Interpreting Experiences of REAPs in Action
The purpose of this research was to explore the extent to which REAPs operate by a social capital approach in providing lifelong learning for rural communities. The findings supported a strong presence of social capital in how REAPs go about their role. Both managers and learners experienced all four key elements of social capital (networks, trust, social norms, and brokerage) in a range of ways. In many cases, experiences linked themes within and between these four key elements, which is highlighted in various discussion points throughout the chapter.
Emergent themes outside the social capital framework reinforced the lifelong learning and community development processes within REAPs’ work. The review of literature revealed REAPs' responsive approach has evolved with an increased focus on community development and brokering solutions to learning needs. According to findings, REAPs were heavily focused on furthering community and personal development for individuals by innovating solutions through lifelong learning of knowledge and skills. These efforts were described consistently within the context of adapting to changing pressures of government funding and policy - a recognised pressure point both within and outside REAPs. As a final point of discussion, managers and learners presented a noticeably positive consensus on REAPs and how they operate. These key points arising from findings are explored in this chapter:
1. Strong presence of social capital elements in REAP experiences; 2. Affirmed lifelong learning and community development processes; 3. Government funding tensions within the REAP delivery model; and 4. Strong consensus among participants on the positive attributes of REAPs.
Strong Presence of Social Capital Elements in REAP Experiences
The answer to the research question – to what extent do REAPs demonstrate a social capital approach? – is clearly to a great extent. All four social capital elements were strongly supported by a range of themes in the data. Linking these four elements in REAP practice meant: utilising trusted relationships and wide networks, in order to ascertain values and identity-based goals for individuals and groups, so that learning activities could be brokered/provided for the social and developmental benefit of learners. Experience-based concepts were often interrelated, with relationships, trust and brokerage themes crossing easily, particularly for managers whose data was more in-depth and probing - something discussed later in this chapter. What follows is a discussion of each of the four social capital data categories (based directly on the four social capital elements from the literature), as they were experienced by REAP leaders and learners. Figure 6 from the conceptual framework chapter guides this discussion:
Networks in REAPs.
While REAPs clearly demonstrated a multifaceted ability to build, access, and widen networks for learner benefit, the way in which they undertook these efforts appeared somewhat dynamic. REAPs were able to utilise their strong informal and personal relationships to subvert their institutional standing as NGOs and gain access to learner groups more readily (and with greater associated trust, discussed later) to deliver programmes. Stone and Hughes (2002) define networks as social structures in three ways: as informal ties between friends, neighbors, and workmates; as relationships between people in general or those in a shared civic/local group; and as institutionalised relationships between those in a relational, hierarchical, or power- based system. All three types of social structures are cited in lived examples of REAP activity, with both manager and learner responses emphasising personal rather than institutional relationships at the centre of facilitating activities.
This is significant in that it allowed REAPs widened opportunities to encourage participation through what Granovetter (1973) calls strong ties in social relationships despite their institutional standing. According to Granovetter (1973) strong social ties are personal friendships and associations, as compared to weak ties found in institutional relationships, where the former more readily generates trust and social participation for new group members, and the latter generates innovation. REAPs demonstrated through lived experiences of managers and learners that participation in learning activities was often instigated by personal connections of REAP staff or shared positive testimony of previous REAP learners. Although REAPs were clearly institutional in nature as NGOs, they stood out as heavily leveraging their personal relationships and informal networks within their communities to scope needs and
establish rapid buy-in to facilitate responsive activities. This buy-in also achieves what Nan (2001) refers to as persuasion over coercion. According to Nan (2001), individuals participate in a network when anticipating a personal benefit from the exchange. In the case of learners, being persuaded, rather than coerced, to participate in activities through personal relationships enhanced participation (and furthered aspects of trust, discussed in the next section).
In adapting to the type of social ties necessary to facilitate activities, REAPs recognised the immediate utility of their wide-reaching relationships. Local knowledge was a prominent feature, allowing REAPs to be fully aware of the individual and group needs that required attention (closely aligned to the responsive and gap filling aspects of REAP work found within the trust category). This meant REAP workers utilised multiple roles across communities to keep local knowledge up-to-date, as well as continually share this information for wider social benefit. In many cases this took the form of sharing information with agencies and Government Departments. This made REAPs well placed in their collaborative roles, where their local knowledge enhanced the shared goals of a whole-of-community approach to education (Ministry of Education, 2014). By widely accessing strong ties with personal affiliations through staff, as well as weaker ties through institutional and agency relationships in a collaborative setting, REAPs assured learners and partners of their trustworthiness – a related social capital element also acknowledged by Granovetter (1973).
For learners, REAPs increased social involvement beyond just the immediate learning activity. REAPs’ intent was to provide a regular pattern of learning often lacking in those who had been disengaged from learning, for reasons of either access or confidence. This supported social capital outcomes from the literature where
educational attainment is positively influenced through increased expectations from network participation for different groups such as youth (Byun, Meece, Irvin & Hutchins, 2012), fathers (Ravanera, 2007), and parents (Croll, 2004). The sharing of experiences in social groups helped learners relate and normalise their views with those of other learners in their community - something that relates strongly to themes in the social norms category covered later in this chapter. Quality relationships with learner networks had a high impact on the success of extending social involvement. In many cases, learners attributed positive changes to behaviour, increased learning access, and improvements in skill and confidence, to the REAP staff member's engagement or commitment to the activity. This supported the confidence and identity-based benefits of social capital, which also align to Cote’s (2005) notion that choice making and individual development are enhanced as a result of group-based learning. For both manager and learners, delivery was predicated on the element of trust forged in those relationships, which becomes the next point of discussion on social capital.
Networking aspects of REAPs were also the most complex in terms of how they were achieved. The number and variety of experiences reflecting relationships-based approaches to enabling learning support was extensive. This reflected Stone and Hughes’ (2002) view that a variety of associations within and across networks strengthens social capital potential, which REAPs understandably reflect given the collaborative themes that emerged as part of how they operate. Equally, REAP findings supported Nan’s (2001) points that persuasion is more effective than coercion within networks to form lasting connections. Managers recognised the need for encouraging rather than forcing participation through an informal approach to relationship building.