Recommendations for future research
We identify four interrelated and overlapping themes: connection, difference, boundaries and development. These themes do not relate specifically to communities of place, interest, identity, attachment, or other 'types' of communities, but rather to broader concepts which link various dimensions of current community research. The first theme follows directly from the AHRC theme of Connected Communities, suggesting various ways in which 'connection' can be conceptualised and empirically researched in relation to community. By thinking critically about 'connection' and 'connectedness', the idea of disconnection is also raised, along with ideas of conflict. The second theme addresses 'difference' in relation to communities, both in a positive sense, in terms of celebrating social and cultural diversity and different identities and interests, and also in a negative sense, in terms of social exclusion which separates communities and maintains boundaries between outsiders and insiders. The third theme relates to the first two through identifying a key problem of researching communities: that of boundaries. This theme highlights the existence of different types of boundaries which are relevant in contemporary contexts, particularly boundaries related to place and mobility across these. Finally, the fourth theme is of 'development', mainly in the context of the social policy and social work sub-discipline of 'community development' and its widening scope to include areas such as health, welfare, sustainability, resilience, crime, regeneration and recession, participatory methods, and recognising that 'development' is also a contested term. These four themes are closely interconnected, and together they provide a useful agenda for addressing cross-cutting themes of researching communities in the 21st century.
The four themes are all open to empirical investigation using methods that have been shown by recent researchers to be profitable. Many studies use the idea of networks because of the capacity of social network analysis to reveal various aspects of community connectedness. For example, Gilchrist (2009) demonstrates in The Well-connected Community how informal and formal networks strengthen communities and improve partnership working, while Papacharissi (2010) examines the idea of networks in relation to the internet and social connection within online networks. A strength of network analysis is that it shows how connections can be between community members or cross physical and other community boundaries, fulfilling 'bridging' as well as 'bonding' functions, to use Putnam's (2000) terminology. Social network analysis also has the potential to transcend the quantitative/qualitative methodological divide, and is in addition very powerful as a visual representation of connectedness. Forms of connection have also been explored through the notion of communities of practice, and here interviews and case studies are among the methods that have been used to capture the interaction between community members who are connected through shared practice, for example as they adopt innovations (Wenger et al. 2002).
'Difference' presents a particular methodological challenge because differences within a community are often hidden or unacknowledged. It is all too easy to assume that because community members have something in common that they have everything in common, and for uncomfortable differences to be overlooked within the discourse of community as a place of consensual gathering. Yet it is a common finding of research that individuals seek to associate with people like themselves and to live among 'people like us' (Butler and Robson 2003), reflecting sensitivity to cultural affinities (Rosenlund 2009; Savage et al. 2005) and to areas' reputations (Brent 2009). Sense of community distinctiveness continues to be associated with place, especially among poorer groups (Cole et al. 2011; Imrie et al. 2009), in contrast to those cosmopolitan communities whose members value the ideal of difference (Delanty 2010). Rural/urban differences also persist (Byrne 2001; Hillyard 2007; Maginn 2004; Winson and Leach 2002). Fine-grained ethnographies pick up what surveys of attitudes about differences may not (Charles et al. 2008), while detailed analysis of census data can correct misperceptions of how community differences play out on the ground (Finney and Simpson 2009), and collaborative research methods can give voice to 'hidden' marginalised groups that would otherwise be beneath the radar (Block 2008; Griffiths et al. 2005). Researchers examining the nature of internet communities have also found less difference than the distinction between 'virtual' and 'real' worlds led them to expect (Boellstorff 2008; Kendall 2002; Rheingold 2000).
Boundaries other than that between virtual and real life also have the capacity to confound expectations. Case studies of gated communities show that they do not necessarily result in an impermeable boundary between insiders and outsiders (Bagaeen and Oduku 2010; Salcedo and Torres 2004), while the concept of 'boundary spanners' (or brokers) who facilitate interaction across boundaries is central to communities of practice. People's membership of more than one community has the potential to be turned to good advantage, and may facilitate the development of 'gateway communities' for people on the move (Lippard and Gallagher 2011). Nevertheless, not all community boundaries are easily crossed, and studies of apparently open cities reveal the durability of insider/outsider distinctions, for example in relation to ethnicity (Holgersson et al. 2010). The boundary between kinship and community also needs to be kept in mind, given that the solidarity of kinship networks does not readily extend to wider community relationships (Dench et al. 2006; Mumford and Power 2003; Phillipson et al. 2001).
Discussions of community development highlight the challenges of working with contested concepts. Analyses of the discourses contained in policy and other documents reveal competing perspectives of community development's relationship to the state and to the market (Craig et al. 2011; Otsuka and Kalirajan 2010). The conclusion to which case studies of particular policy initiatives point is the crucial importance of geographical, historical and socio-economic contexts, so that successful initiatives in one context cannot be guaranteed to work in another. Despite this concern about contingency, there are healthy debates about what lessons can be learned in the global North from the global South (Hamdi 2010; Kuecker et al. 2011), about the relationship between dreams of community and their achievement in reality (Keller 2003; Rosenblatt et al. 2009), and – most importantly for this discussion paper – the potential of researchers working with communities to contribute to bringing about change.