SOCIAL CAPITAL,

COLLECTIVISM-INDIVIDUALISM, AND

COMMUNITY BACKGROUND IN

NORTHERN IRELAND

 

 

Working draft for comment only

Presented to ISTR 2004, Toronto, July

 

Ed Cairns

Jon Van Til

Arthur Williamson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Centre for Voluntary Action Studies,

University of Ulster,

Coleraine, N. Ireland

 

 

 

CONTENTS

1. The Context and Purpose of the Study 3

2. The Theoretical Background 4

A. Fragmentation and Alienation 4

B. The Role of Social Capital 6

C. Collectivism and Individualism 6

D. Methodology 7

3. The Quantitative Survey 7

A. The Sample 7

B. Method

C. Questionnaires 7

D. Results 9

E. Discussion 13

4. The Qualitative Analysis 19

A. Social Capital 14

B. Collectivism – Individualism 14

C. Territoriality and Control 23

D. Community Infrastructure 27

5. Summary of Main Findings and Implications for Policy and Practice 30

Appendices

A. Social Capital and Collectivism-Individualism 32

questionnaires

B. Pearson Correlations - Total Sample 35

B2 & B3. Analyses of Co-variance

B4. Social Capital: Catholic-Protestant differences on

each question

References 39

1. THE CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this research project was: 1) to conduct a preliminary exploration of the concepts of collectivism-individualism and social capital in relation to the two religious/ethnic communities in Northern Ireland; and 2) to consider whether members of the two communities possess different ideologies of collective (or individualistic) action and whether this may have implications for public policy.

Funders frequently remark that the community organizations are more developed in predominantly Catholic/Nationalist areas than in Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist areas of Northern Ireland. A more adequate understanding is needed as to why Protestant and Catholic communities appear to participate differently in voluntary and community organisations or "localised structures". Furthermore it is suggested that Catholic communities are more proficient at obtaining funding from governmental and international sources. Clarification of matters concerning community capacity is urgently needed to underpin public policy in a range of policy fields and to inform and strengthen measures to build community infrastructure in all sections of the Northern Ireland population.

That there are differences is widely accepted, although there is little understanding of the reasons for those differences. A report by Northern Ireland's three MEP's to the European Commission president, (which formed part of the mid-term review of the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland (1997)), noted that European funding for the 'Peace Process' was being skewed towards community groups based in predominantly Catholic/Nationalist areas:

There is agreement that, for historical and cultural reasons, the Protestant community has not had the sort of localised structures that would have enabled them to plug in, without delay, to the mechanisms of the various sub-programmes. It should be emphasised that there is no question of unfair discrimination being the cause of the slower start which the Protestant community have made in many areas in their application to, and participation in, the Programme. (Paisley, Hume & Nicholson, (October, 1997, p. 5)

One suggested explanation for these differences relates to the concept of individualism/ collectivism and possible differential experiences of members of the two communities in relation to associational activity at local level. Other possible explanations have been hinted at in previous attitudinal research which has shown subtle differences between Protestants and Catholics in their attitudes. For example, analyses of social attitudes data for Northern Ireland by Cairns, (1991) and Wilford, (1997) have indicated that the two main communities in Northern Ireland hold differing and contrasting social attitudes with regard to wealth, welfare, law and order and support for political protest. These studies indicate that, broadly speaking, Catholics were found to be more in favour of welfare reform than Protestants. With the findings of these previous studies in mind, the present study investigates whether there may be differences in attitudes and behaviour in relation to associational activity between Catholics and Protestants.

The project’s components were designed to complement each other by shedding light on the issue under consideration both from a quantitative and a qualitative viewpoint. To do this we carried out a quantitative study of the Northern Ireland population by means of a random omnibus survey and a qualitative study based on focus groups and interviews with individuals in two of the main urban locations in Northern Ireland. These two strands are presented in the two main parts of this report as the Quantitative Survey and the Qualitative Analysis.

2. THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Underpinning this project are three important theoretical concepts, fragmentation/ alienation, social capital and collectivism-individualism, which we will briefly describe before going on to describe our findings in some detail. In particular, in our empirical work, we sought to explore the possibility that differences in social capital and collectivism-individualism might contribute to explanations for differential levels of fragmentation and alienation in communities in Northern Ireland.

A. Fragmentation and Alienation

Northern Ireland’s deep sectarian divide and the legacy of the "Troubles" reinforce social exclusion and pose special problems as the region seeks to move toward establishing more durable political institutions, increased community peace and reconciliation and a more stable civil society. It is paradoxical, but demonstrable, that the political settlement set out in the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998 has been accompanied by deeper divisions in Northern Ireland society and by increasing polarisation between members of the two main communities. This manifests itself in increased residential segregation, in polarisation toward political extremes and in the strengthened influence and control exercised by paramilitary organisations within local communities. Hughes and Donnelly show that attitudes have been hardening over the last five years. Fewer people think that relations between Protestant and Catholics are better now than five years ago. In 1996 44% of Protestants and 47% of Catholics thought inter-community relationships were better than five years previously. In 2001 these totals had decreased to 25% and 33% respectively.

O’Halloran has drawn attention to the realities of ethnic and religious polarisation:

This jurisdiction [Northern Ireland] comprises a patchwork of communities in each of which two sets of people of different and frequently opposing religious/ cultural affiliations have traditionally competed for social advantage in terms of opportunities for accessing the best jobs, housing, schools etc. In some communities, most notably in Belfast’s Falls Road and Shankill Road, the competition was resolved by the success of one group to the virtual total exclusion of the other.

Sectarianism and the fear engendered by paramilitary organisations create and reinforce the isolation of many working class communities. The Civic Forum report points out that such sectarian rigidities deny people access to social and health services that should be readily available to them and necessitate inefficient and costly over-provision of public services at the expense of quality.

In many Catholic/Nationalist communities community organising and community development is well developed and is directed by experienced leaders and this is also true of a few Unionist/Protestant areas. However in most Unionist/Protestant communities there has been a longstanding reluctance to engage in community development and, until relatively recently, a tendency to rely instead on state services. The fact of, and the reasons for, the differential propensity of the two communities to engage in community organising has been a matter of discussion and speculation since the early 1990s when the Community Relations Council organised a conference on this theme shortly after its inception.

During the past five to ten years a new dimension of fragmentation has emerged in both Nationalist and Unionist communities. The fraught and serious issues that are at the heart of politics in Northern Ireland are the source of further divisions and these are a significant reality in relation to community development and the work of the voluntary and community sector. Our fieldwork has confirmed that some working class Nationalist communities are experiencing tensions arising from electoral competitiveness between Sinn Fein and the SDLP. Working class Unionist communities are even more fragmented between a range of "Unionist" parties and at least three paramilitary organisations. The Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters are organised in working class Protestant areas on a region wide basis. A major plank of their strategy is control of territory, and in particular of public housing estates. It is widely acknowledged that much of the current activity of some of these organisations is characterised by gangsterism and organised crime rather than reflecting political concerns and priorities. This fragmentation makes co-operation within Unionist/Protestant communities extremely difficult and seriously inhibits their development. It also renders even more important, if more challenging, the "bridging" work of voluntary and community organisations and the activities of partnerships that bring together representatives of these communities with local government and statutory agencies.

 

 

B. The Role of Social Capital

The concept of Social Capital was promoted in 1990 by University of Chicago sociologist James S. Coleman in his massive treatise (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, and used to very good advantage by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam in his celebrated study of democracy in Italy, Making Democracy Work. Social capital, Putnam (1993: 167) advises:

… refers to features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions." It is an idea parallel to the "physical capital" formed by machines and the "human capital" represented by an educated workforce. Social capital is that fund of valued interaction that results in a confidence that new problems can be tackled and resolved by groups of neighbours or citizens or fellow workers.

Putnam studied the "civic communities" in the Italian regions of Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany. There he found values of solidarity, civic participation, and integrity to be strong, and institutions of democracy flourishing. Putnam describes the roots of these structures to be "astonishingly deep". At their core he identified rich "networks of civic engagement"—"neighborhood associations, choral societies, cooperatives, sports clubs, and mass-based parties" (1993: 173).

The steady depletion of social capital in modern society, Putnam asserts, provides a major challenge. His work illustrates that social capital is a public good, one that markets and their private agents alone cannot provide. Third-sector organisations, on the other hand, can play a crucial role facilitating and promoting its growth.

Putnam concludes his study with the observation (1993: 185): "Building social capital will not be easy, but it is the key to making democracy work." Where social capital exists, people can come together to understand what needs to be done and work to accomplish needed tasks. Where it is absent, they will stay home and let the TV set explain that much is going wrong in the world around them, but there is not much that anybody can do about it.

C. Collectivism-Individualism

The observation that Catholic/Nationalist communities tend to engage in self-organising to a greater degree than Protestant/Unionist communities, leads one to consider the origins and the nature of these differences. One explanation, addressed by the present research (and which had not previously been tested in Northern Ireland), revolves around the concept of individualism/collectivism. This theory suggests that there may be a continuum in society from those who place a priority on personal goals over group goals and those whose commitment is to societal interest (Brown, 1992; Triandis, 1995). This means that those who favour collectivism place more emphasis on group harmony while those with an individualistic approach put the emphasis on individual rights. As a result in communities dominated by collectively oriented individuals there is a tendency to blend in with the crowd and see happiness and prosperity as goals to be achieved by society at large. In contrast, where individualism dominates individuals are encouraged to see happiness and prosperity as individual goals to be achieved by their own personal development. This concept has been related to socio-political attitudes in other societies, including the Protestant work ethic (Strunk & Chang, 1998). For example, it has been shown that even in what are considered to be highly individualistic societies such as the USA, there are regional variations - for example, collectivist tendencies were strongest in the Deep South the Deep South (Vandello & Cohen, 1999).

D. Methodology

As note above we carried out two distinct, but related, studies.

Study One consisted of a random sample survey of the Northern Irish population. This survey included questions designed to measure individualism/collectivism as well as socio-political attitudes and attitudes to welfare and community organisation. In addition, demographic information about respondents was obtained including religious denomination, ethnicity, and social class. The Omnibus survey was carried out by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency [NISRA] on behalf of the Project Team.

Study Two comprised a series of individual interviews and focus group interviews with residents selected from locations known to contrast highly in their degree of community development. Four focus groups were held, two in each of Belfast and Derry/Londonderry and interviews were also held in both of these locations. Additional interviews were held in each of the two study locations with some other informants with specialised knowledge of community development who were thought likely to be in a position to contribute to a fuller understanding of the matters under investigation. In the next two sections we examine the methodology, operational definition of concepts and results in some detail before moving to a discussion of these results in a final section.

 

3. THE QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

A. The Sample

The fieldwork was undertaken by NISRA during the period 27th May to the 28th June 2002. The response rate was 60% with 1070 interviews successfully completed.

 

B. Method

As part of an omnibus survey a series of questions were asked designed to measure two main variables – social capital and collectivism-individualism. In addition information was collected regarding religious denomination, social class, age, gender and area of residence.

C. Questionnaires

The questionnaire, in addition to questions about religious denomination, social class, age, gender and area of residence, also contained a series of questions designed to measure social capital and individualism-collectivism.

 

Social capital questions

We decided to measure social capital using an adaptation of a questionnaire developed by Onyx and Bullen (1997). Originally Onyx and Bullen (1997) factor analysed 68 items that led to a 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 factors thought to constitute social capital. However, because of the financial constraints we were working with, we had to shorten the 36-item measure further to 15 items (see Appendix A for a list of the items finally employed in the current study). We did this by:

a. Identifying any factors in the Onyx and Bullen (1997) report that accounted for 4% of the variance or more – 5 of the original 8 factors met this criterion.

b. Next we chose the 3 questions that loaded most highly on each of these 5 factors.

The 15 items we selected to measure social capital involved straightforward questions (see Appendix A). Most focussed on behaviours such as "Do you help in a local group as a volunteer?" and "Have you visited a neighbour in the past week"? Others were designed to tap relevant attitudes and values, for example "Do you feel safe walking down your street at night"? Participants were asked to respond to each item on a scale from 1 (never or no not at all) to 4 (often or frequently).

Participants appear to have had little difficulty with the items on this scale as 1001 (94% of the total sample) completed the scale in its entirety. For the total sample the minimum observed score on this scale was 20 and the maximum 60. The scores were normally distributed with a mean of 42.29 (SD 6.88) and a median of 43. The internal reliability of the combined scale was alpha = .66.

In subsequent analyses we examined the scores only of those participants who indicated that they could be categorised as Catholic or Protestant. In these analyses we report two kinds of scores. The first is for the 15 social capital questions individually and the second represents the score when the 15 items were summed to produce a Total Social Capital Score.

Collectivism-individualism questions

The items for the questionnaire in this section were selected from an original list of 32 questions developed by Triandis (1996) designed to measure four sub-factors of collectivism - individualism. After pilot testing, some questions were reworded slightly to enable them to be used in the context of Northern Ireland, and some basic analyses performed.

Once again because of financial constraints the questionnaire had to be shortened and to do this we chose the four highest-loading items from each of four subscales in the original Triandis (1996) report to make up the final questionnaire.

Questions on the collectivism-individualism scale (see Appendix A) included such things, as "it is important to me that I do my job better than others "and" To me, pleasure is spending time with others. On this part of the questionnaire participants were asked to respond using a 7-point response scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree".

As with the social capital questions the vast majority of participants (some 94%) answered all questions on the scale. With the scale scored so that higher scores indicated greater collectivism, the maximum possible score was 112 and the actual scores in our sample ranged from a minimum of 16 to a maximum of 84. The scores were nevertheless relatively normally distributed with a mean of 62.50 (SD: 9.37) and a median of 63. For this scale alpha = .71.

Once more, as with the social capital measure, subsequent analyses were confined to Catholic and Protestant participants only, and as before we examined the individual response to each of the 16 items, and the Total Social Capital Score derived by summing responses to the 16 items.

D. Results

In this section we will present the more technical aspects of the results before moving on to interpret the results in the Discussion section.

All the subsequent results are based on the answers given by those participants who could be classified as either Catholic (419) or Protestant (564)- a total of 983, with the remainder classified as ‘other’ (14) or ‘none/refusal’ (73).

We began our analysis by examining the way in which all respondents in the sample answered each item on the questionnaire. Next we examined the zero order correlations (see Table B1, Appendix B) between the main variables and some of the demographic variables). Finally, we carried out an analysis of co-variance, and to do this we chose denomination, location, and social class as the independent variables with age and sex as the specified co-variates (because of their significant relationships with both our measures of social capital and our measures of individualism-collectivism). Because of small numbers in certain cells it was necessary to reduce the location measure to two categories (urban vs. rural) and for the same reason social class was reduced to three categories ‘high, ‘middle’ and ‘low’ (represented as SES, Socio-Economic-Status, 1,2, and 3).

Social capital

The item-by-item response patterns for the social capital questions, shown below (see Table 2.1), reveal a mixed pattern of responding. Among the least frequently performed behaviours were those that involved interaction with community organizations. For example, acting as a volunteer, or being on the committee of a local group, or simply having in the last thee years taken "part in a local community project" were answered ‘No’ by 76%, 82% and 70% of the respondents respectively.

Similarly, interacting with neighbours did not appear to be a common behaviour, with almost half (44.7%) of the sample reporting that they had not visited a neighbour "in the past week" and 48.5% reporting that they had not once done a favour for a sick neighbour, in the past 6 months.

In contrast, only 18.5% of respondents reported that they ‘never’ felt safe walking down their street after dark, only 4.7% that their area ‘never’ had "a reputation for being a safe place", and only 5.3% that their community ‘never’ feels like home".

Table 2.1: Social Capital scale: frequencies per item

ITEM

No,

Never

1

Rarely

 

2

Sometimes

 

3

Yes,

Always/

Frequently

4

Do you help out in a local group as a volunteer? (0 – once per week +)

76.3

5.7

7.5

10.5

Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark?

18.5

12.1

23.5

46.0

Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place?

4.7

11.0

29.2

55.1

If you were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a neighbour for help?

27.4

11.0

17.3

44.4

Have you visited a neighbour in the past week?

44.7

23.1

22.4

9.8

Does your local community feel like home?

5.3

5.7

27.3

61.7

In the past week how many phone conversations have you had with friends? (0 – 6+)

7.1

4.8

36.3

51.8

How many people did you talk to yesterday? (0 – 10+)

1.3

32.9

18.3

47.4

Over the weekend do you have lunch/dinner with other people outside your household?

30.5

14.4

32.3

22.8

If you need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that information?

7.9

16.9

34.4

40.7

In the past 6 months, have you done a favour for a sick neighbour? (0 – 5+)

48.5

13.7

22.9

14.9

Are you on a management committee or organising committee for any local group or organisation? (0 – 3+)

81.6

11.8

3.0

3.7

In the past 3 years have you ever taken part in a local community project?

70.2

15.1

4.9

9.9

If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?

6.6

6.7

28.5

58.2

If you have a dispute with your neighbours (e.g. over fences or dogs) are you willing to seek mediation?

14.6

8.7

21.9

54.8

Note: the number of people responding to any one question ranged from 965 to 982

Next we used the 15 items to form a total score and subjected this total score to a 3-way analysis of co-variance as outlined below (see Table B2, Appendix B). This analysis revealed no statistically significant main effect for denomination but did indicate main effects for social class and also for location.

The social class main effect F (2,951)1.91, p<.001, indicated that the total social capital score increased with increasing social class (see Table 2.2) and that this increase was statistically significant. Follow up analyses using Tukey’s test indicated that all three mean scores were significantly different from each other.

Table 2.2: Means and Standard Deviations for each Social Class on the

Total Social Capital Scale

Total social capital

SES 1

(High)

SES 2

(Medium)

SES 3

(Low)

Mean

44.52

42.55

40.30

S.D.

6.14

6.69

7.03

Note: SES1, SES2 and SES3 represent, respectively: high, medium and low

socio-economic status.

The location main effect F (1,951) 38.08, p<.05, revealed that respondents living in rural locations scored at a higher level (M: 43.90, SD: 6.76) on the total social capital scale than did those living in urban areas (M: 41.16, SD: 6.80).

Based on the survey results outlined above we conclude that there is no evidence of Catholic/Protestant differences in social capital (as measured here). Further, while there are statistically significant differences in social capital related to socio-economic status (higher socio-economic status is associated with higher levels of social capital) and between rural and urban dwellers (rural dwellers score higher on our measure of social capital) it should be noted that in absolute terms these differences were small.

Collectivism-individualism

Table 2.3 below illustrates the patterns of responding to each collectivism-individualism question. It can be seen that most items tended to elicit a response in the ‘collective’ direction. For example 66% of all respondents in this part of the study (that is of all Catholics and Protestants) "Strongly Agreed" with the item "it is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want".

On the other hand items worded in a particularly individualistic way tended to elicit more strong disagreement. For example 34% of people "Disagreed Strongly" with the proposition that "winning is everything", while 42% disagreed strongly with the suggestion that "when another person does better than I do, I get tense and nervous".

 

Table 2.3: Collectivism-Individualism: Responses to each question

Disagree Agree

ITEM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I can achieve my goals regardless of how well my group performs

5.4%

5.0%

5.2%

31.5%

19.3%

14.2%

19.3%

Winning is everything

36.8%

18.2%

10.4%

13.4%

9.1%

4.1%

8.0%

My goals are more achievable if I work with my community as a group

6.6%

3.3%

4.1%

23.7%

16.9%

17.4%

27.9%

It is important to me that I do my job better than others

15.7%

10.8%

8.6%

18.3%

13.1%

12.4%

15.7%

To me, pleasure is spending time with others

3.6%

2.9%

5.6%

8.9%

13.2%

21.0%

44.7%

When another person does better than I do, I get tense and nervous

42.0%

21.3%

12.7%

10.1%

7.2%

3.8%

2.9%

I can attain my personal goals by working for my community s goal

8.9%

6.1%

6.8%

35.9%

15.9%

11.2%

15.2%

Without competition it is not possible to have a good society

17.7%

10.8%

8.2%

24.1%

13.1%

11.3%

15.0%

I feel good when I co-operate with others

2.1%

1.3%

1.0%

5.4%

13.8%

29.6%

46.7%

Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required

3.4%

2.1%

2.8%

5.3%

10.2%

17.2%

59.1%

My personal identity is very important to me

2.3%

1.4%

1.5%

6.0%

12.7%

20.7%

55.4%

Parents and children must stay together, as much as possible

2.6%

1.1%

2.7%

5.3%

9.1%

15.7%

63.4%

My personal identity independent from others is very important to me

2.6%

1.8%

2.0%

10.7%

14.2%

21.5%

47.3%

It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want

2.0%

.8%

1.3%

4.1%

6.7%

19.0%

66.1%

I respect the majority s wishes in groups of which I am a member

2.4%

1.2%

2.4%

15.3%

15.6%

23.7%

39.4%

I am more likely to accomplish my goals if I work by myself

12.4%

10.6%

11.4%

22.6%

14.0%

12.5%

16.6%

Note: the number of people answering any one question ranged from 941 to 975

 

The analysis of the collectivism-individualism scale (see Table B3, Appendix B) resulted in no main effects for denomination, social class or location. There was, however, a significant interaction denomination x location F(1,966) 6.15, p<.05).

Inspection of the means in Table 2.4 indicates that, for Protestant respondents only, there was a rural vs. urban difference with rural participants scoring at a higher (more collective) level on the collectivism-individualism scale.

Table 2.4: Means and Standard Deviations on the total collectivism-individualism Scale for rural and urban participants from each denomination

Total collectivism-individualism

Catholic

Protestant

URBAN

(SD)

63.56

(9.23)

61.99

(9.62)

RURAL

(SD)

62.46

(9.46)

63.95

(9.11)

 

In summary then, we found no differences between Catholic and Protestant respondents in the current survey in terms of collectivism-individualism as measured in the current survey. Further, while we might have expected to find clear rural/urban differences on this dimension none were noted. However, we did find that rural Protestants scored at a slightly (but statistically significant) higher level compared to urban Protestants (no comparable differences were found for Catholic respondents).

E. Discussion

The survey produced no evidence that Catholics participants scored at a higher level on the social capital questionnaire compared to Protestants. This result supports Murtagh (2002). Murtagh (2002) also employed a random sample of the Northern Ireland population and attempted to measure social capital using a series of questions in an "attempt to measure social capital activity in the routines of daily activity in Northern Ireland". To do this the questions tapped respondents’ involvement in 46 activities grouped into four categories, social sporting, and church and club and society membership. In an initial report on these data Murtagh noted that the conclusion to his study "challenges simplistic notions about the relative strengths of Catholic community infrastructure and capacity for self-organization compared with Protestants".

While the conclusions based on the data from the social capital measure can therefore be accepted with some confidence this cannot be said for the conclusions based on the collectivism-individualism measure. One reason for this is that it remains possible that collectivism-individualism could be linked to other variables, (such as degree of identification with one’s community and/or strength of religious affiliation), that were not measured in the current study. If this is correct, and at present this idea remains untested, this reinforces the need to look again more closely at the original proposal which was to focus on attitudes to government funding by Catholic and Protestant respondents and also to include more variables, particularly related to religiosity, that would differentiate individuals belonging to particular sub-groups in these communities. Thus it may be that those whose identity as a Catholic or a Protestant is particularly salient, or those who are more dedicated church members, are more likely to demonstrate associated Collective or Individualistic tendencies.

4. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the qualitative study was to obtain information concerning social issues that are germane to community development in Catholic and Protestant urban working-class communities. The issues selected for exploration included matters related to community organization, the ability of local groups to articulate their needs; the perceptions of people involved in community development concerning funding processes; their capacity to work with funders and to obtain funding; information about the implicit ideologies held by people living and working in these communities, especially insofar as these relate to collective action.

The qualitative study involved conducting focus groups and in-depth interviews with individuals whom the researchers had identified as being knowledgeable about community structures and processes in particular urban working-class neighbourhoods in Belfast and Derry/ Londonderry which were selected for the study. These individuals were identified on the basis of informed advice from funders and others who were themselves knowledgeable about the communities concerned.

Four focus groups were conducted, two in Belfast, and two in Derry. In each city, one focus group was arranged in a primarily Catholic/Nationalist area, and one in a primarily Protestant/Unionist area. In each case, the venue for the focus group was the local Partnership organisation. Participants were selected on the basis of their specialised knowledge of the area concerned. Four focus groups were arranged and 10 interviews were held.

The focus groups and most of the interviews were tape recorded, and anonymity and confidentiality was guaranteed to all respondents. In several instances it was not possible to tape record the interviews but in all cases detailed notes were kept and these were transcribed/ written up following the interview. Each focus group lasted for at least an hour. Interviews were conducted in person apart from three that were conducted by telephone for reasons of distance and cost-effectiveness. Findings from the focus group and selected interview process are summarized here under four main headings:

These findings are presented below, together with illustrative summaries or direct quotes from our research process

A. Social Capital

A.1.Community Morale and Perceptions of Community Resources

Many urban working class communities in Northern Ireland, irrespective of whether they are predominantly Catholic or Protestant, are characterised by low expectations concerning their future and by low morale.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

You have weak community infrastructure within the Nationalist community. Then there’s other things that are more intangible. There’s the apathy. I always argue against the use of that term, "apathy" because I think it’s lack of confidence. There’s low expectations. But there’s low expectations in all communities.

*** *** ***

There are undoubtedly differences, but it’s like years and years ago people used to say … (and I’m talking about people from a more radical persuasion), people used to say Protestants were privileged. I knew loads of Protestants who were far from privileged. And I never agreed with that terminology. And it was always this idea of "Tuppence looking down at tuppence". So the opposite idea, being put forward today, is that you have weak community infrastructure. That just is a flight of fancy. I think that you have weak community infrastructure within the Protestant community. I have no doubt about that. You also have good community infrastructure within the Protestant community.

A. 2. Fragmentation and secularisation

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

The Protestant community comes across as being very moralistic and relating very much to the clergy and to places of worship and it's moving now to a secular society. There is now an increased willingness to embrace community development. I see it as 20 years ago when community development started to take off. It was a taboo subject largely in the Protestant community because of the element of paramilitarism attached. Respectable people didn't want anything to do with ‘that lot’.

*** *** ***

I spoke about the pockets of deprivation; there are difficulties in Protestant areas in terms of looking at Noble and the wards; they are all pockets. The Alpha area has Waterloo Drive which would commonly come up as probably the worst of the Protestant estates. The figures don’t show up [because they are masked by the higher level aggregation in which the statistics are presented]. There’s other areas like Benmore Street and Richview Court. Bawnmore would certainly have an excellent community development spirit. But I think that that’s down to just a couple of individuals. [All place names are fictionalised]. [Community worker in Loyalist area].

DISCUSSION: The second quotation points up the very fragmented nature of the area being described. One should note (a) the reference to "pockets of deprivation"; (b) the reference to small local areas that "don’t show up" as disadvantaged because statistical analyses have usually been based on larger units; the reference to "that’s all down to just a couple of individuals"; the reference to paramilitaries and the inference that they were formerly engaged in community development in Protestant areas and that this perception may be less current than formerly.

Hamilton (2002) has explored the subject of churches and community development in working class urban communities in North Belfast. He indicates that clergy often provide/ed leadership for urban communities but that this is changing owing firstly to diminishing salience of churches in urban communities and secondly, to the fact that many of those who continue to attend Protestant churches in working class areas no longer live in those communities. They may maintain an attachment to the church but tend no longer to have any personal or family involvement or investment in the community.

Later quotations will indicate that the availability and effectiveness of key individuals in Protestant working class areas appears to be central to promoting and sustaining community development. The topics of secularisation and the diminished role of churches in urban working class communities are also discussed below.

A.3. The Bridging Social Capital Activity of Community Organisations

Our interviews indicate that community-based voluntary and partnership organisations are actively in contact with each other across the community divide. The function of bridging the divide between the communities is performed by a number of community- based voluntary and partnership organisations.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

There is certainly good contact across the communities. We would have good relationships with Blank Area Partnership. [Community worker in interface urban area].

*** *** ***

In the marching season, we establish mobile phone contact between the estates [on different sides of the Peace Line]. Lines of communication are also established with the police. [Community worker in interface urban area].

*** *** ***

… There is no chance that somebody from the IRA would come up to me and say, "See that mobile phone? Switch it off. You are not going to have any contact with Prods on the other side of the wall." I don’t think that it’s that simple on the Protestant side. I think that the chances of it happening to me are next to zero. [Community worker in mixed urban area].

DISCUSSION: It has long been noted that ethno-national communities in Northern Ireland are sharply segregated from each other, especially among members of the working class. Ruane and Todd (1996) summarize this situation:

With regard to cross-community contact, the recent publication of a major study by the political scientist Varshney advances the long-held view of pluralist theorists regarding the importance of cross-seaming associational ties. Robert Putnam has recently speculated on the differences between "bridging" and "bonding" ties (2000: 362-363). He defines bridging social capital in terms of bonds of connectedness that are formed across diverse social groups whereas bonding social capital tends to cement only homogenous groups. Van Til has pointed to the relevance of this distinction for the understanding of peace and conflict in Northern Ireland. Varshney’s observations were anticipated by earlier research in Belfast by John Darby of the University of Ulster in the mid 1980s. Darby examined working class areas of inner city Belfast and found that, of four matched areas, the one with the strongest network of community associations had the lowest level of violence.

Varshney studies the presence or absence of cross-community violence in matched pairs of Indian cities throughout the latter half of the 20th century. The Economist notes: "Ashutosh Varshney offers to explain why some places in India are peaceful; others nearby prone to ethnic violence. In Gujarat, for example, Ahmedabad, the commercial capital, is riot prone but Surat, a textile centre, is not. Peaceful areas, Mr. Varshney finds, have strong civic institutions--trade unions, professional associations--that cross the communal divide. Politicians who want polarisation hire gangs to stir up violence; whereas quieter cities have institutionalised peace systems to prevent tensions from snapping."

B. Collectivism-Individualism

B.1. Perceptions of differences in collectivism-individualism between the two communities

Our survey results, which were discussed above, indicate that no significant difference was found at the individual level between Protestants and Catholics regarding their adherence to attitudes and behaviours evidencing individualism and collectivism. Our qualitative interviews, on the other hand, indicate a belief that these differences persist, although in an increasingly weakened form. Indeed, some statements from our respondents indicate that humour, tinged with irony, is beginning to enter the dialogue about the significance of the "Protestant ethic" and "Catholic discipline".

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS

I see the "Protestant Ethic" at work: Protestants tend to see themselves as each responsible for themselves individually, while the Catholic Church provides for a greater level of integration.

*** *** ***

It's an historical thing. Protestant communities tend not to exhibit much community development]. Here, [naming location] we tend to work through individuals. It's the Protestant work ethic; it goes back 40-60-200 years. You make your own way through individual effort. But these traditions are breaking down. [Community worker in Loyalist area.]

 

*** *** ***

For people of my age it goes away back to the war [WWII] and the Free State [probably an allusion to the fact that the Irish Free State, as it then was, remained neutral during WWII] when service men and women from Derry were fighting and dying for Britain in the service of the Queen]. "We still have a wee niggle about that…" On the other hand, my family and the younger people don’t remember anything like that and are more open to change. [Community worker in Loyalist area].

The Protestant ethos is that the community stuff is like charity, is like handouts and that it’s somehow like a slur on their working ethos. And they don’t even require that help. And they likened it to the fact that men (unless there is something seriously wrong with them) won’t be proactive about seeking help whereas women will be far more likely to … go and seek help. [Community worker in Loyalist area].

Protestant people are their own worst enemy when it comes to development because of the psyche that they have, the individualism. Protestants took personal responsibility; with that comes individuality and lack of community spirit. Protestants have had no crisis …like the Famine. Anything that we did have, [by way of a crisis] we quickly had to hide because we didn’t want to show weakness. Showing weakness would have meant that the [Northern Ireland] state wasn’t working. It would have been to say "The State has failed" and that would have given credence to our enemies.[Leader in Loyalist area].

Down the years Catholics could complain about poverty but Protestants couldn’t complain. Protestants were kept down because they could not speak out; they were not allowed to speak out. The alternative to what they had was [what they would have feared] as far greater poverty, dominated by Rome. We have been breaking out of that and it’s extremely difficult because it is still inherent in many Protestant groups. The Protestant psyche is one of "We’ve got to do it ourselves. We don’t want to live off the state and all this talk about community development. To attack the state would be to show weakness and give ground to the enemy. [Leader in Loyalist area].

DISCUSSION: These quotations echo other statements recorded during the course of the research in which Protestant respondents spoke about the emphasis on individualism among their peers. It is evident that some working-class Protestants perceive themselves to be self reliant and are reluctant to accept help from the wider community, regarding it as "charity". Statements such as this occurred on several occasions and the doctrine of self-reliance is clearly deeply embedded in the psyche of some working class Protestants. It is not clear how widespread this is among younger and middle-aged Protestants today and this might be a topic for further research. An emphasis on self-help, rather than looking to the state or to external sources, may contribute to explaining the reluctance of some Protestant working class people to consider applying for grant funding for community development.

Although it would be germane to a fuller discussion of this topic, to discuss the relevance of Max Weber’s or R. H. Tawney’s theories concerning the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism would be beyond the scope of this report. The reader is referred to Marshall for a classic treatment of the Protestant ethic thesis. It should be noted that some of the responses noted above, and in other parts of this report, closely echo the Protestant and Calvinist stereotype discussed by Marshall. This stereotype has undoubtedly been reinforced by the special circumstances of Northern Ireland in which, for half a century, reflecting insecurities about the intentions of the government in Dublin, many Unionist politicians feared that any critical comment on social circumstances in Northern Ireland could be construed as an attack on the constitutional basis of the state’s existence, and as a result, tended to quench criticism of social conditions in Protestant working-class areas.

Griffiths (1978) has a useful discussion of the contrasting attitudes of the Unionist and Nationalist communities toward the state during the early years of the Troubles and of the role of the Catholic church in promoting collectivism in working class communities. He further suggests that in Catholic working class areas the problem of security promoted a sense of community and solidarity. A number of scholars have researched the perception that Catholic working class people may be more collectivist than Protestants of similar socio-economic status.

B.2. Perceptions of participation in the life of the community

Within both communities, and in both cities, the experienced observers of community life and process whom we interviewed reported that few individuals participate actively in community life. Apathy, disengagement and low expectations are widespread. In some communities community development is seriously inhibited or dominated by paramilitary organisations and terrorists turned gangsters. However, it is also noteworthy that in both communities there is evidence of new energies that are sometimes linked to political parties and movements. This new community dynamic is growing in strength and is advancing in some localities and at regional levels, in particular among people associated with Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

There is much apathy in this area. Our community has an enthusiastic board and an apathetic community.

*** *** ***

We have tried so hard. We have gone round every door at least twice and we have put circulars up and no response. You would get about the same 20 to 30 people coming to that centre to support it. We can’t get them to come out of the house. If you put a sign up and write that four letter word, "FREE ", they will come. We had 2 or 3 Jubilee dinners [celebrating the Queen’s Jubilee] and it was jammed. But if you put on a wee dance at £2 entrance no body would come. [Focus group in predominantly Protestant/ Loyalist area.]

*** *** ***

When I came here 10 years ago there was nothing. No community development going on. I sort of stumbled into it. Not really knowing anything about it. My whole thing working there was trying

to get people involved and enthused to do things. To join committees, to get involved and to do things for their own community. And the apathy that’s there and that’s still there; maybe it’s a bit less now, but not very much. They just won’t attend things. They won’t support their own communities. [Community worker in Protestant area].

It’s not even apathy any more; it’s low expectations of anything good happening in their community. They talk about "The demise of our area … The neglect of our area". Everybody sees Good Friday Agreement as "This new era". But when they open their blinds in the morning they haven’t seen changes in their communities …" It’s low expectations. I’m not being derogatory here but I was born with the thing "If you don’t work, your jaws don’t work [if you don’t work, you won’t eat] so you have to get a job. People are still in that mode but there is no jobs to be had. It’s third generation unemployment were are dealing with here. We are having to start at the beginning around ethos and what was instilled in you. [Community worker in Protestant area.]

DISCUSSION: Note the emphasis in these quotations on self-reliance and on individualism. The last of these quotations is from a community development worker in a Protestant area and reflects the sense of hopelessness that characterises this working class community and the disappointment that it experienced in relation to its raised expectations following the Good Friday Agreement and devolution. (The area concerned would reflect the ethos of political parties associated with Protestant paramilitary groups which (as distinct from the Democratic Unionist Party) would have had high expectations from the Good Friday Agreement.

Social scientists sometimes point to an "80/20 rule" or the "small world" hypothesis. Both generalizations "posit that in the social domain, a large proportion of many behaviours is located within a small proportion of the population" (Reed and Selbee, 2001, p. 762). In the Catholic/Nationalist areas in which two of our focus groups were held we noted a palpable sense of energy and commitment. Younger members of Sinn Fein were noted as contributing to the level of participation in community life (albeit, it was alleged, within a structured framework of activity). In the Protestant/Unionist areas we studied, a similar resurgence was noted among younger adherents of the D.U.P.

B.3. Different propensities to respond to funding initiatives

Partnership and other community organisation leaders support the perception that Protestant/Unionist communities are less likely than Catholic/Nationalist communities to respond to funding initiatives that solicit proposals for potential community development projects.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

As for "fair shares" to the Protestant/Unionist community, perception does not necessarily equal reality. But I see 21 years of evidence that the Protestant/Unionist community doesn’t get its share of governmental allocations. Neither have they been nurtured and brought along. [Protestant politician representing a mainly Unionist/Loyalist area.]

*** *** ***

Regarding Protestant areas not having the skills, …we had to learn the skills [emphasis added]. No one helped us. No one. I remember a funder coming in one day to assess an application that we had put in. Nobody had done it before, and saying, "Now I have got to go to [naming destination] [to fill in an application]. We have all these people working and meeting for weeks on end and you’re going to [naming destination] to fill in an application to [naming a funder]. They were going to [naming destination] after the deadline [to help them fill in the application that we had filled in ourselves before the deadline]. [Focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area.]

It is about people having the ability to group themselves and actually make sure their voice is being heard. It would not be that kind of financial aspect. There is an abundance of that in [naming area] where people will stand up and will be counted. The flip side of that is that if you are going to measure West Uptown in terms of weak community infrastructure there is a strong community infrastructure here. [But] We would argue that there isn’t the infrastructure to provide services that are needed for people who are suffering from poverty and disadvantage. [Focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area].

*** *** ***

North Uptown is not homogenous; it’s a patchwork. And that’s only on the Catholic side! [Focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area.]

DISCUSSION: These quotations draw attention yet again to community fragmentation and provide further evidence of the phenomenon of extreme localism on the Protestant working class urban scene but fragmentation is also in clearly in evidence in Catholic working class communities.

There is a view on the Protestant/Unionist side that community development has failed working class Unionist communities and the blame for this is placed on the policies of successive Direct Rule administrations. There is a parallel view on the Catholic/ Nationalist side that Protestant communities are unfairly assisted by some funding agencies. While our study cannot provide objective data regarding the presence or absence, or the quality, of proposals presented by each community, we can report that it is a widespread observation among funders, political leaders, community organisation leaders, and residents themselves that Protestant/Unionist areas are less likely to present fundable proposals for community interventions than are Catholic/Nationalist areas. The results of this preliminary study suggest that systematic study of this widely-held belief, and its basis, should be an important priority for future research.

B.4. Suggested reasons for the different capacities of Protestant and Catholic working class communities

There are varied and complex explanations for the phenomenon that Protestant/Unionist communities sometimes seem reluctant to participate in the grants economy. The present research appears to suggest that in Catholic/Nationalist communities there is often a higher level of understanding of the ethos of funding programmes (and, as a result, a greater willingness to engage with them) than is generally to be found in Protestant/ Unionist areas. Furthermore, the two partnerships in Catholic/Nationalist areas that were visited as part of this research had staff with Master’s level postgraduate qualifications in social science subjects. This was not the case in either of the partnerships in the Protestant/ Loyalist areas.

We do not intend to generalise here and it is important to note that there are highly intelligent, well-educated and effective leaders in some communities on both sides of the social divide.

The following indicative statements provide evidence to illustrate perceptions of some of these issues.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

Our Partnership does not have access to anyone like that [referring to staff members with higher degrees]. There's no funding to buy in technical assistance; that would be a great help. We used to have 2 research officers but the money stopped. We are funded until 31 July 2003. We are totally overloaded. My job is form filling; we have no time to work with the groups; all our time is spent in form filling. [Partnership in a Protestant/ Loyalist area].

Many of the individuals I know who were very competent and professional were ex prisoners. They are probably people who, had there not been 30 years of conflict here, would have gone into leadership in industry, the voluntary sector or whatever. They would have been managers and so on. Because they got caught up in the conflict they channelled their talents into that and then came out of prison, couldn’t get jobs apart from in the community and voluntary sector and I think that that does account for a lot of it.

*** *** ***

There is big fragmentation. We don’t come together very well at all; we all work separately on our issues. We don’t see the big picture at all. If one group gets funding they won’t let the other groups know where they got it from or anything. [Focus group in a largely Protestant area]

*** *** ***

In this [Loyalist] area if some group accesses monies they cherish the information. They are frightened of someone else in the area or some group competing for the same pot of gold. And that is to the detriment of the community, rather than being strategic and visionary and saying "This is what we want for the [naming area as a whole]. . . [Community worker in Loyalist area].

*** *** ***

I think that it’s a well held belief that the Nationalist community is far more adept at organising itself in a community/voluntary way. The main theory from the Nationalist side is that 30 or 40 years ago there was no choice. The Nationalist community had to develop self-help projects and initiatives. Effectively people felt, on the ground, the only thing to be done is to help ourselves …That’s what’s come through. Certainly when you speak to a lot of more senior citizen type community activists they have been very much involved in co-ops and self help groups. I’m not sure whether that is still there to the same extent.

*** *** ***

I said 15 years ago that we needed a hit squad. To bring together a lot of our young graduates with the people on the street. The young graduates didn’t have the feel for community… we got some but we weren’t able to hold on to them [because of lack of funding]. [Leader in Loyalist area].

 

C. Territoriality and Control

C.1. Sectarian politics and their impact on community development work

Within urban working-class communities of Northern Ireland, community-based voluntary and partnership organisations in the Protestant/Unionist community are reported to experience a greater level of difficulty in engaging the members of the community in community development than their counterparts in the Catholic/Nationalist areas. This does not happen in a vacuum. It reflects the different attitudes of the political parties to promoting and supporting community activity.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

The pro-active policies are coming from SF orientated groups. When you talk to people who won’t just give you one viewpoint they say that SLDP is becoming a very tired party. Their members here are a lot older and you have the young bucks [from Sinn Fein] coming up and fighting for everything. Their sheer energy… And the leadership behind them. They are building their people up. It’s quite difficult for us in here because we have to keep a balance and a neutral position and to be perfectly honest we are quite lucky in that we have people who are not that politically motivated. At times it seems that if you are not in bed with one side you are getting support from neither side and that can be quite difficult. [Focus group in Catholic/Nationalist area.]

*** *** ***

It’s a common statement at board meetings: "We’re here for the greater good. Leave your own group’s hat off at the door". Our chairman is very neutral. He’s very good at that (he has a teaching and trades union background). You still get down to the odd political wrangle. [Focus group in Catholic/Republican area].

*** *** ***

The DUP is beginning to take more of an interest in our working class community. [Community worker in predominantly Loyalist area].

*** *** ***

There is a broader political level that needs to be looked at. We do not have an anti poverty strategy. In the Programme for Government you will not see the word poverty anywhere. Targeting Social Need means nothing because there’s no resources behind it. You need a clear strategy to eliminate unemployment in (our neighbourhood), which is at its highest ever. [Focus group in a mainly Catholic/Nationalist area].

DISCUSSION: Paul Sweeney (1991: 11-12) has noted, "that the middle class Protestant community is an extremely well functioned community with very effective support structures in terms of education, informal welfare, sport and youth organisations."

One of the interviewees, who has wide experience of community development work in rural areas of Northern Ireland, said that she had found marked differences between the attitudes and outlook of middle-class and working-class Protestant/Unionist people. Concerning middle-class Protestants, she reported that their approach is similar to the approach and expectations of people working in "a traditional voluntary organisation" and that there was no reluctance to work together and to participate in joint activity. She said that this was very much in contrast with her experience of working-class Protestant/Unionist communities.

C.2. Community expectations and the impact of paramilitary activity and organisations

Leaders in both Catholic and Protestant communities attributed differences between the communities, not to individual characteristics of residents (supporting our survey findings), but rather to traditional expectations toward government on the part of those communities. Furthermore, factors of community fragmentation, active coercion into "territorial" limits by paramilitary organisations, and low political integration with institutional élites are cited as important factors.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

The [Loyalist] feud is a fact of life. The paramilitaries have a considerable influence over life in general. My role is to try to show people that there's a different way. How they can have ownership of their own communities. [Community worker in Protestant/Loyalist area].

*** *** ***

On our community centre there is a big placard that says ‘UVF’ and she would not go in that door for that reason. There was a time when there was a paramilitary organisation that ran that place. We had to get the confidence of the people first. At one time 5 or 6 years ago the community association was taken over by paramilitaries and people still have that perception. We have murals within the area. We would like to see those taken down. We are trying at the moment to set up meetings with paramilitary groups. The community was never consulted about this. … [paramilitary murals] are tourist attractions! But we have to consult before they can be taken down. People are afraid. The Housing Executive are quite happy to work with us so long as they can get a guarantee that their workers would be safe. There’s a lot of graffiti like "[naming location] UFF" and people want these taken away but again we have to get an assurance from the paramilitaries that if the workers come in and if we start taking it down, that people will be safe. Now, the whole community wants this but how do we push this forward? We seem to be at a stalemate. A letter needs to go out to the funders to say that we want to use the money for this but we can’t go any further…; obviously you don’t do this out in the open. This is the UDA. [Focus group in Loyalist area.]

Speaking of the community development sector on the [naming a road], the leaders of those organisations who may have a degree of power by virtue of violence do not really play a key role in the community. However, it’s the results of their actions or what they espouse that has a ripple effect in the community. The community groups would be very proactive on the ground but would have an awareness of the influences within the community. I would not go as far as saying that organisations per se have or are running community groups. It’s more hidden than that. The influence of paramilitarism is at one level and the community sector is at another tier. [Community worker in Loyalist area].

*** *** ***

I worked with a group over 4 weeks and then we had a residential. We did a bit of capacity building with them. We expected them and they were booked in. But they didn’t come. The UDA told them at gunpoint not to go, not to take part in the residential. UCAN strangled the life out of community groups. They wanted to control organisations. [Leader of a education and training voluntary organisation].

*** *** ***

DISCUSSION: It would be difficult to over-state the extent of the fragmentation and dysfunctionality currently being experienced within some urban Protestant/Unionist working class communities; in recent times the Loyalist paramilitary feud has overwhelmed community life in Loyalist areas of Belfast and some other towns and rural areas.

The work of Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd, (1996), provides a fruitful source in understanding the frustrations within NI Protestant communities. Among their observations are the following:

C.3. Perceived differences in community control

Additionally, strong differences in the articulation of community control were reported between the two communities. Catholic/Nationalist communities were widely described as evidencing a close and productive relationship between the energies of political party members and active participation in community organisations. Protestant/Unionist communities, on the other hand, were seen as fragmented by both political parties and paramilitary organisations that were poorly integrated into processes of community development and organisation or else tended to dominate it.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

This Partnership understands the role of "small p" politics. They are sometimes viewed as a Sinn Fein front. The Partnership held two retreats to develop the idea that they aimed to advance "community wide" interests, not those of particular groups or neighbourhoods.

*** *** ***

Mary McAleese goes in and out of here like a Yo-Yo but the Queen was not allowed to cross the bridge. A small clique brought Mary McAleese. There was conflict within the Protestant community between the UVF and the UDA. There was also conflict in interface areas. Shortly after that we had attacks on people in [naming street] using petrol bombs by Republican youth. [Focus group respondent].

*** *** ***

Some in our community were distressed when the President McAleese was invited to our area. There really is a split between traditionalists and modernists in our ranks. Too many older Unionists seem to be content with whinging these days. [Community worker, Protestant/Unionist area, paraphrased].

Interviews with leaders from the Protestant/Unionist community who were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement revealed that they had found it difficult to establish communication and a basis for understanding and working with leaders of the Northern Ireland wide voluntary and community sector and civil service because they perceived that their political views were not shared by members of the leadership of the voluntary and community sector who had been active in the "Yes" Campaign. In addition, key stakeholders in the voluntary sector and the civil service were referred to as "leaning in their sympathies" toward the Catholic/Nationalist community.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

We are expected to come "cap in hand" to the funders. [Focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area].

*** *** ***

There’s no funder [actually saying] "We want to give money to middle class people. They all say that they want to give to grass roots, to target social need etc. But the whole thing is geared to the middle classes. That’s who’s getting the bulk of the funding. That creates a lot of resentment. And that’s not knocking … there should be a dual professional process where you are working with professional organisations who have a lot or expertise and who can help community groups. We are being told to downsize and to go into consortiums and why do you need 2 groups in the one street? Yet nobody is saying that to the big voluntary organisations "Why don’t you do the same?" Why do you need Save the Children, NSPCC, NIPPA, Playboard? Why do you need them? Why do you need Help the Aged, Age Concern? Why are there 18 different cancer research charities in GB? Nobody seems to be using that argument with them but we’re being told, "would one administrator not do? Could yous [Sic.] not come together? [Focus group in a mixed working class area].

*** *** ***

There is a huge amount of money washing around and we are talking about a few coppers. Even in terms of Peace Two the bulk of the money went to central government (not to intermediary funding bodies). [Focus group in Catholic/Nationalist area].

*** *** ***

There's a perception in Unionist circles that NIVT and NICVA have a "political outcome prearranged". Funding agencies are typically not staffed by individuals knowledgeable about the Protestant/Unionist community. An example is [name of individual] who went right from leading a major voluntary umbrella group to leading the "Yes" campaign. This is bound to colour judgments. There are both political biases and beliefs at work here. [Political leader].

 

DISCUSSION: The barriers identified here are partly professional and partly those of social class. Ruane and Todd observe: "Community inequality is real and has to be addressed. But policies designed to advance one community tend to produce resistance from the other with the attendant risk of aggravating the wider problem of communal conflict which the policies seek to address. Resolving the conflict will, sooner or later, require movement beyond greater individualisation a greater willingness by individual to explore and give expression to their own needs and desires, even if this brings them into conflict with wider communal loyalties and identities. It requires, secondly, the building of cross-community networks based on overlapping interests and concerns. Finally, it involves the forging of new inclusive communities, both in Northern Ireland and on the island as a whole" (p. 313).

D. Community Infrastructure.

Since the mid 1990s the topic of "community infrastructure" and of "weak community infrastructure" has been a concern of policy makers and funders of community development in Northern Ireland. This concept, expressed in this terminology, is virtually unknown outside Northern Ireland and is rarely, if ever, found in the international literature on community development. Neville Armstrong , writing in Network News (Summer 2002), has suggested that "Weak community infrastructure has developed from something politely whispered in knowledgeable company to being one of the buzzwords effortlessly uttered by politicians, social engineers and, no doubt shortly by the Secretary of State".

Community infrastructure may be "strong" or "weak" or indeed may be so insubstantial as to be effectively non-existent. Where it is weak there is often reluctance on the part of community groups to apply for grants. Where it is very insubstantial or virtually non-existent, there may either be no organisations with the capacity to apply, or which are interested in applying, for grants. In some areas the fact that no groups come forward in response to invitations to apply for grant funding poses a problem for funders who wish to promote community development. This was graphically described by one of our interviewees:

In NIVT there was a recognition that when you have a grant programme most of the money will go to areas with [existing] groups and that, where you have a neighbourhood without a group, that neighbourhood will not get funded. [Community development worker].

D.1. Conflictual and contested perceptions of weak community infrastructure

We present the following findings from our focus groups and interviews relating to the concept of "weak community infrastructure". Within both communities we encountered dissatisfaction concerning the application of the criterion, "weak community infrastructure" to both their own, and the "other", community. Each focus group we conducted, irrespective of the community setting, revealed misgivings about the concept and how it is being used.

In one case, in a focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area, it was alleged that that the concept of weak community infrastructure was being misused to allocate funding to a middle class area of one of the cities. In another community one participant voiced the perception that the concept "is being used to justify giving funding to the ‘usual recipients’" (but without providing evidence the allegations). In yet another setting, mention of the concept led to a quick nervous laugh among the participants, followed by a quick glance at each other to assure their position. Later statements addressed the use of the concept to paper-over continuing inattention to poverty and distress in working class enclaves while Government was accused of ignoring the priority of Targeting Social Need.

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

There's a perception that in (our area) there is great community infrastructure. But what does this mean when 50% of our kids still living in poverty? Why are we more likely to die young than people (in another part of town)? It is almost like a contradiction. People here are still more likely to be unemployed, be ill and be in poverty. What we were a bit frightened of was that the Noble indicators meant that someone was inventing a new playing field about community infrastructure [Emphasis added]. How do you measure weak community infrastructure? This terminology seems to have got a life of its own. We can’t really pull it into TSN or Noble. We can’t get our heads around what that means for us in our area. [Focus group in a Catholic/Nationalist area].

*** *** ***

On the subject of community infrastructure, [can I ask] what is a strong community infrastructure and what exactly does it mean because NIVT regards [naming a certain area] as having a strong community infrastructure [and we would argue with them]? We were told directly, face to face, under no circumstances, that there’s no way [this area] could put in for funding for weak community infrastructure. Under their terminology they regard this area as an area of strong community infrastructure. But this area ranks high on Noble index terms in the most recent index. It still has major problems with the statutory services, major problems with one Council with regards to cleaning the area; high unemployment; very little quality child care. [It scores on all the indices of deprivation] but in some ways it is regarded as having strong community infrastructure. My question is, if on these measures you have a strong community infrastructure, and it is so affected by social need then what is strong community infrastructure, and where do you get to the stage where the two things run in parallel? We were measured. They said "There’s loads of community groups; powerful leaders….". We are regarded by a major funder as "under no circumstances will any part of your area be regarded as weak community infrastructure". (Focus group in Catholic/Nationalist area].

DISCUSSION: It appears that some people in Catholic/Nationalist areas tend to dislike the concept of "weak community infrastructure" because it appears to "reward" weakness (often in Protestant communities), is perceived to "penalise" (Catholic) communities for the long and arduous process of self-organisation accomplished over the past several decades. This was indicated very strongly in one of our focus groups where we were presented with a pamphlet criticising the concept’s value as a policy guide. This contained the statement that:

In the last eighteen months or so a series of unfounded allegations regarding the allocation of funding to Nationalist areas has abounded. A vociferous lobby has built up arguing that Unionist areas have received less funding than Nationalist areas (Gillespie and Fisher, From Crisis to Transformation, p. 54).

Gillespie and Fisher provide examples indicating higher levels of funding provided to Protestant than Catholic areas of Belfast. In our interviews it was alleged that West Belfast groups are beginning to minimise or down-play their levels of "community infrastructure" in order to qualifying for funding under Measure 2.7 of the Peace Two funds. One respondent noted that "the debate around weak infrastructure is taking on a strange dynamic…we have to be careful in West Belfast when we say we have a confident strong community sector and infrastructure…" (p. 56)

In one focus group it was asserted that governmental documents available in the Stormont library (Written Replies AQW 2723/01 and AQW 2721/01) show inequitable levels of funding to Nationalist and Unionist areas of Belfast, with by far the highest levels going to Unionist areas such as Botanic and Shaftesbury Square.

D.2. Further difficulties with the term: "weak community infrastructure"

Some people from the Unionist community whom we interviewed find the term "weak community infrastructure" unacceptable because it appears to them to involve an invidious judgment (most particularly applied to their community), implying that predominantly Protestant communities are socially backward and that people in those communities are unable to work with friends and neighbours on issues of concern. The concept of "weak community infrastructure" is sometimes perceived to reinforce low self-esteem within the Unionist community, thus contributing to social and political malaise at a crucial point in the development of power-sharing governance in Northern Ireland. Moreover, it was mentioned in several Unionist venues that the concept may be used to support communities where infrastructure is lacking. A respondent who is engaged with implementing the concept of "weak community infrastructure" spoke about the difficulty of defining "weak" and indicated that he found the term "weakest" less arbitrary and more useful. Others use the term "low" in preference to "weak".

INDICATIVE STATEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

Ours is an area of weak community infrastructure that is not going to be deemed to be a priority area because the funders' perception is that enough money has already been spent in this area. They want to channel their monies into areas with an absence of any infrastructure (i.e., West of the Bann). [Community worker in Protestant/Unionist area].

*** *** ***

DISCUSSION: The concept of "weak community infrastructure" seems at variance with the contemporary view that community development should be based on articulating "community assets" (McKnight), that it should advance "appreciative inquiry" (Cooperrider), that it might appropriately focus on both "bridging" and "bonding" social process (Putnam), and that it seeks to comprehend the vital contribution to social peace provided by cross-community association (Varshney).

Writing a generation ago in their classic study Dilemmas of Social Policy, Peter Marris and Martin Rein concluded that no effort to reform society "can hope to supplant the conflicts of interest from which policy evolves. It can only act as advocate, not as judge" (1967: 230). Community leaders declared in our interviews that they find the concept of weak community infrastructure to be inadequate. This does not surprise us as social scientists, because it appears to have emerged without sufficient attention to wider international thinking in the community development field.

D.3. Community Development Activity and the Voluntary Sector

In urban working class areas voluntary organisations and community associations are frequently working in proximity to each other. Both are aspects of voluntary activity. The former tends to focus on a particular theme or client group. The interface between the "conventional" voluntary sector and the "community sector" emerged briefly in our interviews. The following quotation from a community worker in Belfast illustrates a perspective that is not uncommon among community workers and also illustrates the concept of "development shadow".

What's the distinction between the community and voluntary sector? "I’ll tell you what the difference is! It’s about £15 thousand a year.

It goes back to that partnership mode. The community groups should be taking a lead and if the big voluntary organisation has something to offer they can tender for it BUT WE NEED IT. Sometimes voluntary organisations get money and they phone up and say, "We’re doing this, A, B, C, and the groups say, "That doesn’t suit us". They respond and say, "This is what we have for you".

It also manifests itself through policy, through the Government saying "we’ll talk to the big voluntary organisations, [not to communities]. [Community worker mixed Catholic/Nationalist area.]

 

5. SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

AND FOR PRACTICE

We conclude this paper with some suggestions that might enhance the development of social policy with a view to clarifying the manifold dilemmas involved in contemporary community development in Northern Ireland:

  1. Policy makers should recognise when they use of the concept of "weak community infrastructure" that it is a contested concept. It is to be hoped that this is a matter to be addressed by the Weak Community Infrastructure Policy Reference Group and that conceptual and terminological clarification will soon be forthcoming.
  2. The exploration of the interface between community development (as it is commonly understood) and ‘weak community infrastructure interventions’ needs urgent clarification. An exploration of concepts and criteria should be undertaken prior to the development of new policy initiatives.
  3. The complex problem of integrating public policy and administration with community institutions requires careful attention. Alienation between the Unionist/ Protestant community, in particular, and some of the leadership in the voluntary sector and government might be reduced by measures to build trust.
  4. Both within and across community boundaries, as well as at organisational levels, networking might be encouraged and advanced. The development of new kinds of partnerships to bridge between different parts of the voluntary and community sector might be considered with a view to institutionalising common working practices in a similar way to the District Partnerships.
  5. Networking, however, has its limits. We noted strikingly successful leadership in many communities in both parts of the wider Northern Ireland community. But we also note the absence of effective leadership in many communities, and at every level of the society. We note the need to encourage leadership capacity training at every level, from elected governmental officials evincing collaborative skills, to civil servants advancing inter-group and cross-class effectiveness, to voluntary sector leaders to assure even-handed and transparent practice, to community development leaders engaging in the vital work of enhancing community capacity, to grassroots leaders within the communities advancing both the interests of their own communities and those of broader public interest.
  6. We are struck by the similarities between the two communities in terms of social and economic deprivation, alienation, access to employment and the presence of paramilitary organisations or influences.
  7. Where the influence of paramilitaries or other syndicates is found to be chilling or otherwise inappropriately influencing the practice of open participation at the community level, we urge the use of appropriate initiatives to assure individual access to meeting places, public space, and housing access.
  8. Where an imbalance in applications, and hence in funding support, is found as between the main communities, there may be no remedy but that of a proactive "affirmative action" approach from funding agents, thereby assuring appropriate and visible consideration to the needs of both major communities. Perhaps the award to Protestant communities in North Belfast announced in February 2003 by Prime Minister Tony Blair presages this alternative approach?

 

Appendix A: Survey Questionnaires

Social Capital Questionnaire

In the following questions please circle the most appropriate response 1, 2, 3 or 4

 

1. Do you help out in a local group as a volunteer?

No, not at all Yes, often (at least once a week)

1 2 3 4

 

2. Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark?

No, not much Yes, very much

1 2 3 4

 

3. Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place?

No, not at all Yes

1 2 3 4

 

4. If you were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a

neighbour for help?

No, not at all Yes, definitely

1 2 3 4

 

5. Have you visited a neighbour in the past week?

No, not at all Yes, frequently

1 2 3 4

 

6. Does your local community feel like home?

No, not at all Yes, definitely

1 2 3 4

 

7. In the past week how many phone conversations have you had with friends?

None Many (at least 6)

1 2 3 4

 

8. How many people did you talk to yesterday?

None at all Many (at least 10)

1 2 3 4

 

9. Over the weekend do you have lunch/dinner with other people outside your

household?

No Yes, nearly always

1 2 3 4

10. If you need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that

information?

No, not at all Yes, definitely

1 2 3 4

 

11. In the past 6 months, have you done a favour for a sick neighbour?

No, not at all Yes, frequently (at least 5 times)

1 2 3 4

 

12 Are you on a management committee or organising committee for any local group or

organisation?

No, not at all Yes, several (at least 3)

1 2 3 4

13. In the past 3 years have you ever taken part in a local community project?

No, not at all Yes, very much

1 2 3 4

 

14. If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?

No, not at all Yes, definitely

1 2 3 4

 

15. If you have a dispute with your neighbours (e.g. over fences or dogs) are you willing

to seek mediation?

No, not at all Yes, definitely

1 2 3 4

 

Collectivism-Individualism Questionnaire

In this section there are no right or wrong answers.

We want to know if you strongly agree or disagree with some statements. If you strongly agree enter a ‘7’ in the blank space; if you strongly disagree, enter a ‘l’ in that space; and if you are unsure or think that the question does not apply to you, enter a ‘4’ next to the statement.

Strongly Disagree Unsure Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

  1. I can achieve my goals regardless of how well my group performs ___
  2. Winning is everything ___
  3. My goal are more achievable if I work with my community as a group ___
  4. It is important to me that I do my job better than others ___
  5. To me, pleasure is spending time with others ___
  6. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused ___
  7. I can attain my personal goals by working for my community’s goals ___
  8. Without competition it is not possible to have a good society ___
  9. I feel good when I co-operate with others ___
  10. Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required ___
  11. My personal identity is very important to me ___
  12. Parents and children must stay together, as much as possible ___
  13. My personal identity independent from others is very important to me ___
  14. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want ___
  15. I respect the majority's wishes in groups of which I am a member ___
  16. I am more likely to accomplish my goals if I work by myself. ___

 

Appendix B:

Table B1: Pearson Correlations - Total Sample

 

Sex

Age

CATHOLIC

PROTEST-ANT

Social

class

SOC. Capital

Total

COLLECTIVISM

Total

Age of respondent

-.028

----

 

 

 

 

CATHPRO

-.005

.143

***

----

 

 

 

Social

Class

.090

**

-.140

***

-.120

***

---

 

 

SOC.CAP

Total

-.108

**

-.090

**

.032

-.190

***

---

 

COLLECT

Total

-.063

*

.105

**

.021

-.040

.167

***

---

*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table B2: Analysis of Co-Variance: TOTAL SOCIAL CAPITAL

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

d.f.

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model

6215.275

13

478.09

11.22

.000

.133

Intercept

107550.826

1

107550.83

2524.54

.000

.726

PERSEX

404.941

1

404.94

9.50

.002

.010

PERAGE

680.648

1

680.65

15.98

.000

.017

CATHPRO

8.673

1

8.67

.20

.652

.000

SES2

2718.852

2

1359.43

31.91

.000

.063

URBAN

1622.501

1

1622.50

38.08

.000

.039

CATHPRO * SES2

34.481

2

17.24

.40

.667

.001

CATHPRO * URBAN

31.258

1

31.26

.73

.392

.001

SES2 * URBAN

114.318

2

57.16

1.34

.262

.003

CATHPRO * SES2 * URBAN

134.826

2

67.41

1.58

.206

.003

Error

40514.586

951

42.60

 

 

 

Total

1774537.000

965

 

 

 

 

Corrected Total

46729.861

964

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .13 (Adjusted R Squared = .12)

Table B3: Analysis of Co-variance: TOTAL COLLECTIVISM-

INDIVIDUALISM

Source

Type III Sum of Squares

d.f.

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model

3559.335

13

273.79

3.35

.000

.043

Intercept

203909.260

1

203909.26

2493.17

.000

.721

PERSEX

1125.824

1

1125.82

13.76

.000

.014

PERAGE

741.731

1

741.73

9.07

.003

.009

CATHPRO

.326

1

.33

.00

.950

.000

SES2

281.019

2

140.51

1.72

.180

.004

URBAN

39.966

1

39.97

.49

.485

.001

CATHPRO * SES2

49.625

2

24.81

.309

.738

.001

CATHPRO * URBAN

503.319

1

503.32

6.15

.013

.006

SES2 * URBAN

415.651

2

207.83

2.54

.079

.005

CATHPRO * SES2 * URBAN

449.961

2

224.98

2.75

.064

.006

Error

79006.318

966

81.79

 

 

 

Total

3986058.000

980

 

 

 

 

Corrected Total

82565.653

979

 

 

 

 

R Squared = .04 (Adjusted R Squared = .03)

 

 

 

B4: Social Capital: Catholic-Protestant differences on each question

ITEM

C/P

No,

never

Rarely

Sometime

Yes,

Always/

Frequently

*Do you help out in a local group as a volunteer?

C%

79.4

6.7

6.2

7.7

P%

73.9

5.0

8.5

12.6

*Do you feel safe walking down your street after dark?

C%

20.3

14.8

20.3

44.6

P%

17.1

10.0

25.9

47.0

*Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place?

C%

7.2

11.0

29.4

52.4

P%

2.8

11.0

29.0

57.1

If you were caring for a child and needed to go out for a while, would you ask a neighbour for help?

C%

30.0

10.7

15.4

43.9

P%

25.4

11.2

18.7

44.7

Have you visited a neighbour in the past week?

C%

43.2

20.8

25.5

10.5

P%

45.8

24.9

20.1

9.2

Does your local community feel like home?

C%

6.2

7.2

25.6

61.0

P%

4.6

4.6

28.5

62.2

In the past week how many phone conversations have you had with friends? (0 – 6+)

C%

6.9

5.5

32.0

55.6

P%

7.3

4.3

39.4

49.0

How many people did you talk to yesterday? (0 – 10+)

C%

1.4

31.7

20.1

46.8

P%

1.2

33.9

17.0

47.9

Over the weekend do you have lunch/dinner with other people outside your household?

C

32.5

14.1

32.1

21.3

P

29.1

14.5

32.4

23.9

If you need information to make a life decision, do you know where to find that information?

C%

7.4

16.5

35.3

40.8

P%

8.3

17.2

33.8

40.7

In the past 6 months, have you done a favour for a sick neighbour? (0 – 5+)

C%

48.3

16.0

23.0

12.7

P%

48.7

12.0

22.8

16.5

**Are you on a management committee or organising committee for any local group or organisation? (0 – 3+)

C%

86.8

8.1

1.7

3.3

P%

77.7

14.5

3.9

3.9

In the past 3 years have you ever taken part in a local community project?

C%

69.1

15.1

4.8

11.0

P%

70.9

15.1

5.0

9.0

If you disagree with what everyone else agreed on, would you feel free to speak out?

C%

5.3

6.2

28.7

59.8

P%

7.7

7.1

28.3

56.9

If you have a dispute with your neighbours (e.g. over fences or dogs) are you willing to seek mediation?

C%

12.1

7.1

23.2

57.7

P%

16.4

9.9

21.0

52.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

B4: Collectivism-individualism: Catholic-Protestant differences on each question

 

 

 

Disagree Agree

ITEM

C/P

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I can achieve my goals regardless of how well my group performs

C%

5.3

5.8

4.8

29.1

17.0

15.8

22.3

P%

5.5

4.4

5.5

33.2

21.0

13.1

17.2

Winning is everything

C%

35.9

17.2

8.5

15.3

9.2

4.6

9.2

P%

37.4

18.9

11.9

12.1

9.0

3.8

7.0

**My goals are more achievable if I work with my community as a group

C%

8.7

3.0

4.0

24.8

15.1

12.9

31.5

P%

5.1

3.5

4.2

23.0

18.2

20.8

25.3

**It is important to me that I do my job better than others

C%

44.8

21.3

11.6

10.9

6.8

2.2

2.4

P%

39.9

21.4

13.5

9.5

7.5

5.0

3.2

To me, pleasure is spending time with others

C%

3.4

3.1

5.1

11.3

12.3

17.6

47.2

P%

3.8

2.7

6.1

7.1

13.9

23.6

42.9

When another person does better than I do, I get tense and nervous

C%

44.8

21.3

11.6

10.9

6.8

2.2

2.4

P%

39.9

21.4

13.5

9.5

7.5

5.0

3.2

I can attain my personal goals by working for my community s goal

C%

10.0

5.0

7.7

34.9

13.2

11.2

18.0

P%

8.1

7.0

6.0

36.6

17.9

11.2

13.2

***Without competition it is not possible to have a good society

C%

21.8

13.2

6.1

25.2

12.2

8.6

13.0

P%

14.6

9.0

9.7

23.2

13.7

13.3

16.5

I feel good when I co-operate with others

C%

3.1

1.2

.5

6.5

13.1

30.0

45.5

P%

1.3

1.4

1.4

4.5

14.4

29.3

47.7

Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required

C%

4.1

2.4

2.9

5.8

10.1

14.2

60.5

P%

2.9

1.8

2.7

5.0

10.2

19.5

58.0

*My personal identity is very important to me

C%

2.9

.7

1.4

5.5

12.3

16.4

60.7

P%

1.8

2.0

1.6

6.3

12.9

23.9

51.4

*Parents and children must stay together, as much as possible

C%

3.8

1.2

3.6

4.3

10.8

12.5

63.7

P%

1.6

1.1

2.0

6.1

7.9

18.1

63.2

**My personal identity independent from others is very important to me

C%

2.9

1.7

1.7

9.0

12.1

18.0

54.6

P%

2.3

1.8

2.2

12.1

15.6

24.1

41.9

It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want

C%

2.2

1.2

1.0

5.1

7.5

17.8

65.3

P%

1.8

.5

1.6

3.4

6.1

19.9

66.7

I respect the majority s wishes in groups of which I am a member

C%

3.2

1.5

2.5

15.0

15.9

21.3

40.7

P%

1.8

1.1

2.3

15.5

15.3

25.5

38.4

*I am more likely to accomplish my goals if I work by myself

C%

14.4

10.8

7.3

22.0

14.2

13.2

18.1

P%

10.9

10.5

14.3

23.0

13.8

12.0

15.4

Note: C = Catholic P%= Protestant

 

 

 

References

Bourdieu, P. (1997), ‘The Forms of Capital’ in Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. & A. Stuart Wells (eds.) Education: Culture, Economy, Society. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Brown, R. et al (1992) "Recognising group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for inter-group processes", British Journal of Social Psychology, 31,327-343

Bullen, Paul and Jenny Onyx, (1998), Measuring social capital in Five Communities in New South Wales: A practitioner’s guide. Sydney: Centre for Australian community Organisations and Management, University of Technology

Cairns, E. (1991) "Is Northern Ireland a Conservative Society?" In Stringer, P. and Robinson, G. (Eds.) Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Blackstaff.

Civic Forum (2002), A Regional Strategy for Social Inclusion, Northern Ireland Civic Forum Secretariat, Belfast.

Cochrane, Fergal and Seamus Dunn (2002), People Power? The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in the Northern Ireland Conflict, Cork University Press, Cork.

Community Development Review Group (1991), Community Development in Northern Ireland: Perspectives for the Future, Workers Educational Association, Belfast.

Coleman, James S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Harvard.

Cooperrider, David. Interview with David Creelman, Case Western Reserve University, July 9, 2001. Web source: www.connection.cwru.edu/ai/uploads/ACF13FB.doc (as of February 26, 2003).

Couto, R., with Catherine Guthrie (1999), Making Democracy Work Better: Mediating Structures, Social Capital and the Democratic Prospect, University of North Carolina Press.

Darby, John, (1986), Intimidation and the Control of Conflict in Northern Ireland, Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.

Fine, B. (2001), Social Capital versus Social Theory. London, Routledge

Foley, M. & B. Edwards (1998), Is it Time to Disinvest in Social Capital? Paper given to the American Political Science Meeting, Boston, September.

Gillespie, Una and Charlie Fisher, (no date), [2000?] From Crisis to Transformation: Strategic Proposals for the West Belfast Community Sector, West Belfast Economic Forum, Belfast.

Green, M.C. & T.C. Brock (1998) "Trust, Mood and Outcomes of Friendship Determine Preferences for Real Versus Ersatz Social Capital". Political Psychology, 19, 3, 527 - 544

Greeley, A. M. (2000). The Catholic Imagination, University of California Press, California.

Griffiths, Hywel, (1978), "Community Reaction and Voluntary Involvement" in John Darby and Arthur Williamson, Violence and the Social Services in Northern Ireland, Heinemann Educational Press, London.

Grootaert, C. & T. Van Bastelaer, (2002), Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative. Forum Series on the Role of Institutions in Promoting Economic Growth. See The IRIS Center at

http://www.iris.umd.edu/forum/Social%20Capital--final.pdf.

Hamilton, Norman, (2002), Church and Community in North Belfast, Centre for Voluntary Action Studies, University of Ulster, Coleraine, (http://www.ulst.ac.uk/cvas/pdf/hamilton_book.pdf).

Hanf, T. (1994). "The Sacred Marker: religion, communalism and nationalism" in Social Compass, 41, 9-20.

Hanifan, L. J. (1916), ‘The Rural School Community Center’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67:130-138. Quoted in Woolcock, M. & D. Narayan, ‘Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15, no. 2 (August 2000), pp 225-249.

Harriss, J. (2002), Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. Wimbledon, Anthem Press.

Hodgett, Susan, L. (1996), "The Development of a European Policy Network: A case study of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Sector", a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Social Science in European Integration at The Queen’s University of Belfast.

Hughes, Joanne and Caitlin Donnelly, (2002) "Ten years of Social Attitudes to Community Relations in Northern Ireland" in Ann Marie Gray et al, Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland, London: Pluto Press.

Kretzman, John P. and John L. McKnight (1993), Building Communities from the Inside Out, ACTA Chicago.

Krishna, A. & E. Shrader, (1999), Social Capital Assessment Tool. Paper given at the Conference on Social Capital and Poverty Reduction, The World Bank, Washington DC, June.

Marris, Peter and Martin Rein, (1967), Dilemmas of Social Reform, New York, Atherton.

Marshall, Gordon (1982), In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism, Hutchinson University Library, London.

McCready, Sam (2002) Empowering People: Community Development and Conflict, 1969-1999, The Stationery Office, Belfast.

Morrissey, M & P. McGinn, (2001), Summary of Interim Report on Research into Evaluating Community-Based and Voluntary Activity in Northern Ireland. Voluntary Activity Unit, DSD.

National Statistics Online, (2001), Social Capital Question Bank. See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about_ns/social_capital/default.asp (September 2001)

Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (1992), Proposals from the Voluntary Sector on the Structural Funds Plan (NICVA, 1992).

Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (2001) Weak Community Infrastructure: a support priority, Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Belfast.

O’Halloran, Kerry J. (2002), "Charity Law and Alienation in Northern Ireland: the findings of a research project and the resonance between events in New York and Belfast" in International Journal of Not for Profit Law, 4, 2, 1-24.

O’Prey, Monina and James Magowan (2001), Weak Community Infrastructure: A Support Priority, Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, Belfast.

Onyx, Jenny and Paul Bullen, (1997), Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities in New South Wales: An Analysis. Sydney: University of Technology. (ISBN 1 86365 526 3.)

Paisley, I., Hume, J., & Nicholson, J. (1997) "Special support Programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland - revisited." Unpublished report for Jacques Santer: President of the European Commission 1 October, 1997.

Putnam, Robert, M. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert, (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Ruane, Joseph and Jennifer Todd (1996), The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rural Community Network (2002), Rural Network News (special issue on Low/Weak Community Infrastructure), Summer, Rural Community Network, Cookstown.

Sagy, S., Orr, E, & Bar-On, D. (1999), "Individualism and Collectivism in Israeli Society: Comparing religious and secular high-school students" in Human Relations, 52 (3), 327-34.

Schneider, J. A. 2001, Churches, Nonprofits, and Community: The Kenosha Social Capital Study. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Skocpol, Theda (1996), "Unravelling from Above" in The American Prospect, 25, (March-April), 20-25.

Strunk, D.R. & Chang, E.R. (1999) "Distinguishing between Fundamental Dimensions of Individualism-collectivism: Relations to Socio-political Attitudes and Beliefs". Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 4, 665 - 671.

Sweeney, Paul, (1991), Presentation reported in Community Development in Protestant Areas. Belfast: Community Relations Council.

Taylor, Peter, (1999), Loyalists, Bloomsbury, London.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder Co.: Westview.

Vandello, J.A. & Cohen, D. (1999) "Patterns of Individualism and Collectivism Across the United States" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 2, 279 - 292.

Van Til, Jon, (2002), http://crab.rutgers.edu/~vantil/papers/491-NIreport.html

Varshney, Ashutosh, (2002), Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life Yale University Press, New Haven. (See also http://kubnw5.kub.nl/web/fsw/lustrum/papers/sjak_sjoerd_revised.pdf).

Voluntary Activity Unit (1999), The Story of Community Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, Department of Health and Social Services, Belfast.

Wilford, R. (1997) "Attitudes to the Welfare System" in Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Appletree Press.