The benefits of meaningful interaction
Rapid evidence assessment of existing literature
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Rapid evidence assessment of existing literature
OPM
Department for Communities and Local Government
This research was commissioned by the previous government. The views and
analysis expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Department for Communities and Local
Government. This document is being published in the interests of
transparency.
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Telephone: 030 3444 0000
Website: www.communities.gov.uk
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2011
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any
format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within
an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used
in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown
copyright and the title of the publication specified.
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any
format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view
this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew,
London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected].
If you require this publication in an alternative format please email
[email protected]
DCLG Publications
Tel: 030 0123 1124
Fax: 030 0123 1125
Email: [email protected]
Online via the website: www.communities.gov.uk
ISBN: 978 1 4098 3150 1
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 7
2. Context: key terms and policy background ..........................................................................7
3. Benefits of meaningful interaction ......................................................................................12
3.1 Benefits to reducing prejudice and strengthening community resilience.................... 13
3.2 Education, skills and employment ..............................................................................20
3.3 Health benefits............................................................................................................23
3.4 Crime and anti social behaviour .................................................................................25
4. What works in promoting meaningful interaction................................................................ 27
4.1 What helps in promoting meaningful interaction......................................................... 27
4.2 What hinders in promoting meaningful interaction ..................................................... 32
5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix 1. Bibliography........................................................................................................ 37
Appendix 2. Glossary of commonly used terms ..................................................................... 41
Appendix 3. Detail regarding the methodology ...................................................................... 44
3
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Executive summary
Background to this work
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) commissioned the
Office for Public Management (OPM) to conduct a review of the evidence relating to
meaningful interaction. OPM is an independent research and development
organisation that works with public services across sectors to improve social
outcomes.
The study focuses on collating and analysing the existing evidence relating to:
•
the key principles of successful approaches to promoting meaningful interaction;
and
•
the benefits of meaningful interaction for individuals, neighbourhoods and
communities, for example in terms of improvements to health, welfare and life in
general.
The objectives of the research are to provide a clear evidence base to inform future
decisions regarding national, regional and local policy-making and practice relating to
meaningful interaction.
The benefits of meaningful interaction
The benefits of interaction with other people (whether or not from different
backgrounds) are well-documented, and in particular appear evident in relation to:
increased levels of psychological health, assessed by various measures of
happiness and emotional well-being; and increased physical health, such as lower
blood pressure.
The evidence of the benefits of interaction between people of different backgrounds
specifically – the focus of this study – is less well-established than that relating to the
benefits of interaction per se.
There is some strong evidence, however, that meaningful interaction between people
of different backgrounds specifically is beneficial, in particular stemming from its
potential to increase understanding and reduce prejudice. This in turn, the evidence
suggests, can help to build trust between people in an area, and thus increase
resilience in communities (against inter-group tension and resentment and the appeal
of extremism).
Evidence concerning the further implications of these ‘core’ benefits is less clear, but
there is some evidence to suggest that from greater understanding and trust comes
reduced levels of discrimination (which benefits people’s experiences of social and
work environments) and more considerate behaviour (e.g. in relation to anti-social
behaviour).
There may also be implications in terms of decreased sense of anxiety during
periods of change or upheaval, and greater sense of belonging and thus increased
4
The benefits of meaningful interaction
satisfaction with one’s locality, but there is less literature available which makes
these connections conclusively.
Available evidence suggests that the benefits to people’s education and skills include
the following:
•
improved ability to communicate with and appreciate the views of a range of
people, and thus increased levels of comfort and confidence in talking to / working
with other people;
•
increased opportunity to acquire and develop new skills that may aid job-seeking
and widen career options; and
•
improved preparedness for the workplace, in terms of dealing with diversity and
encountering racism (black and minority ethnic-specific) so that there is less
tendency to ‘retreat’ into one’s own ethnic group.
What works in promoting meaningful interaction?
Evidence on what works in the promotion of meaningful interaction highlights the
following:
A wide range of public spaces have potential to host meaningful engagement
activities. Places don’t need to be special, but they do need to be shared. Some
public spaces offer unique potential to bring different groups together. Where people
congregate around amenities, such as street markets and squares for instance, there
is more likely to be interaction between different community sub-groups. Educational
settings can also be effective contexts for meaningful interaction.
Interventions being community-led can lead to more sustainable and appropriate
outcomes than would have been achieved without such input. It is also important,
however, to consider the role of agencies ‘brokering’ an initiative. Agencies may also
have a role in providing training and support for those people leading meaningful
interaction projects. Active listening, facilitation of discussion and conflict/tension
management are skills that require both practice and training.
There is evidence to suggest that a range of activity types are effective in promoting
meaningful interaction. While the detailed nature of activities will differ, those
planning engagement may wish to consider the following:
•
The impact may be most significant for young people, who are still forming habits
around the norms of interaction.
•
Identity should not be the basis for interaction, rather it should build on what
people have in common, taking a subtle approach to bringing people together
rather than ‘selling’ interaction per se, or defining initiatives by their target
audience which can involve labelling people.
•
It is less effective to promote interaction for its own sake – it should emerge out of
shared interests, the everyday and the sustained. It is better to take advantage of
‘everyday’ tasks in which people are involved, using recognisable activities and
venues rather than simply relying on ‘one-off’ events.
5
The benefits of meaningful interaction
•
Recognising the inter-dependence of different services is critical. It is beneficial to
think about the whole system and/or the whole person, rather than think about
services themselves in isolation.
Conclusions
On the basis of this systematic review of the evidence, we can confidently conclude
that meaningful interaction does help to build greater understanding and trust
between people of different backgrounds.
Where there is greater understanding and trust, prejudice and levels of discrimination
are reduced, and from there it can be asserted, with some strength of evidence, that
a range of other, more ‘concrete’ benefits flow: lower levels of hate crime; greater
equality of opportunity in social and economic life; lower levels of resentment at
‘others’ and thus higher levels of and satisfaction.
The further we get from those initial, more robust linkages between interaction and
trust, however, the more inconclusive the evidence often becomes, and the clearer it
is that more research is required
6
The benefits of meaningful interaction
1. Introduction
Communities and Local Government has commissioned the Office for Public
Management (OPM) to conduct a review of the evidence relating to meaningful
interaction. Given the breadth of factors that affect such interactions and the depth of
theory that addresses these and closely related issues, it has been important to draw
upon a wide range of literature and fields of research.
The study focuses on collating and analysing evidence relating to the:
•
key principles of successful approaches to promoting meaningful interaction; and
•
benefits of meaningful interaction for individuals, neighbourhoods and
communities, for example in terms of improvements to health, welfare and life in
general.
The objectives of the research are to provide a clear evidence base to inform future
decisions regarding national, regional and local policy-making and practice relating to
meaningful interaction.
2. Context: key terms and policy background
The many different terms relating to the broad field of community cohesion –
including integration, social capital, interaction, segregation, mixed communities –
are well-understood by researchers and practitioners working in this field. Each is
accompanied by a significant body of literature, yet they continue to remain opaque –
and often resolutely opaque – to many non-specialists.
This chapter of the report provides a brief overview of the development of the
‘community cohesion’ (broadly defined) policy field, and in particular its links with
social capital theory, before providing a more detailed description of the current shift
in policy towards a focus on meaningful interaction. A glossary of key terms is also
provided in Appendix Two.
Policy overview and origin
Social capital is theorised to arise out of the social practices of durable social
networks, generated through exchanges of words, gifts and favours between
individuals and groups (Bourdieu, 1986 in Adams et al, 2007). More recently, social
capital has been described as consisting of:
"… the networks, norms, relationships, values and informal sanctions that shape
the quantity and co-operative quality of a society’s social interactions. Social
capital can be measured using a range of indicators but the most commonly used
measure is trust in other people." (Performance and Innovation Unit, 2002) 1
1
This paper is: Social Capital: A discussion paper, Performance and Innovation Unit, 2002, available
from: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/seminars/social_capital.aspx
7
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Different forms of social capital have been identified. Horizontal relationships
between and within communities are known as ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ and vertical
relationships between communities and decision-makers are known as ‘linking’.
‘Bonding’ refers to common identity, and ties among people who are similar to each
other, within communities. ‘Bridging’ refers to diversity, and ties among people who
are different from one another, across communities. Conversely, ‘linking’ relates to
power, for example ties with those in authority or between different social classes.
Building this type of social capital would involve participation between communities
and organisations and with structures outside communities (Coffé, 2007).
Social capital is linked to the community cohesion agenda, due to the emphasis of
this agenda on shared values of social capital which can bond communities (Worley
2005, in Bruegal 2006). The concept of community cohesion became prominent as a
distinct policy area in the UK following urban disturbances in parts of northern
England in summer 2001. These events marked a critique of and departure from
Britain’s traditional approach to race relations and the model of multiculturalism,
which, it was criticised, had done little to bring different ethnic groups together around
a set of shared values and sense of belonging, and “had led not to integration but to
segregation” and “allowed groups to live separately with no incentive to integrate and
every incentive not to” (Goodwin, 2009).
Against this backdrop, the concept of community cohesion has emerged, argue its
advocates, to promote an inclusive notion of citizenship, identity and belonging and
the development of integrated communities that – whilst ethno-culturally diverse –
are grounded in a set of shared values and understandings. Community cohesion
has been described as “the process that must happen in all communities to ensure
different groups of people get on well together; while integration is principally the
process that ensures new residents and existing residents adapt to one another”
(Commission for Integration and Cohesion 2007, in Goodwin, 2009). It is important to
note that cohesion is about all parts of the community, and relates not only to race
and faith issues but has relevance for all parts of society.
Improving the level and quality of interactions between members of a community, as
a way to build positive relationships, is seen as central to strengthening community
cohesion (and social capital). Concern about a perceived lack of positive interaction
between different groups and individuals within communities is the focus of a wide
range of literature and policy. For example, results from the British Crime survey
indicate that, in 2000, only 36 per cent of respondents said their neighborhood was a
place where people “do things together and try to help each other”, whereas around
49 per cent saw their area as a place “where people mostly go their own way” (Home
Office, in CLG, 2009). The national adoption of a ‘PSA Delivery Agreement 21’ also
signifies this - within this public services agreement, two of the key indicators used to
measure progress on community cohesion and interaction within this are:
•
Indicator 1: ‘The percentage of people who believe people from different
backgrounds get on well together in their local area’ and
8
The benefits of meaningful interaction
•
Indicator 2: ‘The percentage of people who have meaningful interactions with
people from different backgrounds’, (GLG, 2009).
Previous policies have attempted to end the segregation of different groups.
Government policy has, for example, been concerned with promoting ‘mixed
communities’, which aim to attract mixes of income, tenure, sizes, ages and ethnicity,
in order to avoid the problems associated with physical concentrations of particular
deprived groups in segregated spaces. Underlying these initiatives is the expectation
that by locating diverse groups side by side, physical segregation can be reduced,
and these groups will be more likely to interact cohesively.
However, these attempts have been seen by some commentators to be of only
limited success, largely on the basis that proximity doesn’t guarantee positive
interaction. In addition, critics point out, when there are situations of competition over
limited resources between groups, that competition is all the more visible and the
potential for conflict can increase. Without the kinds of interaction that result in
positive relationships being formed, there is increased potential for people to
scapegoat those who are different and blame them for the ills of the neighbourhood
(CLG, 2009).
Various studies have considered the role of intergroup contact and the way in which
attitudes to ‘others’ are shaped by that. The chief expression of this is often termed
‘contact theory’ which argues that the lack of contact can lead to increased prejudice
ands fears of ‘the other’. Contact works to counter this by building knowledge and
understanding.
A concern about the lack of social interaction between different groups and
individuals within communities has led to the current government to promote
‘meaningful interaction’ or community interaction. DCLG defines meaningful
interaction as interaction between people who are different, whether the difference is
about ethnicity, faith, age, class, disability or any other way in which there is
difference. Meaningful interaction can improve relationships between people and
build community cohesion – however, in order for interaction to be effective in
improving relationships; it is has to be positive interaction. For interaction to be
meaningful, it also needs to go beyond the superficial level, for example, beyond a
casual exchange or hello but be a conversation “in which we share information about
ourselves and learn more about the other person whose life experiences may be
different from our own” (CLG, 2009).
The terminology of meaningful interaction seeks to address the shortcomings of
some cohesion-building work, which may facilitate interaction but on no more than a
shallow level which has little if any impact. Goodwin (unpublished, 2009) highlights
this issue of ‘quality of contact’, pointing out that findings from the 2008 Citizenship
Survey, whilst showing encouraging increases in some cohesion measures, tell us
‘little about the nature of intergroup contact and the extent to which citizens perceive
this to be a positive or negative experience’ (Goodwin, p10). For instance, whilst 82
per cent of Citizenship Survey respondents reported mixing socially at least once a
month with people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds, only 37 per cent do
9
The benefits of meaningful interaction
so in their or someone else’s home. A CIC survey from 2007 found similarly that
beyond the workplace and schools, only 20 per cent of respondents in one survey
experienced daily or weekly social contact with members of other ethnic groups, and
only 16 per cent experienced contact in their own or another person’s home.
Goodwin concludes that ‘although citizens often interacted in schools and the
workplace, these chance interactions often fell short of more meaningful forms of
interaction’ (Goodwin, p11).
Meaningful interaction between people from different backgrounds can bring about
a range of benefits. The DCLG guidance on meaningful interaction (2008) highlights
the benefits that research has shown to bring, outlined below:
•
Benefits for groups, such as:
– Improving negative attitudes through positive contact with a member of
another group, which may be a negatively stereotyped group - of the
individual, as well as of the whole group.
– Breaking down prejudice: Inter-group contact can break down prejudice by
changing how one group or members feel about the other group, and its
members
– Promoting positive feelings - through encouraging empathy and perspective
taking, promoting mutual sharing of personal information and positive intergroup emotions
•
Benefits for individuals, such as:
– Helping people to develop and grow
– Giving people a sense of purpose
– Helping with integration
– Improving overall life outcomes
– Helping people change their lives, as people talking about their plans helps
makes them real, especially when the other person can make a useful
suggestion or give a useful contact
– Helping younger people to develop their social skills, understanding of other
people and citizenship
– Helping older people by reducing fear that exists between generations; helping
keep them active and involved, with the health and welfare benefits that will
bring; and replenishing their diminishing network of friends.
•
In addition, it is theorised that benefits to individuals will mean benefits for
societies, by encouraging:
– More integrated resilient and sustainable communities where issues can be
resolved and diversity celebrated;
– Communities that are more interesting and vibrant; and
– Large bodies of people to cooperate and achieve things together
10
The benefits of meaningful interaction
A link between community development and meaningful interaction has also
been established, by way of meaningful interaction encouraging greater participation
from diverse groups, because it allows for large bodies to cooperate and achieve
things together.
In addition to the benefits outlined above, meaningful interaction and its impact on
cohesion may also be a catalyst for other benefits. For example, within the public
health discourse there is a growing recognition that the social structures and ecology
of neighbourhood impact on the health and wellbeing of neighbourhoods. Research
has examined the health-enhancing and health-inhibiting effects of various locality
characteristics, amongst the characteristics which influence health and wellbeing are
social capital and social cohesion, opportunities for social and community
participation, in addition to, characteristics such as access to services and amenities
(Woolever, 1992; Lynch, 2000; Ellaway, Macintyre and Kearns, 2001 in Adams et al,
2007).
It is within this over-arching policy and research context that the current study was
designed and commissioned. It seeks to focus specifically on evidence about the
benefits of meaningful interaction between people from different backgrounds rather
than, say, the benefits of ‘social interaction’ or ‘networks’ where such networks may
be homogeneous. It also brings to bear evidence about what works in promoting
meaningful interaction between people from different backgrounds.
This focus on meaningful interaction between people from different backgrounds is
therefore reflected in both the literature selected for inclusion and the analysis
presented in our discussion. However, whilst some literature exists on interaction
between those from different backgrounds, there is a considerable body of evidence
concerning the benefits of social interaction in general, and our literature search
process produced some documents in this category. Some of these pieces of
literature were included in selection because the evidence contained therein was
considered to be transferable to contexts involving interaction between members of
different groups, as well as interaction between members of the same community.
Examples of these are a study on the Effects of creative and social activity on the
health and well-being of socially isolated older people (Greaves & Farbus, 2006), and
The development and impact of young people's social capital in secondary schools
(Stevens et al, 2007).
11
The benefits of meaningful interaction
3. Benefits of meaningful interaction
In this chapter we discuss the evidence about what the benefits are of meaningful
interaction. Most prominent in the literature are benefits in terms of the following:
•
Reduced levels of prejudice and improved community resilience
•
Increased education attainment, skills and employment opportunities
•
Improved health outcomes, particularly in relation to psychological health and
avoidance of depression
•
Reduced crime and anti-social behaviour
The extent of the evidence relating to these can be seen in terms of concentric
circles: nearer the centre, the evidence is strongest, whilst further from the centre the
evidence is less conclusive (Figure 1).
Increased
contact and
communicatio
n between
people of
different
Figure 1: Evidence of the benefits of meaningful interaction
At the very centre is the notion that positive, meaningful interaction is beneficial to the
contact and communication between people of different backgrounds. Many people
would say this is self-evident, however; more important are the positive
consequences of this increased communication and contact.
This takes us to the next layer of the circle, where the evidence still appears strong,
and relates to the proposition that meaningful interaction between people of different
backgrounds has benefits in terms of increasing understanding, reducing prejudice
12
The benefits of meaningful interaction
and building trust, in a way that ultimately will improve community resilience
(provided it is of sufficient ‘quality and quantity’). Much of the literature that explores
the value of interactions between people of different backgrounds stops here, with
this growth in understanding and trust ends in themselves.
In this review, we also aim to look a stage further and explore the evidence of more
practical, tangible benefits for individuals and communities. This takes us into an
‘outer circle’ comprising the themes of education and skills, health, and crime and
anti-social behaviour.
Here the evidence base is less strong, and the findings less conclusive, not least
because research tends to focus on the benefits of interaction in general (social
networks vs. isolation, for instance) whilst offering little on the benefits of interaction
between different ethnicities, faiths or generations. In some instances, it is possible to
make reasoned assumptions which allow us to ‘join the dots’ between the evidence,
and thus be more confident about what it tells us.
Seventeen of the documents included in the review were found to be relevant to the
benefits of meaningful interaction, and a further ten were relevant to both benefits
and what works.
3.1 Benefits to reducing prejudice and strengthening community resilience
There is a significant body of evidence which suggests that meaningful interaction
can work to reduce prejudice and, partly as a result of this, strengthen community
resilience. There is also some evidence that meaningful interaction can benefit civic
participation and governance.
Blake et al (2008) considered forums which bring together people from different
backgrounds to discuss local governance. Evidence from this study implies that
activity involving participants from diverse communities can have benefits for
promoting understanding between those communities, and benefits for
encouraging those people to become more involved in governance. For
example, the Oldham Youth Council is cited as a channel through which: ‘young
people’s voices can be heard more effectively, building relationships of trust and
understanding with officers from the relevant structures of local governance.’(Blake et
al, 2008:33)
The youth council had 47 members at the time the research was conducted,
including young British-born Asian men (although few young British-born Asian
women) who were represented ‘in greater proportion than they are in the population
of the city more generally’. The authors conclude that ‘through the Youth Council,
whose structures mirror those of the local authority, young people have come to feel
empowered to make their voices heard effectively.’ The study does not itself refer to
the importance of meaningful interaction between those of different backgrounds, but
based on the diversity we know existed in that youth council, and the generational
(and potentially socio-economic) differences between youth council members and
officers, it is implicit that increasing meaningful interaction in these ways was integral
to the increased civic engagement that took place.
13
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Looking across its three case study areas (Coventry, Oldham and Newham) the
report found common themes ‘in relation to the importance of voluntary, community
and faith-based support structures, including anchor organisations’. These were said
to have helped enable new communities, as well as those that were more
established, to engage with local structures of governance. As at least some of these
structures involved meaningful interaction between different sections of the
community, it is again implicit that meaningful interaction can be an integral part of
the channels and processes that encourage local people to become more involved
in civic activity.
Orton (2008) evaluated cross-community work on a Bradford estate, organised by
the Active Faith Communities initiative and aiming to improve cross-cultural
relationships. Orton found that as a result of the project, previously isolated residents
from minority communities were providing each other informal support, were initiating
new programmes of support to help new arrivals to the area, and were also engaging
more with existing ‘support structures’.
This was a positive impact of work designed to build cohesion between residents
from minority communities and white British residents, but significantly it ended up
only involving the former, not the latter. Whilst the intention of the project officer had
been to develop three groups – one off African residents, one of Eastern Europeans
and one of long standing white British residents, before bringing them all together, in
the event only one of these groups was successfully established. As such, the
success of the work was, in social capital terms, one of ‘bonding’ rather than
‘bridging’. We might suppose that were this bringing together of ethnic groups have
happened, the benefits to civic participation on the estate may have been more
extensive, and that the confidence newer arrivals had gained through their initial
‘sub-groups’ would have enabled them to play a fuller part in that, but this
programme falls short of offering evidence of that.
The literature identifies benefits of meaningful interaction for community resilience,
which may take different forms.
Several authors suggest that reducing levels of prejudice and discrimination can
help to improve community resilience, and that levels of prejudice are reduced as a
result of meaningful interaction with people of a different background.
Orton (2009) refers to the work that has built on ideas set out by Allport in the 1970s
around the impact of contact between people on reducing prejudice. He points to
recent work by Paolini, Hewstone and Cairns (2007) which suggests that both the
interaction arising from cross-group friendship and simply the knowledge that such
friendships exist can reduce prejudice against members of other groups:
‘Positive contact (eg close, personal friendship) between members of different
groups in society has been shown to reduce prejudice and discrimination.
Conversely, lack of positive contact, or contact which is negative, can increase the
likelihood of prejudice.’ (Ray, Sharp and Abrams, 2006:6-7)
14
The benefits of meaningful interaction
As highlighted in this extract, the evidence also points to how a lack of interaction
can threaten community resilience. For example, Goodwin suggests that
‘misinformation’ about different groups presents a risk to community resilience, and
the author goes on to conclude that this distrust could be affected by lack of
opportunity for meaningful interaction with people of a different backgrounds:
‘Misinformation about other ethnic groups, anxiety over group encounters or a
lack of contact may encourage the development of negative attitudes and render
citizens increasingly susceptible to exclusionary campaigns[…] Increased contact
it is suggested reduces the likelihood of negative perceptions, misinformation and
rumours from becoming embedded in the fabric of local communities’ (Goodwin,
(unpublished): 9-10)
This would suggest that action which facilitates the development of positive attitudes
can enable communities as a collective entity to be better equipped to deal with
ideologies seeking to engender conflict.
The reports by Goodwin and Orton are themselves reviews of existing literature,
drawing on a range of other studies, many of them recent and UK-based. Together,
the material they bring together provides what would appear to be a strong and
credible evidence base.
The notion of equipping communities to be more resilient can also be inferred from
benefits which affect individuals’ mindsets. Even in contexts where there may be
no conflict (or it is not explicit), a study for DCLG shows that those who come into
contact with people from diverse backgrounds in the workplace are likely to “exhibit
less prejudice” compared to those who do not (Garner, 2009).
Community resilience may be measured in terms of how a community as a whole
reacts to conflict, and it can also relate to the ‘psychological resources’ (Stephens et
al, 2007) available to the individuals within a community. The evidence gathered on
benefits to community resilience comes from discussion of meaningful interaction in
general contexts, and therefore we have structured this section to discuss meaningful
interaction between those from different faith and ethnic groups, and different
generations.
Interfaith and interethnic interaction
There is a body of evidence examining the benefits of meaningful interaction in
reducing prejudice using interaction interventions in school contexts. For example, a
scoping map study of school-level approaches (Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2008,
involving systematic review and coding of school-level interventions), identifies a
number of benefits of interaction to children. The studies Dyson and Gallannaugh
reviewed reported benefits in terms of knowledge and empathy; the challenge to
young people’s views and stereotypes of people from different backgrounds; and the
development of a better understanding of others as a result. Curriculum-based
interventions, and interventions to reduce conflict and tackle negative attitudes, were
also reported to have a similar effect among children, presenting benefits in both
increasing understanding of diverse cultures, and their own.
15
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Evidence on contact between different faith communities in Northern Ireland,
meanwhile, suggests that intergroup contact produces benefits through building
trust and forgiveness between the Protestant and Catholic communities which have
a history of political tensions (Hewstone et al., 2006 and Tausch et al., 2007, cited in
Goodwin (unpublished)). Hewstone concluded that ‘working towards increasing
people’s opportunities for (any) intergroup contact’ should be a goal for policy-makers
to build better community relations. (Paolini, Hewstone et al, 2006). Eller & Abrams
(2008, cited in Goodwin (unpublished)) also examined the evidence of prejudice
reduction from longitudinal studies. Although the number of studies were limited, the
conclusions were clear: intergroup contact and school diversity tends to be
associated with improved intergroup understanding and positive attitudes.
However, whilst it is recognised that a more comprehensive understanding of how
and why intergroup contact produces positive benefits would enable policy makers to
develop a more appropriate response, the literature criticises the failure of research
to address these issues. One such area (identified with departmental colleagues in
the course of this Review of evidence) is the importance of examining the effect of
meaningful interaction on specific groups, and whether it is more beneficial for some
compared to others. A further relevant linkage can be made on the effect that a
particular benefit may have on those in their surrounding network. Harvard health
Professor, Christakis (2004), identifies the ‘collateral health effects’ that an
individual’s behaviour may have on those in their network, and therefore, this
argument would suggest that attitudinal or behavioural change in other contexts
would also extend to a person’s social network.
Whilst the evidence referenced above is extensive, however, we cannot be confident
of its quality. We do not know what methodology was employed in those studies cited
in Goodwin, for instance. The Dyson and Gallannaugh review, meanwhile, brings
together findings from a wide range of projects, but seeks only to describe their
characteristics rather than judge their effectiveness, and the authors themselves
warn us that the evidence they reference is of ‘variable quality’.
That said, other primary research we have directly accessed supports the view that
interaction can lead to reduced prejudice and increased trust. A wide-ranging study
by Lancaster University found that, in Burnley, meaningful interaction between
people of different faiths could result in increased trust between different
communities (Billings and Holden, 2008). It reflected that personal relationships
between faith group leaders appear to play a significant role in bringing the two
communities together, and this can result in shared community events and
opportunities for the media to communicate with these communities (and beyond).
However, although there are benefits to interfaith activity, the authors add some
important caveats:
•
That whilst faith groups can provide leadership and community space that
benefits local people more widely, faith groups ‘are only touching a small
percentage of the community’ (no more than 30 per cent of the Muslim Asian
16
The benefits of meaningful interaction
community in the North West, and 10-11 per cent of the population for Christian
churches, within which the white population is under-represented)
•
That such relationships require time to develop and mature before they yield
benefits such as the capacity to reduce community tensions
•
that interfaith activities tend to appeal to first rather than second generation
migrants, but it is the latter which is more susceptible to radicalisation and thus,
arguably, where the need for engagement is greatest
Billings and Holden’s work also included a survey of 435 Year 10 students in schools
in Burnley and Blackburn. One of the schools was predominantly ethnically white,
one predominantly ethnically Asian, and one more mixed. This aspect of the research
found that the more social interaction young people had with those of other ethnic
and faith communities, the more positive their attitudes towards them were likely to
be. Similarly, where there was ignorance of other ethnic groups (particularly when
they were identified with another religion) and where there was ignorance of that
other group’s commitment to integration, positive attitudes towards ethnically different
groups were seriously inhibited (Billings and Holden, 2008:3)
Community Conversations are an example of a structured activity to promote
meaningful interaction among groups which may have previously distrusted each
other. The evidence reviewed provides an example of targeted meaningful
interaction activity in a study exploring the lessons from the project (Murphy, 2009),
which was set up following the 2005 bombings. Such conversations typically involve
between four and twenty participants bought together to have honest conversations
about issues which may not have been discussed previously by different groups
together.
Billings and Holden’s work in Burnley draws on existing material and forty in depth
interviews with members of different faith groups, and 435 survey responses from
school pupils. This mixed methodology and large evidence base would encourage us
to rate its findings highly.
In another study, Murphy (2009) examines the benefits that can be attributed to those
interactions facilitated by Community Conversations (where people are given the
opportunity to voice concerns about change and address underlying fears about
competition for resources). The benefits identified included increased trust among
individuals, and an opportunity for groups to identify ‘common ground’.
This would suggest that this type of activity can broaden the social horizons of
individuals by providing an opportunity to hear the view of someone they may not
otherwise have met. Murphy also attributes ‘an increased feeling of belonging’
(Murphy, 2009:2) to those who participate in Community Conversations, and
anticipates that this will affect commitment to action, which suggests communities
can be encouraged to have increased regard for their place as well as their
neighbours.
17
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Goodwin (unpublished) makes confident conclusions about the positive effects of
contact between different groups, and he uses the findings of a recent meta-analysis
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) of over 500 studies on contact-based interventions to
support this. Among the more specific benefits linked to community resilience, the
meta-analysis found the following benefits to tackle prejudice between different
communities, including: reduced anxiety (linked to health benefits, which are
discussed later in this chapter); challenging perceptions of ethnic threat and
competition; change of attitudes; and development of a new identity.
However, it is important to note that the literature also caveats these benefits. For
example, the capacity of meaningful interaction to ‘[counter] perceptions of ethnic
threat and competition’ (Goodwin, (unpublished): 13) is dependent on the ‘quality and
quantity’ of contact, which demonstrates that those seeking to promote meaningful
interaction must have regard for the issue of quality and quantity. This is perhaps an
obvious but nonetheless important theme throughout the literature – that there are
evidently benefits of interaction in terms of reducing prejudice and increasing trust,
but that these are benefits cannot be taken for granted as the result of any form of
interaction. The factors influencing quality are discussed below in the chapter on
‘What works in promoting meaningful interaction’.
Intergenerational interaction
There is some evidence that meaningful interaction can have benefits in terms of
intergenerational relations, as it can for interfaith and interethnic relations. As such, it
is suggested, that interaction can have positive implications for people’s
prejudices and perceptions of each other. A survey of young people conducted as
part of research by Ray, Sharp and Abrams (2007) found that:
‘Those who had positive contact with older people were less likely to believe that
competence declined with age, and more likely to perceive commonalities between
younger and older people.’ (Ray, Sharp and Abrams, 2006:6-7)
A report on a Community Philosophy project in York (Porter & Seeley, 2008) similarly
explored the impact of interaction on understanding between generations. The
project brought together younger and older people to discuss issues such as
hooliganism and religious issues, and according to the evaluation authors
‘succeeded in developing relationships and dialogue across generations.’ A linked
project was the Philosophy4U project which involved bringing together young people
and the police. This approach involved young people facilitating conversations
amongst themselves, followed by ‘speed-dating’ where they could ask police officers
questions. The benefits of this interaction were judged to include individuals’
changed views towards the police and, for one particular individual, a decision to
undertake facilitation training on the basis of their experience with the group (we
discuss other benefits to individuals’ learning and skills development in Section 3.3).
Most significant in terms of benefits is the impact on behaviours which can
potentially flow from this interaction, particularly in relation to ‘nuisance’, anti-social
behaviour. The initiative in York, for instance, took place in an area where reported
18
The benefits of meaningful interaction
levels of crime were low, but where residents’ perceived concerns about crime were
relatively high. In their report, Porter and Seeley concluded that the project had
shown Community Philosophy to be ‘an interesting tool to open up broad, and
sometimes deep, conversational space, which, in itself, may or may not lead to
discussions about reducing nuisance and maximising tolerance’ (2008: p14). They
also concluded that where these discussions arose, they could indeed be capable of
triggering behaviour change amongst the individuals involved (i.e. in terms of antisocial actions), ‘or at least lead someone to think twice before acting habitually
around these issues of nuisance and tolerance’.
These conclusions about the ‘concrete’ benefits of the interactions were positive,
but not resoundingly confident. It would be interesting to know, for instance,
whether instances of anti-social behaviour actually decreased/informal contact links
between younger and older people increased following the cross-generational
conversations, or whether those ‘changed views towards the police’ made young
people less likely to cause a nuisance. Some of those studies reviewed by Dyson &
Gallannaugh (2008) in their scoping map of school-level actions might add to the
weight of evidence on this issue, but as their review did not seek to evaluate the
effectiveness of the projects it listed, further investigation would be required.
Like Porter & Seeley’s example discussed above about the benefits of
intergenerational activity (building understanding, developing relationships,
developing capacity to address intergenerational tolerance), the Living Libraries
initiative has the same objective in aiming to ‘[provide] non-threatening opportunities
leading to cultural acceptance of others’ (Harris & Constable, 2008: 8). The available
participant feedback from these events was overwhelmingly positive, due to the
opportunities to meet people with whom they would otherwise not have come into
contact, for instance. Staff running the events are enthusiastic about the benefits for
further Living Library events.
However, beyond this, there is insufficient robust evaluation data to show whether
the intended outcomes have been achieved over time, and further evidence would be
required to assess this (Harris and Constable, 2008).
19
The benefits of meaningful interaction
In summary:
•
There is clear evidence that meaningful interaction between people of different
backgrounds can help to increase understanding and reduce prejudice
•
This in turn can help to build trust between people in an area, and thus increase
resilience in communities (against inter-group tension and resentment and the
appeal of extremism)
•
Evidence on the implications of this is less clear, but it is plausibly proposed in
some aspects of the research that from greater understanding and trust comes
reduced levels of discrimination (benefitting people’s experiences of social and
work environments); more considerate behaviour (e.g. in relation to anti-social
behaviour)
•
There may also be implications in terms of decreased sense of anxiety at change,
greater sense of belonging and thus increased satisfaction, but there is less
literature available which makes these connections conclusively
3.2 Education, skills and employment
The evidence points to a number of benefits in respect of education, skills and
employment derived as a result of meaningful interaction activities.
Promotion of lifelong learning
A study of intergenerational projects found that community-based work of this nature,
in addition to ‘empowering both young and old to share their ideas, goals and
aspirations’ (Seedsman, 2006: 35) can also help to promote lifelong learning.
Facilitating communities to work together, it was suggested, conveys the message
that each member has something to learn from others; and, that learning is an
ongoing process, rather than something taking place in a small number of locations,
over a discrete time period.
In the same way, the ‘Living Library’ project involves a new slant on a familiar
concept associated with learning which reinforces the idea that knowledge
acquisition can be fluid and dynamic.
‘Several of the books challenged learners’ previously held views and opinions and
opened up their way of thinking. It provided the learners with the chance to learn
and use empathy, develop social skills in a ‘safe’ setting and build social networks
with those they would not normally come into contact with.’ (Carney, 2009: 3
(unpublished))
This passage from one event evaluation suggests that ‘borrowers’ (in this case
students) could benefit from the interaction in terms of developing greater empathy
for others, deeper social skills and more extensive social networks. Whilst these are
plausible consequences of the interaction, however, the evaluation is not able to offer
20
The benefits of meaningful interaction
concrete examples of these impacts. From across evaluation data on Living
Libraries, the general growth of understanding and broadening of horizons are
constant themes, and are reflected in the comments of those who took part, but they
leave important questions for further research to answer, in particular:
•
To what extent, if at all, do these interactions impact on participants (and indeed
their friends, families and wider networks) in the longer term?
•
Where participant feedback reflects positive perceptions and empathy, as they
commonly do, to what extent are these the direct result of the interaction, and to
what extent were they already held?
•
Where there are clear benefits resulting expressly from these interactions, is the
difference of people’s backgrounds integral to the benefit being realised, or would
benefits be equally apparent from interactions between people of more similar
backgrounds (for instance, in terms of developing confidence with strangers,
social or conversational skills)?
The way that meaningful interaction can help to build a culture in which learning,
questioning and enquiry are seen as valued is a common theme in the literature. An
example of this can be found in a Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of a
neighbourhood-level ‘Community Philosophy’ pilot taking place in York (Porter &
Seeley, 2008). This project involved young and older community members planning
and leading ‘community conversations’ with the aim of developing facilitation skills,
as well as critical and analytical reasoning.
Impact on skills and knowledge needed to access to job market
Taking part in meaningful engagement activities can have both a direct and an
indirect impact on participants’ education and ‘employability’, i.e. the likelihood they
will be able to build, and draw on the skills and capacity needed to be economically
active.
Direct impact on skills and knowledge
Meaningful interaction can take place in a formal education setting which is attended
for the purpose of developing skills and knowledge, or through an activity aimed
principally at improving skills and knowledge but where the setting is different.
A longitudinal study of US university data suggests that engagement outcomes can
vary within this context as a result of population diversity and extent of both formal
and informal engagement opportunities.
‘Helping faculty develop a pedagogy that makes the most of diverse perspectives
and student backgrounds in their classrooms can foster active thinking,
intellectual engagement, and democratic participation.’ (Gurin et al., 2002:23)
A UK-based study of social capital in secondary schools supported this finding
(Stevens et al., 2007). This study reported a correlation between positive attitudes
21
The benefits of meaningful interaction
to diversity and perceived educational ability, explained by the assertion that
openness to diversity may predict curiosity which, in turn, is indicative of appetite for
learning.
Indirect impact
There are a number of meaningful interaction projects referenced within the literature
which resulted in participants improving skills that typically aid employability – e.g.
literacy, oral communication and inter-personal skills - even though this was not the
principal aim of the activity. For example: the purpose of the ‘Connecting Stories’
project in London Borough of Newham was to enable participants to connect with
each other, using ‘storytelling’ as a communicative vehicle (ICC, 2009).
Similarly, the ‘Thinking Village’ project itself was based on the idea of community
conversations: open dialogue ‘within and between generations’ for the purpose of
bringing about positive community-led change (Porter & Seeley. 2008:4). As was the
case with Connecting Stories, Thinking Village was reported to have improved
participants’ capacity to communicate and engage in a meaningful way.
Studies also report less tangible benefits which imply improved employability, such
as improved confidence, and increased tolerance and understanding. A wide-ranging
multi-method study of the grassroots bridge-building activities in Birmingham,
Oldham and Tower Hamlets found this to be the case: participation could help boost
participants’ skills, confidence and self-esteem which, it was reported, meant they
could had the opportunity to access better qualifications and jobs (Harris & Young,
2009). This hypothesis was supported by a study of cohesion and diversity in multiethnic communities (Sveinsson & Sims, 2007) which cited a relatively broad evidence
base (Chang et al., 2005 and Chang et al., 2006) to suggest that:
‘…interactions with close friends of a different race or ethnicity is a powerful
way for students to accrue the educational benefits of enhanced selfconfidence, motivation, intellectual and civic development, educational
aspirations, cultural awareness and commitment to racial equality’ (Sveinsson
& Sims, 2007:20)
Conversely, a study of interfaith research suggests minority ethnic students who
have limited contact with fellow students of other races and cultures may have
negative experiences on entering the labour market; specifically, when these young
people encounter racism for the first time they can withdraw into their own community
(Harris & Young, 2009 in reference to Billings & Holden, 2008).
Related to the issue of diversity, some ‘grassroots’ educational activities aim
specifically to teach participants about other faiths. This can help not only to ‘build
bridges’ between different community groups, but can ‘up-skill’ participants in respect
of community leadership and facilitation, and communications skills (Harris & Young,
2009). This is also the case for the ‘community conversations’ approach to
engagement which was reported to have had an impact on both the participating
individual’s own ‘social capital’, as well as their ability to engage in local issues
(Murphy, 2009: 2).
22
The benefits of meaningful interaction
In summary, available evidence suggests that the benefits to people’s education and
skills cluster around the following:
•
Improved ability to communicate with and appreciate the views of a range of
people, and thus increased levels of comfort and confidence in talking to / working
with other people
•
Increased opportunity to acquire and develop new skills that may aid job-seeking
and widen career options
•
Improved preparedness for the workplace, in terms of dealing with diversity and
encountering racism (black and minority ethnic-specific) so that there is less
tendency to ‘retreat’ into one’s own ethnic group
3.3 Health benefits
In this section we discuss evidence of the health benefits resulting from meaningful
interaction, including improved mental health and psychological/emotional wellbeing.
In a 2006 report for Camden Borough Council, Stafford and Marmot reflected on their
earlier work which suggested that ‘contact with a wide and diverse network appears
to be beneficial for people’s health, whereas contact within the family does not bring
the same benefits’ (Stafford et al 2004, cited in Khan and Muir (eds), 2006: p39).
They also refer to evidence from Camden’s social capital surveys of 2002 and 2005,
which found that black and Asian respondents were less likely to have people outside
the household who they could rely on for support, and that the apparent relative
weakness of networks beyond the family home can be expected to contribute to
continuing health inequalities between members of black and Asian communities and
the majority population (Khan and Muir (eds), 2006: p39). Networks beyond the
family home does not necessarily imply networks with people of different
backgrounds, of course, but it could be argued that in a diverse neighbourhood,
openness to interaction with people different to yourself does at least make forging
those networks easier.
Results from a randomised controlled trial in Brazil (based on 253 adolescents and
266 elders aged 60) suggest that as a result of participation in a structured
programme of intergenerational activity, adolescents were nearly three times more
likely to rate their health as good than those who did not participate (de Sousa and
Grundy, 2007). The older people who participated were over twice as likely as those
from the control group to report positively on the helpfulness of their neighbours,
judge most people to be honest or consider their family relationships to be good. The
intervention had no apparent influence on the self-rated health of the elders,
however, which the authors hypothesised may reflect a conceptualisation of health
as the absence of illness, rather than as a sense well being. Moreover, fewer older
people participated in the programme than anticipated which may also help to explain
why no correlation with health outcomes was found for this group.
23
The benefits of meaningful interaction
There is evidence to suggest that interventions and activities that promote
meaningful interactions for older people (for example through befriending services)
help to improve the older person’s sense of wellbeing and happiness. One UK study
in particular, with a robust research design and multi-method approach, found
evidence that specific health benefits (Greaves and Farbus, 2006). One aspect of
this research involved a randomised controlled trial of 108 women who lived alone.
This sample took part in small group meetings aimed at promoting the development
of meaningful social roles and active engagement in local communities. After 6
months of the intervention, the women had an increased range of social contacts,
and registered increased self-esteem and lower blood pressure. Another randomized
controlled trial tested a Program to Encourage Active, Rewarding Lives for Seniors
(PEARLS) for people aged 60 and over with depression. This consisted of problem
solving with an emphasis on social and physical activation. After 12 months,
depression had significantly reduced and health related quality of life had significantly
increased.
A strong theme from this study was that of psychological benefits reported by
participants and carers. This was tied to increased social interaction and the
perceived quality of these interactions. Vast majority of respondents reported
increased confidence in engaging in new activities. This led to an increased
optimism, self-worth and willingness to engage that was particularly effective at
ameliorating depression. What is not clear from this evidence, however, is whether it
makes any difference if the interaction is with someone of a different background to
the older person in question.
In summary: the benefits of interaction with other people (diverse or not) are welldocumented, and in particular appear evident in relation to:
•
Increased levels of psychological health, assessed by various measures of
happiness and emotional well-being
•
Increased physical health, such as lower blood pressure
However, with most material emphasising the importance of interaction and social
networks in a general sense, there is a paucity of evidence of the benefits of
interaction between people of different backgrounds specifically.
24
The benefits of meaningful interaction
3.4 Crime and anti social behaviour
Reference to the benefits of meaningful interaction on crime and antisocial behaviour
(anti-social behaviour) were found in ten of the documents included in the review,
however, one makes only passing reference to crime as a driver of cohesion-based
activity (Thomas, 2007).
A study by MORI involving secondary analysis of the 2000 British Household Panel
Survey shows that those who live in areas of higher crime and antisocial
behaviour are also likely to be the least trusting (Duffy, 2004). This links with
evidence cited in a report based on the London Borough of Camden’s social capital
survey (2002 and 2005) which states that an individual’s lack of trusting relationships
with people in the community correlates with an increased likelihood of being
involved crime or anti-social behaviour (Khan & Muir (Eds., 2006). Although the
Camden study does not specify that their findings relate to those from different
backgrounds, in a diverse borough such as Camden, it would be assumed that
diverse groups make up the community. The same report also cites secondary
evidence showing that ‘rates of child abuse are associated with levels of social
coherence and social capital’ (Garbarino & Kostelny 1992, in Ibid: 25). Elsewhere in
our report (Chapter 4.1), we discuss how increased trust can benefit from meaningful
interaction, and therefore, through aligning these pieces of evidence, it could be
suggested that there is a link between meaningful interaction and reduced
crime.
One of the studies reviewed concerns the design of social spaces and the influence
of community engagement to reduce anti-social behaviour in neighbourhood spaces
(Anon in Green Places, 2009). Whilst the report makes reference to what it terms the
‘meaningful social interaction’ (MSI) agenda, however (and it mentions the need for
architects to take account of diverse people and diverse needs), it does not make
explicit links to engaging people from different backgrounds and whether the initiative
involves diverse groups interacting with each other. Nonetheless, it could be
suggested that if the principles of engagement with diverse communities are taken
into account in the design of shared spaces, one of the outcomes may be a reduction
in anti social behaviour. This assertion is backed up by a report for Demos which
illustrates the following relationship between space and crime: ‘poor physical
surroundings […] as a causal factor in violent racist attacks and other types of crime,
creating a permissive environment in which offending becomes almost acceptable’
(Lownsbrough & Beunderman, 2007: 14-15). It could be argued, however, that the
benefit derives from the design of the space rather than the interactions themselves,
and that positive interactions are part of the effect rather than the cause.
In contrast to the literature which anticipates a link between meaningful interaction
and crime, evidence found in an article on doorstep sport activities places a specific
value on the impact of the activity on crime in local neighbourhoods (Ashworth,
2009). For example, it states that when the scheme was run in Wigan, criminal
damage and arson reduced by 66 per cent. Although the authors do not
specifically discuss the place of meaningful interaction in these schemes, the fact
25
The benefits of meaningful interaction
that 28 per cent of participants were from black and minority ethnic groups suggests
that such interaction may have occurred. What the evidence does not address is the
importance of that diversity in achieving that positive outcome. Moreover, as the
evidence is cited in a 2-page article in Local Government News, therefore there is
little information provided on the scale of the initiative and whether the impact was
identified within a short period, or whether it was sustained.
When run in another location (Stoke on Trent), the same initiative was shown to have
benefits for community safety, and therefore it could be considered a productive and
replicable model. This is reinforced by evidence presented in a report for the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation which showcases sport being used to both divert young people
from crime and as a means of promoting cross community interaction between young
Somali and black Caribbean young men (2007: 102). In this regard, cross-community
interaction can be said to have benefits in improved relations between communities
and reduced crime.
Finally, meaningful interaction can result in reduced fear of crime. Porter and
Seeley’s study (2008) on intergenerational interaction showed how the Community
Philosophy initiative produced lower levels of fear of crime among older groups.
In summary:
•
There is literature about the importance of ‘designing out’ opportunities for antisocial behaviour in public spaces which facilitate meaningful interaction between
residents. Whilst this creates a sense of linkage between reduced nuisance and
increased interaction, it could be argued that the benefit derives from the design
of the space rather than the interactions themselves. Where the interaction is
significant, as elsewhere in this review, the value of it being an interaction
between people of different backgrounds is not made clear – though we can infer
that this is by definition important where local communities are diverse
•
Large-scale survey data links concern with (and experience of) crime and antisocial behaviour with lower levels of trust. This in itself says little about the
benefits of meaningful interaction for reducing crime and anti-social behaviour,
but when considered in the context of earlier evidence around the potential for
interaction to build trust, it does have implications for reducing fear of crime and
anti-social behaviour, and facilitation of better general relations between older and
younger neighbours in an area. An appreciation of older people’s feelings and
concerns may impact on behaviours and reduce nuisance levels, but evidence of
this not robust.
26
The benefits of meaningful interaction
4. What works in promoting meaningful interaction
In this chapter we discuss the evidence about what works in promoting meaningful
interaction, exploring both that which facilitates and inhibits meaningful interaction. In
reviewing the documents for inclusion, we found that the literature appraises a range
of activities. Our analysis, however, focuses on the characteristics of successful and
less successful approaches. Through identifying and presenting recurring
characteristics, the findings explored here can be applied to different activities or
initiatives.
Thirty eight of the documents included in the review were found to be relevant to
what works in promoting meaningful interaction, and a further ten were relevant to
both benefits and what works.
4.1 What helps in promoting meaningful interaction
Places and spaces where interaction can take place
The literature often refers to the importance of thinking about the particular settings
in which meaningful interaction occurs, as follows.
A wide range of public spaces have potential to host meaningful engagement
activities. Though careful consideration must be given to settings for engagement
activity, the evidence suggests that meaningful interaction can actually take place in
‘unexceptional and mundane’ environments (Cattell et al., 2008, p558). A study of the
relationship between ‘everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being
and social relations’ (Cattell et al., 2008, p544) showed that public spaces of all
types are ‘constants’ within a community context, and as such provide opportunities
for bringing people together. An example of an initiative that takes place in such an
environment can be found in ‘Living Libraries’, an international cohesion-building
initiative which has place in a number if locations across England, and about which
Harris and Constable have written:
‘…the combination of the apparently trivial and the personally profound is not
accidental and should be celebrated; it’s perfectly human, is rewarding and
just takes facilitation on the part of an agency like a public library’ (Harris &
Constable, 2008:8)
The role of schools in facilitating meaningful interaction is discussed by several of the
sources included in this review. In addition, the recent Church of England report on
the contribution of faith schools to community cohesion reported that although
cohesion is not greater among faith-based primary schools, secondary-level faith
schools, in contrast, have a significantly higher contribution to community cohesion
(C of E, 2009). A literature review by Dyson & Gallanaugh (2009) found that
evaluations of school-level meaningful interaction programmes may produce
benefits, however, they also warn that schools do not gather such outcome data
uniformly, and it is not always possible to directly attribute outcomes to cohesion
interventions. Linking programmes have found that these programmes can deliver
27
The benefits of meaningful interaction
positive outcomes including: friendships between children and parents from different
backgrounds, greater understanding among children about different cultures and
religions, the development of a community identity, and positive benefits for teachers’
professional practice.
Places don’t need to be special, but they do need to be shared
Some public spaces offer unique potential to bring different groups together.
Communities interact in different ways in different places. Bringing people together in
environments where they interact naturally can enhance engagement; people are
used to being in those spaces with other people. For example:
•
Where people congregate around amenities, such as street markets and
squares, there is more likely to be interaction between different community subgroups. This can be more helpful than choosing settings which have associations
with one sub-group over another, and which can therefore deter wider interaction.
•
Educational settings can be effective contexts for meaningful interaction,
with ‘school-linking’ schemes often bringing together people from different ethnic,
faith and rural or community backgrounds. School-linking is often used as a
debating forum. Schools are also involved in a range of other programmes, such
as discussing cohesion issues in the curriculum through Personal Social and
Health Education (PHSE) and Citizenship classes; building stronger relationships
with the community (‘Community Networking’); and involving older people in
mentoring relationships in schools.
Blake et al (doc 9 - 2008) also suggest that encouraging the use of shared
community spaces can promote ‘increased understanding and solidarity between
communities’, but warns that conversely, it can also lead to increased tensions
instead ‘unless such shared usages are carefully planned and managed’. As such, it
is argued that separate provision can be constructive where new communities need
their own ‘safe space’ whilst still finding their feet in an area. ‘The challenge’, authors
therefore propose, ‘is to balance the need for separate spaces that can enable a new
community to build its ‘bonding capital’ with the need for creating shared spaces to
facilitate the development of ‘bridging capital’.’ (p70)
The need for commitment from those involved
Much of the literature discusses who is involved in leading, managing and promoting
meaningful interaction and, specifically, the balance between cohesion
practitioner-led activity and community-led initiatives. It is important to
recognise, however, that approaches do not have to be “either/or”, i.e. initiatives that
have been developed initially at high-level and co-produced in detail with the
community can be as useful as those that have stemmed from neighbourhood-level
activity and scaled-up. Indeed, many successful initiatives involve both expert
practitioners and community-level leadership.
This also translates to policy development in respect of meaningful engagement.
28
The benefits of meaningful interaction
‘…policies with the potential of strengthening social capital need neither be
fully formulated nor top-down…’ (Carr-West et al., 2009)
Regardless of the leadership balance that underpins the initiative, shared
commitment to the end goal is an important success factor. A study of a black and
minority ethnic youth engagement project, for example, identified:
‘…the magic ingredient that keeps it alive is the mutual commitment to positive
outcomes for children...’ (Beddow, 2007:5)
Similarly, the ‘Living Libraries’ scheme works on the notion of ‘pre-negotiating trust’
(Harris & Constable, 2008: 8). Those attending events have already committed
themselves to engaging with and listening to people from diverse backgrounds and
with diverse histories.
There is a need to consider meaningful interaction as an ongoing, long-term
process. Where links between communities and service users/citizens are not
actively sustained, ongoing engagement and involvement becomes less useful.
Genuine involvement relies on the effective transfer of information between the
individual and the community, and on accountability (Foot, 2009). Developing models
in which this can take place on an ongoing basis can be inhibited by short-termism.
‘Changing the way people interact means changing their habits. A serious
strategy for promoting interaction is therefore necessarily a long-term one.’
(SHM, 2007:23)
The role of agencies in brokering
Where engagement events cover a large geographical area, but with repeated and/or
simultaneous activity at neighbourhood-level activity, it’s important to think of the role
of agencies ‘brokering’ the initiative. One example of this can be found in ‘The Big
Lunch’, a national event in which thousands of neighbourhoods made and ate lunch
together. It was aimed at improving community cohesion. Overall, the activity was a
success, and evaluation work has shown that local authorities played ‘a significant
role…in making or breaking a Big Lunch event’ (Carr-West et al., 2009). The
evaluation suggested this was an argument for ensuring that similar national
initiatives should be supported by process that enable funding and decision-making
to be devolved to ward-level, even though the activity and enthusiasm for the event
needs to be generated within communities themselves.
The literature shows a number of other success criteria for leadership, promotion and
management of meaningful interaction initiatives, as described below.
The benefit of interventions being community-led
Community participation can lead to more sustainable and appropriate
outcomes than would have been achieved without such input. There are
extensive benefits to engaging users in, and consulting them about, initiatives that
29
The benefits of meaningful interaction
affect them including, of course, the fact that the outcomes are more likely to be userfocused and relevant. Examples of this from the literature include:
•
The ‘Green Places’ project in which it was shown that engaging people in the
design of communal spaces meant that the end result was better able to meet the
needs of a diverse population (Anon, 2009)
•
The ‘Families in Focus’ scheme in London Borough of Camden brings young
people and their parents together to co-produce responses to everyday issues
that are problematic to them (Khan & Muir [Eds.], 2006)
There is a need to ensure that community groups are represented effectively
while recognising that not everyone will want to engage in activities labelled as
‘engagement’. It is important, in thinking about this issue, to understand engagement
as a ‘multi-dimensional, dynamic and continuous concept that is multi-way rather
than two-way’ (Daley, 2007, p166).
Skills needed and training for practitioners
Providing training and support for practitioners leading meaningful
engagement is critical. Active listening, facilitation of discussion and conflict/tension
management are skills that require both practice and training. These skills are
particularly important and beneficial when bringing together diverse groups of people.
‘Community Conversations’ in London Borough of Newham, for example, involves
convening groups of between four and 20 people ‘who would not normally meet’ for
the purpose of discussing frankly the issues important to them. These sessions
require leaders who are able to demonstrate strong facilitation, ‘attentive listening’
and conflict management skills (Murphy, 2009).
Similarly, a study by the Institute of Community Cohesion found that community
cohesion work requires particular skills and training. One successful initiative rested
on the assumption that:
‘…leadership should be distinguished from what is increasingly seen as
management within the public sector. This has included the clear and
personal articulation to staff of the need to make cohesion a work priority
through training courses and staff meetings, and the modelling of good
practice by senior managers…’ (ICC, 2009:451)
Given the need to balance ‘top-down’ with ‘bottom-up’ input, partnership working
skills are critical to the delivery of meaningful engagement. These include, for
example:
•
Understanding the partnerships that already exist, and within them, who are the
decision-makers and ‘early adopters’/champions, and how the particular
engagement activity in question can support their work.
•
Linking with local councils who are highly likely to already be promoting interfaith
forums, working with local business via Chambers of Commerce, and/or
30
The benefits of meaningful interaction
establishing race equality councils, in order to promote activity where different
sections of society come together.
It is important to use appropriate language and communicate openly about
tensions and challenges. Reluctance to talk about the potential for conflict, or
overly-cautious attempts to be politically correct can mean people are reluctant to air
their concerns. This may limit ‘buy-in’ to, or value of outputs from engagement
activities, or mean that efforts to engage come across as inauthentic or tokenistic
(Orton, 2009).
Activity design
There is evidence to suggest that a range of activity types are effective in promoting
meaningful interaction. It is unlikely that a ‘one-size fits all’ approach will be
appropriate; rather, meaningful interaction relies on in-depth understanding of the
particular issues of concern, and of the range of communities likely to be affected by
the issues. While the detailed nature of activities will differ, those planning
engagement may wish to consider how activities can do the following:
The impact may be most significant for young people
A study of interaction between people from different ethnic backgrounds identified the
benefits of engaging young people, in particular, given that they ‘are still in the
process of making habits of interactions, and are particularly open to growth
interactions’ (SHM, 2007, p23). This was supported by a number of other studies
which highlighted projects that have been successful in ‘bridging the gap’ between
younger and older people (e.g. Porter & Seeley, 2008)
Don't make identity the basis for interaction, use what people have in common
Take a subtle approach to bringing people together rather than ‘selling’ interaction
per se, or defining initiatives by their target audience which can involve labelling
people ‘…so that their whole identity becomes tied up with an aspect of their life they
wish to change’ (Jackson, 2003, p22). Instead, initiatives could focusing on activities
likely to appeal to a large number of different people in the first instance; for example,
‘Connecting Stories’ was a three-year intercultural project developed by London
Borough of Newham which used storytelling for adults and children ‘as a starting
point’ to ‘explor[e] both the similarities and differences between communities and
their cultures’ (ICC, 2009, online). The result was not only improved understanding
between different groups, but also improved ‘speaking, literacy and communication
skills’ (ICC, 2009, online).
31
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Don't set out to promote interaction for its own sake, let it arise out of shared
interests, the everyday and the sustained
Take advantage of ‘everyday’ tasks in which people are involved, using recognisable
activities and venues rather than simply relying on ‘one-off’ events. Similarly, it is
important to undertake outreach work rather than expecting harder-to-reach groups
to access unfamiliar areas/venues. ‘Everyday’ engagement can include, for
example, using local public service venues (e.g. leisure facilities, schools and
colleges) to host speakers, community events and/or open-evenings to promote
particular activities.
Recognise that the interdependence of different services is critical
A study of immigration and social cohesion in the UK highlighted the importance of
delivering interventions across policy areas, thinking particularly about how they
interrelate, as a way of ‘tackling the long-seated problems, inequalities and
discriminations ‘in place’ (Hickman et al., 2008, pxii). Meaningful engagement can
benefit from looking at issues in isolation but, instead, thinking about the whole
system and/or the whole person.
‘We cannot hope to promote greater inter-ethnic interaction without
acknowledging and tackling other inhibiting factors, in particular those of class
and status.’ (SHM, 2007:23)
4.2 What hinders in promoting meaningful interaction
Barriers to meaningful interactions taking place
Discrimination has been highlighted as the biggest barrier to community
cohesion (McPherson, 2007). Engagement activities in areas where the potential
for, or actual evidence of discrimination is high may benefit from focusing
engagement activities on areas where people are most likely to come together;
making sure relies on the creation of opportunities through work, school and leisure
for people to come together rather than live parallel lives and ‘sleepwalking into
segregation’ (SHM, 2007:15; McPherson, 2007).
Others argue that the existence of deprivation and unresolved conflicts are
more important than discrimination as barriers to community cohesion. A report
published in 2007 explores housing and cohesion in Rochdale and Oldham, where
spatial segregation of different communities severely limits the interaction between
those communities. One factor identified as a barrier to greater ethnic integration in
the housing markets is worries about (and the experience of) racism and racist
harassment (Simpson, Ahmed, Phillips, 2007: 4). This real or feared racism could be
seen as a consequence of discrimination.
But other factors are also highlighted: a lack of affordable housing in desirable and
safe locations, for instance, was a barrier to young Asian families moving into more
32
The benefits of meaningful interaction
predominantly white areas, and similarly poor housing and environmental conditions
in the predominantly Asian inner areas was found to make them physically
unappealing to white young people with no prior connections to these
neighbourhoods. The report also looks at the notion of ‘white flight’ and questions
whether a high rate of out-migration of white families from certain areas is as big an
issue as has often been asserted. The report concludes for the areas studied that:
‘There is not avoidance of Asian areas but a relatively high degree of
population turnover for the White population in Asian areas. This is probably
related to the relative cheapness of housing, suited to temporary residence.
The rate of outmigration is sufficiently high to create the net effect of a
substantial reduction of the White population from those areas.’ (Simpson,
Ahmed, Phillips, 2007: 7)
Language and cultural barriers between communities can inhibit crosscommunity communication. Whilst those living in diverse areas may be aware of
the proximity of their diverse neighbours, particular language and/ or cultural barriers
may inhibit social interaction between such groups. A study for the JRF found that
these barriers may be evident in a lack of English among some members of some
communities, and cultural norms surrounding interaction between men and women,
for example (Hudson, 2007).
There are also psychological and cultural barriers to successful meaningful
interaction. For example one of the studies reviewed, which looked at community
relations between refugees and asylum seekers and other people living in a
community in the West Midlands, found that strong stereotypes stood in the way of
meaningful interaction. For example new arrivals were seen as a drain on resources
(but also, contrarily, as contributing to and stimulating area development). Cultural
groups tended to keep themselves separate and to compete for limited resources
and there were underlying tensions between people from some groups, often with
new and ‘less visible’ communities being excluded and ‘scapegoated’ (Daley 2009).
The evidence also suggests that as well as particular groups being saddled with
negative associations, certain places can also be stigmatised, and that this too can
prevent meaningful interaction. For example the study of race, housing and cohesion
in Oldham and Rochdale (Simpson, Ahmed, Phillips, 2007) found that myths about
one ethnic group not wanting to mix with another surfaced in both Asian and white
focus groups, and that the same research participants acknowledged that there were
clear patterns of settlement along ethnic lines, with some of these areas considered
to be ‘no-go’ areas for people of certain ethnic groups.
Barriers to projects being successfully delivered
The literature also discusses a number of issues which may inhibit meaningful
interaction which are described in this section.
Single-group targeting can be unhelpful. ‘Hard’ approaches to identifying single
groups, e.g. through ‘structural changes such as quotas or target-setting’ (Home
Office, 2004, p26) can be less helpful for meaningful engagement than ‘soft’
33
The benefits of meaningful interaction
approaches. The Home Office study that reported this finding related particularly to
educational contexts, although the ‘Living Libraries’ initiative demonstrates how
providing ‘occasions for encounters and more conversations between different
groups of people’ (Harris & Constable, 2008: 8) can help to break down barriers.
Conversely, a report by MORI on trust in communities suggested that meaningful
interaction activity should be targeted at those specific groups who are less trusting
of each other, in order to maximise an activity’s effectiveness (Duffy, 2004), rather
than taking a ‘scatter gun’ approach that more generally aims to ‘bring people
together’.
There is a limited focus on meaningful interaction on the basis of ethnic
diversity. This review has examined evidence on meaningful interaction across
different identity domains (i.e. those relating to ethnicity, class, age, faith). However,
Hudson (2007) expresses concern that the community cohesion has a tendency to
centre mostly on interethnic relationships:
‘the primary focus on ethnicity as the most salient social division resulting in
problems of social cohesion is problematic and needs to be rethought.’ (Hudson,
2007: 113)
The suggestion that other significant barriers exist between people indicates that
efforts should be made to take a broader approach to promoting interaction between
individuals and communities. Yet, other sources such as Khan & Muir (Eds.) (date
unknown) disagree that cultural interaction is the main barrier to cohesion, arguing
that addressing inequality and disadvantage between different groups is more urgent
than promoting meaningful interaction.
Limitations to, and boundaries of funding can be divisive. There are challenges
in relation to funding interaction and engagement work where, for example, initiatives
span geographical or administrative boundaries, but funding is targeted to a single
area (Community Cohesion Panel, 2004). Targeting funding to whole-systems rather
than individual communities helps to indicate that different groups will benefit from
investment; not doing so may potentially cause friction between different groups and
a sense of resentment.
There is a paucity of research about ‘what works’ in respect of some aspects of
meaningful engagement. In particular, there is limited evidence about how activities
lead to particular outcomes. For example: a study of school-level cohesion activities
showed that while there is a considerable amount of data available on what actions
are being undertaken, there is far less evidence of impact of these actions on
outcomes (Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2008). Similarly, a study by Greaves & Farbus
found it difficult to translate creative and social activities being delivered to older
people with the health and well-being outcomes they were designed to support
(2006). Another study of ‘grassroots’ bridge-building activities showed there to be
34
The benefits of meaningful interaction
limited understanding of how such projects are ‘managed, financed and run’ and of
‘the practical challenges facing [these] projects’ (Harris & Young, 2009, p19).
5. Conclusions
This review suggests that in order to draw firm conclusions about the benefits of
meaningful interaction it is necessary to make a series of assumptions in order to link
different sources of evidence together.
There is an extensive body of research demonstrating links between wide social
networks and positive life outcomes (such as in health and skills). Higher confidence,
self-esteem and aspiration are often the linking points.
Few researchers make an explicit link between the benefits of interaction and the
benefits of living in a diverse community. For instance, authors may demonstrate the
benefits of ‘high quality’ contact between individuals in terms of becoming engaged in
civic life, maintaining good health and well-being, increased employability etc., and
this may be in the context of a diverse environment, yet the case that the benefit
results expressly from the interaction of diverse people (rather than just anyone) is
too rarely made.
In the course of this review, we have in our analysis made those connections
ourselves where we feel it is legitimate; for instance, where a benefit has been
registered and we know the interaction to be one between diverse groups. In
addition, we can often be confident that if general interaction is beneficial, in an area
of high diversity, interaction between people of diverse backgrounds will be
important, simply because it widens the pool of people between which those
beneficial interactions can take place. Nevertheless, this is still not the same as being
able to conclude that interactions with people of different backgrounds, in
themselves, are necessarily more beneficial than any other kind.
There are a small number of methodologically robust studies that do successfully
make these connections and suggest that the element of difference between those
interacting is significant and beneficial.
A lot of evidence is promising but not conclusive, however; much of it tentatively
points in the same direction in terms of positive impact, but rarely is it able to draw
robust conclusions about the outcomes achieved as a result of interaction. As one
study summarises:
‘the research literature in this field is limited in extent, uneven in coverage and
(apparently) variable in quality. It provides plenty of ideas for action, but much less
by way of robust understanding or evidence of outcomes’ (Dyson & Gallannaugh,
2008:28)
Initiatives like Living Libraries, for instance, do appear to offer benefits to people’s
confidence, self-esteem and critical thinking capacity, precisely because of the
element of difference between the participants. But evaluations of such projects tend
35
The benefits of meaningful interaction
to be descriptive rather than analytical, and do not offer enough clear evidence of
outcomes.
For this evidence base to be strengthened and the case to become more compelling,
however, more research needs to focus on this question of the benefits that
meaningful interaction between people of different backgrounds, as opposed to
interactions in more homogeneous contexts.
In relation to evidence of ‘what works’ in encouraging meaningful interaction, the
material is more extensive and usually less opaque. The challenge, however, can
stem from the quality of the data and the limitations of many project reviews and
evaluations, which can give too little hard evidence of outcomes, instead taking
positive feedback from participants as sufficient evidence of impact.
Based on the evidence, then, we can confidently conclude that meaningful interaction
does help to build greater understanding and trust between people of different
backgrounds. Where there is greater understanding and trust, prejudice and
discrimination is reduced, and from there it could be asserted that a range of other,
more ‘concrete’ benefits flow: lower levels of hate crime; greater equality of
opportunity in social and economic life; lower levels of resentment at ‘others’ and
thus higher levels of and satisfaction. The further we get from those initial, more
robust linkages between interaction and trust, however, the more inconclusive the
evidence can become, and the clearer it is that more research is required.
36
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Appendix 1: Bibliography
Author
Title
Community development as health promotion:
Adams, Jeffery; Witten, Karen; evaluating a complex locality-based project in
Conway, Kim
New Zealand
Assisting friendships, combating loneliness:
ANDREWS Gavin G; et al
users' views on a 'befriending scheme'
Civic engagement, ethnic heterogeneity, and
Andrews, Rhys
social capital in urban areas
Source/ publisher
OUP, 2009
Ageing and Society. 23(3),
May 2003, pp.349-362
Urban Affairs Review, Vol 44
No 3 Jan 2009, pp428-440
Anon
Living Book - Nottingham Central Library: Report Nottingham Libraries Service
Love thy neighbourhood (urban design to reduce Green Places. No 52 Feb
Anon
anti-social behaviour)
2009, pp20-25
Local Government News. Vol
31 No 1 Jan-Feb 2009, pp49Ashworth, Jane
A doorstep approach (doorstep sport initiatives) 50
Stockport black and minority ethnic children's
Local Work. No 80 Nov 2007,
Beddow, Nick
project
pp1-5 (whole issue)
The Burnley Project: interfaith interventions and
cohesive communities - the effectiveness of
interfaith activity in towns marked by
Billings, Alan; Holden, Andrew enclavisation and parallel lives
Lancaster University, 2008
Community engagement and community
Blake, Geraldine et al
cohesion
JRF, 2008
The Alinsky Method of Participation and Social
Change: The East London Communities
Brickley, A
Organisation
TELCO
Families and Social Capital
ESRC Research Group,
London South Bank
University, 2006
Bruegel, Irene
Social capital, diversity and education policy
Local Government Information
Car-West, McMullin, Matrak
The Big Lunch: Feeding Community Spirit
Unit (LGIU), 2009
Community Cohesion Theatre Project 2009:
LBBD with Arc (saved in
Cass, J
Year 1 (Pilot Year): Final Report
folder)
Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday
public spaces and their implications for wellHealth & Place, vol. 14, no.
Cattell, Vicky; Dines, Nick;
Gesler, Wil; Curtis, Sarah
being and social relations
3, pp. 544-561, Sept. 2008
City Parochial Foundation /
City Parochial Foundation /
Conflict and Change
Community conversations
Conflict and Change
Clare Carney
The Living Library as an Educational Tool
Preston College
Nonprofit and Voluntary
Toward an empirical characterization of bridging Sector Quarterly. 36(1),
March 2007, pp.121-139
Coffe, Hilde & Beys, Benny
and bonding social capital
The end of parallel lives? The report of the
Community Cohesion Panel
Community Cohesion Panel
Home Office, 2004
37
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Author
Title
Source/ publisher
The Urban Cultural Programme: final evaluation
Craig, Sandy
report
Leisure Futures, 2007
Community Development
Exploring community connections: community Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp.
DALEY Clare
cohesion and refugee integration at a local level 158-171, 14 Apr 2009
Intergenerational interaction, social capital and Social Science and Medicine.
DE SOUZA Elza Maria;
health: results from a randomised controlled trial 65(7), October 2007, pp.1397GRUNDY Emily
in Brazil.
1409
MORI. Mar 2004 21pp
Duffy B; MORI Social
http://www.mori.com/pubinfo/r
Research Institute
Life satisfaction and trust in other people
d/understanding-life.pdf
School-level actions to promote community
Dyson, Alan; Gallannaugh,
cohesion: a scoping map (Technical report)
Frances
(EPPI-Centre report no 1613)
EPPI Centre, IoE, 2008
2003 Home Office citizenship survey: top-level
findings from the children's and young people's
Farmer, Christine; Trikha, Sara survey
Home Office, 2005
Foot, J
Citizen involvement in local governance
JRF, 2009
Sources of resentment and perceptions of
ethnic minorities among poor white people in
Garner, Steve ; et al
England
CLG, 2009
Local action will bridge the divides (community Local Government Chronicle,
Golding, Nick
cohesion)
28 Sep 2006, pp8-9
CAN WE PROMOTE COHESION THROUGH
CONTACT? INTERGROUP CONTACT AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY
Online (ESRC / University of
Goodwin, M
COHESION*
Manchester)
Social exclusion, poverty, health and social
care in Tower Hamlets: the perspectives of
British Journal of Social;
families on the impact of the Family Support
Work. Vol 33 No 3 Apr 2003,
Gray, Ben
Service
pp361-380
Effects of creative and social activity on the
Journal of the; Royal Society
health and well-being of socially isolated older for the Promotion of Health.
people: outcomes from a multi-method
Vol 126 No 3 May 2006,
Greaves, Colin J; Farbus, Lou observational study
pp134-142
Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and
Harvard Educational Review,
Gurin, P et al
Impact on Educational Outcomes
Vol 26, No. 3, Fall 2002
Like a light going on: report on the local living
Harris K, Constable L
library project
Local Level, 2008(?)
Bridging Community Divides - The impact of
Harris, M and Young, P
grassroots bridge building activities
IVAR, London: 2009
Hickman, Mary; Crowley,
Immigration and social cohesion in the UK: the
Helen; Mai, Nick
rhythms and realities of everyday life
JRF, 2008
Community cohesion education standards for
Home Office
schools
Home Office, 2004
Hudson, Maria et al
Social cohesion in diverse communities
JRF, 2007
Community. Work and
African-Caribbean group activities, individual and Family, 6(1), April 2003,
HYLTON Carl L
collective consciousness, and enforced 'leisure'. pp.103-113.
ICM Research
Neighbours Survey
BBC
38
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Author
Title
Source/ publisher
Department for Education and
Skills, 2003.
http://www.voluntaryarts.org/c
gibin/website.cgi?tier1=network
Doing it ourselves: Learning to challenge social &tier2=publications&tier3=oth
Jackson, Annabel
exclusion through Voluntary Arts.
er%20van%20pubs&fp=true
Religion versus rubbish: deprivation and social Social compass. 55:4.
Karner, Christian; Parker, David capital in inner-city Birmingham
pp.517-531. 2008 (12)
Sticking together: social capital and local
government - the results and implications of the Institute for Public Policy
Khan, Halima; Muir, Rick (eds) Camden social capital surveys 2002 and 2005 Research (IPPR)
British Journal of Sociology
Kolankiewicz, George.
'Social capital and social change.'
47: 427, 1996
Housing. Care and Support,
Neighbourhoods under stress: is there a sense Vol 5 No 2 May 2002, pp12Lemos, Gerard
of community?
17
Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Online (forthcoming in the
Political Studies )
Letki, N
Capital and Race in British Neighbourhoods
Lownsbrough, H and
Equally spaced? Public space and interaction
Beunderman, J (Demos)
between diverse communities
CRE
MacIntyre, Sally; Ellaway,
Neighbourhood cohesion and health in socially Health Bulletin, vol 58, no 6,
Anne
contrasting neighbourhoods
November 2000
Moving to‘our’common ground–a critical
examination of community cohesion discourse The Sociological Review
McGhee, Derek
in twenty-first century Britain
vol.51 no.3 p.376 -404
Community Care, No 1657 2531 Jan 2007, pp32-33
McPherson, Blair
Does faith divide us? (faith communities)
Cohesive Communities Programme, Working
Towards Bridging Divides Between Sikh and
Mughal, Fiyaz
Muslim Communities
Faith Matters, London: 2009
JRF
http://www.jrf.org.uk/booksho
Evaluating cross-community work in Holme
p/eBooks/2317-communityORTON, Andrew
Wood: making connections?
cohesion-diversity.pdf
CLG, 2009
What works in enabling cross-community
http://www.communities.gov.
interactions? Perspectives on good policy and uk/documents/communities/p
ORTON, Andrew
practice
df/1165960.pdf
39
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Author
PARK, A; and others, eds
Pilkington, Paul.
Rothstein, Bo.
Seedsman, Terence A.
SEELEY, C; PORTER, S
SHM
Simpson, Ludi; Ahmed,
Sameera; Phillips, Debbie
Smets, Peer
Stevens, Peter ; et al
Title
Young people in Britain: the attitudes and
experiences of 12 to 19 year olds
Social capital and health: measuring and
understanding social capital at a local level
could help to tackle health inequalities more
effectively.
Social capital, economic growth and quality of
government: The causal mechanism.
KEYNOTE 2. Viewing Participants as
Resources for One Another, Communities and
Societies Intergenerational Solidarity Toward a
Better World
Promoting intergenerational understanding
through community philosophy.
Promoting Interaction Between People from
Different Ethnic Backgrounds
Oldham and Rochdale: race, housing and
community cohesion - executive summary
Living apart or together? Multiculturalism at a
neighbourhood level
The development and impact of young people's
social capital in secondary schools
Source/ publisher
DFES,
http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk
/eOrderingDownload/RR564.p
df.pdf
Journal of Public Health
Medicine 24: 156-159, 2002
http://www.anzhealthpolicy.c
om/content/3/1/2
New Political Economy 8: 4971, 2003
Journal of Intergenerational
Relationships vol.4 no.1 p.23 39
JRF, 2008
http://www.jrf.org.uk/booksho
p/details.asp?pubID=982
CRE
Cathie Marsh Centre for
Census and Survey
Research, University of
Manchester, 2007
Centre for Research on the
Wider Benefits of Learning,
Institute of Education, (funded
by DCSF), 2007
Runnymede Bulletin. No.351,
September 2007, pp.19-20.
SVEINSSON Kjartan Pall; MAI
http://www.runnymedetrust.or
Jessica
The estate or campus we're on.
g/publications/bulletin.html
Moving on from 'anti-racism'? understandings of Journal of Social Policy, Vol
Thomas, P
'community cohesion' held by youth workers
3 No 3 Jul 2007, pp435-455
Young people, 'community cohesion' and the
Youth & policy, 81 , Autumn
Thomas, Paul
role of youth work in building social capital
2003
NEW COMPLEXITIES OF COHESION IN
Commission on Integration
Vertovec, S
BRITAIN
and Cohesion
The intercultural city: planning for diversity
Wood P; Landry C
advantage
Earthscan. 2007, 368
Zetter, R et al
Immigration, social cohesion and social capital
Halpern, D
The hidden wealth of nations
JRF
[iCoCo Awards for Bridging
Cultures]
http://www.bridgingcultures.or
g.uk/Results/VoluntarySector
Under1m/Discover
Blackwell, 2009
40
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Appendix 2: Glossary of commonly used terms
As defined by DCLG in 2008, community cohesion is what must happen in all
communities to enable different groups of people to get on well together. A key
contributor to community cohesion is integration. This is what ought to happen to
enable new residents and existing residents to adjust to one another.
An integrated and cohesive community is based on three foundations:
•
People from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities
•
People knowing their rights and responsibilities
•
People trusting one another and trusting local institutions to act fairly.
There are also three key ways of living together:
•
A shared future vision and sense of belonging
•
A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a
recognition of the value of diversity
•
Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds.
Community development
Community Development Challenge, published in 2006, sets out 6 aspects:
•
Helping people find common cause on issues that affect them
•
Helping people work together on such issues under their own control
•
Building the strengths and independence of community groups, organisations
and networks
•
Building equity, inclusiveness, participation and cohesion amongst people and
their groups and organisations
•
Empowering people and their organisations where appropriate to influence
and help transform public policies and services and other factors affecting the
conditions of their lives
•
Advising and informing public authorities on community needs, viewpoints and
processes and assisting them to strengthen communities and work in genuine
partnership with them
Social capital
According to Robert Putnam social capital "refers to the collective value of all social
networks and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each
other”. An important distinction in discussions of social capital is that between
41
The benefits of meaningful interaction
bonding and bridging capital. Bonding social capital refers to the relations within
homogeneous groups. By contrast, bridging social capital looks at heterogeneous
relations, ones that exist between groups. (Putnam, 2000).
Good Relations
The Equality and Human Rights Commission was created by the Equality Act 2006.
Section 10 of the Act defined the Commission’s responsibilities in respect of
promoting good relations, as to:
(a) promote understanding of the importance of good relations –
(i)
between members of different groups, and
(ii)
between members of groups and others,
(b) encourage good practice in relation –
(i)
between members of different groups, and
(ii)
between members of groups and others,
(c) work towards the elimination of prejudice against, hatred of and
hostility towards members of groups, and
(d) work towards enabling members of groups to participate in society.
Integration
Integration was defined by the Commission for Racial Equality as having three
essential features:
•
Equality: everyone is treated equally, has a right to fair outcomes and no one
should expect privileges because of who or what they are.
•
Participation: all groups should expect to share in how we make decisions but
also expect to carry the responsibilities for making the society work.
•
Interaction: no-one should be trapped within their own community, and in the
truly integrated society, who people work with, or the friendships they make,
should not be constrained by race or ethnicity.
Intercultural dialogue
The British Council defines intercultural dialogue as:
42
The benefits of meaningful interaction
'A dynamic and challenging process that enables those engaged to explore their own
and others' identities and backgrounds and their effects on attitudes, behaviours and
relationships towards and within communities locally, nationally and globally.
Successful intercultural dialogue is based on purposeful long-term interactions.
These allow the development of individuals' confidence and competence to move
towards bridging cultures through a two-way process of open, honest and critical
engagement.
Successful intercultural dialogue is essential to help us navigate the unprecedented
challenges of the 21st century world.'
Public Service Agreement
All government departments have agreed to a set of objectives and targets, called
Public Service Agreements, linked with the allocation of public expenditure. The
implication is that departmental budgets will be linked to how departments perform in
relation to public service agreements. The aim is to deliver modern responsive public
services.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a non-departmental public body
(NDPB) established under the Equality Act 2006 – accountable for its public funds,
but independent of government.
Social inclusion
Social inclusion is the inverse of social exclusion. It relates to the ability to fully
participate in normal social activities, and engage in political and civic life. This term
is often used to describe the process of combating social exclusion. Social inclusion
is the inverse of social exclusion. It relates to the ability to fully participate in normal
social activities, and engage in political and civic life. This term is often used to
describe the process of combating social exclusion.
Social exclusion
'Social exclusion' is a term that covers, but is broader than, poverty. It relates to being
unable to participate fully in normal social activities, or to engage in political and civic
life.
This may be because of the people themselves, or the areas where they live. They
are often experiencing high crime, poor housing, high unemployment, low incomes
and so on. Rather than focusing on these areas individually, the government is trying
to approach social exclusion as a whole. The Social Exclusion Task Force has this
aim.
43
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Appendix 3: Detail regarding the methodology
Method
A rapid evidence assessment was selected as the methodology for this literature
review: a process designed to provide an evidence-based review using the principles
of a systematic review to select and analyse the most relevant material within a
relatively short time frame. The rapid evidence assessment was conducted between
October 2009 and April 2010.
Following an initial meeting with the steering group to determine the scope and focus
of the review, a series of eight scoping interviews were carried out in order to gain
expert input to inform the Review. These interviews enabled the review team to
gather expert opinion on the development and direction of travel of the agenda, and
to identify any relevant sources.
Once the interviews were completed, the research team drew on interviewees’
suggestions and the Review’s objectives to form a series of search terms to search
for relevant material. Working with Alan Gomersall, a search and retrieval specialist
based at the Centre for Evidence Based Public Policy at Kings College, these terms
were first piloted on selected databases, and subsequently refined to identify the
most productive search terms. The search strategy also included a web-based
search using a similar combination of terms on Internet search engines, and those
documents recommended for inclusion by the scoping interviewees, to identify any
relevant unpublished material.
Using the refined search terms, Alan Gomersall ran full searches on electronic
databases determined as most relevant to the subject: SSP, ASSIA, CSA, ERIC,
HMIC, BL Online, IBSS, and Planex. As searches were conducted, researchers
selected potentially relevant studies to compile a working list of material, based on
reviewing abstracts. These documents were then assessed against a set of inclusion
standards to ensure that only the most relevant material was selected, which resulted
in producing a list of recommended material and those considered to be of lower
relevance. The final list of documents was finalised in discussion with the steering
group, following which all the documents were retrieved in full.
In the reviewing stage, all the documents were read and the relevant material for
each transferred to Data Extraction Sheets to enable researchers to readily select
content which addressed the Review’s objectives. Following data extraction, the Data
Extraction Sheets were grouped into themes for analysis. Researchers then used the
relevant Data Extraction Sheets for each theme to inform synthesis and further
analysis of the evidence.
44
The benefits of meaningful interaction
Searches
•
Alan CEBPP
•
Online
•
Scoping interviewees’ suggestions
Sifting and initial assessment
Development of working list using inclusion standards. Discussion with DCLG to form
final recommended list.
Inclusion standards
(Inclusion standards applied on the basis of abstracts)
Literature selected
Literature selected that met the inclusion standards resulted in a total of 79
documents selected.
Of the 79 documents selected, nine were not reviewed due to the following reasons:
•
On full review, three of the 80 selected documents were excluded, due to
irrelevance to the review’s objectives;
•
Five were not available (at the British Library or online);
•
One was a book (decision was made not to purchase as it was relevant to
theoretical background evidence rather than the main objective of the review
(evidence on benefits).
Literature overview
The documents selected for inclusion are relevant to three main categories: benefits
of meaningful interaction, what works in promoting meaningful interaction; theoretical
documents on social capital and cohesion.
•
Seventeen identified as relevant to benefits
•
Thirty-eight identified as relevant to what works
•
Ten identified as relevant to benefits and what works
•
Eleven identified as relevant to theoretical background (social capital and
cohesion)
45