Ejercicios Realizados de CUDA

Rurality is often defined socioculturally, dichotomised with non-rural and more particularly the urban experience (Bourke & Lockie, 2001; Dukeshire, 2002). In studying community processes and

community development, a question to be answered is that of why focus on the rural rather than urban context.

While there are similarities in the issues experienced by rural and urban communities, for example unemployment, poverty, homelessness, problem gambling and drug use (Bourke, 2001a), as described in 2:3.1, there are also demographic, social and economic differences which point to the particular pressures within the rural environment and thus the increasing importance of RCD. Unlike urban communities, many rural communities have experienced declining population which has now begun to stabilise or in a few areas increase. Many rural communities experience the continued out- migration of young people due to reduced local educational and employment opportunities. This has been particularly true for women, thus the resulting demographics compared with urban areas is a population with slightly more men than women, a greater percentage of aged and retired, and a low percentage of young adults (Bourke & Lockie, 2001; Hugo, 2001; Hugo, 2005; Mission Australia, 2006). Likewise, many rural areas experience different challenges to urban areas such as lack of access to many services which impact on the social, physical and psychological well-being of residents; poor access to health, transport and education services and a higher cost of living are common to rural areas (Bourke, 2001a; Mission Australia, 2006). Rural communities thus need individualised focus and research as the solutions will be different in order to respond to these differences in resources, infrastructure, services and population demographics (Bourke & Lockie, 2001). When considering the interaction of community processes and RCD, the implementation of RCD occurs within the context of these pressures, and brings further change within the dynamics of the rural community fabric.

Further, there are community processes which are more strongly apparent as a result of population size and isolation. Rural communities have tighter social networks, with a high proportion of strong connections, and informal networks are key in the flow of information (Bourke, 2001b). The nature of the close social networks of rural communities is frequently summed-up in the adage, everyone

knows everyone. As Bourke (2001b) explains, a disruption in a relationship potentially has severe consequences with the capacity to disrupt most social connections. The potential for such repercussion underlies daily social interactions. Conversely, this tight social network can provide strong support when needed.

Values and beliefs described as “countrymindedness” where rural residents consider a rural lifestyle to be better than an urban lifestyle, and “agrarianism” where farming is seen as honourable and providing for the nation, are strong themes across rural cultures. There are cultural divisions within this rurality, such as those associated with a farming culture in contrast with a rural township

culture. Yet these are ameliorated by an “egalitarianism based on localism” to ensure the survival of small local community (Gray & Phillips, 2001, p. 55). Given the connectedness of social interactions in small populations, these cultural differences are set aside and people are brought together under the same sense of belonging and rural community identity when for example, defending the

community against physical threat, external criticisms, policy decisions or economic changes.

While the diversity in rurality has been emphasised in the previous section and Chapter Two, Gray and Phillips (2001) argue that

“it remains reasonable to discuss rural cultures generically, as long as diversity over space & time is accounted for and care is taken not to subsume particular cultural attributes under assumed, singular, overwhelming culture or rurality.” (p. 53)

The preceding common themes regarding the rural context can thus contribute to developing an understanding of the dynamics of the interaction between community processes and RCD.

Elements of the rural culture and connectedness are not necessarily exclusively rural, however within rural communities these variables have increased significance with greater visibility and prevalence than in urban communities. Likewise, research exploring community identity has found a consistent pattern with small communities being associated with a stronger sense of community identity than larger towns (Puddifoot, 1996). Distinct geographical boundaries have also been found

to promote community identification and engagement (Nowell, et al., 2006; Puddifoot, 1996), an aspect more readily available to rural communities than urban communities. It may often be easier to identify problems affecting rural communities, as well as to identify volunteers, community leaders and accepted community processes (Dixon, Hoatson, & Weeks, 2003b). In this manner, community processes are more clearly expressed in rural communities, thus in studying community processes and CD, the rural context enables ready access to the core issues. The bounded nature of RCD means the effects of CD processes may also be more visible within the community fabric.

The challenges and benefits associated with rural communities as identified in this section and Chapter Two, all interact in CD processes. It is in response to these interacting differences that CD practitioners in rural areas have developed a broad practice field and need a corresponding breadth of skills (Dixon, et al., 2003b). This too distinguishes studying CD in the rural rather than the non- rural context.

Rural, while broad, thus sets the bounds for this community research. To attain a robust understanding of rural community, meaningful both to research and policy, it is important to encompass the physical and relational facets of rural and community. The parameters of rural community for this research encompasses the physically defined space along with the qualitative experience of living within these spaces, with their particular demographics, shifting boundaries and shared history as these interact with the collective entities within, around and intersecting, the community of place. Not only are rural communities under specific pressures and changes, but community processes are often highly visible within the rural context and as such are readily accessible through research in rural communities. These features indicating the significance of rurality provide validation in researching rural community processes as distinct from urban

communities. It does not assume, however, that the research findings from rural based research will not have relevance to other communities, particularly where there is a focus on rural communities as a relational process.