Social Inclusion at Different Scales in the Urban Environment: Locating the Community to Empower

As area-based initiatives emphasise community empowerment and social inclusion programmes focus on place, this article compares participation in two ICT programmes in UK cities which sought to empower communities at different scales. Recruitment was better in a neighbourhood-scale project, a scale that enabled access to settings of public familiarity and helping/coping networks. However, the factors that promoted social inclusion during recruitment favour defensive collective action. A city-wide project facilitated transformative social learning by relocalising community more widely as a problem-oriented operational network. The two approaches could be combined, starting at neighbourhood level and then rescaling to reveal different affordances of social networks and stimulate different dimensions of technology appropriation.

[1]  P. Berger,et al.  The Social Construction of Reality , 1966 .

[2]  C. Fischer,et al.  To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. , 1984 .

[3]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[4]  P. Bourdieu,et al.  实践与反思 : 反思社会学导引 = An invitation to reflexive sociology , 1994 .

[5]  Barbara A. Misztal,et al.  Informality: Social Theory and Contemporary Practice , 1999 .

[6]  Rowland Atkinson,et al.  Owner Occupation, Social Mix and Neighbourhood Impacts , 1999 .

[7]  Ade Kearns,et al.  Joined-up Places?: Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Regeneration , 1999 .

[8]  M. Pennington,et al.  Researching Social Capital in Local Environmental Policy Contexts , 2000 .

[9]  Y. Rydin,et al.  Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital , 2000 .

[10]  G. Moon,et al.  Health Action Zones: the "third way" of a new area-based policy? , 2001, Health & social care in the community.

[11]  R. Meegan,et al.  'It's Not Community Round Here, It's Neighbourhood' : Neighbourhood Change and Cohesion in Urban Regeneration Policies , 2001 .

[12]  V. Cattell.  Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social networks and social capital. , 2001, Social science & medicine.

[13]  A. Kearns,et al.  Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood , 2001 .

[14]  Vincent Caradec,et al.  Sociabilite et diffusion des technologies de la communication , 2002 .

[15]  T. V. Blokland Potters.  'Neighbourhood Social Capital: Does an Urban Gentry Help? Some Stories of Defining Shared Interests, Collective Action and Mutual Support' , 2002 .

[16]  N. Thrift,et al.  Cities: Reimagining the Urban , 2002 .

[17]  Pascal De Decker,et al.  Urban governance, social cohesion and sustainability , 2002 .

[18]  Rowland Atkinson,et al.  ‘Opportunities and Despair, it’s all in there’ , 2004 .

[19]  Graham Crow,et al.  Neither Busybodies nor Nobodies: Managing Proximity and Distance in Neighbourly Relations , 2002 .

[20]  Talja Blokland.  Neighbourhood Social Capital: Does an Urban Gentry Help? Some Stories of Defining Shared Interests, Collective Action and Mutual Support , 2002 .

[21]  S. Graham.  Bridging Urban Digital Divides? Urban Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) , 2002 .

[22]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  A Trajectory for Community Networks Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[23]  George Galster,et al.  Neighbourhood effects on social opportunities: the European and American research and policy context , 2003 .

[24]  C. Merzel,et al.  Reconsidering community-based health promotion: promise, performance, and potential. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[25]  Gaynor Bagnall,et al.  Globalisation and belonging , 2004 .

[26]  K. Dekker,et al.  LARGE HOUSING ESTATES IN EUROPE: CURRENT SITUATION AND DEVELOPMENTS , 2004 .

[27]  Ali Madanipour,et al.  Marginal public spaces in European cities , 2004 .

[28]  Fiona O'May,et al.  Involving Older People: lessons for Community Planning. , 2004 .

[29]  Alan Murie,et al.  Social Exclusion and Opportunity Structures in European Cities and Neighbourhoods , 2004 .

[30]  Loïc Blondiaux,et al.  4. L'idée de démocratie participative : enjeux, impensés et questions récurrentes , 2005 .

[31]  Anne Power,et al.  Disadvantaged by where you live? New Labour and neighbourhood renewal , 2005 .

[32]  David M. Smith,et al.  On the margins of inclusion , 2005 .

[33]  Vivien Lowndes,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED … , 2005 .

[34]  Denise Meredyth,et al.  Wired High Rise: a community-based computer network: final report , 2006 .

[35]  B. Anderson,et al.  The impact of local ICT initiatives on social capital and quality of life , 2006 .

[36]  S. Graham,et al.  Variable Geometries of Connection: Urban Digital Divides and the Uses of Information Technology , 2006 .

[37]  S. Graham,et al.  Technology, time ^ space, and the remediation of neighbourhood life , 2005 .

[38]  Pavol Frič,et al.  Světlé a stinné stránky neformálních sítí v postkomunistické společnosti , 2008 .

[39]  Cesare Mattina,et al.  Gouverner la « démocratie locale » urbaine. Comités de quartier et conseils de quartier à Marseille, Toulon et Nice , 2008 .

[40]  S. Lindsay,et al.  Can Informal e-learning and Peer Support Help Bridge the Digital Divide? , 2008, Social Policy and Society.

[41]  Murray Low,et al.  Cities as Spaces of Democracy: Complexity, Scale, and Governance , 2009 .