Introduction

Tomorrow's communities need to be resilient and optimistic. Yet many of today's most challenged communities are operating ‘at the edge’: socially, economically and geographically. In many ways, this puts them at a disadvantage – vulnerable and fragmented, as described in Chapter 1. Tomorrow's communities must find ways to overcome these fringe ‘dis-benefits’, using internal resourcefulness and crosscutting connections to become resilient and more integrated despite a manifestly uneven distribution of wealth, power and life chances. A decade of austerity cuts in public spending, coupled with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession, has further exposed inequalities, leaving many feeling ‘left behind’ compared with others; just about surviving but certainly not thriving (Baldwin et al, 2020). Left-behind areas are characterised by Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion as having ‘high levels of need, multiple deprivation and socio-economic challenges’, along with ‘poor community and civic infrastructure, relative isolation and low levels of participation’ (OCSI, 2019).

Recent research discovered that areas of particular ‘community need’ tend to be located around the coast, on the peripheries of more prosperous cities and out-of-town estates (OCSI, 2019). While the study distinguishes between deprivation and lack of collective assets, there is clearly an issue arising from poor connectivity and reduced access to public services or fast broadband, causing poor health and shrunken life opportunities, especially for urban dwellers without secure jobs or living in rented accommodation. Many are also vulnerable to energy poverty, unpredictable weather conditions and severe flooding. The precarity of this existence has been exacerbated by the pandemic and in the long term it will affect many people's mental health, educational attainment and general self-esteem. These are the challenges facing tomorrow's communities, and younger generations in particular. This chapter looks at how improving and extending connections within and between communities contributes to how they function as complex systems, especially through nurturing inclusive networks of relations based on trust and mutual understanding.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many communities have demonstrated remarkable capacity for self-organising, using local knowledge and connections to ensure that services are tailored to hyper-local conditions and without excessive coordination by infrastructure bodies in either the voluntary or statutory sectors.

Interpersonal relationships within communities and between organisations need to be given greater significance to ensure that they are developed and maintained in ways that contribute to overarching outcomes such as collective resilience, social justice, cohesion and sustainability. Networking clearly involves both common courtesy and good communication. It is about maintaining a web of relationships that can support a useful and empowering flow of information and influence. This chapter will examine how community workers facilitate the networking of others, whether colleagues, partners, policy makers or members of the communities they work with. It looks at what community workers actually do to establish and maintain connections that are useful to themselves and others, what aptitudes are required and what strategies are deployed in a networking approach to community development and how these might be improved. There will be particular emphasis on the creation and use of links that span organisational and community boundaries in order to promote partnership working, release social capital and foster community cohesion. The idea of metanetworking is introduced, looking at the role of community workers in devising opportunities for people to meet and work together.

Community development often feels somewhat nebulous, fostering collective capacity and stimulating social action from unpromising beginnings. Good networking practice requires both planning and proficiency; it can fairly be described as work. It supports community organising and sustains mutual cooperation, especially during periods of dispute and demoralisation. Many of the difficulties and frustrations faced by community workers derive from their position on the edges of organisations. They are ‘everywhere and nowhere’: marginalised, misunderstood and yet expected to act as mediators between different agencies or groups. They ‘network the networks’, forming boundaryspanning links across which information and resources flow to where they can best be used. Good community workers act not as gatekeepers but as signposts and springboards, helping people through barriers, mitigating risk and navigating ‘safe’ routes over unfamiliar or difficult terrain. Some of this will require disrupting familiar patterns of relationships or sets of assumptions to prompt fresh links and coordinated assemblages that generate innovative solutions to hitherto intractable problems (Obstfeld, 2017).

Networking involves the creation, maintenance and use of links and relationships between individuals and/or organisations. Networking itself is a neutral tool: it can be used for a variety of purposes – selfish, political, altruistic – or simply to get things done. Networking for community development is obviously influenced by key values around equality, empowerment and participation. It may also seem a popular, albeit mildly manipulative, means of gaining personal and political advancement.

The evidence used in this and the following chapters was mainly gathered from my doctoral research, which included a case study of the coordination of the Bristol Festival Against Racism (Gilchrist, 1994) and a Panel Study involving 11 community workers. Over a two-year period in the later 1990s they were asked about their involvement in networks and encouraged to reflect on their own experience. In particular, the enquiry aimed to unpack the principles and processes of networking to examine how this contributed to their work and what made them ‘good’ networkers. The initials after each quote refer to the panellists, all of whom were happy to have their identity revealed in the acknowledgements. (For details of research methodology, see Gilchrist, 2001.) This evidence is supplemented in this edition with observations and insights from my own practice and more recent research in this field, notably projects investigating the habits, profiles and practices of ‘change-makers’ (Social Change Project, 2018) and smart urban intermediaries (Durose et al, 2016; www.smart-urbanintermediaries. com).

Networking is something that most people do in their everyday lives, mostly without consciously thinking about their behaviour or motives. It encompasses the processes of developing and nurturing links with a selection of people through work, volunteering and in the course of neighbourly, social or leisure activities. Since this book is about community development, it is not primarily concerned with the relationships that constitute our family and friendship networks, although of course there is some overlap. The focus, rather, is on connections with colleagues, neighbours and the people we know through a variety of activities and whom we regard as members of our different communities.

Networking can be used to develop the well-connected community, but why are networks such a ubiquitous and useful aspect of community life? We have seen that networks are especially effective modes of organisation in managing change in complex situations. Community networks are based on relationships, not simply connections, which are sustained through interactions and reciprocal exchanges between individuals. The personal, emotional dimensions are important. So are flexibility and informality. Networking is a holistic process, involving a strategic interweaving of knowledge, skills and values. It is a vital aspect of community development, as well as supporting multi-agency partnerships and alliances. This chapter uses complexity theory to present a model of interactive networks creating the conditions for the evolution of new and adaptive forms of organisation.

Networks serve an important function in society, as we saw in Chapter 1, and patterns of interaction and connection are strongly related to what is generally understood by the term ‘community’. Thriving communities are characterised by informal interactions across many-tiered and multifaceted connections in a mobile, often delicate lattice of diverse relationships and serendipitous encounters. This has important implications for community development as an intervention for managing social complexity and strengthening the web of interpersonal connections. The idea of ‘community’ continues to reflect core values associated with a socially just and sustainable civil society, namely respect, equality, mutuality, diversity and, more recently, cohesion. Why does the desire for ‘community’ persist and seem so prevalent across all societies (Somerville, 2016)? How does networking contribute to the development and survival of a wellfunctioning ‘community’, equipped with the capacity for organising collective responses to shared problems?

Chaos in the community

Communities can be seen as complex social environments characterised by interpersonal connections that comprise fluid networks and smallscale, self-help groups alongside more formal ‘anchor’ organisations (Thake, 2001) and cultural practices (Blokland, 2017). Ideas from complexity theory may help us to understand some of the more puzzling features of our social and organisational world (see, for example, Gilchrist, 2000; Mitleton-Kelly, 2003; Wheatley, 2006; Byrne and Callaghan, 2014; Pflaeging, 2014; Kenny et al, 2015).

Community brings many benefits to us as individuals and for society. This chapter looks at how community networks support collective arrangements that enable people to live and work together. It will also explore the negative aspects of community networks that can lead to stress, exclusion and corruption. Networks enable us to meet personal and social challenges, seize opportunities and deal with some of the problems facing communities in this increasingly global, yet fractured, world. Over the years, governments of all persuasions have sought to harness the power and knowledge to be found in communities, and the chapter considers how policy making has incorporated these functions to the advantage of both state and society.

Survival and resilience

Low-income communities, struggling with hardship and uncertainty, are often praised for their resilience, despite what Dobson (2018) calls ‘frenetic neglect’. But resilience doesn't necessarily challenge social injustices; for those affected, it tends to be associated with communities ‘getting by’ and ‘just about managing’ (Hickman et al, 2014). The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's (JRF) ‘liveable lives’ research revealed the patterns and traditions of often mundane, subtle and unnoticed ‘everyday help and support’ in three neighbourhoods of Glasgow (Anderson et al, 2015). There were a number of components to this arrangement, not least the levels of trust and solidarity. Residents felt that the city's reputation for friendliness gave them a ‘licence’ to act in kind and generous ways, maintaining a ‘moral economy’ (Anderson et al, 2015, p 41) of mutual sociability involving favours, swaps and helping hands that enabled people to ‘stick together’ while valuing both privacy and reciprocity. The authors argue for a ‘social mindfulness’ of informal helping and greater awareness that networks may need constant maintenance and occasional repair, especially in places where there are low cohesion and poor public amenities (Anderson et al, 2015, p 56). At the individual level of what Brownlie (2014) calls ordinary relationships (as opposed to professional ones), people seem to benefit and find solace from the advice and support of others simply ‘being there’ in times of trouble, the kind of ‘emotional labour’ often undertaken by women that helps people to cope with trauma and get on with their lives (Guy et al, 2008; Hochschild, 2012).

This book has sought to demonstrate the value of networks and the importance of networking practices for community development. It has argued that community workers can play an active role in weaving and repairing the fabric of society: creating new ties and consolidating relationships. This contributes to the development of well-connected communities through nurturing internal bonds and associations, while also setting up and strengthening ties that bridge across community boundaries and link up with external agencies.

Over the years since this book was first published (2004) the significance of connectedness has been recognised increasingly as contributing to individual wellbeing, promoting community health and ensuring that civil society functions more or less democratically and coherently. Being well connected is not just about the number of links in our networks but about the quality of those relationships and how interactions help us to ‘get by’ and to ‘get on’. The idea of social solidarity rejects the spurious dichotomy between the individual citizen or resident and ‘community’ belonging. Rather, it is based on combining emotional and political dimensions of rights, civic responsibilities, mutuality and emotional attachments (Lawrence, 2018; 2019). Many forms of social and community capital are needed for people to thrive.

As earlier chapters have demonstrated, the ‘bonding’ capital of interpersonal networks provides internal structure, enabling information sharing, mutual support and collective action at grassroots level. A community with good ‘bridging’ connections is likely to be more cohesive: able to adapt to change and deal with differences more effectively. But communities cannot flourish if they are not also well connected with effective links to outside influences and resources.

The latest government strategy for the future of civil society (Cabinet Office, 2018) shapes its vision around a ‘connected, resourceful society’. It sets direction and principles for policies that it hopes will decentralise power and create conditions for the creation of ‘social value’ and thriving communities. Like much government thinking before, it envisages a strong role for community and voluntary organisations taking responsibility for some complex problems that the state has been unable to solve.

As we saw in earlier chapters, participation in community life holds a number of advantages (as well as some drawbacks). This chapter sets out how networks specifically perform useful functions that are aligned with the purposes and principles of community development, especially their ability to carry ideas, information and resources across boundaries and to build meaningful relationships enabling people to cooperate in addressing shared challenges.

Information procession and knowledge management

In some respects, networks can be regarded as informal knowledge creation and management systems. They are usually non-hierarchical, with a range of access points and a multitude of transmission routes. This means that information can be obtained and transferred between any number of different nodes without being monitored or censored. This multiplexity is a major factor in the resilience of networks to structural flaws, disruption or attempts to control the through-flow of information.

Network-type structures are particularly useful in situations when information is ambiguous or risky, since contradictions can be clarified by turning to alternative sources for comparison and checking. Dialogue and debate within networks transform information so that it becomes intelligence (about the current situation) and knowledge (about the wider context). This is vital for solving immediate problems and for adapting to a changing world. Community connections are like the neural networks made of axons and dendrites in the brain, processing, integrating and transmitting information across linguistic and cultural boundaries like some kind of supercomputer constantly revising a shared but dispersed model of the world (Dunbar, 1996).

Conversation and peer learning

A huge amount of information and ‘common sense’ is communicated via informal networks, whether face-to-face or online, one to one or in open or closed groups. Conversations among friends, acquaintances, colleagues and neighbours convey rumour, opinion, local knowledge and news, allowing constant revisions to our understanding of the immediate and changing world in which we live (DiFonzo, 2008). The networks themselves become a repository of local intimate knowledge and ‘gossip’. As Smith recognised:

Chapter 1 begins with an examination of what we mean by the term ‘community’ and considers various models developed to understand different experiences. The section on social capital has been considerably expanded to include a consideration of collective efficacy, community cohesion and integration. Chapter 2 explores how networks contribute to community life, individual wellbeing and collective survival strategies. It considers how ‘community’ has been treated as a dimension of policy in the UK and illustrates this with some examples from recent programmes.

Chapter 3 provides some definitions of community development and offers a historical account of different models of community development, mainly as they have emerged in the UK but with reference to more global perspectives. Chapter 4 sets out the strands that comprise community development interventions and reviews two major programmes currently being implemented.

Chapters 5 and 6 are concerned with the structure, features and functions of networks in society and in organisations. They examine how interpersonal linkages affect the flow of power and influence in decision making, how community cohesion is enhanced through cross-community ‘bridge building’ and how emotions and shared understandings underpin strategies for collective action and political alliances.

In Chapters 7 and 8 I present the findings from research on the role and practice of community workers, intermediaries, activists and leaders. Community workers use and support networks to promote collective empowerment and to help different agencies to work better together. Specific skills and strategies are identified as well as a number of valuable traits and attitudes. I argue that ‘networking the networks’ and actively nurturing the more difficult connections in communities is our distinctive contribution. I therefore introduce the term ‘metanetworking’ as a way of making visible this important community development role.

Chapter 9 considers how and why networking benefits communities and those that work with them. The concept of the ‘well-connected community’ is presented as a way of thinking about ‘community’ as the emergent property of complex and dynamic social systems. It is a means of conjuring order out of chaos, building resilience and devising innovative solutions to intractable problems. Recent applications from the social sciences using complexity theory have been added, as have developments in social media and information technology.

If society needs ‘community’, and community doesn't necessarily just happen, what is needed to help bring it about? How does community work support networks and promote greater connectivity? Chapter 3 provides an overview of community development. It traces the history of community development as a form of funded or external intervention over the past century and up to the present day. The role of community workers in supporting networks is highlighted briefly, in preparation for a more detailed consideration in the following chapters.

This book generally views community development as a professional occupation, a paid role with established values and skills, and associated responsibilities to achieve certain outcomes. I fully acknowledge that many factors contribute to the development of communities, most importantly the time, energy and expertise of local community members themselves, as well as resources, technical expertise and activities offered by partner organisations. Many communities function well without professional inputs, although all can benefit from even small amounts of support, for example advice, facilitation, mediation and reflection.

Community development in the UK has tended to emphasise a generic approach to strengthening community capacity and tackling broader issues around equality and social justice (Gilchrist and Taylor, 2016). Processes and principles are regarded as paramount and this is reflected through an emphasis on working with, rather than for or on behalf of, people. In this book, the term ‘community development’ is used broadly, encompassing a number of approaches to working with communities, and these different models will be explored further in this chapter.

Definitions of community development

The United Nations referred to community development as ‘a process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation’ (United Nations, 1955). This definition captured an approach to working with people that can be used across all countries. It recognised the position of many underdeveloped nations that were on the brink of independence and urgently needed to establish basic infrastructure for transport, health, welfare, water and so on. In the global North the situation is different in that, for most people, these basics are available, even if access to services is not always fair, straightforward or satisfactory.

Despite its varied definitions and applications, community development is fundamentally about the development of ‘community’; but what do we mean by ‘community’? It makes sense to begin by examining what we know and understand about the concept. This book is based on a belief that the experience of community is generated by and manifest in the informal networks that exist between people, between groups and between organisations. Community provides a crucial dimension to our lives and is a persistent theme within policy making. Throughout history, people have lamented the decline or eclipse of community (Stein, 1960) and the associated weakening of local social ties.

The idea of community is generally regarded as a force for good: a means of survival and progress. Lack of community is considered a present-day ‘social evil’, confirming an apparent yearning for community spirit and mutuality (Duerden, 2018). A survey carried out in the UK indicated that the presence of strong community spirit came fourth in people's wish list for what made an ideal place to live (Nextdoor, 2016). The majority in this sample also reported that they felt there had been a loss of ‘community belonging’, as compared with their grandparents’ generation, resulting in a sense of loneliness and vulnerability in the face of criminal or anti-social behaviour. But, as Lawrence (2018) suggests, we are facing a strange paradox between people wanting to be more connected at community level, on the one hand, while also choosing to live independently in single households and zealously guarding their right to privacy. Bauman (2000, 2003) contends that community can be seen as ‘liquid’, accommodating the lumps and bumps of existing circumstances and flowing with prevalent trends and discourses, notably a Western or contemporary desire for freedom and autonomy. Without becoming cynical, it is important to remember that references to community values and identities have also been used to impose responsibilities, deny rights, generate conflict and resist change (Day, 2006; Somerville, 2016).

Community development is not a straightforward, linear process; change can happen suddenly and unevenly through shifts in consciousness or an influx of resources. Serendipitous encounters can lead to rapid alterations of course, with new connections being made, catalysing conversations, and the discovery of possibilities which did not seem to exist before. Informal networking complements formal liaison mechanisms by creating the conditions that support effective coordination across boundaries. The connections themselves appear to provide a foundation for collective and individual empowerment. Sound working relationships are vital for joint action and collaboration. They create a collective power base that enables individuals and groups in communities to influence the decisions of more powerful bodies. This emphasis on networking raises a number of questions concerning the position and function of the community worker and which have implications for policy and practice. This book has sought to demonstrate that networking should usually count as work, in the sense that it takes time, effort and practice, using a range of skills and strategies. When deployed for community development purposes, proactive interventions are needed, and so should be valued and supported. This chapter outlines a few key implications for this approach.

We have seen that internal connections and interactions are absolutely crucial to the functioning of vibrant and resourceful communities that support their members, show solidarity with others and are able to deal with differences and challenges as they arise. But, for communities to change things in order to improve their environment, services and opportunities, locally and in wider society, they need to be influential and to access resources. Collective organising and social action is effective, inclusive and sustainable if it works from a broad base and reaches out to people and organisations beyond immediate community boundaries, for example through national networks and campaigns. Community workers can help to set up and foster such links, especially if barriers, conflicts and power differentials are encountered.

It is now generally accepted that networking is essential to the community development process and that without it, other functions become difficult or impossible to carry out. Community workers frequently hold pivotal positions or play key roles in setting up and servicing network-type organisations, such as area- or issue-based multi-agency forums.

There are a range of approaches or models of community development practice. While being susceptible to changing political and economic contexts, they are by no means mutually exclusive and all have featured at least for a time in UK practice, as well as being applied in different circumstances internationally.

Common processes, different strands

As much as laying out a set of methods, community development has consistently emphasised its values and principles. Practitioner-led organisations have argued that these commitments are vital aspects of shared definitions and expected standards. In recent years, though, programmes have tended to specify outputs and broader outcomes, only some of which (such as increased confidence and community capacity) might suggest the adoption of community development processes.

The models described in the previous chapter incorporate various processes, skills and outcomes that are involved in community development. In order to distinguish this from community activism or voluntary work, it is useful to think about the role that the paid community worker plays in:

• enabling people to become involved by removing practical and political barriers to their participation;

• encouraging individuals to contribute to activities and decision making, and to keep going when things get difficult;

• empowering others by increasing their confidence and ability to influence decisions and take responsibility for their own actions;

• engaging with groups and organisations to increase community involvement in partnerships and other forms of public decision making;

• equalising situations so that people have the same access to opportunities, resources and facilities within communities and mainstream services;

• educating people by helping them to reflect on their own experience, to learn from others and through discussion; and

• evaluating the impact of these interventions.

These seven Es of community development make it clear that the community worker is not concerned with their own interests and needs, but instead supports others (mainly community members and activists) to organise activities, learn together, take up issues and challenge unjust discrimination. The principles of community development have been applied in many ways, but there are some core common functions and parameters that are considered below.

This book is about the value of connections and the work that is done to establish and maintain them. In the 15 years since the first edition, networking is significantly more commonplace, deliberate and computer mediated. It is now firmly acknowledged as essential to effective community development work. But the organisational and demographic environment in which community workers and activists operate is becoming increasingly dynamic, complex and diverse. Practitioners need to be ever more agile in working across boundaries. In a constantly changing and interacting world, uncertainty requires individuals and society to be more ‘elastic’ by ‘letting go of comfortable ideas and become more accustomed to ambiguity and contradiction’ (Mlodinow, 2018). Networking can help us to find this capacity in ourselves and with others.

Being ‘well connected’ is recognised as a source of strength. However, we have more to learn about the emotional ramifications and attitudes that can nourish or corrode connections. It takes both time and trust to build loving and respectful relationships. This applies equally to the development of community links and the informal arrangements that underpin cooperation across the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. The past ten years since 2009 have given us a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of networks: their impact in people's lives and their contribution to society. The ‘praxis’ of networking is also more fully acknowledged, with an explicit emphasis on the need for reciprocity (Offer, 2012) and the value of courteous hospitality. As the latest research on empowering communities asserts, ‘We are social beings and the connections we make with each other help us to realise our potential and power’ (Baker and Taylor, 2018, p 35). The value of networking for developing strong and active communities is recognised now more than ever.

The theories and evidence offered in this book are rooted in research but draw heavily on phronetic knowledge: knowledge that is derived from practice and experience. The ideas have been distilled from personal reflections, action research, workshops, informal conversations, government reports and the academic literature.

In recent years the concept of networks as a form of organisation has gained in currency both as a metaphor and as an explanatory tool for a range of natural phenomena (Barabási, 2014; Newman, 2010). The term ‘network’ seems to have been available in the 19th century, although it was first used in academic literature by Radcliffe-Brown in 1940 and early sociologists recognised its significance as an aspect of social living (Warner and Lunt, 1942). It offers a useful model for examining the interactions of daily life and thinking about community dynamics. As the previous chapter showed, within community development, networks are seen as the means for coordinating collective action, supporting the activities of practitioners and providing important means of communication through various technologies, increasingly using online platforms and social media, as well as face-to-face interaction.

This chapter provides an introduction to network theory, specifically examining form and function. It reviews analytical models developed from group and organisational studies and identifies key features often associated with effective networking. Networks are presented as an effective mode of organising in complex and turbulent environments. They play an important role in the development of successful coalitions and partnerships. Networks can either be described as ‘organic’ – sustained as a natural result of the interactions between members – or they can be seen as ‘engineered’ – devised and established by an external agency for a specific purpose. Networks can be closed or open, depending on how membership is defined or how porous boundaries are, operating as opaque cliques or dynamic adaptive systems (Kastelle and Steen, 2014).

Form and function

Networks support networking: they enable people to share ideas, consolidate relationships, exchange goods and services, and cooperate. Networks generally operate on the basis of shared values and informal connections that are maintained by a continuing and reciprocal commitment. They differ from formal organisations in being less dependent on rules and structure and tend to function through personal interaction between people who know (or know of) each other.