The Neighbourhood 2002 - Essay Example

STUDY OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD 2002 An evaluation of the use of secondary analysis in sociological inquiry, drawing on your own secondary analysis data from Atkinson’s study of the neighborhood. Rowland Atkinson a renowned researcher, currently works at the “Housing and Community Research Unit - School of Sociology and Social Work” at the University of Tasmania an has done commendable work in the field of secondary analysis of the neighborhood. His works included – gentrification, anti- social behavior, crime and control, public space, health and the impacts of regeneration, social capital and evictions in the social rented sector and strategies for managing risks of sex offenders. In Atkinson’s study of the neighborhood, we find that a comparative insight was taken into consideration when a research was conducted in four neighborhoods in Scotland. This meant that we were able to look into and understand the draw backs and problems that existed in each neighborhood, depending very much on its location, area and social background. In selecting suitable areas, their research work included personal knowledge, maps, census and data that indicated depravity in different areas. In order to understand the potential boundaries of different areas they went on a tour and studied the neighborhood for their public space, shopping facilities and so on, in order to understand the nature of the areas that facilitated interaction between people as well as the areas of disorder. They chose two affluent neighborhoods on the fringe of the city- the boundaries of the Edinburgh neighborhood had low- rise housing flats and semi- detached private dwellings. In the case of Glasgow, playing fields acted as a sort of “buffer zone that separated the neighborhoods. Five key sections took part in the interviews – secondary school teachers, community police, councilors, youth group representatives and community councilors. These interviews were designed in such a way in order to study the social connections between the different neighborhoods. Baumgartner used the term “champions” to describe the outside agencies that took part in the interview and wondered if they would be of any use. In the final stage of the research, six focus groups were selected to give an in depth study on the actions and reactions of the various social groups in their respective neighborhoods. The analysis on the qualitative interviews centered on three core themes- 1. Firstly, what problems existed in the neighborhood and in what magnitude were they experienced. 2. Secondly, the level of community spirit and the kind of social network that existed in that locality. 3. Thirdly, the efficacy of social control exerted over the anti-social elements that were creating problems in the area. Neighborhood Boundaries, Social Disorganization and Social Exclusion. Rowland G. Atkinson and John F. Flint Background - The backdrop for this project was set by two key areas- The survey undertaken was to try and find out how the communities cope up or deal with crimes in their area and to what extent the residents as well as the neighborhood wardens’ deal with such crimes. The U.K government has given much priority and laid emphasis on dealing with crime and disorder in the country. The government has called upon all sections to come forward in putting an end to crimes and anti-social acts in their neighborhood. However this research debates about the different kinds of neighborhood and the varying levels of control and social cohesion. The local governance of crime is also dependent on the relationship of its local residents and their and their agencies of social control such as the police. The U.K policy is built around the importance of community processes where by the public and communities become increasingly responsible for the governance of local crime (Johnstone 2000). Much of the policy deals with the breakdown of social control in the deprived urban neighborhoods characterized as having impaired levels of social control. Sampson et al’s concept of ‘collective efficacy’ is important in differentiating between the existence of social ties and beneficial outcomes in relationship of their ability to reduce crime. Communal structures are not necessarily absent in deprived neighborhoods which may be defended and self regulating-(Suttles 1972, Walklate and Evans, 1999) Objectives 1. The central aim of the research was a comparative study of the U.K neighborhoods in response to crime and disorder in both the affluent as well as the deprived neighborhoods in order to identify exclusive strategies which may contribute to the social and spatial exclusion of deprived neighborhoods. The main objectives were- 1. To examine relationships between neighborhoods in regard to formal and informal social control. 2. To study the territories and the boundaries of neighborhoods governance with regard to crime and disorder. To sum it up, the research’s aims and objectives involved a comparative study of the internal and external forces of formal and informal social control executed in both the affluent and deprived neighborhoods. Finally the research was able to establish the importance of neighborhood boundaries and territorial definition in determining the strategy of crime control. Methods The methodology followed by the research was based on the need of a comparative design to show differences between neighborhood types in relationship to informal social control. The process of research had six key elements as follows- 1. Literature review – A Literature review was carried out based on the previous research into communities and crime in the U.S and U.K thus enabling them to improve methods. 2. Selection of study neighborhoods – The research was conducted in four neighborhoods of two cities in Central Scotland. Each pair comprised of one affluent and one and one deprived neighborhood. Defining the boundaries greatly added to the validity of the research work. 3. Analysis of neighborhood documentation – After identifying the study neighborhood, an examination was conducted in agency documentation, newspaper reports and findings of previous researches. 4. Postal Survey of residents – The survey was based on randomly selected households generated by the post code addressed file (PAF) for each of the four defined neighborhoods. The response rates differed considerably with more responses from affluent areas. 5. Six focus groups of residents – The next stage of research comprised of six focus groups- one in each neighborhood and one in each city. The focus groups enabled the researchers to find some balance of gender and age, the time spent in the neighborhood and perceptions of crime that existed. 6. Semi structured interviews of key actors – The final stage of research involved the Semi structured interviews with key actors like- community police officers, local authority and community councilors, residents association representatives, housing and regeneration agency officers, youth workers and teachers. Results – The findings of the resident’s survey and focus groups were the levels of feeling safe or unsafe and perceptions of crime and disorder in the respective neighborhoods. In the affluent areas over 80% reported to feeling safe or very safe, while another 60 % in he Glasgow deprived area felt so. In the Edinburgh deprived area only one third felt unsafe or very unsafe. Conclusion – In the affluent areas crime and disorder such as property crime, environmental degradation and disturbances involving young people seemed to be the main concerns. On the other hand, serious crime and disorder in the deprived areas seemed to run rampant. Community spirit was perceived to be greater in the affluent neighborhoods than the deprived areas where there was less trust in their neighbors. Neighborly interaction was limited as residents would help in an emergency, but would prefer to keep to themselves otherwise. Findings revealed the varying perceptions of the neighborhood by its residents. Whilst there are pockets of disturbances our findings reflect that perception of crime partially involves people reacting differently to similar phenomena (Hope, 1998). The people of the deprived areas feel that they are more exposed to serious crime and this in turn reflects the nature of community relationship enjoyed by their respective residents. References – Atkinson, R. and Flint, J (2004) Snowball sampling, in Lewis Beck, M. Bryman, A. and Futing Liao, T. (Ed) The sage encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, - London: Sage. Social Research Update; University of Surrey. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru Sociological Research Online. http://www.socresonline.org.uk Read More