Mediations and Manipulations Christala Sophocleous

354 Pages·2014·2.59 MB·English

Community
Partnership-Making
in
South Wales:
Mediations and Manipulations

Christala Sophocleous

February 2014

School of Social Science Cardiff University
This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
DECLARATION

This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at
this or any other university or place of learning, nor is being submitted
concurrently in candidature for any degree or other award.
Signed (candidate) Date: 28 February 2014

STATEMENT 1
This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of PhD
Signed (candidate) Date: 28 February 2014

STATEMENT 2
This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where
otherwise stated.
Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The views expressed
are my own.
Signed (candidate) Date: 28 February 2014

STATEMENT 3
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying
and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to
outside organisations.
Signed (candidate) Date: 28 February 2014

ii
Με αγάπη για τη μητέρα μου,
Aννα
σας ευχαριστώ

I would like to express gratitude to Andy Pithouse for his unerring faith and
good cheer which has encouraged and supported me. From Andy I have
learned many things, and I am immensely grateful. I have benefited greatly
from the contribution of Paul Chaney, in particular from his vast knowledge
and his sharp editorial eye. Thanks also to Allison Bullock for her timely
and thought provoking appraisals.
Thanks to my colleagues, in particular to Kate Attfield for her enthusiasm
and encouragement, Corinne Funnell for sharing the trials and tribulations
of the journey and to Lee Gregory for the sheer joy of our many debates
and intellectual explorations.
Thanks also to all those individuals in Hendinas that welcomed me into
their everyday lives. I am hugely indebted and there is no way of doing
justice to the enormity of their gifts. Thank you.
Finally, thank you to my fab four, Mike, Anna, Eve and Sofia. Just thanks
and love - mega much.

iii
Abstract
This ethnographic research within the community of Hendinas in South Wales is
set at the intersection of debates about governance and the place of ‘community’
within public policy. Taking the Welsh Governments’ Community First
Programme as its starting point, it explores how community based practices that
have ‘something to do’ (Law 2003) with partnership, come to constitute
institutionalised ‘community-led partnerships’. Grounded in empirical
ethnographic and interview data, the core research question of ‘how is
partnership made in and through everyday lives?’ is addressed through the
development and exploration of the ‘institutional life of a community’.
Distinguishing between community as a place of affective ties and one in which
action is directed at the collective projects of ‘making things better’. Drawing from
over a year of fieldwork the thesis develops an empirically grounded critical
interpretive policy analysis which engages directly with local people, staff and
practices to explore how they use their agency and that ascribed to them by the
Communities First policy as productive agents (NAfW 2001a; WAG2007a).
Developed from the work of Foucault (1991a [1978]) much policy literature has
highlighted the self-responsibilisation risks of government programmes. This
research finds that while these risks exist, there is also a counter trend grounded
in the broader ‘institutional life of communities’, in which critical self-
responsibilisation also develops.
The research explores the parameters of local understandings of ‘successful’
policy implementation by considering an instance of its ‘failure’ which brings into
view two different models of partnership. The first, ‘partnership for action’ requires
formal participation in a ‘partnership’ as a precondition of action, in contrast to
‘partnership as action’, in which partnership emerges from action between two or
more agencies. Exploring policy implications and extrapolating from research
findings, the thesis highlights tensions between the local advancement of
communities which indicate that despite seeking to enhance social justice, the
Communities First policy may perversely exasperate tensions and schisms
between disadvantaged communities.

iv
Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Scoping debates 3
1.2 Methodological approach 6
1.3 Research questions 8
1.4 Ethnographic research in Hendinas 11
1.5 Exclusions 13
1.6 Outline of thesis 14

Chapter 2 Back and Forth Across the
Severn Bridge 19
2.1 Welsh devolution and its effects on policy making 19
2.1.1 Between social democracy and neo-liberalism 23
2.2 Civil society, the voluntary sector and
Welsh governance 29
2.2.1 A Welsh civil society? 29
2.2.2 Civil society and the voluntary sector 31
2.3 Communities First: A Welsh strategy 37
2.3.1 CFP model for action 41
2.3.2 The community in the CFP 45
2.4 Conclusion 47

Chapter 3 Governance 48
3.1 From Government to governance 51
3.1.1 From Westminster to ... everywhere 51
3.2. Networks and governance 54
3.2.1 Networks for governance 55
3.2.2 Networks as governance 56

v
3.3 Governance as a governing strategy 58
3.3.1 Governmentality 59
3.3.2. Meta governance 62
3.4 Messy governance 63
3.5 Partnerships 67
3.5.1 Partnerships and coordination 69
3.5.2 Partnerships as political projects 70
3.5.3 Partnership and Networks 73
3.5.4 Partnerships as Institutions? 75
3.6 Conclusion 78

Chapter 4 Communities, People and Action 80
4.1 Conceptual framework 82
4.2 Locations of governance 85
4.2.1 Spaces and places 85
4.2.2 Community 86
4.2.3 From social decline to political growth 86
4.3 Community as a political resource 88
4.3.1 Community and the self-governing individual 88
4.3.2 The communitarian community 90
4.4. Types of people and ways of being 92
4.4.1 Community, civic duties and New Labour 92
4.4.2 Civil society and different kinds-of-people 96
4.4.3 Civil society in public policy 98
4.5 Governance through people 100
4.5.1 Active citizenship and activeness 101
4.5.2 Hailing and resistance 103
4.5.3 Local people, action and legitimacy 105
4.6 Conclusion 108

vi
Chapter 5 Methodology 111
5.1 Methodological approach 112
5.1.1 Unsettling the research field 113
5.1.2 Power 116
5.1.3 Epistemic potential 119
5.2 Research methods 124
5.2.1 From ideas to action 124
5.2.2 A case of what? Constructing a case and
selecting the research site 125
5.2.3 Ethnography 128
5.2.4 Interviews 130
5.2.5 Fieldnotes and data 133
5.2.6 Analytical work 135
5.3 Ethics and reflexivity, validity and Reliability 137
5.3.1 Ethics 138
5.3.2 Reflexivity, validity, and reliability 141
5.4 Case study of Hendinas 145
5.4.1 Socio-economic data 146
5.4.2 Hendinas Communities First project 148
5.4.3 Action in Communities 148
5.4.4 Boundaries, relationships, and a case study 149
5.5. Conclusion 149

Chapter 6 Community Partnership-Making: Exploring
the Institutional Life of Hendinas 151
6.1 The institutional life of Hendinas 153
6.1.1 Public policy and the institutional life of Hendinas 156
6.2 The community and the institutional life of Hendinas 157
6.2.1 The community centre 158
6.2.2 The new centre 160

vii
6.3 Time and change: ‘then’ 162
6.3.1 ‘Then’ 163
6.3.2 Deserving Hendinas: the past and imperatives
for change 164
6.3.3 Action as the parameters of ‘now’ 167
6.3.4 Changing ‘now’ and making the future 168
6.3.5 Greenness and sustainability:
Hendinas is the future 169
6.4 Community work and relationships:
The private making of public 172
6.4.1 ‘Cleaning shit’ and speaking ‘tidy’;
divisions and bridging 174
6.4.2 Renew 177
6.4.3 Belonging 179
6.4.4 Bridging the gap: the accomplishment of
a whole Hendinas 181
6.5 Public policy in a community context: exploring the
public and private 184
6.6 Conclusion 188

Chapter 7 The Art of Partnership-Making 190
7.1 The role of staff: street level bureaucrats or boundary
spanners? 191
7.1.1 Boundary spanners 194
7.2 Community development and social justice as a practice
guiding value 196
7.2.1 Exploring values 198
7.2.2 Values, culture and action 200

viii
7.3 Community development – Scope of work and critical
self-responsibilisation 202
7.3.1 Staff and community action 202
7.3.2 Supporting community action 204
7.3.3 Nuanced activeness 207
7.3.4 Critical self-responsibilisation 208
7.4 Programme bending, herding partners and
partnership-making 211
7.4.1 Programme bending meetings 213
7.4.2 School reading group 216
7.4.3 Herding 218
7.5 Operating power 221
7.6 Conclusion 224

Chapter 8 Mediations, Manipulations and Partnership-
Making: From Hendinas to Beyond 227
8.1 Local authority partnership making 229
8.1.1 Planning youth services 230
8.1.2 Partnership for action 234
8.1.3 Narcissistic partnership 235
8.2 Partnership as action 238
8.2.1 CF and AiC: critical friends
... ticking each other’s boxes 241
8.2.2 Drinking each other’s coffee to
... develop the narrative 244
8.3 Working the axis: mediations, manipulations
and making partnership 246
8.3.1 Bringing the axis into view 247
8.3.2 ‘Naff’ partnerships 249
8.3.3 Mediating the CF axis through times of contact 251

ix
8.4 Herding failure and national policy 252
8.4.1 The failure to render technical 254
8.4.2 Local success, failure and the national policy 258
8.5 Conclusion 262

Chapter 9 Analytical Themes and Future
Directions 265
9.1 Research approach, methodology and the research
question 265
9.1.1 Positioning the research 267
9.2 Things to do with partnership making 270
9.2.1 The institutional life of Hendinas, policy agency
and the limits of action 270
9.2.2 Critical self-responsibilisation 274
9.2.3 The CF model and the role of staff in
making it work in Hendinas 276
9.2.4 Lateral partnership making 281
9.2.5 Institutional legitimacy - gained and lost 282
9.3 Beyond the academy policy implications and
research directions 287
9.3.1 Engaging in practice 287
9.3.2 Civil society, institutional legitimacy and
de-institutionalisation 288
9.3.3 Local opportunities and national priorities 292
934 Final thoughts 294

Bibliography 296

x