WHAT DOES PARTICPTORY BUDEGTING
MEAN FOR A DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITY?
A case study of participatory budgeting in Muirhouse, Edinburgh
Supervisor: Dr. B. Netelenbos
Date of Submission: 22/06/2018
Word Count:
Master Thesis - Political Science (Public Policy and governance)
Anna Skåtun – 11867787
~ 1 ~
INTRODUCTION
The decline of the welfare state has meant that governments are increasingly relying on their people to become active citizens; taking decisions and responsibilities over the provision of public services into their own hands, often through participatory institutions (Marinetto 2003: 2017). Participatory Budgeting (hereafter, PB) is one such institution which gives the public direct decision-making powers over how a given budget should be spent (PB Scotland 2018b).
However,as the process is relatively “new”, especially in Scotland, there remains a claim that there is a “gap between normative expectations and empirical realities” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 5). With this as an overarching theme, I will seek to understand how expectations of PB compare with the Scottish reality. Further, as PB is often claimed to have positive effects on marginalised groups and disadvantaged areas in particular, I will seek to answer what PB can mean for a deprived community. Therefore, this study will focus on the single-case of Muirhouse in Edinburgh, which is a community suffering from high levels of deprivation and severe social problems, to gain a rich, in-depth insight into this meaning.
PB in Scotland will be taking on the term Community Choices Budgeting (COSLA 2017a). However, I shall continue to refer to the process as PB throughout this paper as this is how it is widely recognised. The process is described by PB-Scotland (2018b) as being “about local people having a direct say in how public money is spent”. Typically, a fund is allocated to a region, city or community and the citizens will vote on which projects the funds should be allocated to. It is expected to produce more efficient decisions which are based on the local knowledge of the people residing in that area (Lerner 2011: 31). The process originated in Brazil during the 1990s as a bottom-up solution to combat corruption and issues relating to the low-income communities (Avritzer 2000; Fung and Wright 2001: 13). Although originating in Brazil, PB has been transferred to countries around the world and adjusted to suit the adopting country or region. It falls under the wider umbrella of participatory democracy and governance and is advocated for due to a number of reasons including that it can give an added quality, to public decisions and policy (Talpin 2012: 32; Barnes et al. 2003: 379). Additionally, there are those that argue that institutions of participatory democracy can offer a way to enhance important elements of democratic governance such as “legitimacy, effectiveness and justice” (Fung 2015: 514). Further, PB is intended to enhance “inclusive” governance through
~ 2 ~
the provision of a platform and a voice for traditionally alienated groups and disadvantaged communities (Shah 2007: 1). This makes it interesting to focus on a deprived community and explore what this voice can mean in reality.
As well as an existence of many theoretical claims supporting the process, PB has growing momentum behind it within the Scottish Government. It is being integrated within the policy of Community Empowerment which is claimed to “better community engagement and participation leads to the delivery of better, more responsive services and better outcomes for communities” (Scottish Government 2018b). The past five years have seen a wave of PB projects being experimented with in Scotland. From 2018, 1% of local authority budgets will be allocated towards PB processes. This means an approximate total of £100million being allocated to local wards through PB Scotland-wide (Church of Scotland 2017, November 10). As PB is to become a prevalent process of participatory democracy and budget decision-making, this commitment suggests a real, strengthened democratisation (Pateman 2012: 12-3).
To answer the question of what PB can mean for a disadvantaged community in Scotland, this study employs a single-case study research design, focussing on the community of Muirhouse. The methodology I employ is based on preliminary-observational research undertaken at the PB event in Muirhouse in 2018. The observations formed the basis for an analysis which have been complemented by conducting follow-up interviews. The 13 semi-structured interviews conducted were held with citizen-participants of the Muirhouse PB event as well as key figures in either organising or developing PB processes.
The structure of the paper consists of two parts. Part I is constructed of a chapter on PB in Scotland, which debates the theoretical and government expectations of PB, a chapter outlining this study’ research design and employed methodology, and a third chapter which details the observations from the Muirhouse 2018 PB event.
In Chapter One, I explore PB in Scotland. I will engage the reader with the relevant concepts and necessary context of the process in Scotland so far. However, the primary objective is to identify and debate the theoretical, and government, expectations of PB. These include the assumptions that PB fosters civic skills and improved relationships between citizens and their elected representatives. Within this chapter, I argue that there needs to be further research into how these theoretical expectations compare with the reality of PB exercised in deprived communities and how PB has the potential to mean something different.
In Chapter Two, I outline the research design of this study. This includes a justification for the case selection of Muirhouse, necessary case-context for the reader, and a description of the chosen methodology. The methodology involves a two-step process consisting of
~ 3 ~
preliminary-observational research followed by 13 semi-structured interviews with various actors involved with PB including citizens who have directly participated, and actors involved in the development of the process.
In Chapter Three I detail, and begin to analyse, the observations which I made from the PB event in Muirhouse. Attending the PB event in Muirhouse, I was able to observe the process to find out what was involved in the process considering aspects such as deliberation and negotiation skills of the participants. Additionally, I was able to collect more of a sense of the meaning of PB as I observed the passion, emotions and other types of human expression that were displayed. This became the first theme of focus for this study. Further, the event drew my attention to two more themes involving the absence of an observable presence of elected officials and the church’s efforts in organising channels for feedback and exercises of accountability. These three themes form the foundations of the three analysis chapters of Part Two.
In Part II, I elaborate on these three themes, complementing these initial observations with an analysis of the 13 semi-structured interviews I conducted. The three chapters of analysis which make up Part Two are labelled as phrases which could describe the community of Muirhouse but challenge the negative stereotypes often associated with the community; a passionate community, a forgotten community, a responsible community.
In Chapter Four, A Passionate Community refers to the passion, care, empathy and a community-driven commitment to tackling the area’s common challenges. In this chapter, I seek to gain further insight into the events of the PB process which I observed. I argue how deliberation can mean something different, and be displayed differently, in a deprived area from what is traditionally expected. Further I argue that PB funding can mean more to a deprived community than what it does to outside commentators and explore some of the key concerns with the competitive nature of the process.
In Chapter Five, A Forgotten Community considers what it meant that there were no elected officials present at the event. This was despite the claims that PB can strengthen relationships between citizens and their representatives and despite the fact that all the representatives for the area had been invited. In this chapter, I seek to explore why there was no observable presence of any elected official, why their presence is important, and argue that the consequences of their absence can mean a worsened relationship and the validation of Muirhouse as a forgotten community.
In Chapter Six, A Responsible Community considers the notable efforts of the local church, and the Church of Scotland, in organising a follow-up process and exercises of
~ 4 ~
accountability in a way which instils a sense of responsibility within the community. I consider that, whilst these efforts are important, it would be expected that the government would take on the role of ensuring accountability. I argue that this could have potentially harmful implications if the government are neglecting this role. It brings into question the level of commitment to PB by the Scottish Government and a concern that deprived communities are being neglected with regard to the implementation of PB.
Each chapter of analysis will consider the expectations discussed in Chapter One. I will use these, along with my findings and analysis, to demonstrate that PB can mean more, or something different, for a deprived community like Muirhouse than what is often expected and how this is potentially overlooked in theory and by the Scottish Government.
~ 5 ~
PART I
PB IN SCOTLAND AND RESEARCH
DESIGN
~ 7 ~
CHAPTER ONE
Participatory Budgeting in Scotland
The Scottish Government’s approach to PB, within the context of the Community Empowerment policy, reflects the wider trend in the UK. Participatory institutions have been experimented with, since New Labour in the 1990s, with an aim to “bring government closer to the people” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 4). The expectations of this are severalfold. However, the expectations of interest to this study relate to the effects of this new governance agenda at the community level on deprived areas in particular. Several reports have sought to evaluate the effects of PB in Scotland so far (see, for example, O’Hagan et al. 2017). However, there is an apparent absence of a strong focus on other parts of the process (Harkins, Moore and Escobar 2016: 17) including the implementing and monitoring of the outcomes (Marquetti, Schonerwald da Silva and Campbell 2012: 65). Further, when considering the effects of PB, these can be expected to be influenced largely by the political, social and economic conditions of the community (Wampler 2007: 22). This suggests that there needs to be a stronger focus on the indirect effects, and other stages of PB processes and further, a consideration for the varying experiences that are shared by groups with different socio-economic statuses. There is an important claim that there exists a “gap between normative expectations and empirical realities” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 5). This suggests there needs to be consideration for the potential of PB to mean something different for deprived communities in particular than what is expected in theory. This adds purpose to the single-case study approach employed in this paper which seeks to understand, in-depth, what the reality of PB means for a deprived community. In view of this claim that there is a gap between expectations and reality, this chapter will debate several outcomes which are expected to arise from PB in the context of their meaning for deprived communities.
In this chapter, I will consider the context of PB so far in Scotland and introduce the expectations of the Scottish Government and the expectations that can be derived from theory. Further, I will focus attention of some of the more specific expectations of the process. These include expectations that PB will foster civic skills, advance the active citizen, and improve relationships between citizens and elected representatives.
~ 8 ~
1.1. The Story So Far
The purpose of this section is to introduce the reader to the background context of PB within the Community Empowerment policy and argue that this approach is part of a wider trend toward new type of governance. This will lay the foundations for further discussion of what this type of governance implies for deprived communities. Additionally, I will discuss the role of the Church of Scotland in developing and administering PB so far. This will engage the reader with an understanding of how PB is administered in Scotland through intermediary institutions.
1.1.1. Community Empowerment
The Scottish Government introduced the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act in 2015 (The Scottish Government 2015). The central tenet is: “communities being supported to do things for themselves – community empowerment – and to people having their voices heard in the planning and delivery of services – community engagement and participation” (The Scottish Government 2018b). The Scottish Government have integrated PB into their approach to Community Empowerment (The Scottish Government 2018c) and the process is supported through the Scottish Government’s Community Choices Framework (COSLA 2017a). This framework details that 1% of all local council budgets will be allocated towards PB. This will amount to an approximate total of £100million being allocated to local wards through PB Scotland-wide (Church of Scotland 2017, November 10). The approach will allow local authorities to adapt the process to their local contexts and interests. Although the decisions for how PB should be funded, implemented and monitored is largely the responsibility of individual local authorities, the framework includes “high-level guidance” for the authorities. This includes advice for timescales, reporting and monitoring as well as the financing of PB including a consideration for staffing, venue-hire, advertising (COSLA 2017a).
There are several implications which this approach could have on deprived communities. Firstly, a key expectation is that National or Local Governments will provide more funding for PB processes in deprived, disadvantaged communities which will benefit more from the additional funds. However, identifying where low-income communities are situated can be a challenging process. This concern is outlined by Wampler (2007: 27) who addresses the issue that disadvantaged communities are not necessarily concentrated and
~ 9 ~
therefore, some communities may be left out allowing more affluent, better-organised organisations to gain at their expense. Although the Scottish Government have agreed to work in partnership with local authorities in the administration of PB, it is unclear how it will be implemented with regard to individual communities. This could be concerning for a deprived area which has more specific, complex needs.
The second implication, which is also a stated intention of the Scottish Government, for introducing PB is that it will promote active citizenship (PB Scotland 2018b). This is related to the wider expectation that participation can instil community cohesion and civic virtues (Amin 2005: 617). It is generally assumed by more people that they can influence change on the local level then at the national level (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2006: 540). Furthermore, marginalized groups and communities from deprived areas particularly have better opportunities for influencing policy, whilst developing an impression of their efficacy, at the community or local level (Diamond 1994: 8-9). This empowers citizens to become active citizens in decision-making processes, one of the three key expectations to be produced from PB outlined by Wampler (2007: 49). An active citizen, according to Newman and Tonkens, is a citizen “no longer being dependent on the welfare state and who is willing to take a full part in the remaking of modern societies” (2011: 9). PB enables active citizenship as it encourages citizens to be responsible for their own decisions. Further, PB has been described as a mechanism for the “improvement of common social welfare’’ (Blinova 2017: 231). However, Amin (2005: 621) warns that community participation runs the risk of becoming a tool for “political conformity and control” and not the tool for encouraging active citizenship.
Whilst the Scottish Government’s approach to PB and Community Empowerment reflects a wider trend throughout the UK, and other Western democracies, there are widespread criticisms of this approach. One key claim to counter the arguments that the approach is empowering citizens is that it is a way to merely justify neoliberal reforms and the declining welfare state. Following this argument, this results in a depoliticisation where there is a “loss of autonomy” meaning that it can be more disempowering for citizens than empowering (Bruszt and Vedres 2008: 142-3). Another claim, with relation to PB, is that these approaches do little or nothing to empower citizens because the size of the budget is usually too small to make any significant impact (Levine and Nierras 2007: 7). Despite the advantages of PB, it has been argued that it is a relatively ineffective tool for tackling the larger, complex issues, or wicked problems, such as inequality and issues of poverty (Blinova 2017: 233). Therefore, PB might be more meaningful for communities that do not suffer from these problems as the
~ 10 ~
process can produce more effective outcomes. A deprived community, might find less meaning in a process which is unable to address their deeply-rooted social problems.
1.1.2. The Role of The Church
As mentioned, the Scottish Government currently funds PB projects through its Community Choices Fund. However, the funds have not always been administered directly to individual communities. On most occasions, the funds have been administered through local authorities already on board with the process. However, the Scottish Government also use the Community Choices Fund to support intermediary organisations and charities, of whom they fund or work in partnership with, to develop their own PB processes. For example, the registered charity One Parent Families Scotland (see OPFS 2018) which has been working with local communities to develop PB processes to tackle issues of poverty. Another organisation the Scottish Government fund for the purpose of PB, through the Community Choices Fund, is the Church of Scotland (SCPO 2018a). Throughout this paper I use the Church of Scotland and the Church interchangeably. The Church of Scotland have used the funds to target deprived areas and encourage more churches can apply to the Church of Scotland for part of this fund to use on PB processes in their own communities (Church of Scotland 2017, November 10). Thus far in 2018, eight churches have run PB processes allocating £35,000 to local projects (SCPO 2018b). Although this is a relatively small amount of money considering the total size of the Community Choices Fund of 2018, which amounts to £1.5million (Scottish Government 2018a), the Church of Scotland’s experiences have been important pilots for the Scottish Government to consider in its PB policy development. The Church of Scotland’s Church and Society Council have been active members of several PB partnerships delivering advice and recommendations (PB Scotland 2018a).
It is not remarkable that the Church of Scotland, or any religious institution, would be involved with a policy such as PB. Religious institutions often support and encourage citizen engagement in political processes as well as community development, reaching beyond the church-going community, and they are able to draw attention to socio-economic problems government intervention (Greenberg 2013: 382). The Church of Scotland regularly advocates for social change and development throughout the country through its platform, Speak Out (The Church of Scotland 2018). Speak Out is about the Church continuing to campaign for “transformative” change in a way that can better communities and challenge problems relating to social-housing, gender injustice unemployment and more. For example, more recent
~ 11 ~
Scotland-wide campaigns to tackle food insecurity and child poverty have included the Church of Scotland in various working groups, consultations and commissions (Church of Scotland 2017, July 10). This demonstrates the Church’s influence, as more than a religious institution, in promoting local community support and development.
Working in partnership with the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office, the Church of Scotland have found that PB offers an important way for “the church to be at the heart of community transformation” (SCPO 2018a). There can be great benefit of having the church involved in a local development process such as PB. Greenberg argues that churches perform an important mobilising role for engaging people in decision-making, addressing issues of deprived areas and pressuring government to meet local needs (2013: 378). Further, administering PB through churches has the potential to mean that deprived communities can have a voice which is often difficult for them to exercise (Social Exclusion Unit 2001).
1.2. PB Expectations
This section will explore the theoretical and normative expectations of both the Scottish Government and the academic literature. The expectations I choose to focus on are largely based on the claims made by the Scottish Government that PB will develop citizens’ skills, promote active citizenship whilst improving relationships among citizens and further improve the relationship between citizens and their local government and elected officials. I will explore these expectations in the context of Scotland and the theoretical expectations with relation to deprived communities and argue that expectations of PB might differ in reality for these communities.
1.2.1. Civic Skills
It is expected by many authors that PB will develop civic skills (Michels and de Graaf 2010: 480; Pateman 2012: 11). The expectation of public participation to foster or improve civic skills can be traced as far back as Tocqueville who believed this was fundamental to the support of democracy(Tocqueville 1985: 280). This expectation is ingrained within many definitions of PB:
~ 12 ~
“[PB is a] process of decision making, expressed in negotiations and discussion of options for the allocation of public resources by citizens’’ (Blinova 2017: 233).
“Participatory budgeting is a decision-making process through which citizens deliberate and negotiate over the distribution of public resources” (Wampler 2007: 21).
It is evident that the skills of deliberation and negotiation are two important features of PB. For some scholars, these are more than expectations but are essential to effective PB processes (Miller, Hildreth and Stewart 2017: 3). This is because, along with resources such as time and money (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995: 289), participation is often dependant on the resources accessible to the citizen which include civic skills (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2006: 540). It is suggested that the quality of a PB process can be measured through the observation of these civic skills (Bingham, Nabatchi and O’Leary 2005). These can be observed through the level to which citizens are debating issues, steering the event and public-speaking (Michels and de Graaf 2010: 480-1). However, a critical concern with this is that citizens within deprived communities are often lacking in such civic skills and are unable to articulate their messages, deliberate and negotiate (Fung 2003: 344; Levine and Nierras 2007: 13). Therefore, in theory, PB processes in deprived areas could be perceived as less effective. There are further problems associated with the lack of civic skills displayed by citizens from deprived communities. This relates to the inherently competitive nature of PB (Wampler 2007: 30-1). As PB usually involves prioritising services and projects within a community using a rank-system (Talpin 2012: 43), this implies that there is an element of competition involved as groups must compete for a share of the budget which is often not sufficient to fund every project. A concern with this is related to the claim of several critics that PB results in a “popularity contest” (Parkins and Mitchell 2007: 530). As citizens from deprived communities are less able to demonstrate sophisticated civic skills they are disadvantaged as one expectation from the competitive element of PB is that the process will benefit particular social groups over others, namely the wealthier, more affluent groups (Goldfrank and Schneider 2006: 2). This is also related to the assumption that these groups will be more capable of articulating a reasoned, rational discourse (Levine and Nierras 2007: 13). For a deprived community, this could mean that many groups would be disadvantaged and this could alienate them from future participatory processes. Further, even if citizens merely perceive that civic skills, such as public-speaking, are a requirement then this could serve to further alienate them from
~ 13 ~
participatory processes like PB (Barnes et al. 2003: 393). As citizens within deprived communities are often already alienated or apathetic to decision-making processes (Pateman 2012: 9), could PB mean just another government programme being “done to” and not “with” them (PB Scotland 2018b)? This is evidently something that PB Scotland, along with the Scottish Government, recognise as important. However, whether or not this recognition is changing apathetic attitudes towards participation in deprived areas remains to be seen.
So far, this section has explored how deliberation is somewhat central to PB. However, definitions and expectations of what deliberation exactly involves are vague and can vary (Levine and Nierras 2007: 2). This suggests that deliberation can take different meanings and therefore be exercised differently by different groups of citizens. Deliberation is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as a “long and careful consideration or discussion” (Oxford Dictionaries 2018). In this sense, deliberation can simply mean reaching a decision (Pateman 2012: 8). However, for Michels and de Graaf, deliberation during PB processes is identified when there is an evident “exchange of arguments” which results in reasoned decisions (2010: 481). This definition would further validate the aforementioned concern that low-income, marginalised groups are disadvantaged by participatory systems as they are less able to produce reasoned, rational discussion. However, Levine and Nierras argue that it is primarily scholars and academics who discuss deliberation as involving reasoned, rational, articulated discussion as though it were separate from intimate, emotional appeals and other ways of expressing one’s personal experiences and feelings (2007: 13). This is an aspect of deliberation which is considered significant, more often, by deliberative professionals. They argue instead that good deliberation can be viewed as a collected group of citizens where, in any way, common interests and problems are communicated and where emotional appeals are an advocated benefit for communicating these interests (Levine and Nierras 2007: 14). The two perspectives on deliberation make for interesting consideration as deliberation and PB might mean a more expressive, emotional process for deprived communities as opposed to the theoretical assumption that the process should involve reasoned, articulated negotiation and discussion. These perspectives invite an interesting way for this study to observe the PB process in the community of Muirhouse.
~ 14 ~
The Scottish Government (2017a) have vocalized the potential for PB to change the relationship between citizens and local government. The reason why it is important to change this relationship for deprived communities in particular is is that there is often a common “mismatch” between the decisions made by governments and the needs of its citizens (van Hulst, de Graaf and van den Brink. 2012: 435). This means that PB, which involves a shift of power from elected representatives to the public, can allow citizens to make decisions which reflect their needs thus compensating for this mismatch. The Scottish Government have discussed this in terms of a new contract which transfers power to the people. (Scottish Government 2017a). This devolution of power to the community further enables PB to foster trust (Chandler 2001: 4; Talpin 2012: 33; Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke 2008: 174; Lerner 2011: 31). In terms of trusting political institutions, it is more commonly found that citizens will have more trust in their local authority than their central government. An explanation for this may be that local authorities are physically closer to their citizens than central government is (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley 2004: 37). Further, citizen participation is being enabled most commonly at the local level where direct engagement with local representatives and authorities can be most easily facilitated therefore, increasing trust (Malena 2009: 10). For these reasons it is important that the Scottish Government are showing commitment to working in partnership with local authorities in the administration of PB to ensure that implementation is considered in the context of local interests (COSLA 2017b). This partnership might be important as there are much higher levels of trust in the Scottish government than both the UK Government and local authorities (Scottish Government 2017b). Further, the Scottish Government has issued guidance for elected officials who are expected to play a significant role in the operation of PB across Scotland. One of the key responsibilities tasked to elected representatives by the Scottish Government is “to engage with local people, to encourage and support them to participate in the process” (Scottish Government and COSLA 2017: 6). This is important as PB involves cooperation and collaboration between citizens and local government (Novy and Leubolt 2005: 2032; Wampler 2007: 40). This would be one of the ways in which trust could be instilled.
Another way in which PB can be expected to improve this relationship is by giving a voice to citizens. This is reflected within the Scottish Government’s framing of the benefits of community empowerment (The Scottish Government 2018b). It is commonly accepted by scholars that allowing a voice to people will be beneficial for making decision-making processes more legitimate and further, decreasing mistrust whilst increasing positive attitudes towards governments (Bingham, Nabatchi and O’Leary 2005: 550). However, with this being
~ 15 ~
said, PB could also impose certain risks to the citizen-representative relationship. For example, if a PB process is not effective then it can exacerbate mistrust and scepticism towards the political process and government (Wampler 2007: 22). On a related note, one issue found by a study was that programmes such as PB can raise “unrealistic public expectations” which is often the case when resources, such as money, are low limits the local government’s capability to address the needs of the participants resulting in citizens perceiving that their local authority is neglecting their needs (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker 2001: 212). This suggests that apathetic feelings could also be exacerbated. These risks associated with PB could have detrimental meaning for deprived communities where citizens are already more likely to feel mistrust, scepticism and apathy towards local government and participatory institutions.
1.5. Research Puzzle
This chapter has explored some of the key expectations for PB with relation to deprived communities in Scotland and has raised several debates which highlight several questions for consideration. The first primary question is whether or not PB really is empowering or is it disempowering by way of depoliticising the decision-making process? Relating to this is whether or not PB has the same meaning for a deprived community when the process is not expected to be effective in addressing their often complex, social problems. The second question relates to the concern that civic skills are generally lower among citizens from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, there is also a debate that civic skills do not have to take the form that theorists would traditionally expect. For this reason, it is interesting to explore what civic skills mean for a deprived community and whether or not they assume a different form from what is often expected by academic scholars. The third question is whether or not PB really can mean better relationships between citizens from deprived communities and their local government and elected officials.
To reiterate, understanding the debates surrounding the theoretical expectations of PB are important as it has been recognized in the literature is that there is a “gap between normative expectations and empirical realities” (Cornwall and Coelho 2007: 5). The debates, and even concerns, which have been raised within this chapter bring into light the over-arching question of how PB might differ in meaning for a deprived community. This could potentially add to the debates and challenge the expectations of the Scottish Government’s and the expectations
~ 16 ~
in theory. Considering this, the next chapter will provide the methodology employed by this study which will address what PB really means for a deprived community in Scotland.
~ 17 ~
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, I will present the research design and methodology employed in this study. The design is based on a single case-study, the community of Muirhouse in Scotland’s capital city, Edinburgh. This provides an excellent case to understand the exercise of PB within a deprived community and understand what PB can mean for this type of community. The methodology consists of two elements. First, I took an observational approach to my research. This produced findings itself but also served the function of preliminary research allowing me to construct my design for the following part of my methodology. This involved conducting semi-structured interviews with 13 respondents. The respondents consisted of a range of different people from citizens who participated in PB to local councillors to developers of PB. This has allowed me to identify a diverse range of perspectives and stories to contribute to Part II of this paper where I conduct the final analysis. The analysis will determine
2.1. Case Selection
The research design of this paper employs a single-case study approach. The case study of this research is Muirhouse, a community with Edinburgh, Scotland. Single case studies are highly appropriate for producing “concrete, context-dependent knowledge” (Flyvberg 2006: 223). However, whist, Flyvberg (2006) addresses the “misunderstanding” that case studies cannot be used to make generalisations. Whilst a single case of PB does not offer a universal theory or explanation, I can offer an in-depth perspective into what PB means for a deprived community.
Selecting a case as the object of this study was determined by several factors. First, the case needed to focus on a community which already had experience with PB in previous years. If it was a community’s first experience with PB then it would be more problematic to separate the observations as meaningful results from causes of experimentation or one-off effects. Further, one experience with a PB process does not constitute as PB by certain scholars that claim it needs to be an ongoing, repeated practice (Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke 2008: 168).
~ 18 ~
The second factor was that the case study needed to focus on an area facing problems of deprivation and inequality. As explored in the previous chapter, there are several debates surrounding the expectations of PB for deprived areas. These include debates over the forms which deliberation will take and the expectation that PB can strengthen the relationship between citizens and their representatives. I want to explore what PB means for a deprived area to add to these debates and challenge the theoretical expectations. The third and final determining factor has been that the case had to be a community-level example of PB that gets less public attention than the larger-scale PB events in Scotland such as Leith Chooses, formerly Leith Decides (see Leith Chooses 2018). This is based on the concept that PB can offer a voice to marginalized groups and therefore, it would be interesting to find out whether the community-level PB processes can provide a meaningful voice to these groups despite being smaller in scale.
Considering these criteria, the PB experiences of the area of Muirhouse became the obvious choice as the focus for this study. The following sub-section details the profile of the community with justification for why it is the most appropriate choice.
2.1.1. Case Profile: Muirhouse
Sourced from Google Maps. For additional maps, see Appendix III.
Muirhouse is a community situated in the North of the Scottish Capital, Edinburgh. The area is a publicly-funded housing estate which is faced by multiple social and economic problems resulting from high levels of deprivation and poverty. These include severe problems of drug
~ 19 ~
abuse and crime (Gazetteer for Scotland 2016) as well as strikingly low-levels in the average quality of health and seriously large problem of homelessness (The Edinburgh Partnership 2013: 13). To provide further perspective, the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD 2016) measures the area as being within the top 5% of the most deprived areas in the country. One data-zone within Muirhouse ranks as number 6 – number 1 being most deprived - out of a total of 6,976 data-zones in Scotland. Several neighbouring areas rank as some of the least deprived areas. For example, Silverknowes and Davidson’s Mains which are situated within one mile of Muirhouse rank 6,898 out of 6,976 making them two of the most affluent
communities in the country. Further, there is an alarming gap in life expectancy among residents of Muirhouse compared to those living in these more affluent areas; a gap of 9.2 years (The Edinburgh Partnership 2015: 26). This represents an extreme level of inequality. Evidently, the high levels of deprivation suggest Muirhouse provides a suitable case for exploring what PB can mean for a deprived area. Additionally, Muirhouse fulfilled the additional criteria making it a suitable case selection. The PB event was community-level and further, Muirhouse had previous experience with PB.
2.2. Preliminary Research: Observations
The first part of this study’s research design involves preliminary research undertaken in the form of observing the 2018 PB event in Muirhouse. Observational research initially grew within the field of social anthropology and has become increasingly prominent as a research method within the broader discipline of social science (Halperin and Heath 2012: 287). It is an appropriate method for addressing the question of what PB means for a deprived community because it is, as put by Halperin and Heath, “well suited to unpicking difficult-to-define or multifaceted political phenomena, where other research instruments such as surveys, interviews, or focus groups may provide too blunt an instrument to fully capture the diversity and meaning of a concept” (2012: 290). The first purpose for this study in taking this approach was to obtain a greater sense for what was involved in a PB process as observing people “can capture their social meanings and ordinary activities” (Brewer 2000: 6). I used a check-list of conditions to take note of. This included a note to consider how many groups were participating in the process, the type of projects which were being bid for and the turnout of community members. One significant theme I predetermined to focus on was the relationship
~ 20 ~
between the elected representatives and the citizens who were participating. The intention was to observe their interactions to determine what type of relationship was involved. I had been informed beforehand that all the elected officials from the area had been invited. Despite this, on the day of the PB event, there was no observable presence of any elected officials. I therefore had to reconsider what this meant for the PB process and to look for other themes which could provide direction for this study, such as observing the relationship between the PB host and organiser to the participants.
The second purpose of the observations and attending this PB event in-person was to establish initial contact with the groups that were participating. I was aware that observing the event could invite further questions which would be best answered through more in-depth research involving interviews. It was important that I could meet with the groups in-person to establish a rapport that would make them more open to participating in an interview. Further, I could learn about the individuals and their projects so that I could construct suitable, and more tailored, interview questions.
2.3. Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to provide more in-depth insight into the key themes that had been identified from both the literature and the observations made at the PB event in Muirhouse. This section outlines the methodology I employed, which involved conducting semi-structured interviews, including justification for why this was an appropriate method. Further, I provide an overview of the respondents I chose to interview along with the value they provided my research.
2.3.1. Interview Method
Following the PB event which I attended and observed, I conducted 13 semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted to both complement and elaborate on the themes which I found most striking following the preliminary observational research. The interview questions were constructed with a consideration for these themes. A topic list is provided in Appendix II. During the PB event which I observed, I was able to talk with all the citizens representing the various groups and community organisations that were bidding for funding. I also spoke with the organisers of the event. Through this, less formal, contact and
rapport-~ 21 rapport-~
building I was able to acquire contact information from a wide collection of individuals with the purpose of contacting them at a later date to schedule an interview.
Due to a lack of time and resources, primarily financial, I was unable to make a second trip to Scotland and therefore, I was unable to schedule interviews in-person. Therefore, the interviews were scheduled to be held by telephone as it was convenient for both myself and the respondents. Several of them were willing for me to phone them on personal contact numbers out of their own working hours. However, a significant limitation was not being able to read facial or body language queues and therefore, there were several occasions where the respondent and I would talk over each other. This made transcribing the interviews difficult at times. Further, the quality of some of the telephone conversations were suboptimal. There were several occasions where I was unable to hear certain words or sentences due to poor connection. Despite these problems, the quality of the interviews did not generally feel impeded by the fact they were conducted by telephone.
2.3.2. Respondents
It was important to obtain respondents with a diverse range of backgrounds and relationships to PB. This would allow me to form a story of PB which considers the perspectives of the citizens involved as well as the perspectives of the individuals involved in developing the policy. The list of respondents is provided in Table 1 below and I will proceed to highlight the importance of each group of respondents to this study.
TABLE OF RESPONDENTS
NAME DATE OF INTERVIEW
ROLE OF RESPONDENT CODE (IN-TEXT) CITIZEN PARTICIPANTS
Danielle Leadbetter 30/04/2018 Volunteer at Muirhouse Minis CP1 Danielle Ward + Four
Youths
02/05/2018 Youth worker and supervisor at North Edinburgh Young people’s Forum (NEYPF) + four youth members all under 16years
CP2 + YOUTH1, YOUTH2,
~ 22 ~
YOUTH3, YOUTH4 Andrew Hay 16/05/2018 Local school teacher and Captain
(Officer in Charge) of the 66th Edinburgh
Boys Brigade
CP3 Azad Adams 12/05/2018 Community Councilor and Secretary for
the Muirhouse Salvesen Community Council
CP4 LOCAL COUNCILLORS
Graham Hutchison 26/04/2018 Local Councilor (Conservative Party) LC1 Norman Work 10/05/2018 Local Councilor (Scottish National
Party)
LC2 PB ORGANISERS & DEVELOPERS
Stephen Emery 25/05/2018 Reverend at the Old Kirk and Muirhouse Parish Church (Hosted PB Event)
PBD1 Karen Bass 03/05/2018 ‘Go For It’ Training and Development
Officer, Church of Scotland
PBD2 Chloe Clemmons 24/05/2018 Scottish Churches Parliamentary Officer PBD3 Reverend Muriel
Pearson
18/05/2018 Minister at Cranhill Parish Church (Hosted PB Event)
PBD4 Rachael Gallacher 18/05/2018 Community Development Worker at
Cranhill Trust
PBD5 ADDITIONAL RESONDENTS
Dave Pickering 18/05/2018 Journalist/Development Worker at North Edinburgh News
AR1 Laura Donnelly 18/05/2018 Peoples Health Trust Project
Lead/Health Case Manager at Community Renewal (North Office)
AR2
~ 23 ~
The first group of respondents I understood to be most important for this study were the citizens who participated in the PB process in Muirhouse. Hearing their perspectives would be most conducive to understanding what PB means for a community such as Muirhouse. When reaching out to these potential respondents, I had initially requested that the interview be held by Skype and only if this was not possible, then, by telephone. Neither are preferable to in-person interviews which would have allowed for me to create a more comfortable, less formal environment. This would have been important for interviewing the citizens who might be intimidated by participating in an interview. This was something I expected as several individuals I spoke to at the PB event appeared timid and expressed nerves about public-speaking. Despite this, I tried to secure their participation for an interview by sending warm and friendly-worded emails. In cases where I knew the individual was timid, I described the interview as a conversation or a “wee chat” to assure them that it was not a formal, test-like situation for them to fear.
Despite having met and contacted all the potential citizen-participant respondents, I did not receive any responses for a significant period of time. Upon reflection, I considered that, despite my friendly-worded email, the interview process was still appearing intimidating, potentially due to my request for a skype interview, or at least, was unappealing and seemingly not worth their time. I sent a shorter follow-up email which simply requested a telephone number and a suitable date and time which I could contact them on. This was evidently a good decision as I very quickly received responses from three out of the six groups present, and an additional response from an individual who was supposed to participate in PB but was unable to make it on the day. I was therefore able to schedule four interviews with citizens who had participated directly, or almost directly, with the Muirhouse PB event of 2018.
The interviews were all different. This was largely because each citizen had a different background and also because my interviewing technique improved over time. For example, one respondent was a part-time volunteer who was less vocal with their views and more unsure of certain answers. One youth-worker, brought along four youths to the interview in a semi-focus group style manner where I was able to hear the perspectives of the young teenagers from the area about PB and Muirhouse. However, as these were children under the age of 16, they too were slightly timid and less vocal. This was potentially due to the nature of the interview being over telephone. Another citizen-participant was a university-educated teacher raised in Muirhouse and working in the community at the local school. This respondent’s responses were long, detailed and articulated very well. The final citizen-participant, who was unable to present their project on the day of the event, was additionally the volunteer secretary for the
~ 24 ~
Community Council. This enabled me to gain perspective about, not only participating in PB but, the community in general and the issues with engaging Muirhouse residents in decision-making processes.
The second type of respondent I sought to interview was the elected officials who represented the area. I was aware they had all been invited to attend the PB event and I was interested to find out why they were absent. I reached out, by email, to all four Local Councillors that represent the Almond Ward, of which Muirhouse is a part, and additionally, the MSP (Member of Scottish Parliament) who I was aware had been in attendance the previous year. I received a response from each representative. The MSP and one local councillor informed me that they were too busy and therefore, had to prioritise their own constituents. Two further local councillors politely informed me that they had too little knowledge of PB to feel they would be of worth for an interview. Eventually, one local councillor responded with more enthusiasm about an interview and this was made possible to arrange. I was then surprised to receive an email from an additional local councillor who, not only expressed an interest in being interview but, informed me that they had attended the PB event. This probed my interest and I made sure to ask why their presence was not made public on the day.
Additionally to interviewing citizens and local councillors, I wanted to speak to individuals who had been involved in either hosting or developing PB. This included the reverend of the Muirhouse church who hosted the PB event, both this year and last, a developer of PB from the Church of Scotland and a PB policy developed for the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office. This allowed me to gain a better understanding of PB from the perspective of different levels of development. Additionally, I spoke to two individuals who have hosted and are developing PB in another disadvantaged community in Scotland: Cranhill, Glasgow. I had been made aware, through an interview with a PB developer from the Church of Scotland, that Cranhill have had very different experiences with PB despite being very similar to Muirhouse in terms of ranking high on the social deprivation index (SIMD 2016). It felt important to consider the experiences of Cranhill for comparative purposes.
The final two additional interviews I conducted were with the journalist who runs North Edinburgh News, the local newspaper, and a community development officer from a locally-based community renewal and engagement organisation. Both these individuals were able to provide their own perspectives about PB in Muirhouse based on their detailed knowledge of the community, engagement and experiences with decision-making processes.
~ 25 ~
2.4. Data Analysis
Producing data from the observations is largely an interpretive, analytical task as it is less clear-cut to draw distinctive objective data (Halperin and Heath 2012: 303). This is because observational research involves interpreting meanings and actions (Atkinson and Hammersley 2007: 3). Therefore, the analysis is formed around the interpretations I made, as the researcher, of the observations. The interviews which followed the preliminary research had been recorded on a Dictaphone and were afterwards, transcribed. Using the transcriptions, I was able to group which quotes and stories were relevant for the three themes I had determined from the initial observations. Analysing the transcriptions enabled me to further identify sub-themes which commonly appeared within the interviews. These allowed me to produce more specific labelling which have become my sub-headings within the analysis chapters of Part II.
2.5. Reflection
The research design of this study, specifically the observational part of the research, has had a profound effect on my personal and emotional connection to the study. Undertaking observational research is recognised as involving a personal connection between the researcher and the study (Halperin and Heath 2012: 292). However, one of the risks with this type of ethnographic research, something I have had to make a conscious effort to avoid, is that a researcher can become too emotionally attached to the case, and the respondents, meaning that producing an objective, critical analysis is more difficult (Halperin and Heath 2012: 301). Factors that can affect this connection and relationship to the case are often related to who the researcher is (Halperin and Heath 2012: 301). As a researcher, I have felt a degree of relatability with the respondents as I have grown up in Scotland and feel connected to several of the themes discussed throughout the paper based on personal experiences. It has been important that this connection has not influenced or hindered my ability to analyse my observations and interviews critically. However, this personal connection has offered advantages throughout this research. For example, I understood how to communicate on the same level as the participants. My wording in the email which described the interview as a wee chat was from recognition that a formal sounding email could intimidate respondents. In general, being relatable to the respondents allowed me to establish trust and encourage them to freely tell their stories.
~ 27 ~
CHAPTER THREE
The PB Event in Muirhouse
This chapter will outline the observations made from the PB event in Muirhouse which I attended for the purpose of preliminary research. I will take the reader through the happenings on the day of the event exploring how the process was organised and how the events unravelled. I will then identify the three key themes which were most striking on the day and warrant further analysis. The first theme relates to the sense of passion and deep-rooted community spirit that was evident at the event. The second theme relates to the observation made that there was no sign of any elected representatives present despite being invited and expected to attend. The third and final observation involves the notable efforts of the church to organise a follow-up event, to provide channels for feedback and exercises of accountability. These observations build a foundation for the subsequent analysis chapters in Part II.
3.1. On the Day
The PB event in Muirhouse was held at the Old Kirk and Muirhouse Parish Church. Arriving at the Church hall at 9:30am on Saturday the 14th of April 2018, I was greeted by Stephen Emery, reverend of the Church. Around the hall there were seven tables to represent the groups who had applied for funding and would be pitching their ideas to the community. In the center of the hall there were more tables and chairs set up for the community members and voters to sit. Stephen informed me that the setup was a result of feedback from the previous year when the community had its first experience with PB. The event previous had been held in the church itself and the participants were asked to stand up on stage in front of the entire community to give their presentations. This had been daunting for several participants who were not used to public speaking. If citizens feel that they need to exercise skills such as public-speaking, then this can serve to discourage them (Barnes et al. 2003: 393). It was significant that this was identified and corrected by the organisers.
The second reason why the hall had been set up in this format was based on another lesson learned from the previous year. After the presentations at the PB event of 2017, the community was moved into the church hall for tea and coffee as the votes were counted. It was noted that, in the church hall, the groups were able to converse much more easily among
~ 28 ~
each other. There was much more interaction between members of the community than when they had been seated in single-file rows. I was informed that this interaction served to enable the groups to share their experiences and knowledge. More than learning from each other, several groups agreed to team-up and share resources, such as equipment, with each other.
There were seven groups applying for a maximum amount of £1000 out of a total fund of £4,500 (see Appendix III for the ballot paper outlining the groups, their projects and bids). As the organisations arrived, they set up their stalls displaying various pieces of equipment, posters and picture boards to highlight the work of their organisations. Members of the public could walk around to speak to the organisations in a market-stall-style manner. I found a seat in the center of the room and sat next to a woman, Karen who represented the Church of Scotland which was the body that the Scottish Government’s PB fund was allocated through on this particular occasion. Karen was there to observe the process of the day and report back to her head office. It was particularly useful for myself to be seated with Karen as I was able to learn more about the context of PB in Scotland and the structure of the funding process, something I will return to in the following chapters.
After some time, Stephen invited each organisation to pitch their ideas for the funding in a bid for why their organisation should be voted for. One of the seven organisations did not show up yet, it was brought to the organisers attention that there was only enough money to fund five of the six remaining groups. Concerned about the prospect of one group losing out on receiving funding, I listened to Stephen and another organiser discussing a solution. Stephen suggested placing an additional option on the ballot which would allow voters to split the funds evenly between all six groups present. However, this additional ballot option was not introduced because Karen advised that the process needed to run its natural course. I return to discuss this decision in Part Two.
Each organisation presented their proposals. Following this, everyone present in the room, including the representatives of the organisations and the young children, were asked to cast a ballot. There was an opportunity for myself to cast a ballot. However, this did not feel appropriate given the nature of my attendance. The instructions were to choose five organisations and rank them in order of preference. After receiving all the ballots, the organisers proceeded into a back room to count the votes. As the count was underway, refreshments were served and I watched as the groups and members of the community began to mingle with each other. Whilst I noted a relatively large amount of interaction amongst the different organisations, it was pointed out to me by Karen, representative of the intermediary organisation, that there was less interaction across groups than there had been in the previous
~ 29 ~
year. She suggested that the market stalls were in part to blame for this. The stalls were encouraging several people to remain in their own, designated areas instead of encouraging them to go out and mingle with the other groups.
After some time, the organisers returned to announce the results of the vote. Five out of the six groups were awarded the full amount of money which they applied for. The group with the lowest number of votes, apart from the group which were not present, was the Muirhouse Millennium Center. The representative was Peter and it appeared that he had come to event on his own and had not brought along supporters, unlike most of the other groups. My initial reaction to the news that he had lost out was a feeling of concern in the PB process. It appeared there was some truth in critics’ concerns that PB is a popularity contest were correct as only the groups who had brought with them supporters had won. However, after the results had been announced it caught my attention that a couple of individuals from two separate groups had approached Peter and appeared to be engaging in an in-depth conversation with him. Shortly after, an enthusiastic Stephen called the attention of the hall once more. He announced that two groups, whom I had observed approach Peter, had offered to give away some of the money they had been awarded to his group. Additionally, Stephen announced that the Church of Scotland had agreed to compensate the rest of the money to ensure that Peter would receive the full amount of money which he had applied for. Therefore, and despite there not being an option for the money to be divided equally, every group was awarded the funding they had applied for and there were no losers.
3.2. Themes from the observations
I have outlined the proceedings of the PB event at Muirhouse. However, to set the foundations for Part II of this study, there are several key themes which I have identified from my observations which warrant further analysis. These three themes involve firstly, the sense of passion and community spirit which I observed. Secondly, the unobservable presence of elected representatives. Thirdly, the efforts of the church in organising a follow-up event for the purpose of creating feedback as well as accountability. I proceed to introduce these themes with particular focus on the first theme which could be more significantly captured through observing the event.
~ 30 ~
3.2.1. Passion and Community Spirit
This first theme draws on two observations. First, the sense of care from the citizen-participants toward the community and one another within it. There was passion, and even courage, involved in each presentation and display. Secondly, there was a striking ability of the participants to articulate an awareness of the area’s problems associated with deprivation and how their group offers, in part, a potential stepping-stone towards solving these problems. However, although the groups were articulated, it was not in the conventional sense. They used passion and emotional appeals to convey their messages and not reasoned, rational argumentation.
I interpreted the sense and feeling of the care and passion for the community amongst its residents based on two indicators. The first was the determination of the Minister, organiser and community leader, Stephen, to ensure that every group received funding by suggesting an additional option on the ballot which would see the money divided equally. This is not the conventional way that PB is supposed to operate which, by definition, implies that there will be winners and losers. The second indicator of this passion was the independent, uninfluenced decision of two of the groups to share their winnings with the group who did not receive enough votes. It was interesting that this occurred without encouragement from the Minister, despite his initial enthusiasm for including an option which would allow everyone to receive a share of the money. During the analysis in Chapter Four, I return to explore how this event unfolded using information acquired in the interviews.
The second key observation I made, incorporated in this theme, was that each group was able to convey their reasons for needing funding as a desire to benefit the wider community. Each group or organisation was different and had a unique project idea that needed funding. There was a notable sense of passion and further, a compelling awareness, from nearly every group, of the social problems they face. At first glance, the proposals on paper would appear to be standard local community ideas which in no significant way signal that they are targeting social problems. However, each bid was essentially linked to combatting an issue which they face due to deprivation and inequality. One group for example, was a group of youths representing the North Edinburgh Youth People’s Forum (NEYPF). The speaker, a 16-year old male spoke passionately about his concerns, and those of his peers, of how growing up in Muirhouse had attached them to negative stigmas due to the community’s “bad reputation”. They were concerned for their future job prospects because of this stigma and wanted money for courses which could benefit their CVs thus helping to reduce the stigma.
~ 31 ~
The youngest member was 12, a notably young age to have concerns about future career-paths and resumes. Another group, the Muirhouse Minis wanted money for their toddler-parent group. The organisation provides activities and food for any parent/guardian with young children but it was stressed that one of the main objectives of the group was to try and combat isolation, another issue typical of deprived areas. The group’s leader, Danielle, spoke of how they currently had to ask members for £1. This, in ordinary terms, would be a very small fee. Yet, it seemed that, in relative terms, even asking for £1 was a lot to ask of families in the area.
The reason why the groups’ presentations were significant is that they challenge the theoretical expectation, outlined in Chapter One, that deliberation, in the form of rational, reasoned discussion is a necessary outcome of PB. Although rational argumentation was evident in several of the groups’ presentation, there was evidently something more at play. In the case of Muirhouse, deliberation took the form of what deliberative-practitioners would more likely anticipate and that is the use of emotional appeals and human expression. This was a more important trait to the citizen-participants of Muirhouse than sophisticatedly articulated, reasoned claims.
The groups’ recognition for the challenges of deprivation was coupled with a striking appreciation for the level of impact they perceived the additional funding to have. However, it was clear that the event was more than a way for groups to acquire funding. It was a forum for discussing the problems of the community and a space for proposing ideas which can, in some way, contribute towards reducing these problems. This was evidenced by the tone of the presentations which touched on the need to address the wider issues in the area.
3.2.2. The Absence of Elected Representatives
The second key theme deduced from the observations involved the apparent non-attendance of any government, local or national, representative. This was striking as I had been made aware that all the elected representatives from the area had been invited. Further there is a commitment to PB, and a strong momentum behind it, within the Scottish Government. Therefore, it was puzzling that the representatives would decline an invitation.
Another significance of the observable absence was linked to my expectation, formed based on the theoretical expectations, that PB can strengthen the relationship between citizens and their representatives. It stirred the question of what effect, if any, PB can have on this relationship in the absence of elected officials. This will become a central question in the
~ 32 ~
analysis of Chapter Five which addresses what it means for a deprived community such as Muirhouse when elected representatives fail to attend their PB processess.
3.2.3. Organising Feedback and Accountability
Observing the event, I was struck by the efforts of the Reverend and the church to organise a follow-up meeting which would allow the groups to provide feedback on their experiences at a later date. This was discussed in the concluding discussion of the event and each group expressed an interest and their support for this idea. Additionally, I witnessed one group video-recording the event for the purpose of feedback and review. Another observation within this theme was how, at the end of the event, each group which received funding signed a contract created by the Church of Scotland to state that they would spend the funds appropriately. I considered how this was an interesting way to ensure a level of accountability. It appeared that all these measures served a purpose of instilling responsibility within the community. However, it was begged the question of why this had become the role of the church and not of the government. Government is usually invested in ensuring accountability, especially when it comes to the spending of tax-payers’ money. REFERENCE Further, the Scottish Government claim to be strongly committed to PB however, this commitment does not appear to be evidenced in this case. The questions surrounding this will be explored further in Chapter Six.
3.3. Telling the Story
What is evident from these observations and the themes which I have identified is that there is a story to tell. I sought to name these three themes with suitable labels. I considered the frames which have been used to describe Muirhouse. A quick search on LexisNexis reveals that media stories about the community are plagued with references to crime, violence and drug-abuse. The reputation which follows is that Muirhouse is a “rough”, “dangerous” or “bad” community. I want to challenge these stigmas with labels which could reflect the more positive way to describe the community in a way that also reflects the perspective of the residents. I settled on three labels which could be used to describe Muirhouse in a way which captures the findings from my observations and from the subsequent interviews. Therefore, the observations I made have been grouped into themes which present Muirhouse as a passionate
~ 33 ~
community, a forgotten community and responsible community. These are the three chapters of Part II which tell the story of PB in Muirhouse.
~ 35 ~
