Community Philosophy: Practical Applications and Discussions, Study notes of United Kingdom Philosophy

Download Community Philosophy: Practical Applications and Discussions and more Study notes United Kingdom Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! Promoting intergenerational understanding through Community Philosophy Sue Porter and Chris Seeley October 2008 This report looks at how Community Philosophy can open community conversations within and between generations about ‘nuisance’ behaviours and the fear of crime. Community Philosophy is a way of mutual learning which emphasises the importance of questioning and enquiry in the development of understanding. This study explores Community Philosophy in an intergenerational and residential environment, rather than the more usual context of schools and young people only. It: introduces Community Philosophy and demonstrates how it can develop over time; explores the activities and levels of participation of local residents, the team of philosophers, the project’s advisory group and the project management; examines emerging themes and the extent to which philosophy is an appropriate tool for developing relationships in the community; discusses, through project workers’ stories, issues for supporting Community Philosophy practitioners and engaging and developing trust within the community. • • • • 2 Contents Contents Foreword 00 Section 1 The evidence on rural housing needs in Wales 00 Contents 1 Introduction and background 5 2 What does Community Philosophy look like in practice? 7 3 The evaluation 12 4 The findings 15 5 The participants’ story 18 6 The project workers’ story 20 7 Learning points, recommendations and final conclusions 26 Notes 31 References 32 Appendix: The most significant change (MSC) approach to evaluation 33 5Introduction and background To promote wider community conversations (especially between generations and especially about controversial issues) that could be enjoyed for their own sake, could provide a medium for learning, could act as a stimulus for action, or could be valued in other ways. Through the conversations and actions, to develop relationships within the community (especially across the generations) and across professional groupings; to enable groups to work with each other, even around issues of potential conflict; and to generate enough momentum to enable dialogue to become self- sustaining. The project intended to achieve these aims by applying the techniques of Community Philosophy. The support for the project extended to three years, the second year of which was subject to (this) evaluation. Community Philosophy Community Philosophy developed from an approach called Philosophy for Children. Originating in the US, it was developed by Professor Matthew Lipman and associates at the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College, New Jersey. Lipman emphasised the importance of questioning or enquiry in the development of reasoning, and proposed that we learn to think in much the same way as we leant to speak, that is by internalising the patterns of thought and speech that we hear around us – thinking for ourselves is, in effect, borrowing the language of others to talk to ourselves. From this, Lipman developed a new model of learning, which he named ‘Communities of Enquiry’, in which teacher and learner collaborate with each other to grow in understanding of the material, ethical and personal worlds around them. Enquiry is interpreted as going beyond information to seek understanding – this is the key practice that starts and drives the whole thinking process; and the key practice that results in significant changes of thought and acting in the world is that of reflection. • • This approach was demonstrated to: increase children’s reasoning powers, reading and mathematical skills, and speaking and listening skills; raise their self-esteem; and enhance their ability to become independent learners. Practitioners have aspired to transfer this model from the classroom to community settings, so creating ‘Community Philosophy’. It is this way of working with Communities of Enquiry that has been introduced into the neighbourhood and forms the basis for community problem solving and intergenerational dialogue under the title Thinking Village. • • • 6 Chapter heading 1 Chapter title Chapter subtitle Community Philosophy in practice isn’t just sitting down for a chat; the facilitators are persistent in opening, then deepening and personalising, the conversation. Instead of generalisations about ‘we’ or ‘they’, the facilitators probe for personal responses, asking ‘what do you think?’, ‘what is your experience?’ The facilitators need to be attentive and responsive, constantly questioning and adapting their interventions to deepen the conversation and invite all participants to join in. Facilitators use a range of stimulus material to initiate conversations, ranging from children’s books, to photographs, newspaper articles and stories. We understand that the Thinking Village project has also used creative activities – drama, art, photography and outdoor experience – to stimulate discussions via Communities of Enquiry. The process is one of robustness and resilience to keep bringing the dialogue back to meaningful and challenging conversational ground. In this project, observation of the Community Philosophers demonstrated: on-the-fly, demanding, moment-by-moment attention and flexibility; a high degree of resilience to facilitate ever shifting, sometimes faltering and sometimes tough, angry and opinionated dialogue; a sense of lightness and humour in response to the ordinariness of much of the conversation: Facilitator: ‘Can you remember the last time you were happy?’ Participant: ‘Not me love, can’t remember what I had for lunch’ This chapter gives a flavour of what the Thinking Village project, which took place between January and December 2007, was about, drawing on the project’s own monitoring material and reflections. • • • Monitoring data Data from team monitoring sheets during 2007 showed that 159 sessions were recorded in total, of which 89 (56%) were recorded as ‘Communities of Enquiry’, and 70 (%) as ‘Other Activities’ (such as meetings with volunteers). It was later acknowledged that there had been some confusion between these terms and the distinction between what was and was not a Community of Enquiry event is thus less than clear. However, the broad picture implies that Communities of Enquiry (depending on how they are understood and defined) need to be supported by up to as much again of other activities and meetings in order to be initiated and maintained. Levels of activity Most sessions (over 90%) took place on weekdays although, of these, over 0% were timed for evenings. Thirty per cent of meetings and events were facilitated by one team member working alone, including nearly half (9 out of 89) of the Community of Enquiry sessions. The number of events per month gradually accelerated as the year progressed, (with a clear drop-off when a team member left at the end of February, and when team members were undergoing training and taking annual leave) (see Figure 1). The scope of conversations The monitoring information captured the nature of discussions held (see Table 1). This range offers evidence that the team were able to convene conversations that were (a) philosophical, (b) potentially conflictual and (c) controversial. Participation rates Of the recorded events, 112 (70%) took place with or as part of groups that regularly met. These 2 What does Community Philo ophy look like in practice? What does Community Philosophy look like in practice? 7What does Community Philosophy look like in practice? 2007 N um be r of e ve nt s re co rd ed 0 5 10 15 20 25 DecNovOctSeptAugJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebJan Figure 1: Number of events per month Month Sessions addressed questions of… Jan • football, tribalism, hooligans, media violence • change, getting older • littering, environment, recycling • jealously, friendship • thinking, sharing • bullying • change, prejudice, death • facilitation Feb • supervision, expansion, trust • parental control/responsibility, ‘poshness’, prejudice, self-image • lying, rudeness • police behaviour, being arrested, accusation, being searched, human rights • ‘grassing’, telling tales • responsibility, prejudice, fairness, rights, equality, security, information, making decisions • formality, informality March • film piracy, theft, morality, grey areas, honesty, dishonesty • perceptions and realities, community involvement, relationship with housing trust Table 1: Nature of discussions held Month Sessions addressed questions of… April • animal rights, human rights, disabled people’s rights, fairness and choice • daydreaming, imagination • cheating, strategic decision making, ‘fair play’, rules, support, rights and wrongs • happiness, sadness, memories, ghosts May • employment, apprenticeships, equal pay, living standards, debt, medicine and health • leadership, fairness • realism, art, imagination, nature, earth’s resources • community, disaster, philosophy, engagement June • disease, guilt, ideas, cheating, perfection • fear, emotion, evil, drugs, sin, embarrassment • homosexuality, legalities of sexual conduct, swear words • bombs, bad luck, risk, rejection, theft, ownership, knowledge, memories, happiness, humour • metaphor, storytelling, communication, misfits, belonging • addiction, escapism, stress, coolness • life context, self-change, subconscious values, mental illness, awareness (continued) 10 What does Community Philosophy look like in practice? Work with young people PhilosophyU, a young people’s group, grew out of what had been called the Police Advisory Group. Supported by the Community Philosophy project, this had formed in response to a Dispersal Order that had been implemented in the area, and provided a forum for dialogue between young people and the police. The group of young people involved would fall into the category of ‘at risk’ in terms of social exclusion, and began with quite negative perceptions and experiences of the police. They were given time to explore their views and research their rights before any contact with police officers took place; something that also provided them with the opportunity to facilitate workshops and philosophical sessions within the group, extending these city-wide in youth groups to gather the views of other young people. These wider views were represented, along with their own, when the project hosted a ‘speed-dating’ event with police officers where young people had the opportunity to ask the questions they had spent time formulating and articulating. As well as being positively received by the police, the young people reported enjoying the project and claimed to have changed their views: ‘I will never look at the police the same again’. Rather than dissolving, the group developed into PhilosophyU, and were joined by a younger cohort who had been involved in a separate community initiative supported by the Community Philosophy team. The group holds regular sessions and has tackled some challenging philosophical questions around issues such as the background to addiction, and the oft-posited association between terrorism with Islam. Intergenerational work A group of young people recruited through street-based work were introduced to a group of older people living in a local sheltered housing and care home facility. The initial focus of their shared philosophical discussion built on a joint visit to the National Media Museum. This was followed by the older people inviting the younger people into their scheme to play a game of carpet bowls. The different age groups have continued to meet on a monthly basis for activities and subsequent philosophy session, facilitated by the project team. Examples include shared exploration of views around homosexuality (prompted by a theatre outing); a debate about farming and animal activism; and the use of drama techniques to explore local and societal stereotypes. As time has gone on, discussions have become more challenging and robust. In addition, and independently of the project, young people continue to attend a weekly bowls night at the older people’s scheme. This has carried on even though the original group of young people are no longer involved; a new cohort of young people has taken their place. During the period of activity, one young person involved applied to become a volunteer at the older people’s scheme, and an existing volunteer there has undertaken training to qualify in facilitating philosophical enquiry. 11Chapter heading 1 Chapter title Chapter subtitle The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s (JRF’s) aim for this evaluation study was: to support and assist the project team in developing their own systems of monitoring and recording, and their own framework for self- evaluation. The evaluators were also asked to: independently assess the success or otherwise of the project in meeting its stated objectives; assess the contribution of a ‘Community Philosophy’ approach in achieving success or otherwise; consider, if judged successful, how the project and/or approach could be replicated and made visible to others. An additional aim was to offer an evaluation process that: worked with pre-existing networks to reach into the community; took a creative approach, congruent with and building on the existing project; provided a ‘safe’ space in which to speak out and for shared reflection; was congruent with the values of the Thinking Village approach, ie was participative, inclusive and able to access multiple ways of knowing without privileging intellectual knowledge or presentation, respecting that people learn with their ‘whole selves’; developed both bonding and bridging social capital (Putnam, 2000); did not contribute to ‘participation fatigue’. • • • • • • • • • • In these ways the evaluation process was intended to be formative (informing the project process as it unfolded), as well as summative (collecting data to tell the story of and make sense of the whole). Evaluation approach For the evaluation of the Thinking Village project we proposed using the most significant change (MSC) technique (Davies and Dart, 2005) (see the Appendix). This is a participative story-based monitoring and evaluation technique that promotes dialogue between stakeholders. The technique is participatory in that many stakeholders (young people, residents, agencies, project staff) are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analysing the data. It is a form of monitoring because it can occur throughout the project cycle and provides information to help people manage the programme. It is evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to assess the performance of the programme as a whole. Essentially, the process involves the collection of critical ‘significant change’ stories emanating from the field, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by stakeholders. We believed that this approach to evaluation would build on and complement the existing work of the Thinking Village project by continuing to stimulate conversation, dialogue and leadership between generations. However, our evaluation approach became naturalised. The MSC technique collects stories from multiple levels of the community of research, passing these up the hierarchy in a process that seeks significance. Our experience was that it was impossible to use this methodology in its ‘pure’ form. Just as the method of the Community Philosophy project itself needed to adapt to the context (see Chapter Four), so too did the method of the evaluation … the result is a cumulative collection of many glimpses rather than a collection 3 T e evaluation T e evaluation 12 The evaluation of rounded stories. So, we have concluded, perhaps the rounded story needs to be built up from the different fragments that are available. For both the Community Philosophy project and the evaluation there have been no moments of Eureka!; what there has been is a lot of sensitive practice and some unforeseen aspects. Evaluation activity During the 12-month evaluation period we visited New Earswick on seven occasions, usually staying for two days at a time. During these visits we met with the Community Philosophy facilitators, the Community Philosophy participants, the project managers and supervisors, and the wider group of people convened by JRF to advise the project and the evaluation. Participants/residents We met with key groups to discuss the most significant changes for them in relation to the project, and to collect the stories of significant change that they related to the Community Philosophy process/activities. This included meeting with young people who were members of the Police Liaison Group (as well as the police who had been involved with their activities); and attending a session with older residents at a local sheltered/care facility (both described in the previous chapter). It also involved talking with participants at some of the ‘open to everybody’ sessions – the ‘Philo Bus’ and ‘Café Philo’, and had conversations with people of all ages at other times when they were not actively engaged in Community Philosophy activities. The Philosophers/project team We met with the project team of Philosophers on each visit to New Earswick. The meetings took the form of the team telling stories to illustrate the project’s progress, including its challenges. These meetings and discussions took the form of half-day sessions, plus additional discussions in the context of Community Philosophy activities. The evaluation team also offered a reflective space to team members in which they could ‘make sense’ of their experiences, which feedback suggests was valued. The Advisory Group On four occasions, the evaluators also met with, and presented updates to, the Advisory Group that had been selected and appointed by JRF to guide and advise the project and its evaluation. This group included the project workers (Philosophers), their line manager, two advisors on Community Philosophy, a practitioner from a similar intergenerational project, and a number of other stakeholders and advisors. Having such a group was very helpful for the evaluation team, not only in their role as advisors and experts, but as a group to whom the evaluation team could bring the stories that they collected from community members and the project team and others, as part of the MSC process. Meetings were highly participative, with the evaluation team presenting the work done, highlighting the questions the evaluation was raising and identifying learning for the project; and the Advisory Group engaging in robust discussion. Managers In addition to meeting with the project team we had discussions with the Philosophers’ line manager and with an advisor who was offering the project team critical reflection sessions with an emphasis on the methodology of Community Philosophy. We also had meetings with the research manager from JRF. As a result of our observations and discussions we took our reflections and recommendations regarding ongoing support and supervision for the project team to the Advisory Group at our mid- term meeting with them (this is an example of the formative nature of the evaluation). Subsequently, the team was offered some different types and levels of support, and some aspects of their management were clarified. Evaluators’ questions No researchers ever come to a research project without holding their own questions about it. The evaluators were no exception in this case. We started our contact with the Thinking Village project with the more obvious questions about the mechanics of the project’s methodology and curiosity about the unique setting in which it was taking place. Initial contact with helpful 15The findings Is tolerance a good thing? More fundamentally perhaps there is the question as to whether this aim of increasing tolerance was an appropriate one for a philosophy project: ‘Someone is not being a nuisance unless someone else is being intolerant.’ (Advisory group member) ‘Some of the people we are talking about have spent a lifetime of not having to face their own behaviour.’ (Facilitator) ‘If you have critical people, ethical people, you will probably become less tolerant, because actually you say, “Hang on a minute, that’s not right – we should not be doing that”. So I don’t think we can just look at this project in order to say we actually want more or less tolerant people – I think we are asking the wrong questions.’ (Advisory group member) ‘In community development, we say “No racism!”; in Community Philosophy we say, “Validate your racism. Speak for racism. Let us interrogate you!”’ (Advisory group member) The dual nature of the Thinking Village project, as both a demonstration project for community- based philosophy and as a pilot project seeking to address anti-social behaviour issues in New Earswick, has led to an ongoing confusion as to what constitutes success for the project. One important aspect of this confusion relates specifically to the declared aim of the project to ‘maximise tolerance and minimise nuisance’. There was discussion in the Advisory Group about perception versus reality; intolerance versus crime and disorder, and about the applicability of Community Philosophy to the (lower) levels of nuisance found in the village (as compared to some urban areas). ‘This [Community Philosophy] seemed to be particularly useful in terms of the intolerance agenda, rather than the crime and disorder agenda – the hypothesis that this is something that can be more encompassing, rather than simply focusing on one set of issues around one sort of population.’ (Advisory group member) ‘The need for clarity of the purpose of the project appeared repeatedly in discussions with the Advisory Group, the Philosophers and their managers: Is it resolving the problems that we want to test here, or is it the unpicking, the process of orientation that is really at the nub of what we are trying to research here?’ (Advisory group member) Perhaps, for the Thinking Village project the issues have moved on since the project was first conceived. The Dispersal Order that was implemented in the neighbourhood created its own impact on relationships within the community and between parts of the community and JRHT. The sheer number of contacts between community members facilitated by the project is likely in itself to have had an impact of lessening the sense of alienation between some members of groups in the community as they have come to together in debates and socials. As one member of the Advisory Group observed: ‘Community Philosophy is a tool that can help unpick these issues in a much more meaningful way, now the anti-social incidences have calmed down.’ (Advisory group member) And one of the project workers commented: ‘In effect it is like a mediation between some members of the community and other members of the community, like young and old, or different beliefs. In a way it has parallels with things like counselling, except you are doing it for a community rather than an individual. It’s been a catalyst really of change; it’s kind of helping people compromise with each other.’ (Facilitator) However, since the Thinking Village project was part of a strategy for reducing anti-social behaviour in the village, the project has been identified by community members as being affiliated with JRHT, and so unable to be independent/neutral. This may have been part of the reason why topics for 16 The findings philosophy sessions have not been forthcoming from the community. The levels of property ownership, development and responsibility taken by JRHT for residents’ well-being mean that in this neighbourhood, more than most communities, it is clear who is perceived to have the power to set agendas. The project is also based in a building that is shared with management staff from JRHT. It may have been better for the project to be based in a more neutral building in the neighbourhood. The effects of social policy ‘Social policy is a blunt instrument.’ (Advisory group member) The importance of the housing policy changes that led to a number of more vulnerable families being housed in the village were identified by local residents, the project team and the Advisory Group. Some more established residents lamented the decreasing number of middle-class professionals living in the village and saw the incomers as largely uneducated. ‘[Y]ou are getting riff-raff in, that’s the basic insinuation.… When the social housing policies opened up to take on the most vulnerable, Joseph Rowntree lost control over who they could invite and who they couldn’t, there was a huge thing felt by those who’d been the chosen few, to suddenly have all these council tenants thrust upon them.’ (Facilitator) The Community Philosophers identified this as a source of stress for some residents who resented the changes, and the change in policy meant that more families with young children were housed in the village, changing the age profile of the population. Developing relationships in the community The Thinking Village project has succeeded in developing relationships and dialogue across generations. We are more cautious about the potential for many of these relationships to be self-sustaining beyond the life of the project. However, we would question whether this is always appropriate or realistic: people are likely to engage with Community Philosophy when it has meaning for them, rather than take part in debates on a regular basis; in addition, because the focus of the project has been on intergenerational dialogue, the membership of the groups involved changes: young people grow up and move on and older people become less socially active and eventually die. The sustainable element that we have observed is the way that some participants have taken philosophical practices into their everyday lives (see the next chapter). In this way the project can have a lasting effect on individual behaviour and practice. The project has undertaken less activity working across professional groupings. If the project wishes to meet this aspect of its aims then this should be made a priority for the project in Year . 17 Our aim has been to collect stories from people participating in a range of Community Philosophy projects. As evaluators we had direct contact with participants during Community Philosophy activities and in more casual conversations. We also recorded some participant’s stories as told by the Philosophers. Our starting question for participants was: ‘tell us a story about a time, a memory or an event when something you thought was significant happened that related to this project’. From these conversations we have gathered a number of views about the project and its significance for participants. These views influenced the conversations we had with the project team and the Advisory Group. Community Philosophy in everyday life We were interested to understand whether project participants identified benefits from engaging in the Community Philosophy project that lasted beyond a specific activity. Conversations with participants suggested that most understood that Community Philosophy was about developing different ways of thinking about and questioning their own and others’ assumptions, as the following example of a conversation about approaches to parenting demonstrates: Evaluator: ‘Well it sounds like it made the basis of a good night out.’ Participant: ‘A laugh.’ Evaluator: ‘A laugh, but maybe a thoughtful laugh…?’ Participant: ‘Yeah. Afterwards, we were talking about X and his wife and how to bring up your kids. It did get meaningful. It sort of carried on into everyday life situations.… It’s what you get out of life.’ Community Philosophy and general benefit A range of benefits from participation were identified, as the following extract illustrates: ‘[The Community Philosophers] are really interesting. If they weren’t coming, we should really miss it.… Because it keeps your brain active, an’ all.’ (Participant) And when members of an older group were asked: ‘Do you think doing this has changed the way you see things outside of the session?’ the following answer was typical: ‘Yes I think it does. You are maybe looking for things that are taking place that you maybe wouldn’t normally look for or take notice of.’ (Participant) Another participant at a Café Philo event commented: ‘I go home and think about things like this and have a really good think.…’ (Participant) Community Philosophy and enjoyment Discussions with participants suggested that a range of venues were considered by them as appropriate for Community Philosophy, including a function room in a nearby pub. Conversation with participants led us to conclude that they are aware of the difference between dialogue and a chat, but also see that Community Philosophy can be undertaken in relaxed social settings as an extension of the skills they have acquired through activities based on specific stimuli. 5 The participants’ story The participants’ story 20 The project workers’ story initiative (using philosophy with older people as part of an intergenerational project) has proved invaluable to the team. After attending a conference, and later training organised specifically for the team, the Community Philosophers described the model used by others as still being ‘too schoolish’ for more general use. Initially this appeared to pose problems for the team. However, over the year we observed them growing in the confidence to adapt the model to the setting in which they are working. It has become a model of philosophy better suited to the groups and the opportunities for engagement in the particular locality, and this has meant the evolution of a form of the work that has been naturalised to fit the context. The original vision for the project thus differed from this more pragmatic and opportunistic approach adopted by the Philosophers in response to the challenges they met on the ground: ‘[It’s been] fireworks versus chinks of light – I just thought it came over particularly in the affirmation of the workers ... how the nature of the project might be a different nature to what had been envisaged at the start.’ (Advisory group member) The development of a community-based Community Philosophy method, such as the democratic approach developed by the project team, requires a project to be clear about the values it is working with: ‘What are the values that we are operating with, and what are the understandings that we have got that we are trying to operate attached to those values? – which we agree are absolutely crucial and are at the heart of this.’ (Advisory group member) The ‘adaptation’/evolution of the model has involved the workers developing the approach, using their values (ensuring the process is democratic and responsive to participants) and taking into account the context in which they are working. The team perceive that they have struggled for legitimacy for this naturalised approach, with questions raised by managers, advisors and community critics, including: Is this community work? Does the number of participants matter? Is it essential to engage all sectors of the community, or only those who wish to engage? What is a result? What is more important, the topic or the method? The project has been experimental, yet the experiments were not always made explicit through structured management. To some extent, the delivery team have been pulled in many different directions at once by the varied, tacit expectations and assumptions of the advisory and management teams around them. This has meant that there has been no clearly defined and mutually agreed sense of evolving purpose. As evaluators we have conceptualised this purpose as two emerging questions: How do we do Community Philosophy really well (and work with multiple issues)? or How do we work with issues of intergenerational tolerance and nuisance really well (and work with multiple methods)? There are particular challenges posed to organisations hosting a Community Philosophy project. It is a challenging approach and likely to throw up issues for the organisation, including challenging its power to set agendas and to decide who is heard, who influences and who is challenged. The Thinking Village project leads us to conclude that an organisation or project can start off by setting the topic of a dialogue as part of the invitation to engage, but the process of Community Philosophy is one of communicative action and requires those in the organisation to let go of some aspects of control, to be prepared to live with • • • • • • • 21The project workers’ story emergence, and to support project workers to do the same. ‘When we look at dialogue and wanting philosophical dialogue in a community … there is a lot of discomfort, there are a lot of questions that are being asked that perhaps people don’t want to hear, but perhaps they should be asked.… How do you manage that as an organisation?’ (Advisory group member) The project team have needed to cultivate confidence to facilitate dialogues on controversial issues (and have succeeded in doing so at times). In order to do this they need to know that their employer is supporting them in their approach. ‘I think that you need to have that confidence to go into that space and do that work, to know that your employing organisation is behind you all the way, because they are the ones who pay your wages and put your job contract on the table. And that is why I think there is another aspect … I think there are issues to be addressed, because you would want everyone to be on side with the purpose.’ (Advisory group member) Community Philosophy, by its very nature can create more controversy and be intolerant of some views and behaviours, and the project workers felt, rightly or wrongly, that at times their employer was reluctant to support them in challenging some behaviours and attitudes of particular powerful resident groups and individuals. The art of the work seems to be simultaneously creating controversy and questioning assumptions while increasing the resilience on all fronts to keep the dialogue open and generative. Controversy without resilience can at worst be conversational bullying, and resilience without controversy can at worst be avoidance. ‘We haven’t been allowed as much licence to unsettle some people or to challenge them…. It’s like “don’t read into anything, just read what’s there, just accept the words that are there”….’ (Facilitator) The Advisory Group has had a role to play in identifying support for the project team and in unblocking resistances in their employing organisation, and has been mindful to identify lessons for other projects. Issues for supporting Community Philosophy practitioners Throughout the period of the evaluation, the project team and their managers have been reviewing the structure within which the team have been working (and as part of our formative evaluation role we have discussed with the project team and Advisory Group the team’s support needs). The team now has non-managerial support from a reflective mentor, reinstatement of process supervision, and line management. Other aspects of support valued by the team are/have been: • a strong collaborative team of project workers; • peer support; • reflective recording; • adopting a reflective approach – and institutionalising it through supervision; • support to view the project as research, an inquiry into working with Community Philosophy as a process – viewing everything as data; • a team planning day once a term; • recognition for their reworking of the schools-based tool; • the Advisory Group; • the participative evaluation process. 22 The project workers’ story ‘We are finding out by interrogating things; we are finding out where the real issues lie in this project and if we are to care for the workers and the process, then we have to continue to interrogate these things, and that might mean that the outcomes and the evaluation relate much more to that, than to the engagement with the community, but so what! At least we find that out, … one of the things that we didn’t entertain at the beginning of all this is that it might actually provide some really interesting material about organisational management and democratic organisations … at the end of this, maybe the only thing that we have to tell the world is something about organisational management. That is fine by me!’ (Advisory group member) Engaging and developing trust within the community The primary concern about the success of the project (as a pilot) in the particular community in which it was based is that of perceived ‘initiative- and research-fatigue’ in the community. Because of the relationship between the neighbourhood, JRHT and JRF, the community has been the setting for a large number of ‘special initiatives’ and research projects. The project suffered from low turn-out at many events, with some having a very short (one event) honeymoon period, whereas in another community there may have been sufficient ‘novelty factor’ to get numbers of residents engaged for long enough to establish the project more quickly and securely. Our own evaluation experienced a similar effect, as we were obliged to naturalise and adapt our MSC process to respond to a context where the extended in-depth engagement with participants, which we had anticipated from our experience of working with other communities, did not materialise. The other aspect of this issue is that of building trust in a context where JRHT, as property owner, developer and the organisation taking responsibility for community well-being, has an inordinate influence. This raises questions of influence, values- in-use and power dynamics. Both the project team and the Advisory Group have raised the question as to whether the location was really the right one for a Community Philosophy project. One aspect of this is the Quaker heritage of JRF/JRHT and the potential for confusion between religion and philosophy. Another aspect is the overwhelming power of JRHT within the community and the way that this affects people’s perceptions about the independence of the project: ‘I think there were particular political and power issues here, which I think the project workers are very well aware of: “What can we talk about here, what is safe to talk about, what is not safe to talk about?”’ (Advisory group member) There was also concern expressed that the philosophical and political question is really ‘Who decides what intolerance is?’ This will have an effect on the possibility of having a truly philosophical discussion as participants will anticipate that there is an acceptable perspective or opinion that they should be holding, and may therefore be reluctant to share their real views and engage in debate about them. ‘We are going to tell them that this is intolerant behaviour, we are going to tell them that that is racist; so you are almost on a loser from the start.’ (Advisory group member) Building confidence and capacity On a positive note we saw a huge growth in confidence in members of the project team, confidence in themselves as practitioners and in their naturalised Community Philosophy as a method. This led to them being more experimental and more relaxed about the simplistic measures of success such as numbers engaging in any one activity. The bonding of the team in the second half of the year meant that there was more peer support for team members: ‘It does take a level of peer support to keep to the line of “this is research; this is interesting; this is all data; the work we are doing is good”. Rather than being sucked 25 In this chapter we begin by reporting what we now know about the practice of Community Philosophy in the context of the Thinking Village project. We then identify what we have observed about the practice, structure and context of the pioneering project. Following this we provide a list of recommendations, divided into those for the continuation of the Thinking Village project as a pilot initiative, and those identified through viewing the Thinking Village project more broadly as a demonstration project. We then draw the chapter to a close with some final conclusions. What do we now know about Community Philosophy in the context of the Thinking Village project? Establishing a community of enquiry is itself insufficient, also required is at least as much related activities and meetings to support the community of enquiry. The team achieved the required intergenerational mix in two ways: bringing together on numerous occasions the young persons’ Philosophy U group and an older people’s group; and recruiting adult volunteers to work with young people. The former appeared to be more successful at achieving intergenerational peer-to-peer discussion. There were two types of regular group: those where the same/an evolving group of people met time and again (eg Philosophy U, After School Club, Older People’s Group) and those where the project team ran the same event over and over with different participants in attendance (eg Philo-bus, Café Philo, street • • • philosophy). The first achieved trust and depth, the second, breadth. There were inexplicable fluctuations in attendance; and participants seemed fickle at times. Holidays had an effect on attendance in regular groups during the month of August. It is clear that there was need for a shared definition of Community Philosophy among the Advisory Group, Facilitator team and wider JRHT staff. There is a need for training in Community Philosophy that directly relates to community- based practice. There have been implications for the project because of its position within JRHT (shared premises, line management, the community perception of lack of neutrality). The project team have needed to develop a political awareness in order to work with the effects of these. Community Philosophy is good at building relationships, increasing understanding, developing empathy, cultivating tolerance, practising the skills that could be helpful in addressing the issue of intergenerational tolerance … but how is the project bringing together the different ‘sides’ around the issue in direct ways? The project has not yet got as far as participants directly applying the skills they have learned to the issue of intergenerational tolerance and nuisance in a consistent or organised manner. How will the remainder of the project apply its energy and resources to facilitating this? • • • • • • 7 Learning points, recommendations and final conclusions Learning points, recommendations and final conclusions 26 Learning points, recommendations and final conclusions Making sense of the themes Our process as evaluators has been to regularly report our findings and reflections to the Advisory Group in order to engage with them in a robust process of sense making. And we have been well served by Advisory Group members who have helped us to develop the themes we have seen emerging from the stories and other data that we have collected. Meetings with the Advisory Group have enabled us to identify a series of themes in the work. These were summarised at the October Advisory Group as follows: addressing the issues of nuisance and tolerance generally; Community Philosophy and improving tolerance; Community Philosophy and minimising nuisance; building trust, confidence, relationships; Community Philosophy spreading into everyday life; timing, restraint and ‘push’; engaging intolerant people and issues of power; ‘pure’ versus ‘naturalised’ practice; pioneering community (versus ‘schoolish’) philosophy; unplanned benefits of engaging in Community Philosophy. This section now summarises the ‘noticings’ that the evaluation team have taken to the Advisory Group as part of the evaluation sense-making process described above. These are divided into three areas: practice matters; • • • • • • • • • • • structure matters; context matters. We noticed the following practice matters: The project team is excellent at sensitively adapting its responses to opportunities and group situations. There are continued low levels of contact with adults (aged 0-60). There is an ongoing tension between a ‘pure’ and an emergent form of ‘naturalised’ practice, resulting in continued questioning of what Community Philosophy is in practice. The team does not value its intuitive, informal, experiential knowing as much as it could. There are pockets of activity – looking for the links – bringing together the Communities of Enquiry – what constitutes critical mass? It has been left to chance for the influence of Community Philosophy to ‘spill out’ into everyday life and – significantly – into the key issue of intergenerational tolerance/nuisance. We noticed the following structure matters: There is a lack of diversity within the team (three young women, all with some youth work experience), although team members come from a variety of backgrounds. There is a greater emphasis on the tool (Community Philosophy) than the issue (intergenerational tolerance and nuisance). A lack of consistent attention is being given to management structures and formal, ongoing supportive reflective spaces and practices. The structure of the project and its management does not formally support the development of practical knowing: ‘It’s just that nobody • • • • • • • • • • • • 27Learning points, recommendations and final conclusions has seen us practise what we are doing….’ (Facilitator) Team training is not sufficiently specific to Community Philosophy (it is too ‘schoolish’). There is a lack of formal, ongoing spaces for the team to explore the theories of Community Philosophy and learn from others’ practice in the field – a lack of contact with Community Philosophy peers from elsewhere. Criteria by which success is judged are both unclear and lacking – what feedback counts? ‘The people in the community are our supreme judges, really, so if they come back for a second go, or a third or a fourth, then that’s the only thing that is telling us whether we are doing a good job or not. What we get from our managers and from our mentors is “critical analysis”, without really knowing what we do or how we do it.’ (Facilitator) We noticed the following context matters: The New Earswick community has been subject to many initiatives and interventions, and much research. The paternalistic legacy and ‘gaze’ of JRHT/JRF as a private, ideals-driven provider of services affects the perceived independence of the project. The community is an ‘island’ community with a clear boundary – insiders/outsiders. A pub – located outside the boundaries of the neighbourhood – was one of the most successful settings. For some members of the community and JRHT, there is a legacy of aspirational values; an inherited belief that an ‘ideal’ community can exist. • • • • • • • • Recommendations for further evolution of the work in its current setting (ie this project was a pilot) Wider community development experience should be made available to the team. There should be clarity about the role of the project, ie whether it is a pilot and/or demonstration project. The project should distinguish between the original objectives of the project and those in common use. The core issue – of intergenerational tolerance and nuisance – should be addressed more directly. Clear success criteria should be negotiated with the project team by the project management, with flexibility for these to be revised as the project continues to develop. Project values should be reviewed and reaffirmed/revised. All Advisory Group members should be encouraged to witness the project team in action. Specific initiatives should be targeted at mid- age-group adults. The project should continue to directly engage the people who campaigned for the dispersal order, the people who created the nuisance and the people who displayed intolerance. Management and supervision should support reflective practice. Management should support project workers when/if they need to challenge behaviours of residents (groups or individuals). There should be more initiatives specifically targeted at bringing together the Communities • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 Notes Notes 1 Introduction and background 1 A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say Wilson and Kelling, is to fix problems when they are small. Repair broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean up the pavement every day, and the tendency is for litter not to accumulate (or for the rate of littering to be much less). Problems do not escalate and thus respectable residents do not flee a neighbourhood. The theory thus makes two major claims: that further petty crime and low- level anti-social behaviour will be deterred, and that major crime will, as a result, be prevented. Criticism of the theory has tended to focus only on the latter claim (see Wilson and Kelling (1985)). 6 The project workers’ story 1 The surfacing or materialising of issues or meaning. 1References References Bland, N. and Read, T. (2000) Policing anti-social behaviour, Police Research Series, Paper 12, London: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office Christmann, K. and Rogerson, M. (200) Crime, fear of crime and quality of life: Identifying and responding to problems, New Deal for Communities National Evaluation, Research Report 5, London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group (2006) British Crime Survey, London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005) The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique: A guide to its use, www. mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1985) ‘Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety’, in A. Blumberg and E. Niederhoffer (eds) The ambivalent force, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp 220-8 2 Appendix heading Appendix The most significant change (MSC) approach to evaluation The most significant change (MSC) technique is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation. It is participatory because many project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analysing the data. It is a form of monitoring because it occurs throughout the programme cycle and provides information to help people manage the programme. It contributes to evaluation because it provides data on impact and outcomes that can be used to help assess the performance of the programme as a whole. Essentially, the process involves the collection of significant change stories emanating from the field level, and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by panels of designated stakeholders or staff. Once changes have been captured, various people sit down together, read the stories aloud and have regular and often in-depth discussions about the value of these reported changes. When the technique is implemented successfully, whole teams of people begin to focus their attention on programme impact. MSC is an emerging technique, and many adaptations have already been made. The basic 10 steps of MSC are: 1. Deciding how to start and raise interest – working with the Advisory Group, local project staff and others. 2. Defining the domains of change – identifying what areas, or domains, that the project is going to focus on. This could be something as basic as a change in the quality of conversations people are having. . Defining the reporting period – being clear about timescales for each part of the evaluation. . Collecting ‘significant change’ stories from people involved with the project. 5. Selecting the most significant of the stories – and ones that are important to a number of people. 6. Feeding back the results of the selection process – making it clear which stories are selected and giving the reasons for this to everyone concerned, being accountable for the choices made. 7. Verification – putting detail onto the bones of the stories (where relevant). 8. Quantification – identifying how many people are affected by a significant change that has been identified (where relevant). 9. Secondary analysis and meta-monitoring – linking the findings to other sources of information about how the project is working, and drawing the bigger messages from the findings. 10. Revising the system – feeding back any recommendations for change or development as suggested by the findings. For information on the practical application of the MSC technique we recommend reading Davies, R. and Dart, J. (2005) The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique: A guide to its use, www.mande. co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.htm The most significant change (MSC) approach to evaluat on