While often presented as a diamond-infused ethnic conflict, Chapter 7 explores how the conflict in the Central African Republic has settled into a ‘war of roads’, where roadblocks figure as a key source of revenue and therefore of contestation between competing armed groups. For Central African rebels, control over one of these routes constitutes a key prize in the conflict -- exactly the same stakes that underpinned much of pre-colonial state formation in the region. Roadblocks, obligatory escorts, restrictions on who can participate in lucrative trade -- circulation is anything but free in the Central African Republic. Largely sharing the same practical limitations experienced by armed groups, the Central African government bears so many resemblances to armed groups that it vindicates Charles Tilly’s point that states can be likened to well-equipped mafia. While cattle-herders and traders who do business here have developed sophisticated strategies to evade all manner of armed actors, each of the parties to the conflict jealously keeps as tight a leash as possible on profitable long-distance exchange, lest the profits fall into the hands of competing Central African conflict entrepreneurs.

On 20 November 2012, the rebel group M23 seized control of North Kivu’s provincial capital, Goma. Over the subsequent year, it occupied much of that province. M23 made itself an obligatory passage point for trade by occupying strategically situated points at the heart of flows of internal displacement, minerals, aid, and trade. It handled taxation professionally: it gave out receipts, and set fixed rates for different sizes and types of vehicles, which were also slated according to contents. About half a millennium earlier, in 1568, the Jaga had made a similar move, conquering a strategic point along a key trade route in present-day Congo. Jan Vansina has called this ‘the first instance of an inland people attempting to gain wealth by cutting out middlemen along the trade routes’. These events are clear instances of strategies with a much broader purchase. Today there are so many roadblocks in Central Africa that it is hard to find a road which does not have one; and in the centuries following the Jaga episode, numerous African polities were crafted out of control over trade route bottlenecks. This book is about these roadblocks, and this chapter explores how control over passage points along trade routes embodies a key form of power and an object of struggle in Central Africa, contemporary and historical.

Introduction

Research and practice are inseparable in that each necessarily informs the other. This chapter begins with an exploration of the nature of research and its relationship to practice, illustrated with examples from START. It then focuses specifically on research with refugees, together with the debates and ethical challenges that working with this particular group brings into sharp relief. Undoubtedly these issues are transferable to other groups. Arguably, no one form of research is better than another – or indeed capable of ‘telling the truth’. In seeking to ‘tell a truth’ as well as we are able, we acknowledge that all research is itself an intervention. In respect of people who are refugees we have an urgent obligation to ensure that the research process is one that contributes positively to their situations.

A substantial part of this chapter will focus, therefore, on appreciative inquiry as a strengths approach to research. It will introduce the process for those unfamiliar with it and report on work supported by Avril and conducted at START by Kim Embra for her doctoral thesis while studying as a clinical psychology student at Plymouth University.

It concludes with reference to good practice guidance (Temple and Moran, 2011) and the value of a strengths approach lens for judging a research approach.

Research and practice

We cannot do justice to the wealth of scholarship about research that exposes the fallacy of objectivity, the inevitability of context and researcher perspective, and the illusion of binary simplicity (Butler et al, 2007). Traditionally research is judged according to its reliability and validity: features that can be tested by repeating the research in different circumstances and achieving a consistent result. In social sciences (and more mainstream science) these positivist ideas have been challenged and ideas of what constitutes good research extended (May, 1993; Jones, 2012). Jan Fook (2001) argues that there is no one authentic research methodology. She states that all stages of research are complex and interpretive (and therefore biased). These include the selection of the question, methodology and analysis. In her view, authenticity is supported through reflexivity and honesty rather than through a careful adherence to rules. She exposes the inadequacy of binary positions and reflects on the positivist nature of some qualitative research, for example.

Refugees are people who have been forcibly displaced because of war or persecution and have arrived in a strange land. Imagine you have had to flee for your life. You have left everything you know – friends, family, familiar sounds, sights, smells, objects and everyday activities. You have undergone numerous challenges to reach a place of safety and have been met with suspicion, disbelief and hostility when you arrived (Halpern and Sloan, 2020). You do not need to be treated as a charity case, deprived of your dignity or shamed by the expectation that you should be grateful.

This chapter is about growing community and protecting conditions in which community as a practice can thrive. The concepts that inform this chapter are ‘community’, ‘the commons’ and ‘reciprocity’. Examples follow, from the experience at START and elsewhere, of activities that can facilitate community growth with a particular focus on the way they are informed by a strengths approach. We believe they have wider application. They are offered as a stimulus rather than a recipe!

What is a strengths approach to community?

The literature surrounding community work refers to different models of community relating to:

• • profession (Goode, 1957)

• • geographical location (Phillips and Pittman, 2014)

• • ethnic or cultural allegiance (Breton, 1964)

• • interest or practice (Wenger, 1998; Bradshaw, 2008)

• • wider society in general, including both human and nonhuman elements (Dorow and O’Shaughnessy, 2013)

The term community remains contested with much of the literature about community work assuming a geographic definition (Stepney and Popple, 2012). A current and popular model of working with community strengths rather than deficits originates in the US with the work of Kretzmann and McKnight (1993; McKnight and Kretzmann, 1996). In a move away from a conflict orientation, they propose a system called ‘asset-based community development’ (ABCD) that seeks out the strengths and ‘assets’ of communities in order to affirm, connect and build on them. In affirmation of this more positive paradigm, Mathie and Cunningham describe ABCD as ‘an approach, as a set of methods for community mobilization, and as a strategy for community-based development’ (2003: 6).

The strengths approach (Saleebey, 2009) is a way of thinking about social problems that harnesses the strength and potential of people, their communities and environment, even in conditions of the most depleted social capital. In times of austerity and the dismantling of the welfare state, it has much to offer anyone seeking to maintain hope and optimism.

People are conditioned to identify problems, target them and propose solutions in the belief that the answer always lies in taking more control. In contrast, the strengths approach requires a departure from positivist thinking and a stance more aligned to that of deep ecology (Naess, 1973):

• • acknowledgement of the depth and severity of the challenges;

• • respect for all parts of the system, from microbe to constellation; and

• • trust in the potential for true sustainability.

The strengths approach offers a way of thinking and acting that goes beyond mere mitigation. It is a holistic practice that, as illustrated in the chapters of this book, is indeed sustainable.

In our own practice as social workers we have found that the strengths approach has often been misrepresented and superficially applied in a manner that belies its value base. While it has been incorporated into the lexicon of theories taught on professional courses, the strengths approach has been significantly marginalised in favour of more empirical, positivist methods that focus on problems and pathology in order to find cause-and-effect responses. The current focus on it in UK policy and practice, however, has prompted many writers to rediscover its considerable influence in other theories, methods and models of intervention. At worst, it is the latest approach to be appropriated and colonised in serving the neoliberal agenda as a cost-cutting panacea, similar to the fate of concepts like resilience or solution-focused models. It is increasingly urgent, therefore, to reconsider the strengths approach and really understand it.

Being prepared to face the reality of our condition is fundamental to the approach. Much of that reality gives cause for hopelessness. Humans continue to devastate the planet with wars and extractive commercial activity. Compelling, well-founded critiques of UK welfare services encompass the impact of capitalism, neoliberalism, austerity and the removal of the welfare floor for growing numbers of people.

In this chapter, we present a model grounded in the strengths approach which critiques the assumptions about how students learn in practice. We provide a framework for identifying and affirming organisations like START that offer a potentially transformative environment for learning. The framework is substantiated by previously unpublished research funded through a university teaching fellowship, undertaken with 14 pioneer students from the first two years of START's life examining how students learned in that unconventional setting. Findings from this study are considered in the context of theorising about the strengths approach, extended by the experience of working with learners from diverse professional courses and international students. Fundamental to this approach are concepts of the learning organisation (Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2008) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).

We know beyond doubt that students are capable of achieving the impossible – simply because they do not know that it is. We have seen them apply their passion for social justice and their life experience successfully to situations that might have discouraged an experienced worker. In educating students for the challenges of the future we want them to bring everything they know from their lives so far. Similarly, refugees, or indeed anyone seeking help, need to be able to draw on everything they know to create the potential for transformation. It is essential for the continued health of the organisation that its two components – service to refugees, and student learning – are held in balance at all times. Emphasis on the interconnection of theory and practice safeguards a learning environment where no one is ‘the expert’ and everyone is ‘an expert’ whose contribution is essential. Mutuality is at the core of the strengths approach.

Traditionally, students have learned to practise through placements, whereby a professional practitioner supervises them and gradually passes on their expertise. These apprenticeship models of professional learning can only equip professionals for a future similar to the present. Inevitable changes resulting from the climate emergency, scarcity of natural resources, demographic shifts, global conflicts and their consequences for human populations make that form of future very unlikely.

A strengths approach to governance and management is a philosophical core providing an anchor in stormy seas. The strengths approach has enabled our own organisation to be responsive to constant changes in circumstances and to be nimble-footed while retaining financial probity, policy compliance and quality assurance, as well as remaining true to its values. The approach described by Atul Gawande as essential is difficult, but it is possible to sustain. In our view, there are three preconditions:

• • trust that everyone in the organisation will do the best they can to deliver the shared goals;

• • respect for different specialist knowledge and attention to detail;

• • constant communication between team members to ensure that they all own strategic decisions.

These features underpin a strengths approach to governance and management based on mutual respect, shared goals and a system of supervision that encourages everyone to contribute. Responsibility is shared collectively but individual accountability is never abdicated.

In this chapter we review the neoliberal context for practice and specifically the influence of NPM. We discuss the elements that are part of a systemic strengths approach to management and governance, namely non-hierarchical structures, leadership and supervision. This is followed by a detailed examination of the way electronic systems, as an instrument of NPM, can undermine an organisation's core practices and how the strengths approach can be applied in mitigation.

The political context

The current climate for many western democracies has been explored extensively by political analysts and commentators.

This chapter examines the nature of the relationship between NGOs and the sources of their funding. We reflect on the fact that money can have both positive and negative impact and explore some of the possibilities for mitigating its risks. The ways in which NGOs are funded are highly contextual – manifestations of the time and place in which the NGO operates. There are, however, some enduring and transferable truths about how a strengths approach can influence the health and resilience of any organisation that does not rely on a capitalist model of income generation and profit.

Neoliberal societies revere money as the key resource for an organisation. Money though, however welcome, always has consequences, both intended and unintended. In a capitalist world there is no such thing as ‘clean money’ and all profit may be regarded as exploitation of the earth's finite resources, of people's labour or both. Money does not come without expectation – whether it is to show the donor in a good light or in some other transactional relationship. Inevitably, funding is accompanied by requirements for outputs and outcomes as if community action for social change is nothing more than a commercial transaction. But the resources of any organisation are much more than money. A strengths approach recognises the environmental potential and the capabilities of service users, communities, students and their labour, alongside unexpected alliances. We also know that, without adequate funding to maintain a supportive structure, access to those resources may be lost.

While financial sufficiency is important for an NGO's continuation, it would be a huge mistake to regard it as the most important element of its resourcing. For money to become its central concern is to remove the core and leave the work without a heart. We fully acknowledge that money matters; Chapter 3 describes the impact of both the sudden increase and then the loss of funding on the organisation's development. Nevertheless, money is the oil – not the machine itself.

The manipulation of law and policy by governments to perpetuate power and social injustice (seen in every totalitarian regime before, since and including the Third Reich) is one of the toughest challenges confronting the strengths approach. This chapter is unique in exploring what a strengths approach to mobilising law and policy will involve. It aims to show through the examples how maintaining a strengths approach to legal frameworks can, in itself, subvert a government's aims to undermine human rights by such harmful means and promote social justice.

Understanding law, its purpose and function

Law is a core component of practice for professions like social work and is a way to achieve social justice at the level of collective action as well as that of the individual. In the contract between the individual and the state, it plays a key part in the regulation of power. Students and practitioners alike approach it with more than a degree of ambivalence, however – it is complex and constantly changing, not ‘set in tablets of stone’; it is not neutral but subject to interpretation; it can be contradictory in some areas and outdated in others; it is heavily influenced by political ideology, interest groups, public inquiries, the European Union, the media and moral panics.

It is characterised by inaccessible language and terminology rendering its use elitist; it is a blunt instrument incapable of covering every eventuality in a given situation. In risk-averse societies, it is increasingly deployed to impose ‘uniform solutions at the expense of private space’ (Sumption, 1999: 6) – with peers expressing concern at the ‘tsunami’ of new legislation in the UK, for example – as governments attempt to legislate their way out of trouble.

How does a strengths approach apply to organisational development? As an alternative paradigm to conventional theorising, this chapter introduces the concept of social innovation defined in Box 3.1. We begin with an account of entrepreneurship – using existing resources in a new way – and record how academic activism led to the creation of an NGO. Charting the development of the latter reveals how frequently people sought to pigeon-hole it within conventional organisational types. The effects of growth on the organisation are revealed and an account is given of how the strengths approach enabled it to mature through a period of financial difficulty. A critique of the neoliberal notion of social enterprise is also offered in this context.

A transferable model of social entrepreneurship derived from our early experiences at START then illustrates the way a strengths approach to organisational development can result in social innovation. Drawing on research using a business administration lens, we consider how social innovation can produce organisations that are suited to their particular locality in size and composition, responsive to national and local agendas, and energising and educative for all concerned. A vital component of the approach is trust.

Entrepreneurship

The strengths approach, explored and illustrated throughout these chapters, is one that looks to the future. It is concerned with lives being made rather than looking back on the past, when people became labelled as refugees. The immigration process requires people to tell an unchanging story of their persecution in order to be believed and granted leave to remain. In a media-drenched environment where every detail of people's lives and experiences are shared, it can seem acceptable to ask for the stories of danger and escape. Through media bombardment we are desensitised to the intrusion of satisfying our curiosity. Local volunteers who are new to START have a tendency to ask ‘How did you get here?’ oblivious to the fact that asking someone to revisit the trauma in this way can be deeply disturbing.

For some people, the opportunity to tell their whole story in their own way can be cathartic and part of the process of building their future. A particularly powerful example is the play How Not To Drown, written and performed by Dritan Kastrati who came to England as an unaccompanied, asylum-seeking child aged 11 (Billington, 2019). Similarly, Dina Nayeri's novel (2017) and journalism (2019b) invite the reader to glimpse the complex and nuanced experience of being a refugee. As she writes: ‘The refugee story doesn't end at asylum and safety, the moment when many readers look away. It is an endless battle with pride, shame, identity and especially language’ (Nayeri, 2019b).

For the majority of people, however, their energy is directed at building their futures rather than examining their past.

Inevitably, not everyone who comes to the organisation is satisfied with the outcome although monitoring consistently gives us confidence in the service. In this chapter we present the positive experiences of five refugees in their own words, using a process described in Box 9.1. The accounts start at the point of their first encounter with START and describe their journeys to the future. In so doing, we hope to show the instability of categories that lock people into stereotypes.