As part of the Local Policy Innovation Partnership (LPIP) Hub, we have a workstream focused on understanding ‘communities in their places’. This workstream considers the current and potential future role of communities in addressing place-based challenges. Cohesive communities can mobilise social capital, tackle place-based challenges, and identify pathways to bring about social, economic and environmental improvements in their area.
Developing capacity and capability
The workstream involves a particular focus on how capacities and capabilities can be developed within two different types of place-based community action/ intervention:
- community assets (including community businesses),
- active community engagement
Key questions we will explore in the LPIP programme over the next two years include:
- What are community assets?
- Why is it relevant and important to invest in community assets?
- How can anchor institutions and other place partners invest in community assets for the benefit of their places?
- Why is active community engagement important?
- How is community engagement best conducted? When is it appropriate/ less appropriate?
What does community mean?
This blog reflects on what the term ‘communities’ means. It then defines other terms often integral to communities. It examines how ‘communities’ are involved in defining policy solutions but which can be easily confused.
It is important to begin by stating that ‘communities’ is a contested term with no single meaning. Indeed, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary suggests that ‘community’ refers to ‘a unified body of individuals’, a social state or condition, joint ownership or participation, common character, social activity or society at large. The Dictionary further suggests a number of different types of ‘unified bodies of individuals’ can be identified:
a. People with common interests living in a particular area
b. A group of people who share common characteristics or interests living together within a larger society (for example a community of retired people)
c. A body of persons of common and especially professional shared interests scattered through a larger society such as ‘an academic community’
d. A body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests
e. A group who are connected by a common policy
f. An interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common location
g. State, commonwealth
A study in the US by MacQueen et al (2001) examined whether members of diverse US communities described ‘community’ in similar or different ways. It found that participants commonly suggested that a ‘community’ refers to a group of individuals who share diverse characteristics but are connected by social ties, common perspectives, and participate in collaborative efforts within specific geographic areas. How participants prioritised different aspects of the definition and experienced ‘community’ varied.
‘Community’ has been described as both a structure and a physical place (a defined area), but it can also go beyond physical boundaries (Weil et al, 2012 cited in Mohr Carney et al, 2022). The term has links to individuals’ identities, with people being able to belong to ‘several communities’ – including ‘work-based communities’, ‘virtual communities’, ‘business communities’, etc. Participating in multiple communities enables individuals to develop different connections with others, share learning experiences, and accept or challenge new information, shaping our perspectives on different issues (Vuong, 2022).
According to the Local Government Association, ‘Cohesive communities’ refers to communities where there are people from different backgrounds, strong and positive relationships can be developed between people from different backgrounds and there is a common vision fostering a sense of belonging and mutual support for all.
Engaging communities in policy-making
Over recent years, the concepts of ‘community engagement’, ‘co-design’ and ‘co-production have become increasingly recognised as important to mobilise knowledge and improve service design and delivery including research projects. The terms can sometimes seemingly be used interchangeably but they have distinct meanings:
- ‘Community engagement’ – “The process of engaging local people and communities in the development, decision-making and/ or implementation of an investment strategy or project.” (Impact Investing Institute and Involve, supported by Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport). Interestingly, this says ‘local’ but ‘local’ does not come out as a strong feature in the definitional discussion above.
- Co-design – participatory approach “where users, as ‘experts’ of their own experience”, are central to designing solutions/initiatives (Scottish Government).
- Co-production – an approach where, based on the principle that “individuals affected by a service are best placed to help design it”, service providers and users collaborate to reach a collective outcome (Involve)
- Co-creation – about ideas, planning and implementation. Creative Communities suggests that co-creation has shifted from a narrow focus on ‘the collaborative generation of knowledge by academics working alongside stakeholders from other sectors’ to the ‘intentional collaboration in the creation of something meaningful to the collaborators’.
Conclusion
This blog has discussed how there is no single definition of ‘communities’ and rather that it is used rather loosely and so differently by different people. The LPIP Hub is not adopting a single definition of ‘communities’ but we will particularly adopt a ‘local’ focus, for example in an evidenced review focusing on community assets and active community engagement to be published in early 2025 As part of other planned LPIP Hub activities, we will consider how appropriate the term ‘communities’ is in different policy and research contexts. Another key question we will be exploring is whether it is possible to leverage resources for place from other ‘communities’ that are not so place-based.
This blog was written by Dr Abigail Taylor, Research Fellow, City-REDI, University of Birmingham.
Find out more about the Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.