Towards a Critical Understanding of Community Anchors and a Community Sector Theory and ...

424 Pages·2014·3.04 MB·English

Towards a Critical Understanding of Community Anchors
and a Community Sector Theory and Practice

James Henderson

Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Heriot-Watt University
School of the Built Environment/ Institute of Social Policy, Housing, Environment
and Real Estate Research
September 2014

The copyright in this thesis is owned by the author. Any quotation from the thesis or use
of any of the information contained in it must acknowledge this thesis as the source of
the quotation or information.
Abstract
This thesis seeks to support the longer-term development of the community sector in
Scotland, the United Kingdom (UK) and further afield, through consideration of a
community sector theory and practice (CSTP): where, such a theory and practice is
assumed to involve elements of both theorising as to actual, developing practices and
theorising as to the impact of the broader workings of society (structure) on the forming
and performing of such practices.

The thesis focuses on a particular model and narrative of a community organisation as a
‘community anchor’: where, such an organisation is understood to be community-based
and led, and to undertake a multi-purpose role across a range of local development,
service provision and advocacy. The term community anchor has been/is active within
policy-making, namely that of the New Labour UK Government (1997-2010) and,
currently, SNP Scottish Government (2007-present). Within Scotland, the Scottish
Community Alliance (SCA) has positioned a community anchor narrative within a
particular narrative of community empowerment; the latter rooted in themes of
community ownership and enterprise, local democracy, and local economic and social
development (Pearce, 2003). This community anchor/community empowerment
narrative (CACE) can be understood as one particular strand of a wider CSTP, a ‘CACE
within a CSTP’ (CACE/CSTP) in fact, such that a CACE too can be supported and
informed through theorising on practice and structural context.

The thesis works to strengthen theoretical understanding and development relating to a
CACE/CSTP, and then to draw from this to inform, interpret and analyse an empirical
inquiry, using a qualitative and critical case-study research methodology, of three
community anchor organisations and their respective communities – one from each of
urban, rural and remote island contexts.

Theoretical discussion that supports an understanding of a CSTP is developed through
consideration of theorising on: post-1945 political economic trends in relation to public
policy, particularly urban public policy, in the UK and currently as a dominant neo-
liberalism, although as distinctive variants within policy-making in England and
Scotland; the practices of community development and social enterprise, in particular
relative to social structure and inequality; and, social structure and agency, through use
of structuration theory (Giddens, 1984).
The understanding of a CACE is deepened through consideration of: policy-making on
community anchors within Scottish and English policy-making contexts; matters and
issues of practice for community anchors – in particular as being ‘community-led’,
developing ‘sustainable independence’ and undertaking a diverse, multi-purpose role;
the role of the community sector and its development as part of the social economy; and
the wider political economic dynamics of the nation state (Giddens, 1984; Pearce: 1993,
2003; Harvey, 2009 [1973]).

The empirical inquiry, and the related interpretation and analysis, explore the three case-
studies, and illustrate and develop theoretical understandings of a CACE/CSTP and a
CSTP, more generally. In focusing on practice, the complexities of community-led
practices, organisational independence (sustainable independence) from the state, and
the integration of the breadth of working of a community anchor are considered both as
activities on-the-ground and in relation to the state and market. In focusing on political
economy, the complexity of the community sector’s relationship with the state and the
market is explored. It is recognised that the sector will find itself undertaking a
‘community management’ role, seeking to limit social and economic crises, in response
to neo-liberal economic and social marginalisation of many communities. Yet, such
recognition can support the community sector in continuing with aspirations for a
‘community ownership’ and in seeking alternatives in relation to local economic and
social development, service provision, political advocacy and policy-making.

The resulting articulation of a CACE/CSTP can be used to inform a developing
community sector research agenda(s) for both ‘the research community’ and community
sector, and to inform and support discussions of policy and practice within community
sector and wider policy-making.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following, very much, for their help and support with this thesis and
related research over the last three and more years …

… My research supervisors, Dr Chris McWilliams (first supervisor) and Professor Angela Hull
(second supervisor), who have kept me on track, challenging my thinking along the way. More
generally, to the wider academic and administrative staff teams, and my fellow postgraduates,
within IHURER for selecting me for ESRC funding and providing many and various supports.

… Laurence Demarco, from the Social Entrepreneurs Network Scotland (Senscot), and Angus
Hardie, from the Scottish Community Alliance, for their input and time over the course of the
same period; acting as an informal advisory group and, crucially, also challenging my thinking
from the perspectives of community sector practices, theorising and representation within
policy-making. In similar vein, I must recognise the thinking of John Pearce, for as becomes
clear across the thesis, his theorising has been a crucial starting point for my own; yet sadly he
died in 2011 and before I could meet him in person.

… The three case-study organisations and their wider communities – Govanhill Housing
Association in Govanhill, Glasgow; Creetown Initiative in Creetown and the parish of
Kirkmabreck in Dumfries & Galloway; and Northmavine Community Development Company
in Northmavine, Shetland – have also played thoroughly crucial and generous roles within the
project: many thanks to all the staff, activists, volunteers and residents who gave of their time,
whether through interviews or in other ways. Similarly, many thanks to the eleven other people
working within the public and community sectors, who undertook formal/informal interviews
that provided significant support to the development of my thinking and research.

… The wider body of support that has given me both encouragement and ‘another life’, in
particular my immediate family – Catherine, Kate, Beth, and Colin too – and friends – John and
Nick – across the course of the process. While, and at risk of thanking anyone I’ve ever met, I’d
like to recognise my wider family for ongoing crucial conversations, political and personal, over
the last four plus decades – Hendersons, Ringler-Hendersons, Hoopers and Roberts – and more
generally friends, colleagues and others; too many to list but including Nancy, Ellin, Richard,
Kevin … all crucially getting me thinking. Finally, Charles for keeping me right on contested
debates as to ‘sustainable economic growth’ and ‘sustainable development’, and for proof-
reading work.
ACADEMIC REGISTRY
Research Thesis Submission

Name: James Henderson
School/PGI: Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Environment and Real Estate,
School for the Built Environment
Version: (i.e. First, Final Degree Sought Doctor of Philosophy
Resubmission, Final) (Award and
Subject area)

Declaration

In accordance with the appropriate regulations I hereby submit my thesis and I declare that:

1) the thesis embodies the results of my own work and has been composed by myself
2) where appropriate, I have made acknowledgement of the work of others and have made reference
to work carried out in collaboration with other persons
3) the thesis is the correct version of the thesis for submission and is the same version as any
electronic versions submitted*.
4) my thesis for the award referred to, deposited in the Heriot-Watt University Library, should be made
available for loan or photocopying and be available via the Institutional Repository, subject to such
conditions as the Librarian may require
5) I understand that as a student of the University I am required to abide by the Regulations of the
University and to conform to its discipline.

* Please note that it is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the correct version of the
thesis is submitted.

Signature of Date:
Candidate:

Submission

Submitted By (name in capitals): JAMES HENDERSON
Signature of Individual Submitting:

Date Submitted:

For Completion in the Student Service Centre (SSC)

Received in the SSC by (name in
capitals):
Method of Submission
(Handed in to SSC; posted through
internal/external mail):
E-thesis Submitted (mandatory for
final theses)
Signature: Date:
Contents

Chapter 1: Introductions and scene-setting (pp.1-46)

Chapter 2: A developing qualitative and critical case-study research methodology
(pp.47-79)

Chapter 3: Developing theoretical background for a community sector theory and
practice (pp.80-124)

Chapter 4: Understanding a developing community anchor narrative (pp.125-162)

Chapter 5: Constructing a community anchor/community empowerment narrative
(pp.163-196)

Chapter 6: Informing a theory and practice: community anchors as community-led and
seeking sustainable independence (pp.197-231)

Chapter 7: Informing a theory and practice: community anchors as multi-purpose and
empowering (pp.232-264)

Chapter 8: Informing a theory and practice: the community sector within the workings
of the socio-economic systems of the nation state (pp.265-301)

Chapter 9: The concluding chapter: an overview of the research findings and
consideration of a developing community sector research agenda (pp.302-334)

Appendices:
Appendix 1: Research Aims and Objectives (pp.335-339)
Appendix 2: Information for research participants (pp.340-344)
Appendix 3: Research interpretation and analysis (pp.345-361)

References (pp.362-415)
Figures

Figure 1: Three systems of the economy (p.21)

Figure 2: Map giving Govanhill’s position in the City of Glasgow (p.31)

Figure 3: Map of Govanhill and neighbouring communities (p.32)

Figure 4: Map giving Creetown’s position within Dumfries & Galloway (p.36)

Figure 5: Map of Creetown, Carsluith and neighbouring towns – with notes on the
Parish of Kirkmabreck (p.37)

Figure 6: Map giving Northmavine’s position within the Shetland Islands (p.41)

Figure 7: Map of Northmavine (p.42)
Glossary

Abbreviations – in relation to organisations:
bassac: British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres
CI: Creetown Initiative
DTAS: Development Trust Association Scotland
GHHA: Govanhill Housing Association
GWFSHA: Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations
HIE: Highlands and Islands Enterprise
IVAR: Institute for Voluntary Action Research
JRF: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
NCDC: Northmavine Community Development Company
SCA: Scottish Community Alliance
Senscot: Social Entrepreneurs Network Scotland

Abbreviations – in relation to terminology:
CACE: a community anchor/community empowerment narrative – see initial definition
in ‘Terminology’ below.
CSTP: a community sector theory and practice – see initial definition in ‘Terminology’
below.
IA: interpretation and analysis – used in relation to the research process, but only in
section 2.3.3 and Appendix 3 (A3.2).

Terminology – initial definitions:
‘community’: used as a broad brush term to indicate a general consideration of various
potential elements including: community organisations and groups (community sector);
informal community networks and groups; local communities of place, interest and
identity; and community networks or social capital active within other social systems
e.g. an organisation or a diaspora.
community anchor (organisation): a multi-purpose and facilitative, community-based
and community-led organisation.
community anchor/community empowerment narrative (CACE): a particular narrative
constructed from the community anchor narrative and a narrative generated from an
understanding of community empowerment as community sector development (see
community sector and ‘community empowerment [2]’ below) and community
ownership.
community dialogue: refers to shared and collective discussions across diverse
communities of place, interest and/or identity.
‘community empowerment (1)’: a broad brush term recognising the spectrum of
potential uses of the term in relation to ‘community’ and its empowerment; can be used
to recognise both the breadth of possible meanings and the contested nature of the term.
‘community empowerment (2)’: a more particular usage concerned for the development
of community ownership and the local community sector.
community/reciprocity: community as a means of social and economic coordination and
exchange mediated by social bonds and shared interests – rather than that offered by
‘the state’ and ‘the market’.
community sector: covers the breadth of local community organisations and groups
across the nation state (and further afield), from large to small, and who have some
degree of formalised structure.
community sector dialogue: discussions across the community sector.
community sector theory and practice (CSTP): theorising both on the practices of the
community sector and on the wider context (framing) within which those practices are
implemented.
informal community networks: networks of informal community groups, neighbours,
households, families and extended families within local communities of place, interest
and/or identity.
local community sector: community organisations and groups within a particular local
community of place, interest and/or identity.
matrix of local community diversity: the intersections and layers of communities of
place, interest and identity that are active within any one sense of local community.
‘mutualist’approach: concerned for the development of organisations and networks
committed to a democratic social ownership and related sharing of risk and surplus;
many not-for-profit/ third sector organisations would fit with this approach, particularly
social/community enterprises, cooperatives and membership-based voluntary
organisations and charities.
Chapter 1: Introductions and scene-setting

1.1: Chapter introduction
This introductory chapter sets the scene for the theoretical and empirical investigations
that follow across Chapters 3 to 9, with Chapter 2 establishing a relevant research
methodology and research process, and associated theoretical perspective. In so doing,
the chapter seeks firstly to establish an understanding of the Research Aims and
Objectives (RAOs); how they were arrived at, what they are and what they mean, and
how this thesis seeks to engage with them and offer relevant interpretation, analysis and
findings (section 1.2).

The chapter then provides further introductory and positional information that supports
understanding of the thesis as a whole as it develops, and this includes:
 initial theoretical considerations and related frameworks with which to
understand the theoretical workings and development across the thesis;
 introduction of the three case-studies of community organisations and their
respective communities, through sketches developed from empirical inquiry,
with which to understand both developing theory and the related interpretation
and analysis across the thesis; and finally
 a chapter summary gives a final overview.

The chapter is therefore structured as follows:
 (1.2) Understanding the Research Aims and Objectives
 (1.3) Key conceptual narratives and wider theoretical constructions
 (1.4) Case-study sketches
 (1.5) Across the thesis as a whole: chapter summaries
 (1.6) Concluding thoughts

1.2: Understanding the Research Aims and Objectives
This section aims to establish understanding of the RAOs. Initially, this is done through
exploring ‘the why’ of the Research Aims (RAs), and then from this the more particular
Research Objectives (ROs) are explored with their related research questions and key
working assumptions. The section follows this course:
1