Innovations in Social Work Research

Using Methods Creatively

Louise Hardwick, Roger Smith, Aidan Worsley

• Publisher: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781849055857
• eBook ISBN: 9781784501457
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

A valuable reference to help practising researchers not only to understand but also to apply innovative approaches to social work research.

Featuring extended case studies of actual research projects, the book provides an overview of a number of central features and qualities of social work research. It incorporates both distinctive methodological features, such as approaches to participatory inquiry, and provides accounts of researcher strategies to address particular challenges, such as carrying out studies with hard to reach populations. This book combines important methodological insights with pragmatic guidance on commonly experienced problems and how these challenges can be overcome.

This is a key resource for social work and social care students, social work practitioners and academics engaged in research.

Section 1

INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN AND PLANNING

Chapter 1

ACTION RESEARCH FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Researching and Organising on Issues of Household Debt

SARAH BANKS

Durham University

Introduction

This chapter discusses an action research project on debt in low-income households in the Teesside area of North East England. The project, Debt on Teesside: Pathways to Financial Inclusion, involved collaboration between a university, a local community organisation and a national charity. It entailed collecting detailed financial information from 24 households, a money mentoring scheme and local and national campaigning for reform of the high-cost credit sector. A distinctive feature of the project was its location within a community organising framework, with a focus on mobilising people to take action for social change. This approach is described as ‘community organising-based action research’. The chapter discusses the strengths of the project as embedded, locally initiated action research with a national impact, whilst also outlining some of the practical and ethical challenges of community–university partnership working with a social justice agenda. It is written from the perspective of a female academic, who co-produced the research with many others.

Overview of the research project

Design

Debt on Teesside was a partnership between Durham University’s Centre for Social Justice and Community Action, Thrive Teesside (a grassroots community organisation) and Church Action on Poverty (CAP, a national campaigning organisation). It was funded by the Northern Rock Foundation for two years during 2011–13. The project was jointly designed by staff from the three organisations. It built on previous work by Thrive and CAP that had identified unmanageable debt as a significant problem for households in poorer neighbourhoods in Teesside and on subsequent earlier collaborations between Thrive and Durham University (Beacon NE, 2011; Friends Provident Foundation 2010; Orr et al., 2006 2010). This previous research and community work had highlighted the deleterious effects of the use of high-cost credit offered by doorstep lenders, rent-to-own, payday loan and catalogue companies – with annual percentage rates ranging from 100 per cent to 3000 per cent and higher. These credit sources are often used by people who are excluded from mainstream low-cost credit due to poor credit ratings and/or lack of a bank account. People in these circumstances are often described as ‘financially excluded’ (Devlin, 2005; Ellison et al., 2011; Flaherty and Banks, 2013; Patel, Balmer and Pleasance, 2012). Following the 2008 economic crisis, with increasing unemployment, precarious work and cutbacks in welfare benefits, it seemed likely that even more households on low incomes would become indebted, many taking out high-cost loans.

The project had three main elements:

1.Data collection on the financial and social circumstances, behaviours and attitudes of 24 low-income, indebted households, with the aim of enhancing knowledge of the dynamics of debt and what can be done to reduce indebtedness.

2.A mentoring scheme, involving trained community-based volunteers, with the aim of supporting these households to develop their skills in money management and move away from high-cost credit.

3.Local and national campaigning on specific issues arising from the household data and mentoring scheme, including holding local public assemblies, with the aim of contributing to changes in policy and practice.

The staff comprised a newly appointed half-time researcher employed by the University (Jan Flaherty), who focused particularly on household data collection and analysis; half of an existing community organiser post employed by CAP and based at Thrive (subsequently split into two posts – Community Organiser (Greg Brown), who focused more on campaigns, and Project Officer (Tracey Herrington), who organised the mentoring scheme); and a one-day-a-week secretary (latterly Helena Kilvington). Existing Thrive volunteers and unpaid community organisers, along with newly recruited volunteers, also contributed to the project as mentor-researchers. The project was based in the Thrive offices in Thornaby-on-Tees, supervised by Sarah Banks from Durham University and Mark Waters from CAP. Sarah Banks had overall responsibility for the project as ‘principal investigator’, as Durham University was the fund holder. An agreement between CAP and the University was drawn up relating to the distribution of money and responsibilities.

Approach and methods

ACTION RESEARCH

The project was designed as ‘action research’ – that is, it had an explicit focus on using research to empower people and bring about social change (Hart and Bond, 1995; Greenwood and Levin, 1998; Berry and Campell, 2001; Burns, 2008; Reason and Bradbury, 2008b). It also involved elements of participatory research – that is research in which people who are usually the subjects of study themselves play a role in designing and/or doing the research (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000; Kindon, Pain and Kesby, 2007; McIntyre, 2007; Kemmis, McTaggart and Nixon, 2014). In this case, local residents were trained to act as mentor-researchers, gathered data for the project from the mentoring sessions they undertook and fed back their experiences and reflections on a continuous basis. Some members of households who participated in mentoring schemes later became involved in campaigns.

‘Action research’ covers a broad range of different approaches – indeed, Reason and Bradbury (2008a, p.7) suggest it is a ‘family of approaches’. At one end of the spectrum it may involve professional researchers studying aspects of organisations, feeding back their findings to key stakeholders and working with them to introduce changes. Here the focus is on research, albeit action-oriented research. Alternatively, action research may entail community-based activists collecting pertinent information to prime their actions for change. Here the focus is on action, albeit ‘research-informed’ action. The latter was the approach adopted by Thrive, and this very much influenced the practice of the project.

COMMUNITY ORGANISING

At the time of the project, Thrive and CAP were using a ‘broad-based community organising’ approach in their work. The model was based on the work of Saul Alinsky, a North American activist who developed tactics for mobilising coalitions of organisations around a specific issue, organising campaigns and training local organisers (Alinsky, 1969, 1989; Beck and Purcell, 2013; Bunyan, 2010; Chambers, 2003; Pyles, 2009; Schutz and Miller, 2015; Walls, 2015). In particular, Thrive followed the approach of the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation,¹ which offered training in the UK through CAP for organisers and local people. The Gamaliel Foundation philosophy is:

People have a right and a responsibility to define their own destiny, to participate in the decisions affecting their lives, and to shape the social, political, economic and physical environment to include their values (quoted in their training in Stockton-on-Tees in 2010-11).

Thrive would hold meetings and carry out direct actions and campaigns on ‘issues’ raised by members and participants in its community projects. The plan was for the Debt on Teesside research project to generate evidence on issues of concern relating to household debt to present to, and influence, politicians, financial regulators and loan companies. Household members would also be offered one-to-one financial mentoring and it was hoped that some would go on to engage in campaigns and the broader work of Thrive.

COMMUNITY ORGANISING-BASED ACTION RESEARCH

Thrive had collected household-level financial data previously, but had insufficient resources to analyse it systematically. So the partnership with the University over several years prior to the start of the Debt on Teesside project enabled the research element of its work to be strengthened. This fitted well with the ethos and principles of the Centre for Social Justice and Community Action – a university-based research centre with a focus on Participatory Action Research (PAR) for social justice and membership from within and outside the University (Centre for Social Justice and Community Action, 2014). The Centre is used to working on action-oriented and participatory projects that value a range of ways of knowing and different types of expertise and involve flexibility of roles and unpredictability of processes and outcomes.

Hence the methodology and methods of the project were a mixture of traditional social research, along with community development and community organising approaches to mobilising individuals, forming groups and supporting collective action. Table 1.1 lists different elements of the project, indicating whether the methods used were primarily those of community organising or social research. However, it is important to note that these aspects of the project were not separate in practice, and on many occasions all workers on the project and Thrive volunteers contributed (for example, in the recruitment of households and organising assemblies).

Table 1.1: Combining community organising (CO) and social research (SR)
Aspects of the Debt on Teesside action research process	Methodological focus
Recruiting an advisory group through Thrive networks, including representatives from local advice, community finance and housing agencies	CO
Recruiting households through targeting neighbourhoods based on local knowledge; door knocking with community volunteers	CO
Recruiting mentors through existing Thrive volunteers and other agencies	CO
Preliminary focus groups with low-income households to gauge issues and interest and inform the questionnaire design	SR
Design of questionnaire for households with input from advisory group	SR
Run mentor training, including focus on mentors’ research role	CO/SR
Initial household interviews and data collection; mid-point and final interviews	SR
Mentoring sessions, including collecting data for research	CO/SR
Workshops and meetings with key agencies and individuals	CO
Work nationally with Centre for Responsible Credit on reforms to rent-to-own sector	CO
Public assemblies in Stockton and Middlesbrough	CO
Workshops for households participating in the mentoring project	CO/SR
Incentivised savings scheme for households with the local credit union	CO
Doorstep lending campaign	CO
Community organising training	CO
Making a film with some households for the affordability campaign	CO
Celebratory learning event with householders and key stakeholders	CO/SR
Contribute to national campaigns, Drowning in Debt (CAP) and Charter to Stop Payday Loan Rip Off	CO
Launch and dissemination of reports and mentoring toolkit	CO/SR
Follow-on work by Thrive with local authorities, advice agencies, etc.	CO
Follow-on work, policy and practice briefings and roundtables	CO/SR

Data analysis, reflection an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Of Related Interest
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• Section 1: Innovations in Design and Planning
• Section 2: Innovations in Research Methods
• Section 3: Innovations in Data Analysis
• Section 4: Innovations in Dissemination and Impact
• Conclusion
• About the Editors and Contributors
• Subject Index
• Author Index