Neoliberalism With a Community Face? A Critical Analysis of Asset-Based Community Development in Scotland

MacLeod, Mary Anne; Emejulu, Akwugo

doi:10.1080/10705422.2014.959147

Cited by 96 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In times of constrained public spending, asset‐based approaches are attractive as potentially low‐resource interventions (MacLeod & Emejulu, ). Our study highlights that to adopt an asset‐based approach in areas where assets are limited, significant investment is needed from the organisation delivering the intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘What works here doesn’t work there’: The significance of local context for a sustainable and replicable asset‐based community intervention aimed at promoting social interaction in later life

Wildman

Valtorta

Moffatt

et al. 2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interventions that harness local assets to benefit a community are increasingly being promoted to improve health and well‐being. In practice, we know little about how local contexts or reliance on local resources affect the sustainability and scalability of asset‐based community developments. This qualitative case study documents the development and implementation of a novel asset‐based community development project. Based in a large mainly rural county in North East England with relatively high levels of socioeconomic deprivation, the project aimed to prevent social isolation among older people, using a range of food‐related activities. Twenty‐one semi‐structured interviews were conducted with service users, volunteers, project partners, project development workers and senior staff. Interviews explored the project's design and implementation process, outcomes for participants and the wider community, and project sustainability and scalability. Thematic analysis of the data identified four factors likely to be important for creating sustainable and replicable asset‐based community projects. These factors are (a) recognising and harnessing assets among local people who may be otherwise marginalised due to age, geographical isolation and/or socioeconomic deprivation; (b) identifying assets that can be provided by local businesses; (c) genuine project co‐production to develop activities that meet local needs and inspire enthusiasm among all stakeholders; and (d) ongoing organisational support to meet the challenges to sustainability that exist in socioeconomically deprived areas. We conclude that successful asset‐based community projects require extensive community input and learning captured from existing programmes can facilitate the replicability of programmes in other community contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘What works here doesn’t work there’: The significance of local context for a sustainable and replicable asset‐based community intervention aimed at promoting social interaction in later life

Wildman

Valtorta

Moffatt

et al. 2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reducing a culture of dependency and building a sense of agency was seen as an important objective to enable communities to identify their strengths so that they could begin to develop networks of support, embark on change, and make choices for themselves. Such a focus was justified through a combination of pragmatic (resource may be withdrawn at any moment) and normative (self-sufficiency and resilience as inherently morally good) arguments (MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014). In addition, as an ideology, ABCD appears consistent with, although not entirely reducible to, communitarian approaches to human development, with an emphasis on locality and building common purpose within localities as the best way to understanding and developing human capabilities (Bhattacharyya, 2004;Newman & De Zoysa, 1997;Reynolds, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asset-Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice, and Conditions of Possibility—A Qualitative Study With Community Practitioners

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have shorter life expectancies than their more affluent counterparts and are more likely to suffer from a number of long-term and potentially life-limiting illnesses and associated risk factors (Marmot, 2010; Marmot & Wilkinson, 1999). Socioeconomic disparities also have the potential to affect upon the awareness, diagnosis, treatment, and control of these illnesses (

show abstract

“…Citing similar concerns, Grain and Lund (2016) underline the ways that CCE is often "steeped in a history of White normativity and charity" that risks exacerbating inequities by placing excessive work on marginalized activists (p. 46). Furthermore, scholars have voiced concerns about the ways that CCE can put undue responsibility onto communities that are already dealing with issues of social marginalization (Guta, Flicker, & Roche, 2013;MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014) as well as providing an avenue for academics and government funders to achieve self-serving agendas (Trickett & Beehler, 2017;Varcoe, 2006).…”

Section: Evaluating Cce As Social Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning the Impact of Impact: Evaluating Community-Campus Engagement as Contextual, Relational, and Process Based

Levkoe¹

2020

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As community-campus engagement (CCE) continues to gain momentum, impact has increasingly been evaluated through qualitative measurements rooted in community-based perspectives. However, for CCE to have meaningful impact, it must challenge dominant power structures and work to create equitable relationships. This article explores efforts to better understand and evaluate the impacts of CCE. Based in our research on 12 place-based CCE projects that aimed to support food sovereignty in Canada, the findings highlight how evaluating impact needs to be contextual, relational, and process-based with a focus on how CCE contributes to or hinders broader social change. Two additional themes supporting increased impact also emerged: the development of collaborative knowledge and actions; and, building networks of CCE communities of practice. The research also identified the limitations of evaluating CCE impact when measurements are predetermined , top down, and are not rooted in community needs and perspectives. While we believe that evaluating impact can be a meaningful and important process, it is necessary to challenge assumptions that measuring impact is always desirable or possible.

show abstract

Neoliberalism With a Community Face? A Critical Analysis of Asset-Based Community Development in Scotland

Cited by 96 publications

References 12 publications

‘What works here doesn’t work there’: The significance of local context for a sustainable and replicable asset‐based community intervention aimed at promoting social interaction in later life

‘What works here doesn’t work there’: The significance of local context for a sustainable and replicable asset‐based community intervention aimed at promoting social interaction in later life

Asset-Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice, and Conditions of Possibility—A Qualitative Study With Community Practitioners

Questioning the Impact of Impact: Evaluating Community-Campus Engagement as Contextual, Relational, and Process Based

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About