The Issue of Community in Multifaceted Situations - Term Paper Example

Introduction to Community Work Semester 1, 2013: A Review of Academic Growth Hannah Reed Edith Cowan University Introduction to Community Work Semester 1, 2013: A Review of Academic Growth Executive summary Community work is a fundamental aspect of the society. This essay will briefly assess the definitions of community and my understanding of their role in multifaceted situations. To elaborate on this issue, the essay will first provide an understanding the communities. It will then elaborate the approaches to working with communities. It will define the relationship between the community and community workers. It will describe the main approaches, which are applied in many societies today. Some of these approaches include the top-down and the bottom-up approach. Five practice frameworks will also be considered. Skills applied when working with communities will also be considered in this paper. A conclusion will be made to summarize the concept of communities and the fundamental frameworks. Understanding Communities A community worker’s role is to bring about changes in the community. They perform this through first understanding the networks, power structures and relationships within the community and utilising them. To understand the fundamental concepts in this area a clear understanding of what community is and what it means to the group in question is needed. In Indigenous Australian culture, the meaning of community is indistinct. It has the same practical meaning; however, it fails to practically translate to their customs (Hopkins, 2013a). The community’s capacity to gain advantage from community works is difficult to assess. The role of a community worker is to examine the elements of a community; its community strength and social infrastructure. These multifaceted terms required extensive examination and contextualisation. This essay will assess some of the sources for my understanding of these elements (Hopkins, 2013a). Communities and Community Workers To understand communities, we must first understand the definition of community and community work. Community work can be defined as work involving people of the community with some mutually understood goal. However, it can also refer to foundation work used to improve community cohesion (Jureidini & Poole, 2003). Community work can focus on individuals and subsets within the community. However, community work should always lead to the advancement of the community at large (Mawson, 2008). These projects may include individual/family based programs such as; counselling, mentoring, therapy and family focused works (Bauman, 2000). These programs improve the lives of individuals that make up the community for the overall strength of the community. According to Taylor, Wilkinson and Cheers (2008) community work requires a sound understanding of the community in question. It also requires the establishment and maintenance of relationships with key stakeholders in the project. Community can be defined as a community of place or community of interest. Cheers and Luloff (2001) define communities of place as a location with a local society and a community field. A community field is a pattern of “local-oriented collective actions” (Cheers & Luloff, 2001). Guterbock (1999) defines a community of interest as an externally observable group of people who share a common interest who regularly interact in some way. Groups can unite under any interest such as economics, social gatherings, religions and culture (Guterbock, 1999). Australian Indigenous communities tend to vary from non- Indigenous communities with a lower sense of self and place greater value on kinship. The family structures in Indigenous culture vary from those in non- Indigenous culture. These and other systemic factors have led to miscommunication and misunderstanding between the groups (Taylor et al, 2008). Indigenous spokespersons sometimes object to the term community being used, claiming it fails to represent its contextual meaning (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, March 12). Fundamentally, community work should have the same goals no matter what community is involved, but the methods used should be culturally sensitive. A community worker should involve themselves in a community to better comprehend it. They should engage with the community, participating in community activities and conversing with community members. Simultaneously they should passively observe the community interaction. Through this process, the community worker would attempt to establish an understanding of the community (Taylor et al, 2008). Effectively a community worker should be “of the community” but still able interpret it with unbiased perspective. Community Capacity A community’s capacity to receive change is dependent on several variables (Taylor et al, 2008). There are generic elements of a community that are only notable through absence such as; schools, health services and financial institutions (Weeks, Hoatson & Dixon, 2003). Community capacity can be embodied by many community aspects. Some community aspects include social capital, community reliance, social cohesion and community activeness (Taylor et al, 2008). Social capital refers to the body of expertise provided by the members of the community; such as a member of a local community who can utilise their musical skills to conduct a choir. It typically refers to the volunteer pool, however it may refer to someone working in a company who can suggest suitable purchase or organisation (Portes, 1998). Community reliance refers ability of the community to resist change; positive or negative. The role of the community worker is to assess the reliance to change held by the community. Their role is not to undermine this facet but understand its base and work within their terms (Taylor et al, 2008). Social cohesion refers to the group’s capacity to agree on a topic. A divisive community will struggle to work together on any topic (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Community activeness is an indication of the community’s ability to engage in actions. A community worker can organise social activities to improve the community connections. A close-knit community will be better able perform actions. Some community workers sometimes use tests to assess community capacity. One such tool was developed by Cheers and Associates in 2005 and reviewed in 2007. A trained facilitator can assess a community in eight key fields and determine the areas of strength and weakness (Cheers, Kruger, Cock, Hylton-Keele & Trigg, 2005; Taylor et al, 2008). This tool can provide a less biased assessment of the community. I would also assume that such a tool would be used in conjunction with other direct community work methods. Approaches to Working with Communities There are four approaches to working with communities; contributions approach, instrumental approach, community empowerment approach and developmental approach. These approaches are used in different circumstances (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006; Taylor et al, 2008). Top-Down Approaches The contributions approach is where the function of the community is to take voluntary roles, while professionals perform the main task of managing and leading the community in the project. This is a top-down approach where the power is held by the minority (Muirhead, 2002). This approach is generally considered less effective than bottom-up approaches, where the power is held by the majority. However, in most circumstances the top-down approach is simpler to implement. The instrumental approach contains less community involvement (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, March 26; Hopkins, 2013b). The instrumental approach is used to achieve a goal, in spite of the community involved. In this approach, professionals involved in the project conceive the ideas then convince the community to agree to the goals. This top-down approach avoids interference from the community with the project leaders making all decisions (Weeks et al, 2003). It is useful for implementing programs to which the community are resistant. Sometimes the community objects are invalid and the programs are designed to affect the greater believe that in good. It is considered better to work with a community and to utilise community support. I believe that some situations the best method to change a community opinion is by effecting change to allow the community the positive result. However, this should be a last resort and applied with extreme care (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, March 26, Hopkins, 2013b). Bottom-Up Approaches The developmental approach is when the community is involved in the development of ideas, methods and processes for a project. Having ideas sourced from the community is a good method of establishing what the community wants and fulfilling it. It relies on an active community body for a ready solution. Involvement with the community generally improves the results of the project, however it is not possible if the community is hostile. Ready use of community can also cause fatigue. Most people have other life commitments and are unable to devote too much time to community work. As a bottom-up approach, the community holds the majority of power (Taylor et al, 2008, Hopkins, 2013b). As the most affected party, it follows that the community should have most of the power. However, the lack of efficiency and the denegation of expertise over traditional methodology make me question its use in some circumstances (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, March 26). The community empowerment approach aims to empowering marginalized groups ensuring that all groups in a community have access to the resources available through individual development. This approach gives community members direct control over affecting issues. (Taylor et al, 2008, Hopkins, 2013b). This approach would be useful in two speed societies such as some West Australian regional communities. Some communities sometime have an impoverished population beside a wealthy population. A typical scenario is an impoverished Indigenous population and a wealthy non-Indigenous employed by a mining company. The wealthy group would hold most of the power at the expense of the Indigenous group. The community empowerment approach would allow this marginalised group to voice their concerns and effect necessary programs. Five Practice Frameworks The five practice frameworks can be used individually or in combination with each other. They are selected depending on the community environment. It is important to select various aspects of the practice frameworks that suit the needs of the community. Interactional community development framework is an effective approach in building cohesion across the entire community. It involves people and groups within the community to work together for the interest of the entire community. Using these practice approaches all actions as organized and coordinated endeavours (Taylor et al, 2008; Hopkins, 2013b). Participative development framework is the next practice approach that entails the involvement of the entire community in making decisions on how programs are implemented. Simply it is the delegation of roles in the community. This framework benefits the community and empowers it to continue after the facilitators leave. Building capable communities framework entails raising the consciousness of the community members regarding the power structures present in the community. In this framework, groups and individuals are empowered to use community structures (Clarke, 2000; Labonte & Laverack, 2001; Laverack, 2003; Taylor et al, 2008; Hopkins, 2013b). Building collective capacity is the next approach where the community takes control over community projects. This framework is effective in communities with a strong capacity because they can assume full control of the project. The last framework, which is asset-based community development, works by focusing on the strengths that the community already has. This framework is effective in that it does not focus on weaknesses, which may distract some social workers. This will create a dependency problem whereby community members will be reliant on outsiders to solve their problems (Clarke, 2000; Taylor et al, 2008; Hopkins, 2013b). The Role of Government in Community Work The government in Australia often works within communities to implement projects and to improve damaged communities. Their role is mostly as a benefactor, supplying materials, support structures, funds, expertise and other forms of support. The government is often a good source for initiatives, however it is often criticised for use of instrumental approaches. The modern sociological movements have altered the government’s approach. The government holds the authority in the community, which undermines their efforts to use bottom-up approaches. They become contribution approaches instead of developmental approaches (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, April 9; Hopkins, 2013b). Skills in Working with Communities Community Decision Making There are various skills community workers need to work effectively within communities. Community workers need to understand the significance of effective, collaborative and inclusive decision-making. Communities are mostly polycystic in nature, especially in a multicultural society like Australia. Community workers can decide on the most effective decision making processes through understanding community context avoiding a top-down mentality and creating an environment for all community members to air their views (Taylor et al, 2008). Community Partnerships, Leaderships and Planning For community workers to engage effectively with communities, they must have partnership development skills. These skills allow them to become part of the community and avoid being viewed as an interloper. Community workers need to collaborate with both community members and stakeholders outside the community (Taylor et al, 2008). Partnerships enhance the capacity of the community to meet its objectives and needs (Kenny, 2006). Furthermore, partnerships show respect for the knowledge and skills of others, which in turn contributes to trust development (L. Hopkins, personal communication, 2013, April 30). Leadership skills are a vital component of community work. It is important for community workers to understand the type of leadership that suit particular situations. Leadership styles such as transformation, transactional or relational; suit various circumstances (Wearing, 1996). It is also important to acknowledge and respect other community leaders. The community workers are not required to follow the other leader, however they need to remain respectful. A relational approach to community leadership is the most effective approach as it does require formality. It simply requires trust in the community. This form of leadership incorporates various relationships in the community to realise common objectives. Community work requires cohesive work between external groups and the community. External groups can be utilised for various forms of support. Unless it is a government body or a philanthropic entity the external group will enter the community project for self-promotion. It is generally positive to engage in a partnership, however the intentions of all the parties need to be established prior to entry into the agreement (Hopkins, 2013c). To organise partnerships, leadership is necessary. A good leader should be able to plan. Community planning refers to the planning of the process a project will undergo. Methodology is often a divisive issue in these projects as the outcome has support but the sacrifices needed to get there are not. An example of this would be a road works project that will provide the community with better roads after three years of interruptions. A planner will weigh the pros and cons of a project and recommend the path of least resistance. Other methods employ the use of the community in the planning process. This allows alternative perspectives to be incorporated. However as a specialised field it would still be influenced by the planner’s own vision (Hopkins, 2013c). Conclusion In conclusion, a firm understanding of theoretical concepts will inform and improve community work. Other skills include, listening, observing and interpreting human source data to determine the suitable theoretical framework. This unit has provided me with a firm foundation for understanding the theoretical frameworks and an idea of the skills I would need to develop to work in the field. References Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge; Malden, Mass: Polity Press Cheers, B., Kruger, M., Cock, G., Hylton-Keele, L. & Trigg, H. (2005). Measuring community capacity: an electronic audit tool, The Changing Nature of Country Towns, Bendigo. 2nd Future of Australia's Country Towns Conference, (CSRC, Eds). Cheers, B. & Luloff, A. E. (2001). ‘Rural community development’, in Reality Bites: The Social and Environmental Transformation of Rural Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney, Australia, 129-142. Clarke, S. (2000). Social work as community development: A management model for social change (2nd ed.). Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate. Edgar, D. (2001). The Patchwork nation. Rethinking Government -­ re-­building community. Sydney: Harper Collins Publishers. Forrest, R. & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 38(12), 2125- 2142. Guterbock, T. M. (1999). ‘Community of interest: Its definition, measurement, and assessment’, Sociological Practice Review, 1(2), 88-104. Hopkins, L. (2013a). Module 1 Understanding Communities. Retrieved from Edith Cowan University, Blackboard website: http://blackboard.ecu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2700606-dt-content-rid-1503770_1/courses/CSV1101_CSV5111.2013.1.ONCAMPUS_ESOFF/Module%201%20CSV1101%20for%202013%282%29.pdf Hopkins, L. (2013b). Module 2 Approaches to Working with Communities. Retrieved from Edith Cowan University, Blackboard website http://blackboard.ecu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2700629-dt-content-rid-1503775_1/courses/CSV1101_CSV5111.2013.1.ONCAMPUS_ESOFF/Module%202%20CSV1101%20for%202013.pdf Hopkins, L. (2013c). Module 3 Skills in Working with Communities. Retrieved from Edith Cowan University, Blackboard website http://blackboard.ecu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-2700630-dt-content-rid-1503841_1/courses/CSV1101_CSV5111.2013.1.ONCAMPUS_ESOFF/Module%203%20CSV1101%20for%202013.pdf Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community development: Community based alternatives in an age of globalisation (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education. Jureidini, R. & Poole, M. (Eds.) (2003). Sociology: Australian connections. (3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Kenny, S. (2006). Developing Communities for the future. South Melbourne, Vic.: Thomson. Kimmel, M. & Aronson, A. (2009). Sociology now. The essentials. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Labonte, R & Laverack, G. (2001). ‘Capacity building in health promotion, Part 1: From whom? And for what purpose?’ Critical Public Health, 11(2), 111-127. Laverack, G. (2003). ‘Building capable communities: Experience in rural Fijian context’, Health Promotion International, 18(2), 99-106. Maton, K., Schellenbach, C., Leadbetter, B., & Solarz, A. (2003). Investing In children, youth, families and communities: Strengths-­based Research and policy. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Mawson, A. (2008). The Social Entrepreneur: Making Communities Work. London, England: Atlantic. Muirhead, T. (2002). Weaving tapestries: A Handbook for building communities. Perth, Australia: Local Government Community Services Association of WA. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. Sargent, M., Nilan, P., & Winter, G. (Eds.). (1997). The New Sociology For Australians. (4th edition). South Melbourne: Longman. Taylor, J., Wilkinson, D. & Cheers, B. (2008).Working with communities in Health and Human Services. Sydney: Oxford University Press. Van Krieken, R., Habibis, D., Smith, P., Hutchins, B., Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (Eds.). (2006). Sociology. Themes And perspectives. (3rd edition). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Longman. Wearing, B. (1996). Gender. The Pain And Pleasure Of Difference. Melbourne: Longman. Weeks, W., Hoatson, L. & Dixon, J. (2003). Community Practices in Australia. Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education. Read More