| Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | blake-buckley |
| View: | 214 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
1
Regeneration ties with traction? An inter-organisational case study of social networks and social capital in
urban regeneration
Beth CarleyCentre for Census & Survey Research,
University of Manchester
Presentation to 6th UK Social Networks Conference, University of Manchester, 14th-16th April 2010
2
Background to study
Comparative study of the inter-organisational networks of community groups in 2 out of 3 admin areas of New East Manchester (NEM)
NEM is an urban regeneration area, overseen by urban regeneration company of same name- responsible for strategic development of area
3
City centre
New East Manchester
4
Part of New East Manchester (Beswick) pre-regeneration (1998)
5
Background to study
Within NEM area three neighbourhoods targeted for £75 New Deal for Communities (NDC) funding starting 1999= ‘Beacons’ area
Other two areas to north and south absorbed into NEM boundary in 2007
South area- Gorton- is comparator area for study
6
‘Beacons’Beswick, Clayton, Openshaw
NEM boundary
7
Background to study
NDC community-led approach to regeneration on multiple indicators of deprivation
Community involvement at all levels including governing board
Substantial investment in residents’ group development- and Residents’ Forum- attempting to bring active residents together for the area
Beacons NDC recognised as a success of NDC scheme nationally- in community involvement and across other areas
8
(Part of) Beacons area now (Beswick)
9
Where my study comes in
My study enters as NDC ends
NEM taken over reins- but very limited funding
End of scheme means capacity of residents to remain active in and for the area critical to avoid return to decline
Community partnerships- one in each of three areas- part of this.
10
NEM Community Partnerships
New East ManchesterBoard of Directors
Beacons Community Partnership
Gorton All Together(Gorton
Community Partnership
Miles Platting, Ancoats and
Newton Heath Community Partnership
Residents’ groups
Elected resident board members
One community partnership in each of three NEM areas
11
The study
Empirical investigation of network inter-organisational relations
i) between residents’ groups: one-mode complete network data
ii) Between residents’ groups and mainstream local services: two-mode
Comparing Beacons regeneration area and non-funded area of Gorton
12
Research questions
i) How connected are residents’ groups in each area?
ii) How connected are groups to local services?
iii) Who are the key players?iv) What benefits do relations and the
structure of relations confer to the network?: Operational, micro/meso-level, versus strategic macro-level benefits (How social is the social capital value of ties?)
13
Network specification/ data
Network boundaries definedi) by admin boundaries of Beacons
and Gortonii) Eligibility for participation in
community partnership (NEM lists) 54 groups in Beacons area; 47 in
Gorton Circa 50 mainstream service-
providers
14
Data collection
Networks questionnaire administered face-to-face: 75/90 minutes
Self-completion questionnaire on attributes of their group and short attitudinal questionnaire for individual respondents
15
Relations: one-mode
1. Direct personal contact and tie strength (eliminatory question)
2. Receiving/ giving valuable information and frequency on 4-point scale
3. Colloboration (‘working together’)- whether single/multiple incidence and whether will recur
4. Co-membership of groups by committee members- how many members shared
16
Relations: two-mode
1. Direct personal contact and tie strength (eliminatory question)
2. Receiving/ giving valuable information and frequency on 4-point scale
3. Colloboration (‘working together’)- whether single/multiple incidence and whether will recur
4. Formal role of group members in service- how many members
Plus: reasons for non contact with other groups/ service and perceived benefits of contacts with each
17
Attributes
Set-up funding/support from NDC/NEM/other services?
Size; level of activity; embeddedness of group in neighbourhood
Individual respondent perceptions of effectiveness of regeneration and role of NDC/NEM
18
Data analysis- foci
Focus on: network characteristics which promote effectiveness of network in serving needs of groups in improving area- and factors which may explain these structures
Descriptive analysis of global network characteristics
Global structure in terms of hierarchy/polycentricity
Actor centrality and prestige and associated attributes
Micro-level structures- levels of reciprocity/ transitivity and associated attributes
Possible regression modelling/ p* modelling
19
Preliminary findings: Beacons groups
Beacons groups less connected than Gorton??
Groups ‘got their little piece, and were off’.
Residents still fighting for their patch ‘Hard core’, well connected to each other
and with formal roles in local services Cross-neighbourhood hierarchical
structure? Hard core also those with formal ties to
services Non-contact: neighbourhood focus; lack of
time/ burn-out; Money: ‘no money; no influence’
20
Preliminary findings: Gorton groups- same curve; different point?
‘NEM are the only people who’ve tried to bring Gorton together and I think they’re [sic] working.’
Role of Gorton 100 events in gelling network, as well as symbolic value
Geographically proximate key players
Evidence of network polycentricity
21
Preliminary findings/ implications for policy approach
Top-down approach can be valuable: ‘People in power are more accessible than they used to be.’
Flip-side is disappointments in dependency relationship: ‘They’ve trained residents up and given them a voice and now they’ve been dropped.’
Both operational and strategic value of ties can shift or evaporate when money and bodies move on: social capital to social ‘liability’
Unintended consequence of time-limited social capital building from above?
