From ‘words to action’

Posted on 12 January, 2018 by Fiona

In the second of our blog series ‘Interactions, Interdisciplinarity, International’, one of our key regional partners talks about how any research ecosystem can only flourish when it includes representation, opinions and ideas from all sectors.

Simon Hanson, North East Development Manager, Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

To badly paraphrase John Donne, no business is an island. The stress on small businesses to be more productive and innovative has resulted in greater expectations of the role universities can play in supporting their local enterprise ecosystem. This local ecosystem is not restricted to academia and business but also includes government and civic society.

Every region has some societal and urban challenges that holds back its potential. Rather than see this as a problem we need to start seeing it as an opportunity. An opportunity for all parts of the community to address in partnership.

This is the ethos that drives the ACCOMPLISSH www.accomplissh.eu project funded through the Horizon 2020 programme. In trying to address our collective challenges we need to look beyond our localities and see what has worked well elsewhere. Being nosey and curious doesn’t show up on any output targets through funded programmes like ACCOMPLISSH and remains an undervalued asset.

The theme of the most recent ACCOMPLISSH conference hosted in Tallinn, Estonia was from ‘words to action’. A great opportunity to develop those nosiness and curiosity skills. Here we would hear how other partners in the programme from across the EU had tackled some of these challenges, created partnerships between all sectors and allowed universities to break the shackles of the ivory tower.

That was the hope anyway.

There were some great presentations on the work that Tallinn University has done in a short space of time to achieve the theme of the conference and the potential that participatory budgeting has in helping local communities address the challenges they face.

In dancing parlance it takes two to tango and four to make a barbershop quartet. What felt like an academic conference was confirmed in the lack of attendees from at least two parts of the quadruple helix: the business community and civic society. Whilst all of the 14 universities involved had been encouraged to invite their quadruple helix partners, few attended the 2 day conference.

If we are to achieve a shift from ‘words to action’ speaking in an echo chamber won’t achieve our collective ambitions.

If we are truly to address the challenges and exploit the opportunities it will depend on people working together. No one community has the answers to addressing societal challenges and we need all the voices in the room. As Saul D. Alinsky said “If you want to know how the shoe fits, ask the person who is wearing it, not the one who made it.”

Small businesses are the backbone of every community across the globe. Helping them achieve their ambitions will address some of the biggest societal challenges that we collectively face.

Utilising opportunities like those presented by ACCOMPLISSH will hopefully go some way to achieve this.

Simon Hanson is the North East Development Manager for the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). For the past ten years Simon has developed the FSB to be the leading voice of small businesses across the region. The FSB in the North East of England represent the interests of approximately 4,000 small businesses from across the region. To do this Simon has led the FSB work has undertaken in campaigning, lobbying, media relations, stakeholder engagement and partnership-building across the region.

The Federation of Small Businesses is working with Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal and other external partners to jointly deliver the ACCOMPLISSH project. The ACCOMPLISSH project explores how partnership working and Quadruple Helix collaborations and knowledge exchange can enhance the impact of research and achieve meaningful change for society.

A New Era for Towns?

Posted on 14 September, 2017 by Fiona

Reposted from Carnegie UK Trust

Peter Hetherington chaired the joint Carnegie UK Trust and Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal event in North Shields on 11 July 2017, the discussions of which are summarised below. Peter is past chair of the TCPA, was a member of the government’s urban sounding board and a board member of the former Academy for Sustainable Communities. He is also a former regional affairs editor of The Guardian.

I grew up, and started work, in a smallish city. It was surrounded by a clutch of even smaller towns. What’s surprising is that, throughout my formative years – the 1960s into the early 70s – they were (in the case of the city) largely self-governing, a ‘county borough’ in the officialise of the time.

Throughout over half of the last century, a small city was a big democratic player – for a period providing electricity, gas, water, public transport and, of course, education and social care. These institutions civilised Britain long before a national government developed any social agenda. And that went for small towns too. Just look around England, Scotland and Wales and you’ll still see remnants of truly local democracy: town halls, often sadly neglected and partly abandoned, that once provided a focus of local action and service delivery. Think royal burghs (in the case of Scotland) and town councils in England (which still sometimes exist as glorified parish councils).

But from the 1970s onwards, through rounds of local government ‘reorganisation’, these small councils were swallowed up by larger authorities. Local identity – that essential element of pride, belonging, a sense of place – went out of the stained glass windows which sometimes adorned these fine sandstone buildings. As countless citizens will attest – me included – bigger hasn’t always been better.

So what to do? If we can’t turn back the clock, we can at least – as Carnegie UK Trust’s ‘Time for Towns’ project emphasises – consider how towns might have a greater say over decision making as part of a continuing policy debate surrounding community empowerment and ‘devolution’. In English terms, that latter noun briefly meant devolving some power to five ‘city regions’, such as Greater Manchester, in mayoral elections earlier this year. The initiative was meant to be rolled out elsewhere. But it’s stalled. The government seems to have gone cool on the idea.

In its limited form, however, this initiative did tell us something about a national policy mindset which sees big cities, and surrounding conurbations, as the drivers of a regional economy – in much the same way as London is seen as a motor of the national economy.

It’s time to challenge these assumptions. As Carnegie UK Trust’s recent ‘Turnaround Towns’ report emphasises, millions of us don’t live in big cities but, rather, in small and medium-sized towns – some thriving, some coasting, many struggling.

I was lucky enough to chair a joint Carnegie UK Trust and Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal seminar in North Shields in July designed to address the turnaround issue, with case studies from eight places: the USA to Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Finland.

North Shields? Still partly a fishing port, it’s at the mouth of the River Tyne, and now – courtesy of local government reorganisation in 1973 – forms part of the North Tyneside metropolitan borough, which also embraces the neighbouring coastal towns of Tynemouth and Whitley Bay. North Tyneside, in many ways, is typical of much of Britain: poverty and plenty cheek-by-jowl. North Shields, perhaps seen as a poor economic relation, has a spectacular quayside, trendy bars, up-market flats and a poorer housing estate which has had its troubles in the past.

The mayor of North Tyneside, Norma Redfern, a retired primary head teacher, who opened the event, spoke passionately about the importance of community, belonging and partnership in the quest of ‘turning towns around’. Above all, she said, councils must put residents first. This was no synthetic comment. As the only elected executive mayor in the Tyne and Wear conurbation, she heads an excellent authority which boasts high-ranking schools and considerable ambition, often directed to turning round its most challenging areas.

As the past chair of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), Britain’s oldest housing and planning charity, I am helping lead a project which specifically addresses those forgotten parts of England – for instance, former industrial towns and villages – which time, and government, seems to have forgotten.

In England particularly, there’s a policy vacuum, an asymmetric system which places, and sometimes rewards, big cities and conurbations, while forgetting outlying areas which contain the bulk of the country’s population. The tide has to turn. Let’s cooperate in driving forward a common agenda. A new era for towns? Why not?

Peter Hetherington

Reposted with kind permission from Carnegie UK Trust

Rural proofing: magic bullet or rural vote-catcher?

Posted on 24 March, 2017 by Fiona

We all know that living in the countryside may mean having to travel further to access shops, schools, GP surgeries and hospitals, while some services available in urban areas are simply unobtainable. Communities may complain that they are overlooked and individuals sometimes feel isolated. Rural proofing is intended to address these kinds of inequalities but is it really the magic bullet that will solve everyone’s problems?

The UK Government defines the process thus: “Rural proofing is integral to the policy making cycle. It requires us to make sure that the needs and interests of rural people, communities and businesses in England are properly considered. This applies to the development and implementation of all policies and programmes. For central government, rural proofing means assessing policy options to be sure we get the fairest solutions in rural areas.”

What could be better or more desirable than ensuring fairness all round when you are designing policies? But like most things in life, the reality is much more complicated. The questions we should be asking seem simple: what is rural, who is disadvantaged and what are the problems policies need to address? Unfortunately this is seldom the starting point for policymaking.

In my career as a social scientist working in rural studies I have spent a lot of time looking at the ways in which governments try to design and implement policies that are “fair” to both urban and rural communities. It is a challenge that faces governments worldwide and rural proofing seems to offer a useful tool. But too easily it becomes an all-purpose mallet to be applied without precision across cultures and circumstances. In some instances it seems to miss the mark completely.

In 2015 I was able to spend a month in Monash University in Melbourne to do research on rural proofing there and to have discussions and to provide a briefing paper and presentations about it for policy makers. I quickly realised that their thinking about “rural” focused on what the Australians refer to as “the country”. It is a term that has a pleasant old world sound to it, a nod to European roots. But it fails to take into account the truly remote outback which is home to indigenous Australians or to consider the very real disadvantages they experience. In Australia – as in the UK – how you define “rural” is highly politicised.

Rural proofing as a concept originated with the English Rural White Paper in 2000. My colleagues here in the Centre for Rural Economy have long been concerned with rural proofing, and Jane Atterton wrote in 2008 that the concept needed to be reviewed. Since then more critical questions have been asked, by the House of Commons in 2009 and the OECD in 2011. It is an English concept, and applying it more widely is always destined to be problematic. But even in England such a blanket approach often feels inappropriate. In a recent Lords debate Lord Beith (formerly an MP for a rural constituency himself) argued in favour of rural proofing and observed “Surely we cannot allow ourselves to stumble into a situation where you have to be well off to live in the countryside”. Given the discrepancy between house prices in city and countryside, living in a rural area in England is already well beyond the pockets of many people. Indeed, England is an anomaly in having a countryside that represents aspiration more often than it does deprivation. Of course you will find some disadvantaged communities and individuals there, but can rural proofing address such specific needs? Can it truly ensure that elusive “fairness”?

Scotland has always been more wary of rural proofing, arguing for a much more targeted approach via its Highland and Islands Council. Northern Ireland, on the other hand, is currently developing a guidance framework for rural proofing, very much following the English model, but related to its own Rural Needs Act. In work I am carrying out with colleagues at the Northern Ireland Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, we have highlighted concerns that such a blanket approach could result in unrealistic wish lists, regardless of practical and resource constraints. Providing “equitable” services cannot mean providing the same services in town and country. A small rural school or health provider may be popular locally but provide a poor service when measured against what is available in urban areas. If this is the case, local facilities should not automatically be protected via rural proofing, rather than being amalgamated in order to achieve improved services.

Rural areas are different from towns and cities and the needs of their residents are often different. But relying on rural proofing to address every rural problem will not ensure fairness. All too often it is a process implemented as a rural vote-catcher by governments as they approach election time. A more useful strategy would be to identify specific problems then design the policy to address those. If you do not know what needs fixing, how can you target an effective solution?

Sally Shortall is the Duke of Northumberland Professor of Rural Economy, in Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy

Digital Innovation: tradition and potential in the history of cinema

Posted on 27 July, 2016 by Fiona

Jessica Crosby is a PhD Student in Newcastle University School of Arts and Cultures. Her PhD is in Media and Cultural Studies, and considers the millennial generation’s engagement in a digital dialogue with popular culture. Here, she explains what Social Renewal means to her, with particular reference to the theme of Digital Innovation.

How has digital technology changed cinema?

To me, social renewal means taking the old alongside the new. We’ve experienced such rapid digital innovation in such a small space of time that our cultural and social landscape has been dramatically changed; whether for the good or the bad, it’s clear that we need some new definitions for our current cultural state, as well as careful consideration of just what has been altered. My own research is an exploratory study of the contemporary film audience, and the ways in which active audience practices can be manifested by interaction on social networking sites. This work must involve an appreciation of the traditions and critical history of the cinema, which as a long-standing cultural institution has had a significant role to play in our day-to-day lives. However, it cannot be denied that the nature of our viewing experiences has changed, facilitated by innovations in mobile and entertainment technology, and the act of being ‘audience’ has become an altogether more transitive, collaborative, and immersive affair. I consider these changes in light of traditional definitions of film audiences, in order to establish the progression of our film viewing habits.

The act of being ‘audience’ has become an altogether more transitive, collaborative, and immersive affair.

Emerging findings from ethnographical study have already demonstrated some interesting trends in online audience interaction, including practices of ‘ownership’ over extended aspects of the film narrative, which brings forward some interesting questions about audience agency and power. These trends speak to larger issues with audience agency in film, which has long functioned on a background of textual pleasure and passivity. What I feel is most significant about this topic however, and indeed what is significant about the focus of social renewal overall, is the attention given to digital ‘inclusivity’. This is an acknowledgement that digital innovation does not function as merely an advancement of older technology, cultural institutions or practices, but as a relationship between traditional elements and future potentials. During my time at Newcastle University I have come across a number of fellow researchers and students, as well as institutions and societies, that have shared the same sense of excitement when discussing the possibilities of digital inclusivity.

Digital innovation does not function as merely an advancement of older technology, cultural institutions or practices, but as a relationship between traditional elements and future potentials.

I have been lucky in that my PhD journey so far has introduced me to a lot of like-minds, both in my own field and without, who have been positive in discussing the ‘potential’ for digital and technological innovation in the cultural field. Though there are apparent consequences to technological growth, the communicative function of digital tech is – in my experience – most often encouraged, particularly when considered also as an academic or networking tool. For example, social media, mobile technology and networking have all figured widely in discussions on research impact, a subject that was at the heart of the recent Humanities and Social Sciences research showcase, for which I was on the organisation committee. It was clear when speaking about individual (and collaborative) impact, the potential for expanding impact both within and beyond the academic sphere was very closely tied to concepts of inclusion, exchange, communication and social policy, making platforms such as social media an invaluable asset.

Whilst the case for digital advancement is by no means cut and dry, and there are factors of transformation in this regard which need careful and close consideration, it seems clear to me that the functionalities of digital technology have opened the floor for close discussion on social interaction and design. This discussion must make room for what has already been established in this field, as well as possible innovations and developments. Taking stock seems a simple act, but it is necessary in times of such rapid change. The work done in the Institute for Social Renewal, as in other sectors of the university, shows clearly the relationship between digital interactivity and cultural enterprise, as well as the more innovative possibilities of a relationship between tradition and potential.

Jessica Crosby, PhD student in Newcastle School of Arts and Cultures

The past in the present: a Reflection on music in the English reformation

Posted on 22 July, 2016 by Jenny

This blog piece is the latest in our New Voices in Social Renewal series and is by Daisy Gibbs, PHD student at Newcastle University and provides a fascinating insight into the music from an evocative period of history.

Photo of singers in Newcastle Universtiy event, featuring early music.

Simon Veit-Wilson Photography

When someone asks me what I study I usually say something like ‘Music in the English Reformation’. It may not be wholly true but people do tend to know what it means! In fact, I’m studying the music collections of Elizabethan amateurs, compiled after England officially became a Protestant country in 1559 but at a time of continuing religious change, negotiation and unrest. These collections survive in dozens of manuscripts scattered in libraries across the country, many of them copied by identifiable individuals. I’m using several case-studies to find out how and where they acquired their music and what encouraged them to choose the pieces that they did.

Helping me in my search is the fact that most of these books don’t just contain music. Many also contain marginal notes, drawings, and even poetry, and their combination of music and paratext carries a huge amount of information. Some copyists seem to have been motivated by concerns which today are all too ominously familiar: a jingoistic pride in Britishness and British art; an ‘island mentality’, and a consequent need to compete with the older and more established music industry of Europe. There are even a couple of references, in the manuscripts of the Oxford don Robert Dow, to ‘our race’, defining the British people not by citizenship but by blood. Sometimes moments like these just make you want to close the books, stop reading, and hope it all goes away. But at other times, even if we know next to nothing about the people who copied the music, we can sympathise with them, because their concerns were the same as ours are now. Among their number we find friends gathering after dinner to entertain themselves with wine and singing, students and schoolchildren copying music to learn before their next lesson, connoisseurs annotating their books with which pieces they thought the best and – in a couple of cases – rather ill-informed criticism.

But that’s not all. Some of the most intriguing books to survive are those which contain music written for Catholic church services, before the accession of Elizabeth I – music which it was now treasonous to perform in public. At this time Roman Catholics were reviled and persecuted: it was illegal even to be a Catholic priest in England and as the reign progressed, the fines for non-attendance at Church of England services were ramped up and up. Some Catholic families lived in constant fear. And yet. Although some of the copyists we can identify were Catholics, others were right at the heart of the conformist establishment, including a schoolteacher, John Sadler, and a singer in the Chapel Royal, John Baldwin. Their books show a love and appreciation for the cultural legacy of Catholicism. Though they might have strongly disagreed with what it stood for, these people could still understand its beauty and value. Even today – especially today – at a time when many are becoming increasingly intolerant of difference, we can learn from such open-mindedness.

My research will not put an end to extremism and it’s not trying to. But, in our study of these Elizabethan musicians, my colleagues and I are uncovering what must surely offer hope in times of change: a deep appreciation of a very different and at times hostile culture, its artistry and sophistication; a quiet love of the past without finding any need to revive or relive it; and the recognition that, however trying the times, those human constants of good music and good company can always provide us with an anchor of sorts; as it were, the calm in the eye of the storm.

Daisy Gibbs, student, Newcastle University

What does participation mean?

Posted on 3 February, 2016 by Fiona

Alexia Mellor is a practice-led PhD researcher in fine art, investigating participatory art practices and the local-global discourse. In this blog post, she explores the theme of arts and culture in social renewal following her presentation as part of the ‘New Voices in Social Renewal’ public lecture in Newcastle University. She challenges the valuing of art for its economic or even social benefit, and argues that the way forward is a more active citizenship.

Credit and Copyright ©: Colin Davison
+44 (0)7850 609 340
colin@rosellastudios.com
www.rosellastudios.com

Participation seems to be the new buzzword, but what do we actually mean by it? What does it mean for social renewal? I am particularly interested in this as an artist and researcher whose practice involves working with people to question ideas and to make meaning.

Participatory art, socially-engaged art, dialogical art – they are all names for a broad spectrum of art practices that involve using the social as both the context and medium for the work. With ‘Big Society’ devolving responsibility, continuing austerity measures, and the arts being asked to make an economic as well as cultural case[1], social arts practices have come even more into the spotlight. There has been a visible push across the arts and cultural sector to focus on social inclusion, reaching out to communities that have been identified as disadvantaged or not engaging with cultural activities[2]. Having been commissioned to work on art projects associated with regeneration programmes and other such initiatives, I have become keenly aware of some of the issues with seeing art as a means to dealing with social problems.

This isn’t to say that art can’t help with social issues, but should it or must it? Of primary concern for me are questions around whose notions of ‘social betterment,’ or cultural engagement, are being acknowledged or furthered with the agendas behind these commissioned projects? What does this mean for the perceived role of the arts in society today? What agency does the participant have – does having access to an art or cultural project mean the same thing as participating in it?

My colleague and frequent collaborator, Dr. Anthony Schrag, and I have written frequently about this trend of using socially-engaged arts practices as an instrument towards particular agendas or targets. Whether these agendas are set by supporting organisations, commissioning bodies, or policy, the instrumentalism of socially-engaged art practice carries risks. Above all, instrumentalism risks losing the very thing that makes socially-engaged practices unique and relevant: their ability to involve participants across art and non-art contexts in critical, interdisciplinary dialogue.

Criticality is the core issue here. It is a myth that consensus necessarily leads to social cohesion. Society is complex and made of difference. What Anthony and I as practitioners and researchers both argue is that embracing a participatory approach that allows for, disagreement, difference and dissensus through critical interrogation is crucial. French theorist, Chantal Mouffe, refers to the need for welcoming healthy conflict and difference in her discussion of agonism. Agonism is not antagonism. Quite the opposite. Agonism sees the value in, and necessity of, respectful disagreement as a way of finding common ground, of finding creative solutions, and of revealing questions we did not know needed to be asked. She argues that agonism is key to true democracy, and ultimately to active citizenship.

Participation in active citizenship requires physical and conceptual spaces for critical reflection that embrace difference and allow for multiple perspectives to be heard. I suggest that socially-engaged arts practices might offer a model for this. Beyond ‘bums on seats,’ this type of art practice sees participants as co-creators in developing a critical space and what happens within it. As opposed to advocating any pre-defined objective, the practice is responsive to the direction participants choose to take the project. This, however, requires a shift in how we think of socially-engaged practice and its role. Artists are not social workers, but we do work with the social. As opposed to fixing social ills, perhaps we are best suited to work collaboratively with participants to shed light on issues and open the forum for how to collectively approach them. This also means challenging the idea that art will ‘do good.’ Sometimes the greatest growth comes after going through something quite difficult. It is our job as artists and researchers to provide the safe and productive spaces for disagreement. By making space for discomfort, by allowing criticality to be at the fore, we just might encourage more active citizenship.

[1] Mirza, Munira. (Ed) Culture Vultures: Is UK arts policy damaging the arts? London, Policy Exchange Limited, 2006

[2] See: http://www.creativepeopleplaces.org.uk/

The future of rural Europe?

Posted on 12 November, 2015 by Fiona

Have you ever wanted to be a Member of Parliament: no, me neither! But last week I participated in the second European Rural Parliament, in Schärding, Austria, as one of five delegates from rural England. This was very different to how we usually imagine a Parliament. At its heart is intended to be the voice of rural people, asserting the need for partnership between civil society and governments in addressing the big societal challenges. This innovative, and inspiring, process may be of interest for social movements and social renewal in many spheres – not just the rural.

The idea originated in the Nordic countries, and the Swedish experience in particular caught the imagination of other countries, initially Estonia and Hungary and then many more who now hold rural parliaments – from Scotland, Netherlands and USA to Lithuania, Slovenia and Cyprus. This European Rural Parliament was held under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, and co-funded by the European Commission through the Europe for Citizens programme. It was jointly initiated by three pan-European rural networks, ERCA, PREPAE and ELARD.

This European Rural Parliament process began with national campaigns in 36 European countries, with each campaign focused on organising an “upward cascade of ideas” which “truly draws upon the hopes and concerns of rural people”. These campaigns varied greatly in depth and detail, according to the national context: for example, Scotland relayed the main conclusions from last year’s Scottish Rural Parliament, while Portugal’s national rural network Minha Terra organised more than 170 local or regional events with nearly 4000 participants. These ideas from the grassroots were synthesised at national level, for use in national campaigning, and then at European level last week, leading to the agreement and affirmation of a European Rural Manifesto. The 250 delegates to the European Rural Parliament from all the countries involved in the cascade of ideas drew on the contents of the national reports during two intensive days of workshops and plenary meetings, distilling their contents and then debating line by line, finalising and adopting the European Rural Manifesto. We also endorsed the broad contents of a book “All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people”, which synthesises the national reports and draws out the main issues.

The generous spirit in which all these discussions and debates took place was impressive and inspiring, reflecting but also generating mutual respect, energy and enthusiasm. The process reflected the diversity of rural Europe but also asserted common values and a shared vision. The Manifesto calls upon the EU and national governments for full recognition of the right of rural communities to a quality of life, standard of living and voice equal to that of urban populations.

“Our vision for the future of rural Europe is of vibrant, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, supported by diversified rural economies and by effective stewardship of high-quality environment and cultural heritage. We believe that rural communities, modelled on that vision, can be major long-term contributors to a prosperous, peaceful, just and equitable Europe, and to a sustainable global society. The pursuit of our vision demands in every country a refreshed and equitable partnership between people and governments. We, the rural people and organisations, know that we have a responsibility to give leadership and to act towards our own collective well-being. But we also fairly demand that governments at all levels, including the European institutions, work to make this crucial partnership effective.”

The Manifesto goes on to address the social, economic, political and environmental challenges facing rural Europe while also emphasising the potential contribution rural areas and people can make to European and national as well as local and regional goals, if supported by governments and international institutions. Importantly it asserted the rights of people, whoever they are and wherever they live, and the shared responsibility of governments and civil society to promote human flourishing in rural and urban areas alike.

Both the Rural Manifesto and the report, All Europe Shall Live – the voice of rural people, can be found on the European Rural Parliament website, along with much more information.

Professor Mark Shucksmith, Director of Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal

The Census: why it matters

Posted on 20 August, 2015 by Fiona

The UK Census is a well-established national data gathering tool, which is then used for many different analyses, but there are some gaps in what it covers. Consultation is underway on the Census 2021. The closing date for responses to the Census Consultation is Thursday 27 August.

2021 Census director, Ian Cope, says: “Information based on census data is heavily used to improve decision-making by local and central government, the health and education sectors, businesses, and by community and voluntary bodies. Of course society changes in the 10 years between each census, so we’re asking you to tell us what information you will need in 2021.”

Newcastle University statistician, Tom King, explains the importance of the Census and why having your say in the topics which it surveys is vital to understanding who and what matters in society.

Census 2021: Consultation

Census has a particular importance in the public engagement with our society and how it is structured. It goes to very single household, and seeks to classify aspects of our society into groups. In this way, it can shape our understanding of our own society, and what is important to our society. In many ways it is the basis for societal planning for a whole decade, as it is the only source of detailed information.

For many groups, getting a question in the census to recognise their status is of profound importance. While what is measured gets done, when something is not measured it may not be known to exist at all. Census figures form the basis of all government activity, so any further information has to come from other sources, which only more specialised groups will access. This means the consultation for census topics is always hotly contested, and many more topics are proposed than can be surveyed.

Timeline for Consultation

It may seem strange that the census is running its consultation for topics to be surveyed in 2021 six years ahead of time. But this is because it is such a huge project, often being compared to a military campaign in its scale. It also follows a rigorous testing process, so that as well as typical questionnaire development, there is also a full scale census test run two years in advance to evaluate operational processes and new questions.

Census is different to other surveys in the UK, with a statutory requirement for householders to make a census return or face a fine. The questionnaire itself is approved by parliament, another stage in the long development process.

This is not necessarily a rubber stamp, with the question on religion being introduced by parliament at this stage.

This question is framed as optional, not a caveat the statisticians were allowed, but one which was repeated in 2011.

Background to the Census

When national censuses was originally conducted, typically beginning in the 19th century, they were the only systematic source of information on a country’s population. They relied on enumerators visiting every household on census day to record their details and this process continued into the 20th century due to popular illiteracy. Census has changed, with self-completion forms and by introducing usual or ‘de jure’ residence to replace the original ‘de facto’ qualification which caused many strange anomalies.

The statistical approach has also changed and the census sits within a portfolio of detailed surveys collected by the National Statistics Office. This reflects a need for more detailed information on some issues, such as crime, and the introduction of statistical sampling of households which required a register of addresses. There are also follow up surveys to test the coverage and accuracy of the data, trying to identify who may have been missed or misclassified.

Who is included in the Census?

It is confusing to many people to describe the problem of people being missing from the census. Certainly as the number missing (around 6%) is nowhere near the number of people fined. But at 94% census has a higher response rate than any other survey, and it is the only survey to capture some population groups, such as those living in large and secure communal establishments, and the homeless. Although the overall total is totemic, it is the local geographical detail which is important.

No other source of information tells us exactly how many people live in small areas with enough detail about them e.g. their age and sex, for this to be useful for demographic models. This is why the plans to shift to administrative data on which to base census enumeration are still in development. You may believe that the government knows everything about you but the fact is they don’t, and what they do know they don’t share, even for statistical purposes.

It is often pointed out that other countries have moved to an administrative system, but their data rely on population registers, and often unique ‘social security’ or similar numbers. Britain has none of these, and in fact the census goes out without assuming anything, admitting those who are irregular, or people who would prefer not to be the part of any system at all. More than that, we collect other information on the characteristics of our population, in a detail other countries envy.

These are the topics which are so hotly contested by societal groups, while the statisticians worry themselves much more about the missing people.

Government departments, and more local relations, are the source of many questions on economic activity and education, as well as the myriad questions on ethnicity. But it is the local people who see the consequences of what it is chosen to measure and how they are to be classified, and census can only take place by popular consent, as in the community exception to the human rights act.

At present, the framing of question about activity covers attending education, working and acting as a carer for someone. This excludes a large swathe of human activity, and discounts the activity of anyone who is retired, by recording no information on any voluntary role they may have. In the particular case of transport, this means that our only detailed transport data is around commuting patterns, because it is only main mode of travel to work which is queried.

Travel and Transport: An Example

Travel planning is aimed particularly at the stress on the transport network seen in the morning rush hour, when it is closest to capacity. But anyone who actually travels to work will have noticed the difference during school holidays which cannot entirely be due to commuters being away on holiday. Similarly, university towns will notice a difference in traffic patterns during the vacations, but this portion of commuting is not collected in the census, despite its obviously localised nature.

At the heart of the transport question is one of the main reasons for having a census which has yet to be addressed.

By linking two addresses, whether as main and second homes, or within country migration, or travel to work, we see data about the flow of people around our country. A survey cannot possibly achieve this due to the small numbers seen (hence the highly uncertain figures about migration) yet this tells us a lot about our society and how we are changing.

There are many specific topics close to many hearts for which the census is not the right source. But the census does form a direct intrusion of how our society is classified on each of us, which we should be in control of. By introducing doubt into the minds of victims of sexual assault, police were able to reduce the number of people who believed there had been a crime. Similarly, by not seeing something which is an important feature of our lives in the census questionnaire can diminish our confidence in its importance.

An example from my own experience, is the use of the travel to work data in public consultations on transport plans in Newcastle. It is widely reported that only 1.7% of people cycle in Newcastle as a reason not to accommodate cyclists in redevelopments and reallocation of the road space. But this figure is from the census and includes only those commuting by bicycle as the longest part of their journey to work: the framing is that those are the only people who matter.

Students, at school, college or university are not counted, neither are those who travel by bicycle only part of the way and it also does not consider anyone who was unemployed at that time. This is strange if there is a local school in the area where development is proposed, but is particularly flawed in the context of the money being spent. The Cycle City Ambition Fund required bids from local authorities, and all the awards were made to university towns, but there is no data on how students travel to university.

Conclusion

Not everyone is comfortable reasoning with statistics, and the census is compelling in that way as it can be viewed as a true figure rather than an estimate. Students who might like to dispute the prevalence of cycling and advocate for students for equal consideration might turn to look for data to support them, but there isn’t any.

Embracing the use of simple evidence from the census into discussions in public consultation requires the data collected to reflect our society, or those not measured will not count.

——————————————————————————————————-

Author: Tom King, is a statistician in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University. His research interests are public statistics and inference from longitudinal social data. Thus this incorporates communicating the relevance of social measurement, typically from large datasets. He is a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.

If you would like to contribute to a response to the Consultation from Institute for Social Renewal, please contact Fiona.Simmons@ncl.ac.uk

Reducing inequality…in national wealth

Posted on 24 July, 2015 by Jenny

The next in the blog series from Newcastle University Societal Challenge Theme Institutes giving recommendations for targets and indicators of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, is from Dr Andrew Walton, Lecturer in Political Philosophy in School of Geography, Politics and Sociology.

In the current proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 10 states the aim to ‘reduce inequality within and among countries’. For many (good) reasons, much articulation of this goal has focused on its first component – reducing inequality between co-citizens within countries. But it is important also to consider what should be the appropriate target for the second component. What should be our aim and measure in reducing inequality amongst countries? My suggestion is to lessen the gap in per capita national wealth – the value of each country’s financial and physical assets.

Measures of (in)equality

The basic idea of measuring (in)equality involves comparing the circumstances of certain actors. Thus, any conceptualisation of equality must specify an answer to two questions:

Which actor should be compared?
What aspect(s) of their circumstances should be compared?

There are different ways to conceptualise and measure (in)equality historically [1]:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)	Countries	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen (country ÷ population)	Final value of goods & services produced within nations’ borders
Income	Persons or households	Disposable income / expenditure
Wealth	Persons or households	Assets, including financial holdings and physical goods, such as real estate

Perhaps obviously, these models ask us to think about (in)equality in rather different ways. For example, on current figures using GDP suggests that China is better-off than Switzerland, whereas GDP/capita suggests the opposite [2]. Similarly, both GDP and GDP/capita suggest that Brazil is a relatively well-off country, but measuring income and wealth highlight that it is home to individuals who are worse-off than almost the entire populations of similarly well-off countries [3].

What these differences highlight is that asking which model we should use to measure (in)equality pushes us to explore deeper philosophical questions about our underlying reasons for being concerned with (in)equality, and to find a measure that is tailored to these concerns. My suggestion here is that some of our underlying concerns point in the direction of exploring how countries compare in per capita wealth [4].

Why compare countries and why compare them per capita?

For many people it will seem obvious that there is something important about whether their country is well-off. It is sometimes thought important for ensuring that their country is respected by others and very commonly because it has a significant impact on whether its citizens have comfortable lives.

Some argue that comparing national circumstances is a mistake. They suggest that, ultimately, it is only the welfare of people that matters and, as noted above, cross-country comparisons can hide that some individuals within countries are badly-off. Advocates of this view might argue that Goal 10 should be collapsed into one goal: measuring (in)equality amongst individuals worldwide.

We should reject the conclusions of this argument. Because the SDGs also consider (in)equality within countries and have other goals targeting aspects of individual welfare, they will not overlook the worry mentioned above. Meanwhile, because one thing that benefits people’s welfare is to participate in the collective decisions and development of their nation, even this individual-centred view can acknowledge the importance of a world involving country groupings and, thus, the additional relevance of cross-country comparisons.

However, we should accept the point that countries are, in essence, valuable only insofar as they benefit their populations and our comparisons between them should reflect this concern. It is for this reason that our cross-country comparison should focus on a per capita measure, which looks at how some aspect of a country’s circumstance relates to its people.

Why compare wealth?

Some possible ways we could make per capita inter-country comparisons would be the following:

Model	Actor	Aspect(s)
GDP/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Final value of goods & services produced within nation’s borders
Wealth/capita	‘Average’ citizen	Assets, including currency, stock, bond holdings and physical goods, such as land, natural resources, and rights to global commons
Capabilities	‘Average’ citizen	Human development indicators, such as life expectancy, education, income

A reasonable case could be made that reducing inequality between countries in any of these respects would be a worthwhile target. Nevertheless, I proposed at the beginning of this post that the goal should be to focus on wealth/capita. Two related points support this view.

First, neither GDP/capita nor capabilities takes full account of the aspects of a country’s circumstance that affects the welfare of its population. To take two clear examples, currency reserves and natural resources, which are considered in wealth/capita, but not these other measures, both allow a country to provide its population with economic security and future consumption [5].

Second, many of the assets that countries hold are a matter of luck. For example, no country did anything to entitle it to the oil or gold that lies within its borders and, indeed, much of their economic wealth arises from the fortunes of the market.

In cases where there is a good that many actors desire and which no actor is entitled automatically to own, it seems sensible to distribute that good equally. If Isaac and I are sat beneath a tree feeling hungry when an apple falls on his head, it seems reasonable for us to share it. Similarly, insofar as it is valuable for countries to hold financial and physical assets and their current holdings have arisen from good fortune, there is a reason to aim for equalising their shares.

Moving towards international equality

A more fully fledged case for measuring inter-country (in)equality in terms of per capita national wealth is that achieving parity in this regard can, under certain conditions, represent a truly idealistic aim. There is a moral argument that a distribution of assets is fair if it mirrors what each relevant actor would have bought with equal purchasing power in the context of all goods being priced at a market-clearing equilibrium [6]. Such a distribution, in the international context, would entail equality in per capita national wealth and it is fair because it reflects the equality of all parties in their access to these goods and allows them to shape their holdings according to what they believe is worth having.

Realising this aim is perhaps a more long-term project than for the framework of the SDGs. Nevertheless, it helps show the value of building our understanding of (in)equality in national wealth and beginning to reduce it, whilst casting light on some important steps for moving towards this goal:

Pursue (the second component of) Goal 10 by:

Establishing a national wealth index and collect data on countries’ standings.
Setting a target of reducing inequality in per capita holdings.

Connect these targets and their longer-term aim to:

Adding impetus to Goal 16.7 of ensuring responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making, in order for countries’ choices about asset holdings to reflect the collective interests of their people.
Helping articulate Goals 17.10-17.12 on shaping international trade towards an equal and equilibrated market.

Dr Andrew Walton is lecturer in political philosophy at Newcastle University. His main research interests are in global justice, liberal-egalitarian and socialist thought and questions of justice in public policy.

[1] The essential ideas used to construct this table are taken from Milanovic, B., Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)

[2] These figures can be found via UN, ‘National Accounts Main Aggregates Database’, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[3] See, for example, Credit Suisse, ‘Global Wealth Report 2014’, available at https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 [Accessed 17^th June 2015].

[4] This suggestion is elaborated in more detail in Walton, A., ‘On the Currency of International Equality’, forthcoming.

[5] It is worth noting that Capabilities also seems to point towards important aspects of human welfare. However, many other SDGs will pursue these kinds of concerns anyway, leaving space for the second part of Goal 10 to speak to the concerns I mention here.

[6] This view is most commonly associated with Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).

The Whole Grain Truth

Posted on 1 May, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Chris Seal is a Professor of Food and Human Nutrition, and Kay Mann is a postgraduate student, within the Human Nutrition Research Centre at Newcastle University. They are calling for the next government to introduce clear guidelines on the amount of whole grain we should be consuming.

The evidence: Whole grains are good for us

Current literature suggests that those eating three or more servings of whole grain, compared with those that eat none or only small amounts, have a 20-30% reduction in their risk of developing cardio-vascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Higher whole grain intake has also been linked to lower body weight, BMI and cholesterol levels. Other research suggests that eating whole grains can make you feel fuller for longer and that you do not need to eat as much of a wholegrain food compared with a refined version to feel full.

The problem: The picture in the UK

Our new research on over 3000 UK adults and children who took part in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) between 2008 and 2012 shows that over 80% of us are not eating enough whole grains. Amazingly, almost one in five people don’t eat any whole grains at all!

One reason for this may be that in the UK there aren’t any specific recommendations on the amount of whole grain we should eat each day, other than the NHS Eatwell Plate advice to “choose wholegrain varieties whenever you can”. Countries such as the US, Canada, Australia and Denmark give much more specific daily recommendations. These range from a minimum of 3 servings (or 48g) per day in the US to between 60g and 90g per day for women and men in Denmark.

Three servings (around 48g) is equivalent to:

3 slices of wholemeal bread
A bowl of porridge or wholegrain breakfast cereal and a slice of wholemeal toast
A portion of whole grain rice/pasta/quinoa or other whole grains

UK public advice about whole grains was first introduced back in 2007, when it was recommended to look out for ‘whole’ on food labels and to ‘choose brown varieties where possible’. We analysed whole grain intake from the NDNS back then and it seems little has changed in consumer habits since.

The amount of whole grain we eat in the UK is still very low – an average of around 20g a day for adults– compared with Denmark where the average daily intake is around 55g. In the UK, we tend to eat a lot of white bread, rice, pasta and cereals and lots of processed foods, all of which have no – or very little – whole grain in them and also tend to be higher in fat and sugar.

In Denmark, since the introduction of a whole grain campaign backed by the government and food producers, whole grain intake has risen by 72 per cent. We’d like to see a similar commitment here in the UK with a government-backed daily intake recommendation which can be used to develop successful public health campaigns.

So what are whole grains and what do they do?

Whole grains are defined as the ‘intact, ground, cracked or flaked kernel after the removal of the inedible parts such as the hull and husk’. This means that the three component parts of a grain – the outer bran, the germ and endosperm – remain in the final food product. Combined, these contain important nutrients such as fibre, vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals. When grains are refined to make white flour, many of these valuable nutrients are lost, and only a few are return with mandatory fortification.

Whole grains include; whole wheat (wholemeal), whole/rolled oats, brown rice, wholegrain rye, whole barley, whole corn/maize, whole millet and quinoa. The key is to look for the word ‘whole’ on an ingredients list and also for the ingredient to be high up on the list. These ingredients can be found in foods such as wholemeal bread, wholegrain breakfast cereals, porridge, wholegrain pasta and rice.

There are a small number of people that suffer from a gluten intolerance, which means that they have to avoid eating grains that contain high levels of gluten such as wheat, barley and rye. It is still possible for them to get their whole grains. Whole grain oats do not contain gluten but can sometimes be contaminated with wheat during harvesting and processing, others such as amaranth, buckwheat, brown rice and quinoa are also gluten free.

How whole grains have their effects is not clear. Certainly a key factor is better digestive health, but we also see lowered blood cholesterol, reduction in inflammation, lower body weight and lower weight gain in people who eat more whole grains.

The solution

We advocate:

the introduction of specific guidelines to promote whole grain intake in the UK
an emphasis on how easy it is to introduce more whole grains into diet – no major lifestyle change is needed
small tweaks to diet such as replacing white rice and pasta for brown, eating porridge or a wholegrain cereal for breakfast instead of a refined grain breakfast cereal, or swapping white bread for whole meal bread