Implementación de los elementos

The values and associated agendas outlined in this section were found across the RCD constituent communities in the study. This suggests they were less significant in differentiating communities as they were not associated with determining differences and boundaries between RCD communities, yet were they were important in the identity and meaning found within these cause communities. Accordingly they arose as agendas described in community activities. In the process of negotiating or establishing a cause community, members had the opportunity to present their agenda by voicing what they believed in; - the values they wanted included as part of the communities’ identities.

“.. without the trust you can bring together a whole pile of people who have hidden agendas. And I think that this is where we got lost last time round, was I think that the person who was at the core of it actually, had all sorts of hidden agendas. I don’t personally understand what they were or how they worked, but they weren’t in sync with the rest of the community.” (3a) Here, in the development of an RCD community, the member had identified trust as key in enabling open negotiation of agendas to facilitate establishing the collective agenda. Without this, their

experience was that the collective purpose was not established and the RCD community disintegrated. The following values and agendas found in the data were important to boundary processes, being strong components of the constituent community identity.

6: 3.2.1 “Have a go”

Being willing to “have a go” was seen to be a keystone of RCD communities. This value included that to be active in community did not require being elite, but having a positive approach and a

willingness to try new things.

“You don’t have to be special at all to make a hell of a difference; all you’ve got to do is be prepared to have a go. .. You don’t have to be anyone special or you don’t have to be a world beater at anything, all you’ve got to do to achieve this is, want to do it. It’s really about a want to do it attitude. And that’s what got us going.” (2h)

It was also associated with a “make it happen” (2h,2f,2c,2g) attitude. This was described as having the confidence to push and negotiate externally set boundaries, especially those relating to funders, media and local council/government. Breaking the rules was apparent when the outcomes were considered beneficial to the broader community, but not for individual benefit.

“We’d ring [funder] up and they’d say, ‘oh it takes you six weeks or eight weeks to do that’. And we’d say, ‘no, we’ll do it in a fortnight.” (2h)

“We’ve broken every rule so far ..” (2d)

Throughout the interviews there were examples of rules being deliberately ignored. It particularly applied to top-down processes and rules which were treated as guidelines rather than requirements. Breaking rules was also related to valuing local input and control (see 5:2.3.2). At times it was

applied to legislative rules, bending how these were met for the constituent community gain. For example, building progressed prior to council approval so a project could launch within the preferred timeframe of the RCD cause community.

6: 3.2.2 Team approach

The importance of working as a team was highly valued and found expression in a variety of ways. Each RCD community did not want an individual accepting or claiming glory for activities that were a collective effort and achievement.

“By the same token at the end of the day if we’re successful and got it up and running – I’m going to say something here that may offend, but I don’t care, I’ll say it anyway – I don’t want one particular [member] to stand out and say, “Look what [I’ve] done.” (3b)

There was significant emphasis on inclusivity and respecting each person’s contribution. They endeavoured to ensure continued recognition of each member’s involvement:

“Yeah there was no ‘boo-hoo’, ‘pull your head in’, ‘forget about it you’re wrong’, or anything like that. If someone had a thought it was tabled, discussed and if something deserved to be done from it, it was done.” (2h)

Democratic decision making was highly valued and was believed to have contributed to continued engagement around the RCD processes.

“There was a lot of good laughter, there was always interaction. Every person had an

opportunity to express their opinion, so I think that the attendances remained extra-ordinarily high, we would have averaged over the months .. in excess of an 80 percent attendance.” (2i)

The preceding quote also highlights the importance of interaction as a community. The “warm and fuzzies” were valued as an integral part of RCD communities and in ultimately achieving project goals.

“He can’t, you know, he can’t commit to meetings, ‘I can’t make the meeting, I can’t do this, I can’t’. Well that’s part of community. Yes you’re a valuable businessman, it’s nice to have you, but if you’re going to be [an RCD member], then you’ve also got to put up with the warm and fuzzies. ‘Cos that’s what it’s about. That’s part of what it’s about.” (1a)

It was recognised that without mixing as an RCD community, project objectives were either not likely to be achieved, or would be achieved more slowly. Forming the new cause communities also

“What’s the community get out of it? .. but being part of it I think is what people want. Having to be part of it.” (1c)

6: 3.2.3 Maintaining a business-like approach

The importance of ‘warm fuzzies’ did not detract from focusing on the task. The value of being ‘business like’ in RCD communities’ activities was frequently described. Community structure and task setting occurred in direct response to this agenda, particularly where their activities included an economic development component.

“.. sounds nice and fuzzy and warm, but at the same time it’s a business and you’ve got to make business decisions.” (1a)

All the RCD communities valued developing a tasked approach in stepping towards an ultimate goal and keeping up a pace of activity to ensure success.

“Yeah, we had a pretty clear focused goal .. Yeah and we always had an agenda and focused on pushing it through.” (2f)

They identified the tasks required to achieve project objectives and then determined who within their community was best able to complete them.

“.. what’s the best model? How do we do it? And effectively we applied a trialled model and we’ve just put the personalities into that model and gave them tasks.” (2i)

Within one RCD community, maintaining momentum became an agenda in itself. They wanted to excel in their activities beyond what had been achieved for like projects in other rural communities.

“That became a bit of a challenge for us too, you know, in the early stages they said “oh you’ve set records here”, and we thought, ‘bugger it ,we’re going to keep setting records’. We’re probably a fairly competitive bunch, the leadership group, and so we probably rose to that challenge.” (2f)

6: 3.2.4 Keeping broad community engagement for sustainability

Some RCD communities considered broad community engagement to be an important value upon which activity should be founded:

“.. and I think that the values are very, if you can get that sort of ingredient into a community project, it’s very important.” (2c)

This agenda was important to develop and maintain an RCD community through which to achieve the cause.

“So this is why: keeping community engaged, and you can keep it moving. But don’t let it disengage” (1c)

There was an awareness of needing projects to be embedded as part of the broader community identity so sustainability would not rely on individuals.

“.. and try and get it imbedded in the culture as quickly as possible so that it doesn’t, the individuals don’t matter so much.” (3c)

This engagement agenda was acted out by members in a number of ways, including building interest through marketing or ownership strategies. Marketing involved contact across the rural community: “I mean there was a lot of begging and knocking on doors and mailings and what have you, .. certainly I didn’t notice any drop off, we just had to keep people motivated.” (2j)

Ownership strategies included offering greater autonomy by allowing people to test their ideas and have control over decisions and processes.

“.. They don’t say “well I don’t think that will work”, they let us work it out.” (1c) Another example was creating official ‘positions’ within the RCD community.

“.. and two of those ladies now they’re not on the board but they are there as ambassadors so they come along to board meetings, and we get their input.” (2j)

Such strategies demonstrated creativity and flexibility to enact the agenda in a manner that responded to the interests shown by community members.

6: 3.2.5 Mutual benefit

The RCD communities emphasised the value of mutual benefit in their activities. It was an agenda for ensuring a project’s success. If activities were progressed in a manner that also benefitted participating constituent communities and individuals, this contributed to sustaining the RCD communities’ further activities:

“.. got to support things that are actually going to come back and support the [RCD community] as well.” (2a)

It was also recognised as a basis for a marketing strategy to engage the broader community. “.. you’ve got to be out there flying the flag and reminding people that yeah, support us and we’ll support you back.” (2b)

6: 3.2.6 Support the ‘common people’

Looking after the ‘common people’ was valued in each of the RCD communities. This agenda was discernible through decisions often made on the basis of ensuring activities were accessible to rural community members. It particularly applied to those with an average or low income and no formal high status within the communities, yet who were engaged in community activities.

“Whereas you get little community groups who have given up all of their time for nothing to do things like scouts and that. We gave some to [them] ..” (1c)

This agenda was underpinned by the importance of social interaction in rural communities for supporting people’s well-being.

“And I’ve got to tell you .. You know there’s blokes, I know a couple of old fellows that are pretty crook and the only time they go out, nine times a year – maybe ten; they go to Anzac Day and they’ll go to nine home games of football. .. but right down to the little guys that come and play at the footy you know and muck around with their friends.” (1b)

6: 3.2.7 Youth and leadership development

In each of the RCD communities, the need to support youth arose as an important focus.

“.. they are running a youth council. That’s about leadership development and all those sorts of things. So we’d like to be involved in that, again .. training of youth and engagement of youth and keeping them off the street, yeah. And you know, it’s good for us, it’s good for the community and it’s good for the youth that are involved.” (1a)

In this example, the agenda behind a primarily economic oriented RCD included social orientations such as expanding the opportunities available to young people.

In summary, values that were common across RCD communities related to how members engaged with each other and saw the purpose of the communities’ existence. A culture of having a go to “make it happen” were important, with members being willing to bend external rules and guidelines if they saw it brought broader community benefit. This occurred within RCD communities where team work was valued and underpinned by a focus on collective recognition, and respecting and valuing democratic processes so all members could participate. Clear tasking was important, as was engaging with each other as a community rather than individually completing project tasks. RCD communities that held throughout to values of having a go and teamwork, moved quickly to their ultimate goal.

These were some examples of agendas that were common in RCD communities’ activities. They spoke to the values that informed decision-making and actions within RCD communities and in the rousing of community activity, became agendas. These values and agendas were common across RCD communities and also did not appear to be contentious for other constituent communities, thus while they were important motivations within RCD communities, they were not the facets which defined one RCD community’s identity as separate to another RCD community.