Connecting excluded communities?

Paper presented to “Role of the creative economy in developing and sustaining vibrant and prosperous communities in the UK”,

Birmingham, 6th-8th December 2010

Dr. Paul Benneworth, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, the Netherlands

AcknowledgementsEconomic and Social Research CouncilUrsula, Peter & Laura (Programme)Funders‟ Group: hefce, SFC, DELNI, hefcwCo-researchers (David, Lynne, Catherine)CHEPS

Grand challenges & the Lund Declaration

“European research must focus on the Grand Challenges of our time moving beyond current rigid thematic approaches”“Identifying and responding to Grand Challenges should involve stakeholders from both public and private sectors in transparent processes taking into account the global dimension.”

Lund Declaration, July 2009

Social exclusion as „grand challenge‟

Related to wider societal shiftDivision of state: welfare vs policing

From carrot-and-stick to carrots or sticksProblem at deep level for states

Efficiency: waste of talent, policing costsEquity: no longer „democratic‟ societies

Increasing threats of societal disturbanceRiots in Paris, Lancs, Utrecht …Localised famines in developed countries?

A „sea change‟ in community involvement in research?

CURAs in Canada as a „science shop‟ for community partnersIdea evolved to put community on parity with universities in terms of governance, fundingCommunity access to resources for proposal writing, research, dissemination, wind-upHelping to have research interests of minority communities placed onto the agenda.

The connected communities programme

“to mobilise the potential for increasingly inter-connected communities to enhance self-reliance, regeneration, sustainability, health & well-being by better connecting research, stakeholders and communities.” “Engagement with communities at all stages of the research will be a key feature. ““Connect research expertise and data relevant to communities from across the research base … to develop a more holistic understanding of community life rather than tackling issues in isolation. “

The challenge…Success of connected communities depends on success of engaging with excluded communitiesBUT not easy communities for researchers and universities to deal withHow can universities/ researchers engage

with communities and embed their research in interests of socially excluded communities?

Social exclusionSubstantial challenge for national socio-economic cohesion (ASE, 2007)Individuals in a variety of segmented markets (Gordon et al, 1982)Overlapping segmentation drivers (Stoeger, 2009)Geographical self-selection (plus geographical markets) socially excluded communities

Social exclusion processes (I)Allocation mechanism Exclusionary process

Labour market Short-term, flexible, vulnerable contracts with limited benefits and opportunities to save.Workfare contracts enforcing long hours in return for welfare payment, no capital formation

Housing market Restriction to remote, undesirable parts of city with limited service provision, poor accessibility,hidden costs of transport, caring responsibilities.

High rents for poor quality housing limiting saving and housing market progression; ‘red lining’,negative equity.

Education provision Discriminatory access requirements based on existing pupils or residence base – inner cityschools.

Limited progression and participation through education system, access only to part-time, low-cost higher ed.

Access to transport Transport network goes through, not into, area, bringing all costs and no benefits.Poor public transport raises commuting times and reduces opportunities to networks with people

in other suburbs.

Health services Restriction/ rationing of service provision even where theoretical entitlement exists.Shift from public health to emergency health measures, limited preventative/ elective activities

Social exclusion (II)Mechanism Exclusionary process

Kinship ties Fragmentation of coherent family units across urban area reducing opportunities for interactionand informal provisionEmphasis on household survival strategies reduces opportunities for capital formation andpooling at family level.

Governance networks Political representatives excluded from decision-making venues because no interest inconstituency.Community voice excluded from governance networks because seen as being pathological orunreasonable.

State violence monopoly Retreat of police from problem areas, increased costs and pressures of criminalityTerritorial profiling and emphasis on enforcement rather than welfare functions of law services.

Production networks Failure to benefit from employment created through local investments in infrastructure andinward investmentLimited workforce progression from informal-local sector to formal-external sector.

Private services Low levels of services for high costs through de facto monopoly situations (e.g. water provision)Reliance on informal services

Financial services Failure to benefit from cost reductions for secure payments –(e.g. direct debit discounts); timeand monetary costs of up-front payments.Reliance on doorstep lending and exclusion from formal credit markets, reducing opportunitiesfor capital formation.

Cutting the Gordian knot?How to improve the structural situation of excluded communities?

Addressing multiple dimensions of exclusion simultaneouslySelf-reinforcement expressed in political systemsBuilding up „social capital‟ in these communities

The double bind of exclusion

‘Community’

Stakeholders ‘do’ to community

Internal fragmentation

External distantiation

Key governance and multi-national

production networks

Universities fitting the communities into their networks

Engagement in university contextUniversities have a wider societal mission …

… but no general duty to everyone.Universities are institutions in the world…

…who have specific spatial footprints.Universities are places of general access…

…who are increasingly regulating access.Universities are communities of scholars …

…dependent on corporate structures.

Engagement as benefitEasy to attack straw man of engagement

Many versions of engagement are not university core tasks

From engagement as duty to engagement as an opportunity

Problem-framing: seeing behind the wallTheoretical: challenging assumptionsEmpirical: new perspectives on old situationsAnalytic: challenging findingsImpact: defined, existing user groups

Challenges for engaged research with excluded communities

1. False dichotomy with relevance2. Related to (dying) idea of academic freedom3. Excluded community as quiet stakeholder4. Limited pressure from principals for „real‟

engagement5. Focus on service delivery not research

programme6. Divergence of interests in applications stage

Newcastle: engagement in environment and sustainability

Work on mine-water remediation & groundwater energyDrawing on knowledge of former miners/ mining communities£10ms research council fundingSRIF, RDA, DECC…

World class research on Teesside

Community Financial Solutions (Salford)

From „big narratives‟ to „little projects‟

Fallacious to claim all researchers should only do engaged research

It is difficult to imagine, for example, how particle physics could submit to [engaged research methodologies] when, in order to succeed, it had to cut itself off from the public and work in the secrecy of its laboratories, behind huge esoteric equipment. On the other hand, the organisation and production of knowledge on problems concerning the environment, health or food safety could easily fit into [democratic oversight or co-production models] and the hybrid forums they organise”. (Callon, 2002, p. 93-94)

Projects as pieces of a „jigsaw‟

Building a new societywith fewer barriersand problems thanhitherto, includingfor socially excludedgroups

How does „your‟ jigsaw piece fit?

With personal intellectual trajectory?With university‟s corporate interests?With the interests of funders (e.g. AHRC)?With partners‟ needs (excluded communities)?With creating solutions to exclusion problems?