Researching Community - Assignment Example

?Researching Community Community is a difficult term to define but a useful one. In many cases community is used to imply a group of people (often geographically or socially accompanying) that exhibit some important ties to one another. However ‘community is not always what it seems to be’ (Rousseau, 1991, p3) and is sometimes hard to define. The term ‘community’ is also sometimes abused some politicians using the friendly intimate nature of the word to increase support for them and their parties which could mean that the word has lost meaning. For these reasons and others there are people who suggest community is not a useable term and that it should be replaced by one of the others like ‘social capital’ (Portes et al, 2000). Despite these flaws and the protests of some people the word ‘community’ remains in everyday use and still appears throughout the literature suggesting that it is still important to many. The purpose of this essay is to explore how the term community can (and is) used throughout the social sciences and how this in a straight line translates into good social policy making. From here it will explore the other concepts and approaches that are available for social science and social policy and how these can be viewed in the context of equal opportunities. The study of the nature of community will show some important elements in developing equal opportunity policies and how they are linked to real social concepts. What is Community? One of the main difficulties of using community in social science research and policy making is that it can be hard to define in any realistic terms. Community is generally suggested that it is a ‘union of will’ (Nyden et al, 1997, p13), meaning that a community is seen as a tighter bond than many others. The other option here is a ‘union of self-interest’ (Nyden et al, 1997, p13), such as a workplace, which does not produce a sense of community. However, there seems to be no one time when self-interest does not play a part in the development of a community. For example, a community of people may gather at Stonehenge, and there will be social ties formed at this geographical location. Stonehenge is often associated with Paganism, history, archaeology and the occult (Darvill, 1997), which means that the people who become the community will probably have shared interests, making it a ‘union of will’. However, there are self-interest involved! Because of the associations named above, those taking part in the Stonehenge community will be there for their own self-interest, such as exploring the history of the area. It is difficulties such as this which make community so hard to define. Community has also been defined as a ‘social network’ in which people feel a sense of safety and are happy in the company. For example, in many geography communities such as neighbourhoods people feel safe enough to leave their houses in the care of another. This is also seen in the success of neighbourhood watch program (Bennett, 1990) which are on the increase. However, many feel that this type of community is decreasing particularly in Western society as shown by the decrease in family dinners and attendance at local meetings (Bennett, 1990) which again means that the term becomes harder to define. If neighbours are still geographically related but this sense of security and friendship is not felt is it still a community? Again, this poses a difficulty when trying to define the word. Equal Opportunities As previously mentioned the purpose of this essay is to explore how the concept of community shapes social policy with a focus on equal opportunities. Equal opportunities suffers from definition problems but is generally considered to be ‘equal competition’. In some cases this means being favourable to those who would not otherwise be favoured to give them an equal starting point (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). This can include giving preference to those with lesser qualifications because they may have had less opportunities in the past. Equal opportunities is often used within concepts of gender, race, disability and age (Budge et al, 2007) although it can include anyone who is disadvantaged within society. There are two main types. Formal equality of opportunity is when the playing field is level for all contestants, which often leads to many being disadvantaged for a number of reasons. Substantive equality of opportunity is usually what is being created with equal opportunity policies and ensures that those who are disadvantaged get extra help to be able to compete (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). This is not without controversy. In the United Kingdom, most social policies regarding equal opportunities are for to ensure that each individual is found in an appropriate place within society or perhaps within the community. Many of the discrimination acts focus on ensuring that minorities are in proportional employment (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). For example domestic division of labour is skewed towards men in society (Bagilhole, 2010) and women tend to be on lower pay (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). The work of the Sex Discrimination Act is to ensure that women are not negatively affected in the workplace or within a community to help prevent further widening of these gaps. These apply to any minority groups including those based on race, religion, sexuality, health and age (Bagilhole, 2010). Equal opportunities forms both exlusion and inclusion into many entities which might be termed communities and are important in this investigation. Equal opportunities also add difficulties into using community as a valid term because many policies may force people into a community that they would not otherwise be a part of which means it is no longer a community under the ‘union of will’ rule (Liff & Wajcman, 1996). As such, the issues of equal opportunity policy making discussed here will be used to shape many of the investigations into community below. Equal Opportunities Communities It is interesting that the groups that campaign for equal opportunities often become communities within themselves. For example, the Women’s Rights Movement has stemmed meetings and rallies all of which give a sense of camaraderie and fellowship to those involved. The members of these movements can be male or female and often are so the community here is not merely based on gender but based on some real level of interaction and commonality between those involved, as is involved in the definitions explored above (Bagilhole, 2010). However, it is important that it is noted that the interests of these groups are not considered separately because their interests often overlap (Bagilhole, 2010). It could be said that the Equal Opportunities and Diversity (EOD) campaign in the U.K. is one community, as evidenced by the large communal friendships found on social networking sites and elsewhere online (Haythornthwaite, 2007). Despite this, it should not be expected that members of this community wish to stay part of this community forever and may wish to partake in others which have previously been unavailable for them, which is the very root of these EOD politics. Community as a Social Network It is often suggested that community is another term for a social network. The definition of a social network is given very simply as ‘a group’ with ‘some element of social interaction (Valente, 2010, p 101) by some, which matches the very simplest definition of community maybe without the common interest division. This has led some scholars and teachers to suggest that the two words can be used in place of each. The definition of a social network has been expanded in recent years with the explosion of social networking sites (SNSs) like Twitter, LinkedIn, Bebo, Facebook, Myspace and Tumblr (Haythornthwaite, 2007). These are not only important in the definition of social network but in community too, as they have led many to alter or change their definition of community altogether to include things like online support groups forums or these SNSs mentioned before. It is difficult to say whether social network and community should be used interchangeable because it seems like social network implies a lower level of interaction than community without the sense of security or comradeship as in community (Haythornthwaite, 2007). A good example of how this issue effects the definition of community and makes it difficult for consistent use within the social sciences and social policy making can be made when considering online groups. Groups are often formed online to help support for long term illnesses including narcolepsy (Nyden et al, 1997). If narcolepsy we use as an example. These users have come online to discuss their common problem and give each other advice and are interacting socially which means that they can now be considered part of a social network. This social network is based around a common interest, which some would say fits the definition of ‘community. However the people involved have chosen to be part of the community but they have not chosen to have narcolepsy which means that it is not a straight-forward union of will and would not exist without narcolepsy as a uniting factor. This somewhat changes the definition of community within this context. Additionally, it has been suggested that these online communities do not fit the true definition of community because there is no true social interaction (Haythornthwaite, 2007) and no real sense of friendship. The whole definition becomes yet more complicated when equal opportunities are considered as a limiting factor because one cannot truly participate in this community without experience of narcolepsy and therefore it could be suggested that it is not providing equal opportunities, although there is no limit on sexuality, age, race or gender within the group (Budge et al, 2007). This perhaps illustrates the difficulties with discussing community within the social sciences and how social policies work within the sense of community (in this case equal opportunities policy). We can see from this example that equal opportunities (and perhaps other social policies) are not relevant in some communities and therefore it may not be considered a useful concept here. In this case ‘social network’ is perhaps more accurate and should be used instead (Rousseau, 1991). Community in the Workplace One area where social policy is very important is in the workplace and as equal opportunities becomes more of an issue for employers this will become increasingly important. However, the workplace is one area that falls outside some definitions of community and is included in some others (Nyden et al, 1997). There are also problems in larger workplaces whether to classify the entire thing as a community (more location based) or each department (more social based) which is again something that depends on the definition of community (Nyden et al, 1997). This can make the concept hard to apply when creating social policy. It has been suggested that equal opportunities for all should be an aspect of a true community and if they are not they should be incorporate (Commission, 1996). It is suggested that this will make sure that everyone feels part of the community, something that is important in many social definitions of the term . For example, if there were a violent incident in the workplace, in many cases it would be expected that every employee should come together to offer some protection or consolation to the victim. This can perhaps be likened to the feeling of safety from a neighbourhood watch or other community-based program more traditionally associated with the term community. However, it is important to note that these positive protective actions may simply be part of the human nature and goodness found within these individuals and not necessarily a feeling of participation in a community . Equal opportunities is also a very important part of community in the workplace. If for example there is an unbalanced mix of ethnic groups in the workplace it is likely that there will be less of a ‘community’ feel . It may also lead to the development of several different ‘communities’. In either of these cases the workplace ceases to be a ‘community’ in itself and again the creation of social policy with ‘community’ in mind ceases to be a valid concept. If a policy concerning equal opportunities was to be put in place in this workplace. For example, a policy of ensuring that there are 50% women in any office owned by the parent company. This would perhaps be explained by the fact it would create a ‘fairer community in the workplace’ (something that is often found in these type of document []) but this is irrelevant if there is no sense of ‘community’ in the first place. Additionally, it cannot be defined what type of ‘community’ the employer wants to create or how it would, work in this arena . This causes the term to lose all meaning despite the fact that all employees will usually have some idea of the concept. Community in Social Policy Despite the problems that the definition of community has, it is still often used when making a social policy (Nyden et al, 1997). This is because it is an accessible term although this is not necessarily a good thing in the social sciences. Community is often used as a buzzword when it comes to social policy because it helps create an air of togetherness that is not really found when using any of the other suggested replacement words. Politicians are extremely fond of using the word community as it to include many different groups and give a sense that everyone is the same , perhaps even give an impression of equal opportunity for all. Community is also used in politics to try and define minority groupings that are useful in the fight for equal opportunities which is interesting because it again links the two ideas of community and equal opportunity together with respect to social policy. Again, we can use an example to illustrated this. An example of the importance of community in creating social policy can be seen by a ‘care in the community’ program which are found in great numbers across the United Kingdom and further abroad. These programmes are aimed at getting those who are unusually abled or perhaps celebrating learning difficulties into a normal living environment. The ‘care in the community’ aspect of this is that those living in a geographical area are aware that these people are living alone or in shared housing and will be going about daily activities in their area (Nyden et al, 1997) and may perhaps require assistance in some cases. This concept relies on the sense of security which is implied in the word ‘community’ and the thought that all members of a community should look out for one another and all contribute to each others health and wellbeing . This may not always work in practice, but this is a good example of how the word ‘community’ is used in developing social policy in an effective and meaningful way, as no other word would work here to create the same meaning. Additionally, there are aspects of ‘care in the community’ programs that promote equal opportunities for the individuals concerned such as allowing them special opportunities in the workplace or going about daily duties that they may not have had if the playing field was level in the first place for these individuals. Alternative Concepts to Community As we have seen community is sometimes a useful concept in social science research and social policy making but at other times it can be confusing and even take away from the matter at hand, be this research or creating equal opportunities for those who are in need of them. This means that social scientists and policy makers are always searching for more meaningful concepts that can be used for these reasons which can be considered viable important alternatives to the concept of community (Nyden et al, 1997). One such alternative concept is known as social capital. Social capital is defined as ‘the value of a social network’ (Coleman, 1988) suggesting that social contacts and other social elements have a value just as something might have a financial value. It is suggested that these social links may even have a finance value in themselves because the increase the worth of some individuals by providing contacts for them (Coleman, 1988). Social capital is thought by some to be more relevant than the concept of ‘community’ because it puts a real value and a real definition with boundaries on an individual and the social connections that they have (Portes et al, 2000), and does not have the same vague definition problems as the term ‘community’. In some cases, it might be more appropriate. For example in the workplace the term social capital seems more appropriate than community because community suggests a personal, warmer value than some workplaces provide. In the event where a workplace is not viewed as a community by those within it, the term social capital can be used instead. In fact, in social policy making in the workplace it could be suggested that policies regarding equal opportunities increase the social capital (Coleman, 1988). Another concept which is useful is that of locality geography. In some cases community can mean a group of people who live in the same neighbourhood like previously seen in the neighbourhood watch programs. This is useful when it comes to discussing social policies that are relevant in some areas but not in others, where community might not have the correct meaning or may imply that the group in this location is perhaps stronger or that it is not. For example, a social policy put in place to encourage the employment of ethnic minorities may be put in place. If employers are required to have 10% minority employees but there are no significant number of minorities in the area then this is a useless social policy. The use of the word community does not have this meaning and therefore would be useless in this context, so it is helpful to use locality in its place. This is another example of how the word community may not be useful in all cases of social theory or social policy making and the choice of words can be very important in the social sciences as can the use of important concepts in the correct way or manner. Conclusions Community is a valid concept despite problems. This is because the word still carries meaning for many people (Nyden et al, 1997) and there are many examples of how communities themselves shape social science and social policy. If social policy was based around simply locality or social capital it is likely that these would fail because these words do not have the same meaning. However, it should still be noted that there are significant difficulties with using the term community and these should be noted when investigating social science and creating policies for equal opportunities and other social concepts. This can ensure that those who feel like they are outside of a community but still deserving of care under the social policy are still included. Sometimes locality or geography is helpful because it can ensure that equal opportunities are found consistently throughout each area without relying on the human aspect of community. The workplace also often falls outside the definition of community so it is useful to consider how business and employment should be involved in equal opportunities and social policy. A conclusion that can be drawn from is that investigation of social science and intervention by social policy should not rely on the concept of ‘community’ because of the problem but include it in a wider range. Community is a common term that is understandable by many and this should give some importance to it. References Bagilhole, B., 2010. Applying the lens of intersectionality to UK equal opportunities and diversity policies. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 27(3), pp.263-271. Bennett, T., 1990. Evaluating neighbourhood watch, Gower. Budge, I., McKay, D. & Newton, K., 2007. The new British politics, Pearson Education. Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, pp.95–120. Commission, E., 1996. Incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all Community policies and activities, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Darvill, T., 1997. Ever increasing circles: the sacred geographies of Stonehenge and its landscape. In Proceedings of the British Academy. pp. 167–202. Haythornthwaite, C., 2007. Social networks and online community. The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology, pp.121–137. Liff, S. & Wajcman, J., 1996. “Sameness” and “difference”revisited: which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), pp.79–94. Nyden, P. et al., 1997. Building community: Social science in action, Pine Forge Press Thousand Oaks, CA. Portes, A., 2000. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann, pp.43–67. Rousseau, M.F., 1991. Community: the tie that binds, University Press of America. Valente, T.W., 2010. Social networks and health: models, methods, and applications, Oxford University Press. Read More