Conceptualisations and meanings of 'community': the theory and operationalization of a contested concept
Much has happened in recent years to warrant re-examination of approaches to researching communities, including critical appraisals of the community studies tradition of research (Brunt 2001; Crow 2002b; Day 2006). Williams (1976) famously argued that community is treated almost universally as positive. However, many scholars have disputed this understanding, noting the 'darker' side of communities relating to exclusion, inequality, oppression and social divisions (Crow and Maclean 2006; Hoggett 1997). While 'community' still carries positive connotations, recent conceptualisations are more paradoxical than Williams suggested: the term is used positively to represent social belonging, collective well-being, solidarity and support, but also negatively in relation to social problems and 'problem populations' (Mooney and Neal 2008). Further, while Suttles' (1972) and Cohen's (1985) discussions remain relevant, community boundaries have new dimensions in an age of globalisation, internet communication and increased mobility. Similarly, Willmott's (1986) classic distinction between communities of place, interest and identity remains a point of reference, but researchers have identified new issues. Blackshaw (2010) distinguishes community as theory, method, place, identity/belonging, ideology, and policy and practice, for example, while the notion of 'personal communities' also figures in several studies (Phillipson et al. 2001; Spencer and Pahl 2006; Weeks et al. 2001).
Debates about community cohesion (Cooper 2008; Finney and Simpson 2009; Flint and Robinson 2008; Smith 2005; Thomas 2011; Wallace 2010; Wetherell et al. 2007), 'communities of practice' (Amin and Roberts 2008; Kajee 2008; Le May 2009; Unwin et al. 2007; Wenger et al. 2002), internet communities (Boellstorff 2008; Kendall 2002; Papacharissi 2010; Rheingold 2000), sustainable communities (McCright and Clark 2006; O'Riordan and Stoll-Kleemann 2002; Raco 2007), and participatory community research (Aldred 2011; Ghose 2007; Salway et al. 2011; Williamson and DeSouza 2010) provide five examples of how communities continue to evolve in theory and in practice, and of why discussions of the meaning of community and the connections within and between communities necessarily spill over into debates about the research methods needed to capture community phenomena. In addition, recent years have witnessed further developments in the use of the concept of community in policy-related discourse in the areas of care, community resilience, crime, education, health, social exclusion, and welfare (Brill et al. 2011; Butcher et al. 2007; Butler and Hamnett 2011; Chandra et al. 2011; Clements et al. 2008; Cooper 2008; Hamdi 2010; Hughes 2007; Kuecker et al. 2011; Ledwith 2011; Mooney and Neal 2008; Obrist 2006; Somerville 2011; Taylor 2011).
Our review includes research that relates to key themes of community yet uses alternative concepts. Corcoran et al. (2010) frame their research in terms of 'social capital', 'locality' and 'affiliations', which all relate implicitly to community. Other researchers focusing on particular geographical areas prefer the terms 'neighbourhood' or 'street' to 'community' (Dorling and Thomas 2011; Forrest and Kearns 2001; Lupton 2003; Miller 2008), avoiding the definitional problems associated with community as a contested concept (although 'neighbourhood' and 'street' come with their own definitional challenges (Attlee 2007; Hall 2009)). These works are important to consider because they demonstrate some of the analytical limitations of 'community' which can also be problems for alternative concepts.
Alongside these conceptual developments there have been equally far-reaching developments in the methods employed in community-based research (Root 2007). One example of the need for reconsideration of how community is researched is the finding of surveys that reported giving in communities exceeds reports of receiving assistance from other community members; people prefer not to present themselves to researchers as dependent on others (Crow 2002a; Crow et al. 2002). Researchers need to be mindful that observations of people's actions do not necessarily tally with what people say they do. More positively, network analysis exemplifies approaches to community research where consideration of the operationalisation of the concept of community aids assessment of what is currently known and how further research can make the most of recent methodological innovations (Bærenholdt 2007; Blokland 2003; Blokland and Savage 2008; Gilchrist 2009). In addition, collaboration between researchers and people being researched, using methods such as collaborative ethnography (Lassiter et al. 2004), is claimed to produce more reliable as well as more ethical results compared to those of conventional methods. This reflects the broader trend towards the democratisation of the research process. However, the rise in participatory methods in community-based research (Aldred 2011; Ghose 2007; Salway et al. 2011; Williamson and DeSouza 2010) – in which community members are co-producers, co-researchers and co-authors of research findings — also presents methodological challenges related to the critical role of the researcher, the valorisation of community 'voices' in claims about authenticity and truth, and the 'ownership' of research outputs.
Both quantitative and qualitative methods approaches have much to offer community research, either separately or in combination. Community research has traditionally used mixed methods to facilitate triangulation of multiple perspectives. Ethnographically based research using several methods was the approach associated with community studies, for example. Most of the studies in our review of 100 pieces of community research published since 2000 (Mah and Crow 2011) use two or more methods, with the following breakdown: 40 interviews, 24 ethnographies (or participant observation), 22 case studies, 23 policy analyses, 15 statistics or surveys (with 6 purely quantitative), 14 discourse, media or textual analyses, 14 visual methods, 14 historical and archival methods, 12 participatory methods, 7 focus groups, 6 online/virtual, 6 network analyses, 3 mobile methods, 2 GIS, 1 complexity, 1 ethnology, and 1 ethnomethodology. Although not based on a representative sample of recent studies, this review nevertheless reveals that triangulation remains popular among researchers attempting to capture 'community'. However, despite the rise in visual, online, mobile, network and participatory methods, these relatively new methods have not displaced more established methods for researching community such as ethnography and interviews. Photo elicitation is a good example of how visual methods can supplement interviews (Harper 2001).
This discussion paper is guided by questions about what is new in the theory and practice of community research and how these developments stand in historical and comparative perspective. The Community Development Projects of the 1960's and 1970's provide several points of contrast to the present (Craig et al 2011), while it is also useful to study how the past is remembered in the present (Dicks 2000). Recent historical studies of community also enable comparisons between the present and past (Bastian and Alexander 2009; Capp 2003; Orford et al. 2002; Raco 2007; Tarbin and Broomhall 2008). For example, Capp's (2003) study of gossip in early modern England reinforcing particular codes of appropriate behaviour and fostering information support and exchange has parallels with recent debates on social capital (Blokland and Savage 2008; Corcoran et al. 2010; Forrest and Kearns 2001) and community morality (Laurier et al. 2002). Similarly, the understanding of what is distinctive about the present situation in the UK is usefully informed by comparisons with the situation elsewhere, such as with urban regeneration in the USA and France (Pierson and Smith 2001) and urban social networks in the Netherlands, Italy and Australia as well as these countries (Blokland and Savage 2008). A theme which has only recently emerged in the UK, 'community resilience' (Brill, et al. 2011; Gilchrist 2009), has been more widely researched in the United States and Africa (Brown 2011; Chamlee-Wright and Storr 2010; Chandra, et al. 2011; Holton 2011; Obrist 2006).
Numerous disciplines have useful contributions to make to researching community, both separately and together. The disciplines that are considered include architecture and planning, communications and information science, criminology, development studies, disability studies, ecology, education, ethnic and racial studies, geography, history, housing studies, law, literature, media studies, philosophy, political science, psychology, social anthropology, social policy, social work and community development, sociology, theology, and youth studies, amongst others. Five edited collections provide examples of imaginative interdisciplinary work: Bastian and Alexander (2009) on community archives; Christensen and O'Brien (2003) on children in the city; Haworth and Hart (2007) on well-being; Howley (2010) on community media; and McCright and Clark (2006) on community and ecology.
This discussion paper does not aim to arrive at a definition of community on which everyone can agree. Rather it accepts that there are good reasons why community is a contested concept, and that the existence of different approaches actually makes for vibrant and productive debate about what community relationships are, what their challenges are, and what they have the potential to achieve. The discussion of the different meanings of community is necessarily linked to the multiple ways of operationalising community using a range of research methods, and to the array of approaches arising out of various disciplines. Our underlying philosophy is one of methodological pluralism and interdisciplinarity. The basic premise is that when they are brought together the varying approaches to the study of community have the potential to be greater than the sum of the individual parts. The final part of the paper discusses recommendations for future research to be structured around themes of community connection, difference, boundaries and development.