Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:25:19.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socio-Spatial Variations in Community Self-Help: A Total Social Organisation of Labour Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

Colin C. Williams
Colin C. Williams*
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of Sheffield E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that community self-help in affluent populations revolves around engagement in formal community-based groups, whilst the participatory culture of deprived populations is more orientated towards informal (one-to-one) community participation. Reporting the findings of 861 face-to-face interviews conducted in affluent and deprived urban and rural English communities, and reading participation in community self-help through the lens of a ‘total social organisation of labour’ perspective, this article transcends this dichotomous depiction and provides a finer-grained more multi-layered mapping of the multifarious varieties of community self-help and its socio-spatial variations. The article concludes by exploring the implications for theory, practice and policy.

Type
Themed Section on Remixing the Economy of Welfare? Changing Roles and Relationships between the State and the Voluntary and Community Sector
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 365 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Choi, N. G., Burr, J. A. and Caro, F. G. (2007), ‘Formal and informal volunteer activity and spousal care-giving among older adults’, Research on Ageing, 29, 2, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M., Walker, A. and Morgan, A. (2002), People's Perceptions of Their Neighbourhood and Community Involvement: Results from the Social Capital Module of the General Household Survey 2000, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Countryside Agency (2001), The State of the Countryside 2001, London: Countryside Agency.Google Scholar
Davis Smith, J. (1998), The 1997 National Survey of Volunteering, London: Institute for Volunteering Research.Google Scholar
Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008), Citizenship Survey April–September 2007, London: Department of Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998), Community-based Regeneration Initiatives: A Working Paper, London: DETR.Google Scholar
Department of Social Security (DSS) (1998), A New Contract for Welfare, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Field, J. and Hedges, B. (1984), A National Survey of Volunteering, London: Social and Community Planning Research.Google Scholar
Glucksmann, M. (1995), ‘Why work? gender and the total social organisation of labour’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 2, 2, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glucksmann, M. (2000), Cottons and Casuals: The Gendered Organisation of Labour in Time and Space, Durham: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glucksmann, M. (2005), ‘Shifting boundaries and interconnections: extending the “total social organisation of labour”’, The Sociological Review, 53, 2, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury (2002), The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
HM Treasury (2007), The Future Role of the Third Sector in Social and Economic Regeneration: Final Report, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
HM Treasury and Home Office (2002), Next Steps in Volunteering and Giving in the UK: A Discussion Document, London: HM Treasury and Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (1999), Community Self-Help – Policy Action Team No. 9, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2003), Building Civil Renewal: A Consultation Paper, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Kempson, E. (1996), Life on a Low Income, York: York Publishing Services.Google Scholar
Kershaw, C., Budd, T., Kinshott, G., Mattinson, J., Mayhew, P. and Myhill, A. (2000), The 2000 British Crime Survey: England and Wales, Home Office Statistical bulletin 18/00, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Kitchen, S., Michaelson, J., Wood, N. and John, P. (2006), 2005 Citizenship Survey: Active Communities Topic Report, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. (2001), Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Practice and Methodology, London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, A., Prime, D. and Zimmeck, M. (2001), Voluntary and Community Activities: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
La Valle, I. and Blake, M. (2001), National Adult Learning Survey (NALS) 2001, Brief no. 321, London: Department for Education and Skills, www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR321.pdf [accessed 09.07.2009].Google Scholar
Lynn, P. and Davis Smith, J. (1992), The 1991 National Survey of Voluntary Activity in the UK, Berkhamsted: The Volunteer Centre UK.Google Scholar
Merrill, M. V. (2006), ‘Global trends and the challenges for volunteering’, International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 29, 1, 9–14.Google Scholar
Milligan, C. (2007), ‘Geographies of voluntarism: mapping the terrain’, Geography Compass, 1, 2, 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R., Wedlock, E. and King, J. (2005), Early Findings from the 2005 Home Office Citizenship Survey, Home Office Report 49/05, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2000), Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
Pennant, R. (2005), Diversity, Trust and Community Participation in England, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Prime, D., Zimmeck, M. and Zurawin, A. (2002), Active Communities: Initial Findings from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S. and Wojcieck Sokolowoski, S. (1999), Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Baltimore: Center for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
Seyfang, G. and Smith, K. (2002), The Time of Our Lives: Using Time Banking for Neighbourhood Renewal and Community Capacity Building, London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (1998), Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, London: HM Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Unit.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2000), National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: A Framework for Consultation, London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. F. (2004), ‘Extending conceptual boundaries: work, voluntary work and employment’, Work, Employment & Society, 18, 1, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. C. (2003a), ‘Developing community involvement: contrasting local and regional participatory cultures in Britain and their implications for policy’, Regional Studies, 37, 5, 531–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. C. (2003b), ‘Developing voluntary activity: some policy lessons from the 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey’, Social Policy and Society, 2, 4, 285–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. C. (2005), ‘Cultivating community self-help in deprived urban neighborhoods’, City and Community, 4, 2, 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. C. (2008), ‘Developing a culture of volunteering: beyond a third sector approach’, Journal of Voluntary Sector Research, 1, 1, 25–44.Google Scholar
Williams, C. C., Aldridge, T., Lee, R., Leyshon, A., Thrift, N. and Tooke, J. (2001), Bridges into Work? An Evaluation of Local Exchange and Trading Schemes (LETS), Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar