Putting people in planning: participatory democracy, community building and social inclusion

Like other Western nations, since the nineteenth century Australia has been a representative democracy, in which citizens elect parliamentary representatives to make decisions and develop policies on their behalf (see chapter 5). These representatives are supported in their decision making by an ‘arm’s-length’, ‘techno-bureaucratic administration’, which includes experts such as environmental planners (Fung and Wright 2003, p. 3). However, as the issues for decision-making become increasingly complex, and societies increasingly diverse, the idea of citizen participation in decision-making is ever more accepted. There is now a significant body of political theory arguing for a more participatory model of democracy (participatory democracy), a model that strives to create opportunities for all members of a society to contribute meaningfully to decisions about the matters affecting their lives.

Community Cohesion and Social Inclusion: Unravelling a Complex Relationship

In a global context of an emphasis on identity politics and a ‘cultural turn’ in social analysis, deep concern has been expressed about multiethnic Britain becoming a broken society with many ‘sleepwalking’ into segregation and separatism. Given the close correspondence between areas of acute ethnic segregation and those of multiple deprivation, intercommunal tensions have included disputes about the equitable allocation of scarce urban resources across ethnicity. This creates the possibility that urban programmes may inadvertently accentuate intercommunal tension and confound efforts to synchronise cohesion and inclusion agendas. Following recent debates about the implications of increased diversity, influenced by arguments that multiculturalism has encouraged ‘parallel lives’, an emergent policy framework emphasises more proactive integration to promote ‘common belonging’. Criticism of this agenda includes its confusion between community and social cohesion, and its disproportionate focus on cultural aspects such as identity formation and recognition, relative to structural issues of income and class. In exploring this contested terrain in Britain, the article suggests that the longer-term debate about segregation, deprivation and community differentials in Northern Ireland can offer useful insight for Britain’s policy discourse.

Socially inclusive learning in a community setting

People with mental health problems, learning difficulties and poor literacy and numeracy are at risk of social exclusion including homelessness. They are often disconnected from the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system, with few opportunities for education and employment. Academic research has demonstrated a link between literacy and numeracy and social inclusion, however, the pathways to enact this are not well understood. This report presents insights into how a community based adult literacy program in West End, Brisbane, was first established and has since evolved into a successful model of what we are calling ‘socially inclusive learning’. The research informing the report was conducted as a twelve-month study from April 2013 to April 2014 funded through a partnership involving Anglicare Southern Queensland, A Place to Belong and the School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology. The research was conducted by Greg Marston and Jeffrey Johnson- Abdelmalik. The aim of the study was to clarify the principles, practice and methodology of the Reading and Writing group (hereafter RAW) and identify the characteristics of RAW that support the social inclusion of the individual being provided literacy learning. The questions guiding the research included: • What are the key principles and practices of the RAW model? • How does the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills contribute to the recovery of people with mental health and other issues? • How can the acquisition of literacy and numeracy skills support people’s social inclusion, including achieving employment and further education outcomes? A related aim of the project was to document how this community based literacy and numeracy program operates so that other organisations with an interest in addressing similar needs can learn from the model, particularly organisations that co-locate support and education and organisations that adopt a recovery approach when working with people with mental health challenges and intellectual and psychiatric disabilities. The report highlights the background to RAW, the learning philosophy of RAW, the profile of the participants in the program and the various roles and responsibilities and structure that supports the work of RAW. The report presents perspectives from the teachers, student participants and tutors on how the group is designed and the principles implemented.

Promoting resilience and protective factors in the Children's Fund: supporting children and young people's pathways towards social inclusion?

As part of the broader prevention and social inclusion agenda, concepts of risk, resilience, and protective factors inform a range of U.K. Government initiatives targeted towards children and young people in England, including Sure Start, the Children's Fund, On Track, and Connexions. This paper is based on findings from a large qualitative dataset of interviews conducted with children and their parents or caregiver who accessed Children's Fund services as part of National Evaluation of the Children's Fund research.1 Drawing on the notion of young people's trajectories, the paper discusses how Children's Fund services support children's and young people's pathways towards greater social inclusion. While many services help to build resilience and protective factors for individual children, the paper considers the extent to which services also promote resilience within the domains of the family, school, and wider community and, hence, attempt to tackle the complex, multi-dimensional aspects of social exclusion affecting children, young people, and their families.

Building climate change resilience and adaptive capacity in Australia’s community sector using social media and technology innovation

Public and private sector organisations worldwide are putting strategies in place to manage the commercial and operational risks of climate change. However, community organisations are lagging behind in their understanding and preparedness, despite them being among the most exposed to the effects of climate change impacts and regulation. This poster presents a proposal for a multidisciplinary study that addresses this issue by developing, testing and applying a novel climate risk assessment methodology that is tailored to the needs of Australia’s community sector and its clients. Strategies to mitigate risks and build resilience and adaptive capacity will be identified including new opportunities afforded by urban informatics, social media, and technologies of scale making.

Social inclusion through community enterprise? Examining the available evidence

In recent years the concepts of social inclusion and exclusion have become part of the repertoire of third-way policy discourses that seek to respond to complex socioeconomic problems through processes of 'joined-up' and 'integrated' governance. As part of this approach, we are witnessing an increased focus on the role of the third sector in facilitating social inclusion. While the push towards governing through networks has gained moral legitimacy in some areas of social policy, the practical legitimacy - that is, whether these new approaches actually produce demonstrably better outcomes than more traditional policy approaches - remains largely unsubstantiated. This article contributes to the evidence base, by examining the social-inclusion impacts of eleven community enterprises operating in Victoria, and to the wider available evidence on the social, economic and civic effects of social enterprise.

Skill development and social inclusion via peer assisted learning in first-year higher education : an evaluation of student experiences across two law units

Because professions seek graduates who can 'collaborate, share skills and knowledge, and communicate' (Kruck and Reif, 2001, p 37), it is important that university graduates are not equipped solely with the content knowledge of their discipline, but also with prospective employment skills. Furthermore, when students 'interact more in positive ways with their teachers and peers, they gain more in terms of essential skills and competencies, such as critical thinking, problem~solving [and] effective communication' (NSSE, 2000, p 2)./n this way, peer assisted fellowing has the potential to enhance students' professional development, and provide the social inclusion and engagement necessary for effective learning. This session describes two peer assisted learning models embedded within first year QUT Faculty of Law units. Through a partnership between teaching staff, student mentors and mentees, the models aim to facilitate student socialisation whilst supplementing understanding of substantive law with the development of academic and work·related skills. Mentor and mentee perceptions, and program implications, are considered.

Neoliberal social inclusion? The agenda of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance

University–community engagement (UCE) represents a hybrid discourse and a set of practices within contemporary higher education. As a modality of research and teaching, ‘engagement’ denotes the process of universities forming partnerships with external communities for the promised generation of mutually beneficial and socially responsive knowledge, leading to enhanced economic, social and cultural developments. A critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge) of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance’s (AUCEA) ‘Position Paper’(2008 Universities and community engagement (Position paper 2008–2010)), as reported in this article, suggests that its uneasy synthesis of neoliberal, social inclusion and civic engagement discourses into a hybrid UCE discourse semantically privileges neoliberal forms of engagement. Perhaps, as a result, the AUCEA seems to have missed an opportunity to influence the Australian ‘widening participation’ debate on securing access and opportunity for marginalised students at universities and building social and cultural capital within their communities of origin.