................................29

2) Politicisation and Consciousness...............................................................................................293) Issues at Stake............................................................................................................................314) Networking and Learning: The Snowball Effect.........................................................................325) Organising Outside the Established Left and Community Empowerment................................336) Final Reflections on Findings.....................................................................................................35

Chapter 5: Conclusions.......................................................................................................................36

Bibliography........................................................................................................................................38Appendices.........................................................................................................................................42

Appendix 1: Interview Guide.........................................................................................................42Appendix 2: Interviewees..............................................................................................................43

Abstract

This research was undertaken in response to a perceived intensified level of contestation and a

shift towards new forms of resistance, more orientated towards direct action, over the past two

years in Dublin City. Activists from the Irish Housing Network and participating groups were

interviewed in order to gague their perceptions and explanations of this intensification and tactical

shift, in order to shed light on the macro-dynamics of social movmenents in the city. The research

found that interviewees had witnessed an intensification of resistance, and a clear increase in the

use of direct action. Activists attributed increased activity and tactical change to the broader

context of a move away from institutionalised paths of contention, as well as a decreased

organisation role of the established left. They also pointed to processes of networking,

politicisation and changing consciousness in the spread of what were perceived to be more

effective and successful tactics than those used by previously dominant leftist groups. The findings

pointed to a limited ability of repertoire theory or former studies in Irish social movements alone

to describe this shift in dynamics, which represents a new context in which to understand

emerging movements. Finally, this points to a number potential questions for further research in

what is, to date, a relatively underdeveloped field.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Some two years ago, in April 2014, communities in Cork and Dublin began gathering to resist the

installation of water meters in residential areas. The groups in question directly blocked works on

behalf of Irish Water to install facilities, and generally succeeded in stopping these installations

from going ahead (Roche, 2014). By November of that year, attempts to install meters in numerous

areas, particularly across Dublin, had been abandoned in the face of consistent opposition and

direct action. Such actions were to continue into 2015, despite a legal injunction against

interventions (Griffin, 2014). Two national “days of action” organised by the new Right2Water

group in late 2014 drew what was estimated to be the largest crowds of any nationwide

mobilisation in recent Irish history (Hearne, 2015, 313). A broader trend of non-registration with

Irish Water emerged, and on the day of the deadline (21 October 2014), only one third of liable

households in the country had provided their details to the company. Around this time, the

minister for health, alarmed by the confrontational nature of water charges protests, referred to an

emerging “sinister fringe” of protesters (Irish Independent Online Editors, 2014).

As moments of contestation around water charges reduced in number in 2015, a large number of

direct actions around the right to housing appeared to take their place. In July 2015, an abandoned

hostel for the homeless was illegally occupied, renovated and put back into use by community

activists from the Irish Housing Network (IHN) and local volunteers, before being evicted after a

number of weeks (Costelloe, 2015). In December, residents at St Catherine's Gate in Harold's Cross

occupied their apartment for over a week in a stand-off over attempted eviction (Finn, 2015). In

February 2016, on the day of the Irish general elections, thirteen families living in Dublin City

Council (DCC) accommodation on Mountjoy Street occupied their homes in the face of intended

eviction, until demands of alternative accommodation were met (McNamee, 2016). Both of the

above occupations were facilitated by the IHN, and they constitute the mere tip of the iceberg

reported in the media, compared to the vast number of actions which have been taking place

under the radar in the intervening time.

2

Evidence of these mobilisations forms a stark contrast with the dominant narrative up to 2013 of

Ireland being a country that does not protest, preferring to “sit on sofas rather than take to the

streets” (O'Connor, 2013), and obediently taking its neo-liberal fiscal medicine (Bootle, 2012). A

quick search reveals multiple articles between 2009 and 2013 questioning a lack of protest in the

country, but seemingly not one since then. The tagline of one article in 2015 even joked that “Not

long ago, TheJournal.ie was publishing articles with headlines like ‘Why don’t the Irish protest?’”

(Brophy, 2015).

From the rivers to the sea communities all over Ireland are mobilising, organising and

getting off their barstools and onto the streets thanks to the quango that is Irish Water.

(Moore, 2015)

What we can take from this is that there has been a shift in perceptions of protest in Ireland in

light of mobilisations around water charges and housing rights. Reported demonstrations and

actions point to the presence of the dissent once noted as absent. Furthermore, descriptions of

these actions and the concern of the politicians quoted above point to questions about the tactics

used by groups. These cases are largely examples of direct action, which although by no means

non-existent in the repertoires of some Irish protest groups in the past, appear to be much more

widespread as of the past two years, especially in community activism. The argument that there

has been a change in the dominant tactics of protest during this time draws not only on media

reports, which serve as an introduction but only go so far in their utility, but also on my own

experience and perception an observer, and on academic analyses of the Irish protest scene which

will be outlined in the literature review.

The aforementioned apparent changes form the basis of this research, which aims to identify,

describe and explain them. More specifically, it aims to assess whether activists themselves have

witnessed a change in tactics, moving towards direct action; how and why that change has

occurred in their experience; how precisely tactics have spread in the process; and how this fits in

with the overall picture of the mobilisations in question – that is, what in the nature of these new

mobilisations is conducive to direct action. The aim of the research is to address these questions

and build a clear picture of the emergence of heightened contention, new mobilisation, and the

use of new tactics in confrontation. This will be established in contrast with the period preceding

3

the outbreak of actions around the issue of water charges, which was characterised by small

protests, focused around single issues and using moderate, institutionalised tactics (Naughton,

2015).

The intended value of this research is that it will add to knowledge about the dynamics of social

movements and activism in Ireland – a topic which has been relatively undeveloped to date. The

lack of collected information on this topic extends especially to the use of tactics in movements,

which in the context of the above media reports is an ever more relevant issue. Thus it is hoped

that this research will be interesting in that it will explore a relatively undeveloped area of

sociological study in Ireland and shed light on very recent, and ongoing, changes affecting that

field.

In the following section, I will outline some basic social movement theory relevant to the topics in

question, before moving on thereafter to give a brief history of Irish contentious politics in the past

number of years, and what has been written on their use of direct action tactics particularly.

Sections thereafter will describe the methodological approach of the study, its findings and how

these findings might be applied to construct a coherent image of the changing dynamics at play in

Irish protest.

4

Chapter 2: Theory and Literature Review

The research undertaken aims to explain a perceived rise in the use of direct action tactics among

community and social movements in Dublin, in light of an apparent escalation of contentious

action in Ireland since the beginning of the economic crisis, and specifically in the past two years.

This takes the tactics and actions of social movements – and more specifically those oriented

around community activism – as the core object of study. To give a theoretical context to the study

of social movements and community activism, the first section aims to establish the object of

study through a review of some basic definitions and descriptions offered for these phenomena,

and the key terms of social movement theory and community activism literature. The second

section of this chapter will address the concept of tactics, defining key concepts and summarising

established theory on tactics, action repertoires and direct action. Finally, the third section will give

an overview of the use of direct action tactics by social movements in recent Irish history, in order

to give a context in which to understand recent mobilisations and actions. Thus, this chapter

should give an introduction to the literature which the research aims to extend, around social

movements, tactics and direct action in Ireland.

1) Introduction to the Object of Study

i) Social Movements and Community Organisations

Social movements are defined as “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social

solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (Tarrow, 2011, 9; italics

in original). The base of their activities is contentious collective action by people who lack access to

institutionalised political representation. They challenge authorities through making new or

5

contentious claims based on common interests and values, and are differentiated from isolated

cases by sustained solidarity and manifestation of contention (Tarrow, 2011, 7-12).

We can establish that what has been seen emerging in Ireland in recent years, and taken as the

phenomenon to be studied, is by definition a mixture of isolated, uncoordinated, yet crucial

moments of contention forming the basis of new, coordinated community organisations and

broader social movements. The Irish Housing Network was set up in response to the presence of

isolated instances of contention and the formation of smaller community protest groups, in order

to create synergy through the sharing of resources and the linking of multiple dissenting voices in a

larger organisation. It is important to emphasise that the network did not aim to co-opt these

movements through the creating of a larger group, but instead operates separately and

distinctively as, literally, a network of those pre-existing groups. The network, then, might be seen

as the crossing point of community organisations and a social movement, where the former

morphs into the dynamic of the latter. To clarify this, we must first consider what differentiates a

community organisation.

Community activism is broadly treated in the same framework as social movements – that of

contentious collective action. A community organisation is defined similarly, as a “voluntary

association established to obtain political and social goals by mobilising a constituency from

among people sharing a physical community and presumed to share common interests” (Bailey,

1974, 43). This might be differentiated from a social movement with reference to the core element

of physical community. Other key elements characterising community organisations include a focus

on community education and consciousness, as well as a typically class-based rhetoric which

emerges from the necessary centrality of the struggle of disadvantaged peoples to solve their

collective problems (Cowley et al. [eds], 1977). The same theory of collective action is applied to

both concepts in the literature considered, and furthermore Bailey (1974) refers to the community

organisation explicitly as a form of social movement or pressure group, responding to shared

dissatisfaction (113) in a community, just as a social movement is defined as being based on

common claims against opponents (Tarrow, 2011, 11). Movements within communities, then,

appear to fall under both categories of theory, and literature from both perspectives will be used

without distinction to clarify the objects of study in this section.

6

ii) Of Haves and Have-Nots

Questions of power take an important place in our understanding of the dynamics of social

movements in Western democracy. Our basic definition of contentious politics has at its core the

mobilisation of those who do not have access to institutional power to effectively take that power

through confrontation.

Contentious collective action serves as the basis of social movements, […] because it is

the main and often the only recourse that most ordinary people possess to

demonstrate their claims against better-equipped opponents or powerful states.

(Tarrow, 2011, 7-8)

This was echoed in the definitions and descriptions of community organisations outlined

previously, such as the emphasis on the presence of a Marxist, class-based ethos (Cowley, 1977),

This is echoed in Saul Alinsky's “science of revolution” described in Rules for Radicals (1972), his

guidebook for community organisations. Here he names targets and contenders as “Haves” and

“Have-Nots”, respectively (9-10). In this sense, Alinsky saw community groups as “Have-Nots” with

a view to challenging the established power of the “Haves” (1972, 126). The “Haves” and “Have-

Nots” dichotomy appears to be directly applicable to the basis on which the social movements and

community activist groups addressed in this research are founded – that is, with a focus on

bringing together the have-nots (eg: working class communities), to collectively challenge the

haves (eg: government or city council). Alinsky's analogy is thus useful in order to situate these

groups in terms of previous theory, and establish a link between what has been described by that

author and what this research seeks to describe.

The movements described by Alinsky could also be said to bear certain similarities to

contemporary social movements in Ireland, as in both cases, the basis for organisation is centred

around perceived injustice towards the community (Naughton, 2015). This appears to be further

accentuated in more recent struggles, around both the installation of water meters and housing

issues, due to an apparent shift from centralised forms of movement organisation to small-scale,

community-based resistance (Hearne, 2015). Whether this points to a radical turn in community

organisation in Ireland is something that can be alluded to but not explored thoroughly without

entering a teleological analysis of the movements in question. The incorporation of systemic

7

critique, along with the use of direct action tactics in a movement were taken to be the

differentiators which earned community organisations and social movements in the past the

“radical” label (Elbaum, 2006; Barbrook & Bolt, 1980). Alinsky's model of organisation, on the

other hand, focuses on practical gains in communities with political ideas left aside (apart from the

logic of empowerment of Have-Nots). To some extent, the community organisations studied in this

research will be shown to fit both paradigms (seen later in the discussion of findings). However, as

we aim to concern ourselves not with the anatomical study of the movements at hand, but

principally with their use of tactics, we will not extend that analysis further, but will instead move

to discuss tactics and repertoires in the following section.

2) Rules for Radicals: Tactics, Repertoires of Contention and Direct Action

Tactics are the means by which social movements attempt to achieve their aims, or in Alinsky's

terms, how Have-Nots take power from the Haves (1972, 126). The essence of tactical choice here

is “doing what you can with what you have”, and Alinsky sets out a number of guidelines for how

to choose and design one's tactics to this end. For example, tactics must be within the experience

of participants, while attempting to go outside the experience of the opponent, and should be

enjoyable and brief but yet sustained in the sense of pressuring adversaries (126-128).

These are examples of how Alinsky recommends creative tactics should be designed by a

community organiser. However, as we will see, tactical choices are limited by situations faced by

the organising group, including time constraints and historical patterns of contention, such that no

organiser or mobilised group operates in a vacuum wherein choices are made. There are thus few

repeatable forms of action, especially direct action, as each potential form depends on its specific

situation (Alinsky, 1972; Carter, 2010). In the following paragraphs we will explore these

circumstances and limitations within which tactics come to be used, as theorised in social

movement analyses.

8

i) Repertoires of Contention

Charles Tilly defined the “repertoire of contention” as “the way that people act together in pursuit

of shared interests”, and therefore what they do, or necessarily what they know how to do when

engaged in conflict with others (Tilly, 1995, in Tarrow, 2011, 39). In practice, this constitutes a

“limited set of routines” which constrain choice of action through limited experience from which

those choices are drawn (Tilly, 1995, in Crossley, 2002, 128). Central to this idea is the modularity

of protest forms, (Tarrow, 2011) – that is, their applicability in multiple situations.

The repertoire of contention that existed in 2014, as residents of various streets across Dublin

gathered to resist the installation of water meters, is something we should consider. This repertoire

will have consisted of a set of established protest forms which had been institutionalised as part of

the “modern political repertoire” – where an institution is a “set of mutual expectations based on

past experiences” (Meyer & Tarrow, 1998). The most likely recourse to action judging from the

recent history of Irish protest would be an organised march addressing either the specific issue at

stake or broader austerity policies (Naughton, 2015). However, as is clearly illustrated in the forms

of action used in and from 2014, the movements in question went outside the existing repertoire.

To some extent this will have been in response the specificity of the situations in question, limiting

modular choices described above, and to some extent it might draw attention to an apparent

change to the existing repertoire of contention, or even the crafting of a new one. Indeed, this is

what the research aims to establish and explain.

The question here, then, is how a newly-mobilised group of people reacts to new experiences for

which existing repertoires do not equip them. This goes to the heart of how repertoires are

created and expanded – namely, through experience of struggle.

Repertoires are learned cultural creations, but they do not descend from abstract

philosophy or take shape as a result of political propaganda; they emerge from

struggle. (Tilly, 1995, in Crossley, 2002, 128)

New forms of protest emerge at the “perimeter” of existing repertoires, as contenders innovate in

response to challenges, and where those new forms prove successful they spread from the

perimeter to become more widely used (Tilly, 1995, in Crossley, 2002, 129). This would appear to

9

line up with our expectations with regard to the emerging tactics of contention being studied, as

they did, visibly, emerge through new forms of struggle. We aim to study how direct action tactics

came to be adopted by communities in the case of water charge and housing protests, and this will

require a review of what direct action specifically entails as a tactical form. This will be explored in

the following paragraphs.

ii) Direct Action Tactics

A brief definition of Direct Action (DA) as a category of tactic in contentious action must take into

account a number of different perspectives, as various authors have described it in various ways,

depending on the context in which they wrote. An anarchist history describes the “direct” element

as meaning “non-parliamentary” action, outside of the constitutional tradition, or even “normal

action” - simply direct in contrast with the representation that is associated with making demands

through a third party (Walter, 2002, 89). Work addressing DA specifically in the 1970s echoes this,

placing DA as occupying the broad spectrum between, and excluding, on one side, parliamentary

or “liberal” paths to change, with actions such as leafleting and speeches, and on the other side,

guerilla warfare and rioting (Carter, 2010, 1-4; 24). A recent book on community activism describes

DA as the opposite of “going along to get along”, wherein outsiders to the political system take

power into their own hands when taking actions (Shepard, 2015, 73-74).

The concept has been divided and categorised in numerous ways. An anarchist approach tells us

that DA involves mainly disruptive action and civil disobedience (Walter, 2002, 87-89). From a legal

approach, DA can be divided into that which is non-violent and communicative, or obstructive,

disruptive and aiming to “intimidate” (Mead, 2010, 236-238). If there is anything we can take from

this, it is that the definition of DA depends on the context in which it understood, and this is

precisely noted by April Carter (2010, 3). For the purpose of our research, direct action can be

differentiated from lobbying, marches and speeches which aim to express opinion but do not

effect change in themselves, but instead generally persuade a third party to make certain

decisions. This definition is at risk of being overly simplistic, but to set a starting point we will take

DA to be confrontational action, often involving disruption and civil disobedience, and disregarding

institutional paths of political representation such as, in the Irish case, social partnership

(addressed later).

10

A number of elements that are key to direct action link it in with other parts of our analysis. Its use

is said to be clearly linked to community activism. This is firstly through the provision of direct

services by and to the community, a strong element of DA (Shepard, 2015, 81). Here we might take

the example of the Bolt Hostel. Secondly, this link lies in DA as being a means by which

communities exercise direct democracy and thus play a key role in liberal democracy (Carter, 2010,

24-27; Shepard, 2015, 88). The latter case might be illustrated in actions around water charges

succeeding in both reducing, and postponing the introduction of, the charges in question.

Direct action is used because it gets the goods, or in other words is effective (Shepard, 2015;

Walter, 2002). But it is also communicative, and where used constructively it illustrates community

values in practice, especially where the action in question involves building desired alternatives

through action (Shepard, 2015, 78; Carter, 2010, 3). Both of these questions have at their core a

question of power. David Graeber (2009, 433-434) links direct actions principally to the creation of

situations of dual power, established through communities acting as if they were free. Similarly, in

community activism, autonomous actions are seen as “gestures of freedom” (Shepard, 2015, 78).

This element of dual power is key, as it sets up groups that use direct action as necessarily outside

established political institutions by definition of their actions. Unlike other forms of protest, direct

action challenges power rather than persuading it, and for this reason it is necessarily regarded

with contempt by some factions, who Mead, in his legal analysis of protest (2010, 239-240), warns

will simplistically dichotomise it in contrast with institutionalised protest as a form of terrorism. Let

us here recall the “potential ISIS situation” around water protests described in parliament by one

Fine Gael TD (Carroll & O'Halloran, 2014).

This makes groups that use direct action more difficult for the state to co-opt or accommodate

(Carter, 2010, 20). Direct action is to a great extent resistant to state tactics of accommodation and

professionalisation as it conflicts with the nature of the existing “régime” and is not possible within

the realm of its institutions (Kolinsky & Patterson, 1976). Tarrow (2011) also distinguishes the

radicalisation of a movement's tactics as the antonym of their institutionalisation, as they are thus

incompatible with modern political repertoire. This does not only confirm that users of DA are in

heightened conflict with the state, but the resistance to co-optation also draws attention to an

important element in Irish protest – that of social partnership. As we will see in the following

section on protest in Ireland, the emerging groups being studied have to some extent filled a void

11

left by previous clientelist government policies which created Community Development Projects in

order to institutionalise local activism. The strategy of confrontation inherent in taking direct

action is key to this dynamic in recent protest.

3) Positioning the Theory in Ireland: Social Movements, Repertoires and Direct Action

Although community activism making use of direct action has been, to this point, identified as a

new element of protest, this has been stated in contrast with the first years of the economic crisis

and austerity policies, when the lack of large protest was a defining characteristic of narratives. In a

greater historical context, this is by no means the first time direct action has been used by

communities. This section aims to provide a context in which the emergence of recent protests

and their use of direct action can be understood, by describing what went before these

movements. This begins with reference to movements of the 1960s, which were also the earliest in

the memory of the oldest interviewee for this research. It continues, briefly exploring notable

cases of mobilisation, up to the point of the emergence of protest around water charges in 2014.

i) Community Activism and Direct Action in Dublin from the 1960s to the 1980s

A recent history of community housing activism stretches back at least to the 1960s, when the

Dublin Housing Action Committee (DHAC) and National Association of Tenants' Organisations

(NATO), as well as smaller local groups, were active players, especially in Dublin. These groups

were set up in response to a shortage of available housing, poor conditions in existing housing, and

“anti-city” planning, which saw inner city communities relocated to the suburbs and the city centre

being depopulated (Punch, 2009). The DHAC, particularly, used direct action tactics such as the

squatting of unoccupied houses with homeless families and organising with communities to resist

the depopulation of communities. This resistance around depopulation continued after the DHAC,

into the 1980s, with communities such as that located in Sheriff Street mobilising against the mass

demolition of residential areas to make way for commercial developments such as the

International Financial Services Centre (IFSC).

The early 1980s also saw a major mobilisation of communities in Dublin city to take action in

12

response to growing problems of drug dealing and addiction, with the formation of the Concerned

Parents Against Drugs (CPAD) groups in a number of areas (Lyder, 2001). These groups were almost

entirely based on the use of direct action, where local “pushers” were called before community

assemblies, and in many cases forcibly evicted from their homes. Networks were established to

gather information on those who were dealing and buying drugs in communities, and patrols were

organised by residents to stop these activities, most notably in the flats of Hardwicke Street, St

Teresa's Gardens (Dolphin's Barn) and Fatima Mansions. The same tactics of marching on pushers'

homes and patrolling to stop sales from taking place in the flats were applied in these numerous

cases, after their early perceived success in Hardwicke Street. Meanwhile, the movement was

delegitimised in the media with reference to supposed republican involvement and “kangaroo

courts”, legal challenges were brought against the communities in question by dealers who had

been illegally evicted, and the state and gardaí attempted to repress the movement. The actions

continued for a number of years, eventually culminating in 1985 with a siege upon the home of a

known dealer in the Liberties area, which was met with severe police violence and a number of

arrests (Lyder, 2001).

ii) Community Development Projects: Co-optation, De-Politicisation and Decline

The extent of these reports from the 1960s to 1980s highlights a period when direct action was

widespread in Dublin's 'working class' communities. These community mobilisations were,

however, eventually co-opted by the social partnership programme, which set up official, funded

Community Development Projects (CDPs) from the late 1980s in order to incorporate activists in

institutional paths to the resolution of the problems once contested through the aforementioned

groups (O'Byrne, 2012). These CDPs came to embody community processes around both housing

and drug addiction through professional community workers (Punch, 2009; Lyder, 2012; O'Byrne,

2012). This time saw a de-politicisation of community activism, as CDPs gradually moved away

from approaches which espoused the building of “critical consciousness”, radical discourses,

community empowerment, and a Gramscian ideology, towards “managerialism”, direct service

provision and top-down, professionalised approaches to the problems at hand, with an

individualist, neo-liberal ideology (O'Byrne, 2012).

The era of social partnership reportedly ended with reduced funding and economic

13

“rationalisation”, beginning at the time of the economic crisis in 2008 (O'Byrne, 2012). This point

also saw a renewal of community disaffection, as grassroots interventions around housing and

urban environment in Dublin took on a “new importance and meaning”, in the void left by the

decline of CDPs (Punch, 2009). This marks a notable shift into the context in which mobilisations

against water charges would emerge. In the 2000s, only a “radical minority” in leftist movements

favoured the use of direct action over social partnership (Cox & Curry, 2010). This was a noted

topic of debate at the point of tactical choice in movements opposing both the use of Shannon

Airport by US military planes during the Iraq War (Flood, 2003a; 2003b) and the imposition of bin

taxes in Dublin city (Anarchist News, 2003). However, in 2011 there was already a noted turn

towards favouring direct action over partnership programmes as the already mentioned

“neoliberal turn” in government policies and police repression of protest saw movements

disempowered to the point where confrontation was inevitable (Ní Dhorcaigh & Cox, 2011).

iii) After the Bailout: Where We Are Now

Mary Naughton's (2015) analysis of the years preceding contestation around water charges shows

that that period, from 2010 to early 2013, saw a considerable number of localised, single-issue

protests, which to a large extent continued to follow the repertoires and patterns of protest

established during the social partnership era. These demonstrations were mainly framed as

community mobilisations to address specific problems, and those that occurred around leftist

critique of austerity and the 'bailout' were still limited by the repertoires of the main,

institutionalised trade unions. However, Naughton also notes that in contrast with these continued

trends, there was an increase in both confrontation and systemic critique in movements,

accompanied by a continued decrease in the efficacy of partnership policies to contain protest.

“It's as grassroots as it gets. I have been living in this area for over fifteen years, and I'd

never met most of the people I ended up protesting beside. [...] It is […] the straw that

broke the camel's back.” (Interview with water protester, in Moore, 2015)

The run-up to mobilisations around the water charges was defined by a move away from protests

being led by trade unions and leftist parties, towards more grassroots organising, and an emerging

dynamic of autonomous community activism (Hearne, 2015). As is also testified by the protester

14

above, the movement around water charges and meters is considered to have been

“transformative”, in having drawn massive numbers of people, the vast majority of whom were

found never to have participated in a movement before. These actions are said to have mobilised

and empowered a previously “silent majority” of people, who then began confronting opponents,

largely through direct action tactics (Hearne, 2015).

iv) Final Reflections

The context in which the mobilisations to be studied by this work occurred, as gathered from the

above literature, is taken to be one of ongoing change in the dynamics of social movements and

community organisations. This first notable change is in the leadership of protests, with an

emerging divide between foregoing left-wing organisers, political parties and trade unions on one

side, and grassroots community groups on the other. The second is a perceived change in the

repertoires of contention of emerging groups, which are espousing direct action tactics to a greater

degree than was described in literature making reference to the previous two decades or more.

As the movements being considered in this research are very recent, there is a lack of literature on

their emergence and tactics. However, there is also a lack of analysis of action repertoires in

Ireland, and thus this review has gathered what it could from limited sources, and aims to add to a

relatively underdeveloped area of study. In the following chapter, the methodological approach

taken when carrying out the research will be outlined in detail, before moving on to findings and

their analysis in subsequent sections.

15

Chapter 3: Methodology

In undertaking this research project, a large number of methodological considerations arose which

required clarification, before and during both data collection and analysis. In this chapter, these

considerations are described, as is the manner in which they were dealt with in order to make

decisions as to how to deal with the practicalities of constructing the project at each stage. The

chapter will address, respectively: the initial iterative process of finding the appropriate sample

group; the initial research design; the choice and design of data collection methods; techniques

used in order to create the sample and access participants; the choice and refining of methods of

analysing the data which came to light; foreseen limitations to the methodology and challenges

faced in its application; and ethical considerations which had to be taken into account throughout

the process.

1) The Iterative Process of Group Choice

First and foremost, the methodology adopted during the carrying out of this research was by no

means selected in a vacuum, wherein the perfect selection for each phase could be made without

trial and error. The eventual methodology resulted from a thought process around how best to

address the specific research questions addressed by the study, but was also defined by decisions

made in the context of my situation as a first-time researcher, essentially. The iterative process by

which I arrived to the eventual methodological structure is outlined in the following paragraphs.

My interest in the topic of direct action in Ireland emerged as I returned to Dublin in September of

2015, after 16 months abroad. I had left Dublin with disillusion around the lack of effective protest,

already an interest of mine, and I observed the mobilisations around water charges and housing

from a distance, through the mainstream media. When I returned I felt that the role of protest had

16

grown and its form changed to more contentious tactics, and thus that the political landscape in

Dublin particularly had changed to an unexpected extent. With the opportunity to conduct

research at hand, I set about a search for new groups which encapsulated this change.

Firstly, I embarked on the stage of gaining access to a group of autonomous activists which had

emerged in the year preceding my investigation. The group professed the use of direct action

tactics, and had squatted an autonomous social centre in the city centre. They appeared to

represent one facet of the emerging protest culture that I aimed to investigate, and aside from this

I was very interested in the emerging squatting scene in Dublin. However, I had doubts regarding

the research of this group, as the activists engaged largely in tactics termed as “lifestyle” politics

(Bookchin, 1995), and I feared that what I was engaging in gave the impression of being a critique

of their lifestyle, and could be divisive. The group was also relatively unengaged in the community

protests taking place across Dublin at that time, and thus I felt that it did not encapsulate the wider

changes I perceived as being underway in the city. Furthermore, the group was faced with the

threat (and eventually the reality) of eviction within a month. This led to a difficult situation,

wherein the research began to appear, firstly, poorly timed, and secondly, eventually impossible, as

the group began to disintegrate and ceased to exist as a unit after a number of weeks, due to the

threat of legal action.

At this point I began to research other options, and found that the majority of groups involved in

the water meter protests of the previous year had begun to wind down and move on to new

issues, mainly centred around issues of housing provision. At this point, the Irish Housing Network

was taking off somewhat, after the case of the Bolt Hostel (see introduction) with regular reported

occupations and resistance to evictions. As an umbrella group, it had as members virtually all of

the smaller groups taking actions in the city at the time. What's more, the network professed a

devotion to direct action and grassroots mobilisation in its description on social media. At this

point I attended a network meeting and expressed my interest in both participating and

conducting research in the group, to which I received a positive response. My use of participation

to complement interviews is further described in the part of this chapter which addresses data

collection tools, and the way in which I gathered participants for interviews is detailed in the

section on sampling and access.

17

2) Research Design

The overall research design of the project is qualitative, as this appeared to be the best overall

approach and strategy for a number of reasons. Firstly, this was due to the interpretivist nature of

the questions the research aimed to address, which would not be effectively described through

quantifiable variables, but more adequately so through focusing on interpreting the experiences of

participants. That is to say, what I aimed to gather from interviews was an idea of what the

activists in questions perceived as being the reasons for a shift to direct action, and this aspired to

more than I imagined quantitative research could achieve. The second reason here was the

inductive aims incorporated in the intended research, which it was hoped would generate theory

through the research process, as opposed to a deductive approach which might test a hypothesis

drawn from prescribed theory. The lack of theory hypothesising questions around tactical choice

meant that a deductive approach was near impossible, not to mention undesirable for the same

reasons as above. The aforementioned aims are clearly more closely related to qualitative research

(Bryman, 2012, 36; 380), and for these reasons, coupled with a personal preference for a more

worded strategy over one that focuses on quantified data, a qualitative design was adopted.

3) Data Collection

Having chosen an overall qualitative research design for the project to be undertaken, the next

aspect which remained to be chosen was the method by which data should be collected. The

potential tools which I considered included interviews, documentary research, and participant

observation. After further deliberation, I narrowed down my choices to either full participant

observation, in order to conduct an ethnographic study of a specific group, or the use of interviews

with members of different groups and participant observation in one, to complement the data

gathered in interviews.

The option of conducting an ethnography of a group through participant observation was an

appealing option to begin with. However, after changing groups once, I felt that insufficient time

remained to use this method to its full potential. Also, the fact that the research was now centred

around a network of groups, rather than a single group, rendered the method less appropriate.

18

The main reason for discarding this as a single method, however, lay in the fact that I was

interested in discovering not only the dynamics of tactical choice being used at that point, but how

they had developed over the past number of years. To this end, the use of interviews was

indispensable. I did, however, begin to participate in the network, in order to use participant

observation to complement the data collected in interviews. The methods finally used, centred

around interviews, but also making use of participant observation, are further detailed in the

following sections.

ii) Mixed Methods

As outlined above, the aspect of participation in the network was maintained to form part of a

mixed methods approach, in the interest of creating a “fuller picture” of what the research aimed

to describe (Silverman, 2013, 65). The use of mixed methods also potentially offers an opportunity

for data findings to corroborate each other (Silverman, 2013, 136). The chosen combination of

methods consisted of interviews and participant observation. The desired outcomes from this

combination were as follows: firstly, that my participation might provide me with a context in

which to approach potential interviewees; secondly, that it would lead to better designed

interview questions; thirdly, that it would help me to better understand my findings; and finally,

that my experiences as a participant might corroborate the data gathered in interviews. I also had

a personal desire to participate in the group's activities, in part to build solidarity with the people

whom I would be interviewing, but above all due to identification with the aims of the movement,

and a feeling that I should contribute what I could to the movement, as well as taking data. The

methodological structures of both the interviews and participant observation are further detailed

in the following paragraphs.

iii) Semi-Structured Interviews

After the considerations outlined above, interviews came to be the main component used in the

data collection process. The interviews would be semi-structured in form, mainly because I aimed

to gather the self-reported experiences of interviewees, and felt that a rigid structure would

predetermine the categories of experience that might be revealed without allowing interviewees

to fully explain themselves. Thus, this structure aimed to avoid “pigeon-holing” interviewees in

19

terms of the preconceptions I might have as an interviewer (Bryman, 2012, 471). By using a semi-

structured design, the trajectory of the interview was left open to alteration in the moment of

carrying it out, should the interviewee raise questions not covered in the guide. Meanwhile, the

presence of the guide still assured that all questions considered essential would be considered.

To realise the methodological intentions outlined above, I designed an interview guide prior to the

first interview. This can be found in Appendix 1. The guide was tested in a pilot interview, to judge

whether all questions relevant to the topic were covered by it, and then altered to incorporate

questions found to be missing. As well as allowing interviewees to guide the interviews by

following up on topics they themselves raised. I also allowed time after covering, more or less, the

questions in the guide, such that interviewees could explore unmentioned elements they

considered relevant to the questions of tactics and mobilisation. At this point I made a notes of the

topics raised, and explored these further in subsequent interviews. When putting the guide into

practice, I found that at times it was not necessary to ask all of the questions that had been

predefined, as interviewees themselves would cover many of the questions I intended to pose

without my suggestion. In this sense, the semi-structured nature of the interview was helpful in

gathering data.

In total, one pilot interview and six subsequent interviews were carried out within a period of two

months, ranging from fifteen minutes to an hour in duration. Each interview was recorded in audio

format, before being transcribed at a later point.

iv) Participant Observation

The second data collection tool used for the research was participant observation, which took

place through my participation the Irish Housing Network's media task group. This participation

did not involve me working alongside all of my interviewees, as some were drawn from smaller

movements which participated in the network. Thus, the two approaches to data collection did not

deal with identical data sets. As I was not undertaking a triangulation of methods, but instead

using my participation to improve my interviews, this did not raise a problem. All of the

interviewees did, however, participate in the network to some extent. During my participation, I

made occasional notes with a view to improving my findings. I did not intend these to constitute

20

second data set, as the analysis would focus instead on findings from interviews.

My participation in the Irish Housing Network involved my assistance mainly with their media

group. I attended meetings for the media sub-group and assisted to some extent with the filming

of actions and events linked to or planned by the network. In one case, this involved conducting

interviews with key individuals resisting an eviction. This proved to be beneficial to my research, as

I was witnessing, to some extent, the processes that the research aimed to describe. One example

of this was where, in a meeting and interview with a family which occupied their home to resist

eviction, they engaged in an interesting discussion of specifically why they decided to take what

they termed “direct action” for the first time, and what considerations were involved.

I was conscious at this point that by participating in the network I was following a desire to study

the movement in a certain way. Perhaps this is best voiced by Barker and Cox (2002), who

acknowledge a distance between much of social movement theory and actual social movement

practice. This calls for a balance between what are termed activist and academic forms of

movement theorising, which emerge in different contexts, and produce different forms of

knowledge. The importance of this came to light through the interplay of participation and

interviews, as some of the questions I had initially planned to ask in interviews appeared irrelevant

once I became enveloped in participation. Activist theory – the ways in which movement

participants on the ground conceptualise the same questions that academic theorists aim to

address from the outside, looking in – is formed through the process of struggle, and doing social

movements. It was this practical knowledge giving context to how activists would explain their

activities, and thus producing more honest and useful findings, which I aimed to achieve through

my participation – although I will emphasise that this was an instinctive choice at the time.

4) Sampling and Access

The methods of sampling applied in this research, broadly speaking, consisted of purposive

sampling and snowballing. Firstly I strategically selected individuals to be interviewed due to their

perceived relevance to the posed research question – ie, participation in a broad range of direct

actions over the past two or more years. This non-probability sampling method is the most

21

commonly used in qualitative research designs (Bryman, 2012). It also seemed to suit the question

addressed by the research, which required that interviewees had some amount of experience with

social movements and had witnessed the actions taken to be indicative of the shift to direct action

addressed (water meter and eviction resistance, occupations, etc.). In order to fulfil these criteria

with my selected interviewees, I first approached those who were most involved in the

organisation of the actions of the network.

The second sampling tactic mentioned here is snowballing, whereby other candidates for interview

come to light through speaking with the first few interviewees. This proved successful in order to

identify and access individuals who suited the criteria desired but whom I was unlikely to meet in

the circles of people in which I was participating. Three of seven of my eventual interviewees were

identified by this method, after other respondents had recommended that I contact them due to

their experience with the topics I was investigating. The combination of sampling methods proved

successful in practice, in that all of my interviewees were capable of answering the questions

posed confidently with reference to their experience.

5) Data Analysis

After collecting the data set, and to a lesser extent during collection, thematic analysis was applied

as a method of interpreting the findings. This was an ongoing process, identifying themes by

drawing on my experience as a participant almost as much as on actual interview material. I

repeatedly analysed recordings and transcripts in order to highlight and code emerging topics

throughout – especially those raised by interviewees seemingly independently, or outside the

context of the question asked. The interview findings were interpreted on the basis of the themes

that appeared most prevalent after the findings had been coded in this way.

The data gathered was mostly analysed descriptively, but also in part on the latent level, with the

hope of revealing themes running deeper than what was manifest. An example of this is the broad

theme of politicisation. This emerged on most occasions explicitly, as a respondent would simply

say overtly that people had been politicised through the mobilisations in question. Yet on other

occasions it emerged at the point of analysis, through descriptions of a growing political

22

consciousness, a realisation of the nature of the state, or a turn to Gramscian ideas of conflict by

people who had never before engaged in political action.

During analysis, I realised that my ability to draw out these themes in interviews improved after I,

in part unconsciously, came to identify them in the pilot interview. Findings from the pilot

interview were mainly based around identifying themes, more so than exploring them. I feel that

this was in part due to the fact that the pilot interviewee, apart from being a member of the

network, was also a recent graduate in sociology, with whom I had discussed my project

beforehand, and thus understood that what I intended to gather from our discussion was a general

overview of what he identified as the themes behind the changes being investigated. For these

reasons, and as our discussion was brief, the findings from this interview were largely left out of

the analysis.

The themes identified through coding and analysis are outlined in the findings section.

6) Ethical Considerations

Many of the ethical considerations made before and during the research process have been

outlined in previous sections. This includes concern as to the timing of interviews and the methods

of data collection (in the section on iterative process) and the desire to accurately and fairly reflect

the knowledge of interviewees through the incorporation of participant observation (in the data

collection section). I feel that the most pressing ethical concern in my research was the

aforementioned question of how to accurately represent what activists communicated to me

interviews, and this was dealt with in so far as was possible through my participation giving me the

context in which to understand their ideas and descriptions of events. My interviewees were

consenting adults, who were open about their involvement in the activities described, expressed

enthusiasm about participating in my research, and seemed interested in discussion in interviews.

This somewhat lessened the ethical concerns I initially had about my research around whether I

could end up having pressured activists into responding to my questions. Furthermore, to protect

respondents, I gave them pseudonyms at the point of writing up findings.

23

Chapter 4: Findings

The findings from the seven semi-structured interviews conducted are here outlined under five

main topics. The first covers the nature, purpose and reported use of direct action as experienced

by participants, including answers to the main question of whether there has been a rise in its use.

This initial section provides an introduction to the main themes which emerged in relation to more

than one of the explanations for the rise in direct action. The following four topics address more

specifically both those specific explanations for, and the dynamics behind, the spread of the wave

of contentious collective action addressed by the research, and of direct action tactics. The main

four distinguishable reasons are, in order: politicisation and the spread of perceived critical

consciousness in communities; the severity of the issues being contested; networking and learning

processes; and organisation outside the established left.

1) Direct Action Tactics: Constitution, Nature and Purpose

i) Definition and Use

Direct Action (DA) was recognised by every interviewee as a term which was applied to some

activities of movements in which they were, and/or had been involved. Its use was widely regarded

as a question of tactical choice, implicitly defined in contrast with other movements' limitation to

non-DA tactics. The most consistently provided example of Non-DA tactics was organised marches

and rallies, or “waving a placard and asking somebody to listen to you” (Anton, an independent

activist with An Spréach). Most interviewees did not rule out the utility of marches and rallies per

se, as tools of raising awareness, and pointed out the need for multiple tactics (Aidan and Roisín

from the IHN and John from An Spréach). Instead, what was problematised in this regard was a

total limitation to these tactics in action repertoires. This limitation was overtly linked by

24

interviewees to the tactics of the established or “organised” left (explicitly in five cases, and

implicitly, yet clearly, in the remaining two). The shift towards DA recognised by respondents was

equated with groups' departing from this tactical limitation, and organising outside such limited

structures of contention provided by institutionalised leftist groups.

I think it's great [...] the week before an election – fantastic, a great expression, a good

tactic [...], but marching people up and down a road on a Saturday ain't gonna change

anything. (Roisín)

The problematisation of the tactics of the “organised” left (“as they like to call themselves!” [John])

is only the beginning of a series of overt expressions of disillusionment with established leftist

politics and mobilisation. This dominant distinction made between the groups with whom activists

were involved (having emerged in the past two to three years) and the established left is further

discussed in section four. Firstly, however, we will move from negative definitions of what direct

action is not, to what it is, as reported by interviewees.

Examples of DA tactics that had been used by participants mainly revolved around two broad

forms – occupations and obstructions. Occupations took various forms, ranging from sit-ins at

government and council offices to the sustained occupation of unused buildings (squatting) or of

homes threatened with eviction. Obstructions were similarly varied, and included forcibly

preventing evictions and the blocking of works such as the installation of water meters.

ii ) Purpose

While examples of direct actions tended to fall into the above categories, differing impressions

came to light with regard to what such tactics aim to achieve. Aidan is a key organiser in the IHN,

having been one of the principal founders of the group and continuing to participate in an

organisational capacity (coordinating and publicising actions by the group). He described direct

actions as having two main effects – firstly, that of raising awareness by drawing attention to the

problem at hand, and secondly the “substantive effect” – getting the goods or stopping what the

group is opposed to. A third purpose of DA then outlined in relation to some of its forms was

“collective service provision”, as in the case of the Bolt Hostel, which was occupied and run as a

25

homeless hostel by the IHN and other activists for more than two months in 2015. In this case, the

purpose was firstly “putting a roof over people's heads” (service provision), but also “taking [...]

DCC-owned property, and occupying it, which is a direct action” - raising awareness, confronting

power and incorporating a “transformative vision” in the process. Kate, another IHN organiser, also

described DA as transformative in nature, integral in drawing attention to the “root cause” of

issues contested. This transformative vision, essential in giving meaning to actions for participants

and onlookers alike, provides a linking point between direct action as effective action and as

meaningful action.

While respondents were agreed on direct action as having its main purpose in being an effective

tactic (getting the goods and raising awareness), some argued that the creation of a critical

consciousness in communities was a major – if not the main – purpose of engaging in

confrontation (Roisín, John and Tony). The respondent that placed the most emphasis on DA as a

process rather than a tactic was Tony. He was the oldest of the interviewees, having been a

community organiser since the 1960s, both on a grassroots level at first, and later with official

Community Development Projects. For this interviewee, DA is “a learning process and a two-way

agitation process”, married to the ideas of critical consciousness proposed by Paulo Freire and

Antonio Gramsci (Tony made this theoretical framework explicit throughout, and linked it to the

rationale of community development in his experience). The consciousness in question was said to

emerge from an emphasised reflection with action. Its most tangible result, according to Tony, is

sustained contention after one's ends are achieved, but it is also an end in itself, in challenging the

hegemony of ideas in society and empowering communities through education and politicisation.

Questions of critical consciousness and politicisation are further discussed as reasons for the

spread of tactics and contention in section two.

iii ) Direct Action as Effective Action

An old slogan says “direct action gets the goods”. In interviews, the strategic nature of DA was

emphasised through the description of tactical choices leading to its use. Aidan, the key organiser

referred to above, said that it was first and foremost practical and tactical. Other respondents

seemed to take DA for granted, implying its utility for achieving small-scale aims (specifically the

resolution of community problems) quickly.

26

You've only so much time and you want to [...] allocate your time in an effective way,

and direct action is [...] the most effective way of creating the sort of change [...] on a

micro level that you want to achieve, at the moment (Anton)

This was especially pointed out by Roisín, Anton and John, the latter two being members of An

Spréach, a group which professes the use of direct action more specifically than others in the IHN.

Roisín contrasted organising communities around direct actions with the slower, less effective

tactics of putting up posters and calling people to demonstrations, as seen in the following section.

Again, in this sense, the use of effective tactics was contrasted with the tactics of the so-called

established left (centred around large-scale demonstrations). As these established tactics were

deemed less effective in the short term, they constituted another reason for distinguishing oneself

from groups which limit themselves in their repertoires of action.

Another key theme which arose in interviews, which pointed to effectiveness as rationale for the

use of DA tactics, was the element of perceived success described in response to questions about

the spread of those tactics. Respondents gave great importance to communities seeing DA tactics

succeed either in other communities or in their own, and applying them more often in response.

This was emphasised on the “lower level” (Aidan) of community activism, by Anton and Roisín,

who pointed to the blockage of water meter installations, and by Kate and Aidan, around the

example of communities resisting evictions – both spreading through their visible success in

achieving short-term goals.

If one was to investigate specifically how these successes were witnessed by other groups, the

internet would be likely to emerge as a major element. Anton's Facebook profile was mainly

devoted to sharing videos of community resistance which he had recorded for others to see and

learn from. Roisín also accredited social media with aiding these ends, as new activists were given

the opportunity to watch videos of other community actions and “repeat that [action] without

actually having to be there”. These observations led us to further discussion of how tactics spread

through networking, which will be further discussed in section four.

27

iv ) Direct Action as Real Community Activism

A recurring theme in interviews was the commonsensical presence of direct action in communities

as their natural recourse to action, and the idea that the use of these tactics therefore constitutes

real community action. John, particularly, made reference to his youth in Ballyfermot, a housing

scheme “abandoned by the state”, where anything that was achieved was so through DA. He went

on to clarify that DA was the “natural impulse of ordinary people”, who “know the state disregards

them” and need to be confrontational in order to achieve anything. On a similar note, Tony and

Kate stressed that direct action is imbued in community action, and an integral part of community

protest, respectively. The concept of real community activism was again interlinked with other key

themes, such as efficacy of action and distinction from the tactics of main left-wing organisations

contesting the same issues, as here illustrated in a quote from Roisín:

I was at the [Right2Change] protest on Saturday and there was 80,000 people there,

but people were just – “ugh, God, we're only marching again, you know, what is the

point of this on a Saturday?” – and they're absolutely right [...] You've got people who

are spending weeks putting up posters, giving out thousands of leaflets, bla bla bla,

where you could be organising your community where it's actually going to be needed

[…] The only [way] you're going to get in-depth, proper organisation that will make

change is by going door to door and doing what the water charges did, you know,

bringing roads together, estates together, you know - that's organising.

Real community activism, as viewed by those interviewed, was found to revolve around a concept

of real struggle, which in turn consists of conscious confrontation with the institutions of the state.

It is through this necessity of confrontation that direct action becomes a key element in real

organising. Furthermore, it is through established leftist organisations abandoning struggle, or the

“two-way agitation process” referred to by Tony, that communities were said to have become

alienated from them and moved to self-organise (John) (See also section four). Finally, struggle was

reported to be the core element in the dynamics of spreading confrontation – the “snowball effect

of struggle impacting more struggle” (Aidan). This leads us to further discussion of consciousness

and politicisation which are discussed in section two.

28

v ) A Rise in Direct Action?

Expressed as briefly as possible, the response to whether respondents had witnessed a rise in the

use of direct action was yes. This tactical change was linked clearly by interviewees to the water

and housing protests having emerged in the past two to three years. Roisín and Anton, in

particular, stressed their surprise at the sheer quantity of people taking part in contentious action

since the emergence of conflict over the installation of water meters. The key effect that this larger

participation in actions has had on the use of direct action lies in strength in numbers, described

by Aidan as leading to people feeling less isolated and more confident in confrontation as a result.

Tony also indicated the “mass nature of the movements” as central to the spreading of their

tactics. The intersection of questions of numbers of participants and of tactics lies in the element

of networks and learning, further discussed in section four. However, the change in organising after

the milestone of water meters confrontation is a matter of dealing not only with bigger numbers,

but also with a larger section of society (Aidan). These questions of newly mobilised people and

communities led to further discussion of politicisation, which is elaborated on the following

section.

2) Politicisation and Consciousness

One of the main overarching themes discussed so far in relation to respondents' explanations for

the rise of direct action tactics has been the politicisation of communities and individuals. The

main basis for this explanation lies in the observation that the vast majority of participants in the

mobilisations that occurred around the blockage of water meter installations and later protests

both around water metering and housing issues were newly-mobilised people, who had little or no

previous engagement with social movements or community activism. This phenomenon has been

observed in previous research (Hearne, 2015), but it was also indicated by interviewees judging

from their experience. In the majority of cases this element was pointed out explicitly as

characterising recent protests, and specifically direct actions. This is the new section of society

referred to by Aidan – or as described by Roisín, the “normal everyday folk”, the “next ring of

people” that have been politicised. Anton referred directly to the participation of “people who

were never involved in politics in their life, or community activism” as those driving a tactical shift

29

towards direct action, through their providing a sufficient number of people for that purpose. On a

similar note, it was pointed out by Kate that it's this “broader support network” in communities

that has made the risk involved in confronting powerful opponents one that can be assumed.

However, this politicisation was not only described as a reason for which direct action has become

possible. It was also linked to the motivation to engage in direct action, through politicisation

creating a new critical consciousness in newly-mobilised communities. Where it was noted before

that “success breeds success” (Aidan, Tony), the experienced community developer (Tony) goes on

to explain that this only occurs when participants learn from the experience of direct action who

their opponent is and what their position of opposition constitutes, and furthermore, as noted by

John, how change happens in society only through confrontation. This is the process referred to as

the growth of a critical consciousness, and it was argued to be the main reason for changing

attitudes towards direct action that have occurred as communities became accustomed to

confrontation. Kate pointed to this as an alienation process that resulted from violent reactions to

protests on the part of the gardaí, noted by Roisín to have been “a great way of politicising people

and also showing people the nature of the state, the nature of the […] police”.

You can turn around and say, yeah, "all cops are bastards", yeah, [...] but only [when]

they encounter and they experience that themselves will they realise the nature of the

state and what it's willing to do. (Roisín)

The observable effect of this process was a change in perceptions around protest noted by Roisín

as the demise of a previous “embarrassment” about protesting. This was further exemplified by

Tony, who said that in his community a person jailed for involvement in direct action is now looked

upon with admiration for defending their community, where before they would have been deemed

“a bit of an eejit”. This change in consciousness that was widely noted by interviewees will have

had a significant impact on motivations to engage in direct action. The role of DA was said to be

unique in its creation of critical consciousness through witnessed reaction, which in turn leads to a

motivation to engage in more DA, thus creating a chain reaction largely credited with creating the

shift in tactics that this research aimed to explain.

30

3) Issues at Stake

A major theme in interviewees' explanations for the “explosion” of direct actions across Dublin in

recent years was the idea that economic and political arrangements have pushed communities into

new situations where confrontation is inevitable. Economic austerity affecting disadvantaged

communities, combined with the collapse of social partnership arrangements that before allowed

conflict to be resolved in a clientelist manner, were credited with creating these new realities

(Aidan, Roisín, Kate). As Roisín comments, “those crumbs from the cake ain't there anymore [...]

it's how far you're gonna push people, and then people will fight back”. This reality was also

worsened symbolically by new topics of contestation centering around fundamental issues such as

water and housing provision (Aidan, Tony). The idea here is new, highly contestable issues (Tony),

combined with perceived injustices (eg: economic, police violence) and abandonment by both the

state (social partnership) and the established left (as discussed in other sections) constitute macro

conditions which have provided alienated groups with new opportunities for contention. This

would appear to fit Tarrow's (2011) description of opportunity as one of the central elements in

the dynamics of cycles of contestation.

These opportunities were described in interviews with reference to specific cases of communities

taking direct action. Kate notes that communities have found new means of “channelling anger”,

and Anton and Aidan describe this as being specifically allowed by new situations. For Roisín, the

case of the “spontaneous occupation” of houses on Moore Street in January could be traced to the

actors in question realising “they could” occupy the buildings, and reaching consensus to take this

action. Similarly, with regard to water meters, Roisín notes, “they gave us a gift”. This was in

reference to water meter installations beginning in the “toughest” areas of Dublin, in the political

context of the time, and that situation being conducive to confrontation.

This adds another piece to our macro-image of how DA contestation emerged in the cases

considered. In the first section we established why direct action was a practical and preferred

tactic in these cases. In the second section, we discussed how politicisation and the creation of a

reported critical consciousness created a mindset among potential participants which provided an

appetite for contestation. Here, we have established the role of situations as opportunities for

contention reported in interviews. What remains to be seen is how tactics were learned and

spread simultaneously with these processes, and how organisation outside the established left and

31

its associated action repertoires impacted this emergence of contestation. These questions, raised

by interviewees as important elements in the shift to direct action and hightened contention, will

be discussed in the following two sections, respectively.

4) Networking and Learning: The Snowball Effect

Protests and direct actions around the two main broad issues of water meters and housing were by

no means separate in their emergence, and the ties between the two topics were raised both

implicitly and explicitly in all interviews conducted. One such tie is the direct relationship of the

same actors being involved in both mobilisations to a large extent, either simultaneously or moving

from one topic of contestation to the next (generally from water to housing issues, as

opportunities for actions around water meters diminished). This “snowball effect” of people

moving from “struggle to struggle” (Aidan) was said to be a result of networking processes that

resulted from the “explosion” water meter confrontations (Roisín).

The water charges has changed everything, you know, in the last three or four years,

big time. […] I think the difference is that people are networked. […] People in given

communities are getting to know one another, and also get to know, almost, the

agitators in the area, who […] now can ally with people who are newly mobilised […] so

if something like an eviction happens in an area, well that becomes a focal point for

these newly mobilised people to politically engage. (Anton)

Aidan, and particularly John, echoed this idea that networking has been the main reason for the

emergence and spread of direct action specifically, as before the water meter mobilisations other

key elements and the potential activists were there, but simply “hadn't met up”. Mobilisations

around the installation of water meters, then, created a “huge informal network [...] interested in

direct action, [...] [and] civil resistance” (John). This would appear to constitute another main

explanation for the spread of tactics and contestation. In the case of growing numbers of protests

and confrontations with authorities, the element of networking links into phenomena such as the

setting up of local text alert systems and discussion groups on social media, through which newly

acquainted people could inform each other about developments. Alerts in real time, as to where

32

and when water meters were being installed or an attempted eviction is underway are examples of

applications of communication through these tools. This is something I myself have witnessed and

been told during my participation in the Network.

Having considered firstly the application of networking to spreading contention, the second

element of this process reported in interviews was the spreading of tactics through accompanying

learning processes. This sharing of experience, within the broader dynamic of networking outlined

above, allowed newly mobilised groups in communities to apply the tactics proven successful by

similar groups in other parts of Dublin and beyond, through both direct contact with activists

(Anton) and witnessing actions and reactions through video recordings available on social media

(Roisín – see section one, part c). Tactics – particularly new direct action methods – were thus

learned and repeated in separate instances with different actors. This sharing of tactics was

applied to instances of resistance around water charges and housing alike. Sidney Tarrow's (2011,

38) description of “modular forms of contention” might shine light on this process, as successful

tactics become part of shared repertoires, repeated in varied instances and against various

opponents. Occupations of government and council offices would appear to be an example of this,

applied by multiple different organised groups as well as by families directly affected by public

housing evictions during the past year. Furthermore, the fact that interviewees themselves

indicated the learning and repetition of tactics as key to the spread of DA appears to cement this.

5) Organising Outside the Established Left and Community Empowerment

As pointed out earlier in both the literature review and the findings, the mobilisations around the

water charges involved a vast number of people who had not been involved in a movement or

politics up to that point. The main relevance of this is that to a large extent the actions taken

around these issues, whether in blocking water meter installations or occupying buildings and

government offices, were organised and took place outside of what is termed the established left –

that is, older left-wing organisations such as main trade unions and leftist parties.

In interviews, this was largely described as communities taking power into their own hands,

without recourse to the organising capacities of these formerly dominant organisations. Kate, and

33

to a lesser extent Aidan, emphasised this process by which communities became the organisers

and participants in actions simultaneously. This constituted a process of empowerment, whereby

communities came to be “directly asserting control” in their struggles, which also led to greater

levels of involvement and confidence in protest. She adds that the voices of unions and parties are

still there, but that the organising power has been taken from them by grassroots groups.

Respondents linked this distancing from leftist organisations to the emergence of direct action

tactics, through the fact that the actions of communities in the past two years took on a radical

form that had not been espoused by these groups in the past. John remarked that “only direct

action confronts power”, and that the refusal of trade unions to engage in these forms of protest

meant that their undertaking involved a necessary distancing from those unions (this tactical point

is further evidenced in the literature review with reference to direct action protests at Shannon

Airport and around the Bin Tax in Dublin). However, in a chicken and egg type of argument, it was

clarified that not only did the use of DA require distance from trade unions, but that abandonment

by trade unions (for example, through the ICTU's decision not to call for protests, in support of the

Labour's presence in government) also led to communities taking DA, as they were no longer

restricted to the tactics espoused by these organising bodies.

A consistent critique of the established left has emerged throughout these findings, especially with

regard to the ability of these organisations to mobilise people for real activism, and their tactical

limitation to marches, leafleting, among other moderate activities not deemed as effective as

direct action (Roisín, John, Tony). As Tony remarked, the organised left is unable to see how it is

“part of the problem”, through its lack of effective engagement. The perceived abandonment of

communities by the organised left was seen as leading to the initial establishment of informal

networks of local activists such as Dublin Says No to take on contestation outside of these

organising bodies. This started with earlier issues around austerity policies, and exploded with the

spark of the water charges, leading first to the undertaking of isolated direct actions, and

eventually to the formation of local community groups that would coordinate action around the

water charges and housing, from Blachardstown to North Dublin Bay.

34

6) Final Reflections on Findings

As findings around specific themes are extensively discussed within the preceding sections, these

final reflections intend to add a reflexive angle to the information that emerged in interviews.

One key realisation on my part was that the activists interviewed did not respond in terms of how

they moved from certain tactics to others. Instead, it emerged that new tactics were being used by

newly mobilised groups of people defining their own rules of engagement, or repertoire of

contention. Firstly, it became clear that they had specific reasons for choosing these tactics

(because they were effective, meaningful, real, successful, empowering, etc.). Secondly it became

clear that these reasons extended to constitute explanations for the spread of the tactics, because

they achieved the short term goals, and created a consciousness such that participants wished to

be involved in continued contention after these short term goals were achieved. Thirdly,

respondents provided explanations for why new people were being mobilised and pushed to

confront power, centring around disadvantaged communities being pushed too far by government

policies, and left to their own devices through the lack of institutional paths to resolution of

conflict and decreased engagement on the part of the established left.

Interviewees had clearly considered their actions tactically, theoretically and in national and

historical contexts. Yet, they generally did not state a point where they chose to start using direct

action, as such. Instead, where a first experience of direct action was emphasised, it had occurred

in the context of confrontational tactics becoming feasible and necessary in their view. The basic

social movement axiom stands – you do what you can with what you have (Alinsky, 1972). As

Alinsky pointed out furthermore, there can be no excessive moralising of means and ends in

community activism, as it leads the activist to endless inaction. This appears most in line with

respondents' perceptions of the established left, who have been left behind while new groups took

opportunities and expanded the Irish social movement repertoire through tactical innovation on

the periphery. Only one respondent acknowledged a very conscious choice of tactics. This was

Tony, the community organiser of some fifty years' experience, for whom the conscious choice was

a return to direct action with the decline of social partnership. Other respondents had been

mobilised for the first time in approximately the past two to six years, and their tactical choice was

seen to be a momentary one in light of new opportunities.

35

Chapter 5: Conclusions

The findings outlined and summarised in the previous chapter pointed to a notable shift to direct

action tactics, witnessed by interviewees. This shift was described in the experience of activists as

having occurred mainly through the recognition of the efficacy and necessity of confrontational

tactics. These tactics were said to have spread through networking in communities, witnessed

success, the mobilisation and politicisation of new groups of people, and the growth of a critical

consciousness through the initial use of these tactics which has led to the appetite for further

contestation around other problems in newly-mobilised communities. Furthermore, the

emergence of new opportunities for contestation and tactical innovation emerged as simultaneous

conditions which allowed these changes in dynamics to occur. The use of new tactics was

described as being made possible by a growing divide from established leftist parties and unions,

and declining social partnership initiatives, leaving communities to organise themselves, and

effectively define their own rules of engagement.

To put this in terms of established social movement theory, it shows, to some extent, the limited

capacity of repertoire theory alone to describe the changes taking place in these cases, as they are

not limited to conditions internal to movements but largely occur in a broader context of political

change. The lack of visible lines of continuity in Irish repertoires of contention may point to

changes being better described in terms of an emerging cycle of contention (Tarrow, 2011), with its

own new actors, early risers (such as the water charges movement) and followers (such as the

housing groups considered), redefining the Irish contentious political landscape and rendering

previous studies into these topics less applicable to the current scenario. This study, due to its

limited scale and scope, can only point to these questions raised around established theory, and

they are are worthy of further investigation.

Further limitations of this study include that it is confined to a small section of Irish protest groups,

specifically those that have emerged in recent years to contest housing issues. It also addresses

36

perceived reasons behind changes in tactics on a noticeably macro scale. Further research could

explore in greater detail how tactics are adopted on a micro level – that of the individual

participant – and furthermore what meaning these new mobilisations hold for those who partake

in them. The questions addressed here have only been applied to movements in Dublin, and

further investigations could explore the wider context of nationwide protest, in order to establish

whether these changes are witnessed across Ireland. Given the concentration of the movements

described mainly in North and Inner Dublin, it would be interesting to establish which influences

on the emerging dynamics of protest are specific to these areas, and how they differ in other parts

of the city and the country, as well as how they fit in with broader European trends in social

movements.

37

Bibliography

ALINSKY, S. (1972) Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage

Books

ANARCHIST NEWS (2003) “Anarchists, the bin tax & direct action”. Anarchist News, No. 29,

November 2003. Available Online At:

<http://fl ag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/anarchistnews/29/directaction.html> [Last Accessed:

26/04/2016]

BAILEY, R. (1974) Radicals in Urban Politics: The Alinsky Approach. London: University of Chicago

Press

BARKER, C. & COX, L. (2002) “What have the Romans ever done for us?: Academic and activist

forms of movement theorizing”, in Alternative Futures and Popular Protest, 8th Annual

Conference, April 2002, Manchester Metropolitan University

BOOTLE, R. (2012) “Ireland dutifully gulped down the nasty medicine but is still in pain”. The

Telegraph, Online Edition. 25 March 2012. Available Online At:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9165893/Ireland-dutifully-gulped-

down-the-nasty-medicine-but-is-still-in-pain.html> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

BROPHY, D. (2015) “The story of ‘NO’: 15 moments that have defined the Irish Water protest

movement”. The Journal, 29 August 2015. Available Online At: <http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-

water-protests-timeline-1963363-Aug2015/> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

BRYMAN, A. (2012) Social Research Methods. 4th Ed. Oxford University Press

38

CARROLL, S. & O'HALLORAN, M. (2014) “State faces ‘potential Isis situation’ over water protests”.

The Irish Times, Online Edition, 20 November 2014. Available Online At:

<http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-faces-potential-isis-situation-over-water-protests-

1.2009289> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

CARTER, A. (2010) Direct Action and Liberal Democracy. London: Routledge

COSTELLOE, N. (2015) “Dublin hostel renovated for homeless families in need”. The Irish Examiner,

Online Edition, 21 July 2015. Available Online At:

<http://www.irishexaminer.com/video/lifestyle/video-dublin-hostel-renovated-for-homeless-

families-in-need-343571.html> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

COWLEY, J. Et al. (eds.) (1977) Community or Class Struggle? London: Stage 1

COX, L. & CURRY, L. (2010) “Revolution in the air: Images of winning in the Irish anti-capitalist

movement”, in Irish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 18 (2), pp. 87-106

CROSSLEY, N. (2002) Making Sense of Social Movements. USA: Open University Press

DALBY, S. (1984) “The nuclear syndrome: victory for the Irish anti-nuclear power movement”.

Dawn Train, No. 3, Winter 1984/1985. Available Online At:

<http://innatenonviolence.org/pamphlets/nuclearsyndrome.pdf> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

ELBAUM, M. (2006) Revolution in the Air. London: Verso

FINN, A. (2015) “St Catherine’s Gate Vigil”. Fountain Resource Group, 15 December 2015. Available

Online At: <http://www.frg.ie/your-say/12192/> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

FLOOD, A. (2003a) “If not now, when”. Indymedia Ireland, 26 February 2003. Available Online At:

<http://www.indymedia.ie/article/30866> [Last Accessed: 26/04/2016]

FLOOD, A. (2003b) “Direct Action against the war in Ireland”. Red and Black Revolution, Vol. 7, June

2003. Available Online At: <http://www.wsm.ie/c/direct-action-against-war-ireland-shannon> [Last

39

Accessed: 26/04/2016]

GRAEBER, D. (2009) Direct Action: An Ethnography. Edinburgh & Oakland: AK Press

GRIFFIN, D. (2014) “Protesters vow to keep blocking installation of water meters”. The Irish Times,

Online Edition, 10 November 2014. Available Online At:

<http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/protesters-vow-to-keep-blocking-installation-of-

water-meters-1.1994207> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

HEARNE, R. (2015) “The Irish water war”, in Interface, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 309-321

IRISH INDEPENDENT ONLINE EDITORS (2014) “Leo Varadkar slams 'sinister fringe' to water

protests”. The Irish Independent, Online Edition, 6 November 2014. Available Online At:

<http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/leo-varadkar-slams-sinister-fringe-to-water-

protests-30723122.html> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

KOLINSKY, M. & PATTERSON, W.E. (1976) Social and Political Movements in Western Europe.

London: Croom Helm

LYDER, A. (2001) Pushers Out: The inside story of Dublin's anti-drugs movement. Canada: Trafford

Publishing

MCNAMEE, M.S. (2016) “Families due to be evicted today are now staging an occupation”. The

Journal, 27 February 2016. Available Online At: <http://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-families-

occupy-council-buildings-2628119-Feb2016/> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

MEAD, D. (2010) The New Law of Peaceful Protest: Rights and Regulation in the Human Rights Act

Era. Oxford: Hart Publishing

MEYER, D.S. & TARROW, S. (1998) The Social Movement Society. USA: Rowman and Littlefield

MOORE, S.L. (2015) “Winning The Water War”, in Rabble, Issue 10, Summer 2015, 12-13

40

NAUGHTON, M. (2015) “An interrogation on the character of protest in Ireland since the bailout”,

in Interface, Vol 7 (1), pp. 289-308

NÍ DHORCHAIGH, E. & COX, L. (2011) “When is an Assembly Riotous, and Who Decides?: The

success and failure of police attempts to criminalise protest”, in SHEEHAN, W. & CRONIN, M.

Riotous Assemblies: Rebels, Riots & Revolts in Ireland. Cork: Mercier Press

O'BYRNE, D. (2012) “Investigating the De-Politicisation of Community Development: What

Happened? Where Do We Go Now?”, in JACKSON, A. & O'DOHERTY, C. (Eds) Community

Development in Ireland: Theory, Policy & Practice. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan

O'CONNOR, T. (2013) “Why we sit on sofas rather than take to the streets”. The Irish Examiner,

Online Edition, 22 July 2013. Available Online At:

<http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/features/why-we-sit-on-sofas-rather-than-take-to-the-

streets-237484.html> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

PUNCH, M. (2009) “Contested urban environments: perspectives on the place and meaning of

community action in central Dublin, Ireland”, in Interface, Vol. 1 (2), pp. 83-107

ROCHE, B. (2014) “Anti-water meter protests spread to Dublin”. The Irish Times, Online Edition, 23

April 2014. Available Online At: <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/anti-water-meter-

protests-spread-to-dublin-1.1771005> [Last Accessed: 24/04/2016]

SHEPHARD, B. (2015) Community Projects as Social Activism: From Direct Action to Direct Services.

USA: Sage Publications

SILVERMAN, D. (2013) Doing Qualitative Research. 4th Ed. Sage Publications

TARROW, S. (2011) Power in Movement. 3rd Ed. Cambridge University Press

TRAUGOTT, M. (2010) The Insurgent Barricade. London: University of California Press

WALTER, N. (2002) About Anarchism. London: Aldgate Press

41

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interview Guide

Below are listed the questions included in the interview guide used in all cases except the pilot interview. As the interview was semi-structured, this is not necessarily the form that the questions took in the moment of being asked.

• What activism and groups are you involved in, and have you been involved in in the past?

• What do they contest mainly, and how did they emerge?

• Are/were direct action tactics used by these groups, or in these cases?

• What form has this direct action taken, and could you name some examples?

• Is direct action seen as a viable means for contestation?

• Do any doubts arise about the use of DA as a tactic? If so, what do those doubts revolve around?

• Do you feel that there has been a rise in the use of DA tactics in Dublin/Ireland? If so, what reasons could you give for this rise?

• Who do you think are most involved in the direct actions in question, and why? If they are newly involved, what makes the current environment different from before?

• What do you feel are people's motivations in engaging in direct action?

42

Appendix 2: Interviewees

Pseudonym Gender Current Involvement Previous Involvement

Seán(Pilot Interviewee)

Male Irish Housing Network, Housing Action Now

Local Water Charges Protests, Dublin Central Housing Action, We're Not Leaving Campaign

Aidan Male Irish Housing Network, Dublin Central Housing Action, Others (housing)

Local Water Charges Protests, We're Not Leaving Campaign, Schools Campaigns (In the US)

Roisín Female Irish Housing Network, Save Moore Street Campaign, Repeal The 8th Campaign

Local Water Charges Protests, Student Protests (2010)

Anton Male An Spréach, Independent Anarchist Activism

Local Water Charges Protests, Other Independent Activism

John Male An Spréach, Community Activism, Save Moore Street actions

Local Water Charges Protests, Community Activism, Anti-war Movement

Tony Male Dublin Central Housing Action, Community Activism

Connolly Youth Movement (1960s), Dublin Housing Action Committee (1960s-1970s), Community Housing Activism (1960s-Present), Concerned Parents Against Drugs (1980s), Community Development Projects (1990s-Present)

Kate Female Irish Housing Network, Feminist Activism

Local Water Charges Protests, Dublin Central Housing Action

Notes:

– The lists of involvement are by no means exhaustive, and only mention the most relevant activism mentioned by each interviewee during the interviews.

– Where the Irish Housing Network is mentioned as a current involvement, this is because the respondent participates directly in the Network as a member of some task team – for example, around organising, media or outreach.

– Dublin Central Housing Action and An Spréach are housing action groups which participate in the Irish Housing Network. All respondents fall somehow under the umbrella of the IHN (this was the main criterion for selecting interviewees).

43