4. RESULTADOS
4.1. ALFA PARA EL A NÁLISIS C ONFORMACIONAL DE L IGANDOS
Having thus outlined the core theories of change of Localism and Community Empowerment, and identified the points at which they diverge from the generic model, the final stage of the ToC analysis is to draw out the underlying
assumptions. In a standard ToC approach to evaluating a specific programme, the tests of ‘plausibility, doability and testability’ are applied to the model in order to assess whether it can be practically implemented and evaluated (Connell and Kubisch, 1998). Each of these tests is centrally concerned with examining the assumptions which underlie the posited model. Thus ‘plausibility’ examines
whether the causal logic of the model is reasonable, such that the proposed inputs and activities will lead to the expected outputs and various stages of outcomes.
The ‘doability’ test attempts to assess whether the assumptions regarding practical implementation are reasonable, particularly exploring the availability of relevant resources at the different points of the ToC. And ‘testability’ examines whether the key outputs and outcomes are measurable, in order that the model can be tested.
In applying ToC methodology to policy, as I have done here, identifying the underlying assumptions of each model serves two purposes. Firstly, the assumptions help to explore the extent of policy divergence between the two agendas. And secondly, these policy assumptions form the basis for the ToC analysis of the empirical evidence, developed in Chapters 7 and 8 below. At this relatively general level of policy analysis, it would be possible to suggest a wide range of assumptions which underpin each model. However, for both policy and empirical analysis, it is more useful to focus on the areas of divergence,
particularly where these assumptions have implications for the practice of
community organisations on the ground, since these form the basis of the study‘s fieldwork.
Chapter 4
124 The analysis set out above, utilising the double helix model to compare the two policy agendas, highlights three core areas in which Localism and Community Empowerment make important and divergent assumptions.
Firstly, both policy agendas make key assumptions about power. For the UK Government, the critique of state centralisation creates a drive towards
decentralisation in ‘a determined programme to ensure that that power is given away to the lowest level’ (DCLG, 2010: 2). Thus Localism’s core assumption about power is that it needs to be devolved from the state and, in particular, from central government. The Scottish Government also emphasises the importance of
communities gaining more power. However, in contrast to Localism, there is a repeated emphasis that communities should be able to choose their own level of empowerment and that the approach to empowerment will vary between
communities (Scottish Government, 2014c; Scottish Government and COSLA, 2009).
Secondly, there are important assumptions within Localism and Community
Empowerment about the role of the state and how it relates to communities. Again, the UK Government’s critique of state centralisation is critical for Localism, leading to the assumption that communities are stronger when the state gets out of the way and allows them the space to act independently (DCLG, 2010; DCLG, 2011b).
By contrast, the Scottish Government’s approach emphasises the importance of partnership between communities and the local state, particularly through
Community Planning (Scottish Government, 2011c; Scotland, 2015).
Lastly, the two policy agendas make differing assumptions regarding the capacity of communities to participate. With the exception of the relatively small Community Organiser programme, the UK Government’s approach to Localism provides very little support for communities to build their capacity. Again, this is linked to the central critique of state centralisation, resting on the belief that the removal of state interference and the dependency which it generates will enable the release of latent community capacity (DCLG, 2010; Conservative Party, 2009). The Scottish Government also emphasise the inherent strengths of communities, connecting this to the rhetoric of latent capacity in Scotland as a whole, which would be released by independence (Scottish Government, 2014c). However, this sits
Chapter 4
125 alongside a clear statement that some communities are in a much weaker position than others in terms of capacity and will therefore require significant support in order to take advantage of opportunities for empowerment:
“Often the very things that create disadvantage – poverty, lack of educational opportunity, poor health, and poor transport links – also create barriers to bringing about the empowerment that is one of the key ingredients for bringing about real change. Many of our
communities, particularly those facing high levels of disadvantage in both urban and rural areas, will need support to help them build the skills, confidence, networks and resources they require on the
journey towards becoming more empowered.” (Scottish Government and COSLA, 2009: 11)
Moreover, this is connected to the suggestion that the process of community participation and empowerment is critical in building community capacity (Scottish Government, 2014c; Scottish Government and COSLA, 2009). Hence, for the Scottish Government, the assumption is that communities have some degree of latent capacity, but that building community capacity is both a prerequisite and an integral part of community empowerment, particularly for more disadvantaged communities.
These core assumptions of Localism and Community Empowerment are summarised in Table 4.4 below.
Chapter 4
126 Table 4.4 – Core assumptions underpinning theories of change for Localism
and Community Empowerment Focus of
assumption
Localism assumptions Community Empowerment assumptions
Power Power needs to be devolved from the state
Communities can choose their own level of empowerment Role of the state Communities are stronger
without the state getting in the way
Community participation (mostly) works best when communities work in
partnership with the local state Community
capacity
Most communities have latent capacity which will be
released when the state gets out of the way
Communities have some capacity, but building this capacity is prerequisite for and an integral part of community participation, particularly for disadvantaged communities Whilst there are clearly considerable similarities between Localism and
Community Empowerment as broad, cross-cutting policy agendas, this analysis of the theories of change and underlying policy assumptions indicates significant areas of divergence between Scottish and UK Government community
participation policy. As such, it contributes another example to the growing body of literature which suggests that the Scottish and UK Governments are heading in somewhat different directions (Andrews and Martin, 2010; Keating, 2005; Scott and Wright, 2012; Smith et al, 2009). In particular, the emphasis on partnership with the state, rather than removing the state from the equation reflects the common finding across these studies that there is a greater commitment in
Scotland to public services in general and to collaborative approaches at the local level. However, this scrutiny of policy documentation provides only part of the picture, since it relates to espoused policy intentions, rather than implementation.
The empirical research in this study attempts to take the analysis further,
examining the ways in which these national theories of change play out in practice and to what extent they are supported or contradicted by local theories of change.
4.7 Conclusion to this chapter
In this chapter I applied Theories of Change methodology to the literature and to contemporary community participation policy in order to establish the first half of the theoretical framework for the empirical research of this study. By using a ToC
Chapter 4
127 lens I identified the key outcomes of community participation as emphasised in the literature and compiled these into the non-linear double helix model, in which different elements of community strength and community activity interact to (potentially) generate wider social outcomes. This model was later used to
structure some of the work with community organisations, as outlined in Chapter 6 below.
Employing the double helix model as a heuristic to analyse and compare current community participation policy in Scotland and England facilitated the
development of theories of change models for Community Empowerment and Localism. By utilising ToC approaches to examine the policy documentation, I was able to highlight the core assumptions underpinning each policy agenda. This analysis demonstrates the key points of difference between the two governments, adding to the existing debate regarding policy divergence between the two
nations, particularly in relation to the role of the state. The analysis also provides the framework for the ToC analysis of empirical evidence, comparing local and national theories of change, in Chapters 7 and 8 below.
In the next chapter I use the double helix model again, as a starting point for a Realist Evaluation examination of the mechanisms which may be hypothesised to operate within community participation processes. I then review the existing evidence for some of the key mechanisms, to provide a more detailed foundation for the empirical work and a further framework for the Realist Evaluation analysis in Chapter 9 below.
128