The British sociological association conference was held in Glasgow from 3-5 July 2024. Doctor Doreen Grimes attended the conference on behalf of the INVOLVE project. There was a wide range of papers on social policy issues including mental health, loan parenthood, universal healthcare and social assistance. There were two panels on housing policy which included papers on disability and homelessness, homelessness shelters, domestic violence shelters and safe accommodation, housing inadequacy for low-income parents and biosocial effects of inadequate housing. Lorraine presented a paper titled: A critical co-produced analysis of social policy in Europe: The Receiver Doer Judge (RDJ) Critical Policy Analysis Framework: An analysis of housing policy in Ireland. The paper outlined the receiver, Doer, Judge framework, the critical analysis policy grid designed for the project and provided a critical analysis of the housing for all policy in Ireland.
Two papers outlined using co-production as a methodology for their project, similar to the INVOLVE project. One project explored Stigma in the Housing Sector in Scotland and was presented by Vikki McCall and Diane Theakstone of the University of Sterling. The project uses co-production as a methodology involving 112 “community peer researchers” who are older disabled adults who are the focus of the research and are involved in co-design of the project. These volunteer researchers kept Diaries for two years documenting their experiences of community engagement, public services, and social support. The project worked with an NGO called ‘Inclusive Living Alliance’ and housing associations. Early career academics run reading groups with the researchers and provided mentoring support. Analysis was carried out on 1,289 diary entries. An archive of these diaries was produced. Analysis found that 43% of people with disabilities reported age discrimination in the housing sector. Women were 8.4 times more likely to experience gender discrimination. One in two adults in Scotland living in the most thrived areas have a disability. Their report with further findings is available here: Thinking-about-Stigma-in-Housing-Health-and-Social-Care-FINAL-13.02.24.pdf (housinglin.org.uk)
Another project which used coal production was the ‘Changing Realities’ project. This project was co-produced with parents and carers and included 200 participants 60 of whom were in direct contact with the research team on a weekly basis. Participants were invited to submit online diaries and formed a living archive which is available here: www.changingrealities.org/archive. The diary enteries included people struggling to pay rent, being evicted, racism from landlords, struggling to pay mortgages, the cost of living crisis, not being entitled to support, being evicted, having to work two jobs and not spending enough time with their children, the impact of the Universal Credit cap, household overcrowding, moving house multiple times, housing discrimination on the private market e.g. “No children allowed” and child protection services and social services blaming poorer families for poor housing and poor standards of living. The project also involves campaigning activities as part of their research. They have produced a toolkit for other researchers on how to work with people with lived experience in research. The toolkit is available here- changingrealities.org/writings/toolkit
The network for European Social Policy Analysis conference (ESPA Net) was held in Tampere, Finland from 29-31 August 2024. Doctor Lorraine Grimes attended on behalf of the INVOLVE project where she presented a poster presentation.
The poster presentation panel was well attended and there was a lot of interest in INVOLVE’s ongoing research.
A panel which was of particular interest to INVOLVE was on the key concept of resilience. The first paper by Aba Larau measured household resilience in Barcelona against economic vulnerability and economic crisis over the last few years. She found that economic resilience depended on family neighborhood and community support. Sara Ayllon from University of Girona examined poverty in psychological resilience. She found that those who experience poverty have a high level of resilience or adaptation to poverty. Those who moved from below the poverty line to just above the poverty line did not move in terms of higher levels of life satisfaction. The third paper by Ralf Och University of Hamburg examine social citizenship and resilience despite poverty in European welfare states. He stated that participation in society is more difficult for those experiencing poverty. Social support measures are relied on for exercising social citizenship and resistance. He outlines two levels of resilience – transformative, where there is a high level of agency an ability to mobilise oneself and adaptive, or absorptive where there is a lack of support and therefore lack of resilience. He outlines three levels of support needed for social citizenship.
Macro level: social policy, culture, etc.
Meso level: support and engagement, family and social networks.
Micro level: health situation, education, responsibilities etc.
Although the concept of resiliance is not one of the key concepts of the INVOLVE project, it ties in with capacity to aspire, capability to aspire and citizen participation.
Another Horizon 2020 project which was presented at the conference was on the resistance to epistemic silencing in social services. It focused on the key concepts of participation and responsiveness. It investigates experiences of social users with participation and the responsiveness of social services within the sectors of child protection, disability and mental health.
The project outlines three reasons for encouraging citizen participation: moral, instrumental (affected populations are more likely to support policies if they have been involved in them) and substantive justification (this involves affected populations in the implementation of policy) (Fiorino, 1990) They outline participation in social services as informing citizens, consultation (input from the community), involve and collaboration (community given a leadership role) and defer to. The parameters of participation in social services include policy (at request of authorities), case (citizens at individual level) and service (collective level).
A key research question of the project is ‘what are the effects of participation in social services?’ Another key concept is responsiveness in social services – learning from input of citizens. Interviews and focus groups were carried out and findings included obstacles to participation. Inexistent, limited or inappropriate participatory mechanisms, fear of negative consequences for social users, lack of responsiveness or tokenistic participation- no power to influence change.
They found that service users used alternative strategies either by bypassing social services, getting organised outside of social services e.g. through an advocacy group, reclaiming invited spaces, or exiting from social support. They found that social service users exercised a form of agency a form of resistance to epistemic silencing and shows where service users perceive power and to whom they see as allies.
Social service users said they found it encouraging to be involved but difficult to measure their influence. Trustworthiness was an issue if a negative experience was encountered by the service user. Trust is needed both ways from service providers also. The participatory process is time-consuming. Time for communication is an issue. Another issue is that citizens are not always particularly interested in policy or have limited knowledge and policy and services available.
This project is of particular interest to the INVOLVE project which is also analyzing citizen participation in public services and social policy.
Lorraine Grimes, Nium, Ireland