Community Participation: Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Developmental Benefits

Current British government policy leans heavily toward a participatory approach to urban development. The alleged benefits range from the growth of trust and social capital to better policy delivery and implementation involving a greater range of actors in the policy process. Yet, in many cases, poorly carried out partnership and participatory efforts can produce outcomes directly opposite to the benefits listed above. The author examines participation as a structural phenomenon and in doing so offers insights into how relationships could be strengthened in order to avoid these negative outcomes. Social network analysis is used to examine the structural relationships found within an urban redevelopment project in Portsmouth, England. Through the application of these measures, a number of relational patterns emerged which were not conducive to participation and left community groups feeling overwhelmed and underrepresented. The author concludes by noting how this technique could be used not only to highlight network imbalances, as seen in the case study, but also to offer community groups proactive advice in developing their network ties and communication structures, thus improving their overall position within the network and helping to deliver better levels of trust and social capital to the process.

[1]  B. Wellman The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[3]  Marc L. Busch,et al.  The Intergovernmental Network of World Trade: IGO Connectedness, Governance, and Embeddedness1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  Robert V. Robinson,et al.  Ideology, Moral Cosmology, and Community in the United States , 2006 .

[5]  L. Freeman Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[6]  P. Cheshire,et al.  Territorial Competition and the Predictability of Collective (In)Action , 1996 .

[7]  Clarence N. Stone It’s More than the Economy after All: Continuing the Debate about Urban Regimes , 2004 .

[8]  Jacqui A Croft,et al.  Effectiveness at What? The Processes and Impact of Community Involvement in Area-Based Initiatives , 2005 .

[9]  G. Macleod,et al.  Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance , 1999 .

[10]  Y. Rydin,et al.  Business Privilege and the Strategic Planning Agenda of the Greater London Authority , 2005 .

[11]  C. Latkin,et al.  Outreach in natural settings: the use of peer leaders for HIV prevention among injecting drug users' networks. , 1998, Public health reports.

[12]  Keith G. Provan,et al.  The Use of Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships , 2005 .

[13]  S. Pinch,et al.  Growth coalitions and local economic development strategy in southern England: A case study of the Hampshire Development Association , 1994 .

[14]  J. Jauhiainen Waterfront redevelopment and urban policy: The case of Barcelona, Cardiff and Genoa , 1995 .

[15]  Vivien Lowndes,et al.  Like a Horse and Carriage or a Fish on a Bicycle: How Well do Local Partnerships and Public Participation go Together? , 2004 .

[16]  Renée A. Irvin,et al.  Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the effort? , 2004 .

[17]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Re‐evaluating the Contribution of Social Capital in Achieving Sustainable Development , 2004 .

[18]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Canada as Social Structure: Social Network Analysis and Canadian Sociology [1] , 2001 .

[19]  M. Storper,et al.  Better Rules or Stronger Communities? On the Social Foundations of Institutional Change and Its Economic Effects , 2006 .

[20]  S. Miles 'Our Tyne': Iconic Regeneration and the Revitalisation of Identity in NewcastleGateshead , 2005 .

[21]  Gerry Stoker,et al.  Trends In Public Participation: Part 1 – Local Government Perspectives , 2001 .

[22]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[23]  M. Ball,et al.  Urban Change and Conflict: Evaluating the Role of Partnerships in Urban Regeneration in the UK , 2005 .

[24]  Heather Ward,et al.  International Linkages and Environmental Sustainability: The Effectiveness of the Regime Network , 2006 .

[25]  E. Braun,et al.  Corporate Community Involvement in European and US Cities , 2004 .

[26]  Alexander H. Montgomery,et al.  Power Positions , 2006 .

[27]  K. Jacobs Waterfront Redevelopment: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Policy-making Process within the Chatham Maritime Project , 2004 .

[28]  S. McGreal,et al.  Leadership, Power and Multisector Urban Regeneration Partnerships , 2006 .

[29]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[30]  Edward O. Laumann,et al.  NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF COMMUNITY ELITES , 1973 .

[31]  David Krackhardt,et al.  WANTED: A Good Network Theory of Organization@@@Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. , 1995 .

[32]  A. Reeves,et al.  Just the Usual Suspects? Partnerships and Environmental Regulation , 2004 .

[33]  S. Borgatti,et al.  Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration , 2002 .

[34]  Ian Smith,et al.  Testing Governance: Partnerships, Planning and Conflict in Waterfront Regeneration , 2002 .

[35]  Andrew Jones,et al.  Issues in Waterfront Regeneration: More Sobering Thoughts-A UK Perspective , 1998 .

[36]  P. Lawless Partnership in Urban Regeneration in the UK: The Sheffield Central Area Study , 1994 .

[37]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community , 1996 .

[38]  G. Crow Developing sociological arguments through community studies , 2000 .

[39]  P. John Urban Economic Policy Networks in Britain and France; A Sociometric Approach , 1998 .

[40]  Margaret Stacey,et al.  The Myth of Community Studies , 1969 .