Second Canadian Workshop on the History of Humanitarian Aid

Aid practitioners, archivists, and academics recently came together in Canada to explore how the history of humanitarian aid is researched, collected, and taught.  Will Tait, a PhD candidate at the University of Carleton, shares his thoughts on the event and its outcomes.

The Second Canadian Workshop on the History of Humanitarian Aid took place on 30 May 2015 at Carleton University in Ottawa.  The event built on a workshop held last year where historians  from across Canada, archivists from Library and Archives Canada and Carleton University Archives, a well as humanitarian practitioners from Partnership Africa Canada, Oxfam, and MATCH International Women’s Fund met to welcome Dr Kevin O’Sullivan from the National University of Ireland.  Kevin was a catalyst for the first workshop in 2014 when he travelled to Canada to conduct research.  In his latest book O’Sullivan has likened Irish and Canadian use of soft power through aid and development1.  Under the organisation of Dominique Marshall, Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Carleton and former President of the Canadian Historical Association, a website was created after the 2014 meeting to link a growing online collaboration of aid practitioners, archivists, and academics interested in preserving the history of humanitarian action both in Canada and elsewhere.  O’Sullivan returned to Carleton this year to brief the workshop and members of the Canadian Network on Humanitarian History (CNHH) on developments in the field and to continue to expand collaboration with European partners.

Aid practitioners from MATCH, Oxfam, and Africa Canada Partnership engage with Library and Archives archivist (right) and historians Ruth Compton-Brouwer (centre) and Kevin O’Sullivan (foreground)

Aid practitioners from MATCH, Oxfam, and Africa Canada Partnership engage with Library and Archives archivist (right) and historians Ruth Compton-Brouwer (centre) and Kevin O’Sullivan (foreground)

The themes of the 2015 workshop concentrated on approaches to researching, collecting, and teaching the history of humanitarian aid.  The event coincided with the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences 2015 which was held at the University of Ottawa.  The number of humanitarian historians presenting at Congress was indicative of the growing interest in the field.  Several members of the network spoke about their research at Congress.  Sarah Glassford, Shirley Tillotson, and I took part in the ‘Public, Private, Political: Charitable Organizations and Citizen Engagement’ Roundtable, while Stephanie Bangarth and Jill Campbell-Miller headed the roundtable on ‘Capitals and Peripheries: Historical Perspectives on International Development’.  Dominique Marshall gave her Presidential Address on the ‘Dessins d’enfants et aide humanitaire: expressions et expositions transnationales’.  See here for for more information about the presentations.

CNHH founder Dr Dominique Marshall

CNHH founder Dr Dominique Marshall

A key theme of the workshop was developing a framework for pairing researchers and graduate students with interested NGOs such as Oxfam Canada, MATCH, and the African Canada Partnership to examine their own histories.  Sarah Glassford of the University of Price Edward Island reported on her longstanding relationship with the Canadian Red Cross and her role as a professional historian in her own right and volunteer archivist for the organisation.  Sarah’s work with the Red Cross encouraged discussion about the need for trust to be established between researchers and NGOs, while at the same time preserving critical analysis of aid practices and institutions.  This discussion prompted us to consider developing a  ‘toolkit’ to guide researchers and NGOs in building collaborative relationships.  This toolkit will focus on respect between researchers and their partnered aid organisations and methods for NGOs to archive and collect their histories in order to empower these groups.  The toolkit will also show how NGOs can create a space for students and academics to access material and showcase research.

Historian Kevin O'Sullivan

Historian Kevin O’Sullivan

This final component of the proposed toolkit was an element in plans for the new website for the Canadian Network on Humanitarian History which was launched in July 2015.  The website is a platform for knowledge mobilisation, displaying the value of humanitarian histories for both researchers and aid agencies.  The site encourages sharing of methodologies and information for syllabi, teaching resources, and material for workshops.  The hope is to develop modules for the sharing of ideas for university courses and to cultivate discussion between academia, archives, and practitioners of aid.

For more information on the Canadian Network for Humanitarian History please join us here or contact Dominique Marshall at

1. Kevin O’Sullivan, Ireland, Africa and the End of Empire: Small State Identity in the Cold War 1955-75 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013).
Posted in Events, Uncategorized, Will Tait | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Critical Thinking About Voluntary Action and Its History

In this month’s blog post, Colin Rochester introduces a journal which will take the study of voluntary action in a new direction.

A group of academics and practitioners –and some who combine both roles– have decided to do something about their growing dissatisfaction with the current state of voluntary sector studies.  In the hope of developing ‘a different narrative of voluntary action’ they have launched a new journal to be called Critical Studies in Voluntary Action.  The journal will be published online twice a year and the first issue is planned for the Autumn of 2015.

The ‘Mainstream’ View of Voluntary Sector Studies

Our discontent with the way voluntary action is studied and presented has three main components:

  • In the first place most current research tends to focus unduly on just one type of voluntary organisation –the bureaucratically organised and professionally managed agencies which concentrate on delivering various kinds of social welfare services.  The challenges of governance and management they encounter are not fundamentally different from those experienced by public sector agencies and for-profit businesses and the standard wisdom of mainstream organisational theory and the management techniques taught in business schools can be used to address them.  Very little attention is given to non-bureaucratic organisational models and to other functions such as campaigning and advocacy, self-help, or community action.
  • Secondly, volunteering is also studied from a similarly restricted perspective.  Volunteers are viewed as unpaid workers who provide additional human resources for professionally run service delivery organisations.  They need to be managed in ways which are very similar to the standard approach to managing paid employees.  There is hardly any serious interest in the much larger numbers of ‘unmanaged’ volunteers and the variety of roles they play.
  • And, finally, scholars of voluntary sector studies work within a set of assumptions about the object of their area of study and the place voluntary action has in the wider social and political environment.  While lip service is given to the huge variety of organisations and activities involved in the field, the idea of a voluntary (or third) sector complete with an ‘infrastructure’ and ‘leaders’ is taken as read and more often than not equated with the organisations that employ staff to provide services.  And the relationship of this sector with government is seen in terms of partnership –the underlying assumption is that working with government is inevitable and that government’s aims and aspirations are compatible with those of voluntary organisations.

Towards a Different Narrative of Voluntary Action

Critical Studies in Voluntary Action will encourage and help to develop an alternative account of voluntary action that: 

  • embraces a much wider range of voluntary and community activity than the work of professionally-led and bureaucratically organised voluntary agencies whose main function is to work with government on the delivery of public services.  We are just as interested in mutual aid groups; advocacy and campaigning organisations; informal and non-bureaucratic collective action, and other kinds of civil society organisations.  And the journal will feature research on activities in the worlds of leisure, recreation and the arts, community development, and the natural and built environments.
  • involves a more critical approach to discussing the role and significance of voluntary organisations and volunteering in our society and, more specifically, questions the twin assumptions of much current research and writing that voluntary organisations are natural partners of government and that the key questions are about how they can make themselves more efficient in the delivery of services; and
  • challenges the infiltration of the culture and behaviours of the market into the non-market parts of our society and reasserts the idea that voluntary action embodies/expresses important and distinctive values that are not compatible with a market society.

A Call to Historians

One explanation for the widespread acceptance of the assumptions underpinning the ‘mainstream’ view of voluntary sector studies is the ignorance of those who work in voluntary organisations and those who study them of their history.  The Voluntary Action History Society was founded more then twenty years ago with the express aim of addressing a widespread lack of interest and understanding of the roots and historical development of voluntary organisations and volunteering.  As I commented in a paper given to a VAHS seminar a year ago ‘discussion of the growing role to be played by voluntary agencies in the public and social policy arena has been largely uninformed by any understanding of the historical experience which has shaped today’s institutions and relationships and any lessons from the past have been left unlearned’.

In that paper I argued that the accounts we had of the history of voluntary action were incomplete and only provided part of the story and that we needed to develop a more inclusive and comprehensive view of the roots of voluntary action and the development of its activities, institutions, and role in the wider society.  Critical Studies in Voluntary Action will provide a home for contributions to that development and I hope very much that we will receive proposals for articles that will, among other things, explore the history of voluntary action as the pursuit of social change and social justice –often in opposition to governments– and as the vehicle for conviviality and expressive behaviour rather than as the practice of philanthropy and mutual aid.

Contributions and Further Information

We are looking for contributions written in clear, accessible English of two kinds:

  •  Full-length articles based on research and making a contribution to the development of critical theory of up to 8000 words.  These will be subject to peer review before publication.
  • Shorter articles of up to 2-3000 words in the form of ‘think-pieces’ or ‘research notes’.  These will be published at the discretion of the editorial board.

We are also looking for volunteers to act as peer reviewers.

Contributions, proposals for articles, offers to review submissions, and requests for further information should be sent to the Editorial Board’s convenor, Colin Rochester, at



Posted in Colin Rochester | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Feature: Philanthropy and the City of London

Rhodri Davies leads the Giving Thought policy programme at the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF).  He has just finished writing a book on the role of philanthropy in UK society from a historical and modern perspective, which is due to be published next year.  In this blog post he uncovers the historical trends behind the present culture of philanthropy in the City of London.

I recently completed research for a book on the role of philanthropy in UK society and also gave a couple of talks focusing on the history of philanthropy in the City of London, which has led me to think about the factors that shape philanthropy in our country and the particular role the City has played.  This made me realise that the City offers a fascinating microcosm within the broader history of philanthropy and can tell us a great deal about how philanthropy has evolved.

One of the key themes underpinning philanthropy is wealth.  The nature of wealth and attitudes toward it within society play a vital role in determining the scale and scope of philanthropy at any given point in time.  An important aspect of this is the balance between inherited and created wealth.  There has been a long-term shift in this country from the latter to the former, which has accelerated during periods of significant wealth creation (such as the rise of the Tudor merchant class or the Victorian age of the great industrialists).  The last two decades have seen a particularly marked shift towards created wealth.  When the Sunday Times Rich List was first published in 1989, over half of the people on it came from inherited wealth, but in the 2014 list the pendulum had swung the other way and more that eighty percent of those on the list were now self-made wealthy.

The City is obviously all about creating wealth, and is immensely successful at doing so.  But we should not assume that this automatically translates into a thriving culture of philanthropy.  The rise in profile and influence of the City since ‘Big Bang’ deregulation in 1986 has not been accompanied by the sort of blossoming of philanthropy that accompanied previous periods of major growth in the City.  Wealth creation, then, is at best a necessary condition for philanthropy rather than a sufficient one, which means that there must be additional factors which determine whether wealth creation leads to widespread giving.

Religion and social status played large roles in the history of philanthropy in the City. The London Charity-School Children in St. Paul's Cathedral (1789).

Religion and social status played large roles in the history of philanthropy in the City. The London Charity-School Children in St. Paul’s Cathedral (1789).

What are these factors?  There are a number we can identify, which although not exhaustive, give a good idea of why the present culture of philanthropy might have failed to live up to its historical precedents.  One obvious factor is religion.  This has always played an important role in philanthropy, not only in terms of direct giving to religious causes but also as a broader motivating force for giving to secular causes.  This remains true today; according to CAF’s UK Giving annual survey, religion is still the cause that receives the highest proportion of donations by value in the UK (although it is not the actually the most popular in terms of number of donations).  However, even if religion remains an important factor, its prevalence in society is nothing like it was in Tudor or Victorian times, when the charitable culture of the City was arguably at its strongest.  There is not the same universal compulsion to give that was felt by those who lived in times when religion was a backdrop to every aspect of life.

Another factor is social status.  In both the Tudor and Victorian eras, philanthropy was an important tool to cement status for those who had created wealth in a society that was still largely dominated by inherited wealth.  Although many would argue that a desire for social status is still a major part of philanthropy, the changing nature of class structures in the UK and the availability of other means for climbing the social ladder has undoubtedly lessened the importance of giving as a way of purchasing social standing.

But perhaps the most interesting factor affecting philanthropy when it comes to the City is awareness of need.  Whilst financial success creates a supply side for philanthropy, there is only a demand side if people have a reason to think about giving.  And in the past the most important pull factor (in London at least) was simply that the grinding poverty in which many of the capital’s inhabitants lived was inescapable.  Even the very wealthy could not fail to be aware of the suffering of those less fortunate than themselves, because the sheer scale of poverty and deprivation was right there in front of them every time they walked out their front door.

This acute awareness of suffering is a key factor in the origin stories of many of our most famous City philanthropists.  The former sea captain Thomas Coram, for instance, who latterly worked in the City and became famous for his role in the founding of the Foundling Hospital, was reportedly driven to act when he was on his way to work one day and he saw a young mother literally in the act of abandoning her child in the street.  He decided then that he could no longer ignore the problem and dedicated the rest of his life to helping abandoned children.

Thomas Coram reportedly established the Foundling Hospital after witnessing the abandonment of an infant

Thomas Coram reportedly established the Foundling Hospital after witnessing the abandonment of an infant

Of course, if most City workers today saw the same thing I don’t doubt for a second that their response would be similar to that of Coram.  The difference is that they are often never faced with this kind of evidence of the suffering of others.  City workers usually live in wealthy areas of London, or in commuter suburbs; they travel to work, work long hours, and travel back again, all without ever seeing the other side of life in London  that is the reality for many people living in the capital.  Evidence from the United States clearly shows that when wealthy people live in areas that are not economically diverse, they are less likely to give to charity.  Intriguingly, all that it takes to overcome this problem under experimental conditions is to show these wealthy people a short video on child poverty.  And in a real world setting, as Professor Paul Piff of the University of California at Berkeley explains, ‘simply seeing someone in need at the grocery storeor looking down the street at a neighbor’s modest housecan serve as basic psychological reminders of the needs of other people… Absent that, wealth will have these egregious effects insulating you more and more1.

People who are trying to nurture a culture of philanthropy in the City are well aware of this ‘seeing is believing’ phenomenon.  Many corporate programmes that seek to engage employees with charitable giving start by taking them to visit the work of charities or community groups in the local area to understand the problems they are addressing and the challenges they face.  This is often very successful at establishing the initial link with a cause that is the prerequisite of long-term giving.

I don’t hold much truck with those who yearn after the ‘golden ages’ of philanthropy of the Victorian and Tudor eras.  There are many factors that drove their philanthropy that we cannot replicate today, and many that we would not want to even if we could.  However, the example of the City shows that there is plenty we can learn from looking at the history of philanthropy, both in terms of things we can do to encourage giving and the pitfalls to avoid, as long as we interpret them from a modern context.  There are many aspects of philanthropy policy and practice that would benefit greatly from such a dose of historical perspective.

1.  Ben Gose and Emily Gipple, ‘Rich Enclaves Are Not as Generous as the Wealthy Living Elsewhere’, Chronicle of Philanthropy, 19 August 2012.
Posted in Features, Rhodri Davies, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Feature: Stop the Spread- The Disasters Emergency Committee, Ebola, and Humanitarian Fundraising in Britain

Andrew Jones is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Birmingham.  His research examines the rise of modern humanitarian organisations in Britain, with a focus on those agencies connected to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).  Originally set up in the 1960s, the DEC has recently been in the news for its ongoing Ebola outbreak appeal.

For humanitarians, 2014 has been a year of crises which have stretched the international aid system to ‘breaking point.  Now, leading British aid agencies such as Oxfam and Save the Children have once again jointly mobilised to respond to a global emergency under the umbrella of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC).  The DEC is a familiar actor in Britain as it coordinates the fundraising of thirteen humanitarian organisations for large-scale disasters.  It does so primarily through making joint appeals on television for public donations to support relief work.  Originally set up in the 1960s, the DEC has made over sixty such appeals to the public in the decades since then.  However, its current appeal appears very different to anything that has come before, calling for funds to tackle the ongoing Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa.

DEC Ebola Crisis Appeal

DEC Ebola Crisis Appeal, 2014 (

As the DEC has repeatedly stressed, this is the first time that it has launched an appeal for a disease outbreak.  Various media outlets have picked up on this as a newsworthy story in its own right, echoing DEC Chief Executive Saleh Saaed’s remarks that the Ebola appeal is ‘completely unprecedented.  So far these publicity tactics have been effective; at the time of writing, the DEC has raised twelve million pounds in six days.  The emphasis on the appeal as exceptional represents an interesting use of the past.  It also suggests that now may be a timely moment to reflect back on the history of the DEC.  Of course, presenting a systematic historical evaluation of the DEC is well beyond the confines of a blog post.  What follows is a brief introduction to the DEC and what it suggests about humanitarianism in Britain.

The DEC was set up in 1963 by what were then the ‘big five’ British humanitarian organisations: Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Red Cross, Save the Children, and War on Want.  Their coming together was presented as a pragmatic step to enable collaboration, but it was also a response to the new power of television as a medium.  In the early 1960s, individual aid organisations discovered that emergency appeals on television could reach larger audiences, and generate more donations, than previously thought possible.  More money also meant more rivalry and the DEC was devised to dampen competition between its members.  The Committee met after major disasters to pool information and initiate joint action.  All five members had equal authority, with decisions taken by majority vote.  Representatives from government and the media were also invited to observe and contribute.

DEC Tsunami Earthquake Appeal

DEC Tsunami Earthquake Appeal. Sky News, January 2005.

Crucially, the DEC was granted exclusive arrangements with the BBC and ITV to air emergency appeals in primetime television slots after major disasters.  This gave its members a unique level of access to television.  British charities were not permitted to purchase advertising on commercial television until the 1990s, while conventional appeals on the BBC were tightly regulated.  These arrangements with the broadcasters continue today, now widened to include Channel 4, Channel 5, Sky, and a range of corporate partners.  The DEC’s first appeal was in 1966 for an earthquake in Turkey.  This raised £560,000 (about nine million pounds in today’s money) and the Committee has been making regular appeals ever since.

The history of the DEC captures the importance of the mass media, especially television, to the sustained rise of humanitarianism in Britain in recent decades.  It is through the media that society encounters disaster and bears witness to distant suffering.  The most successful DEC fundraising drives have all been launched to capitalise upon widespread public sympathy already created by dramatic news reports of overseas disasters.  These have ranged from Turkey in 1966, to Bangladesh in 1970, Ethiopia in 1973 (and again in 1984), Rwanda in 1994, to the Indian Ocean in 2004, and Haiti in 2010.  In all of these cases, the DEC acted quickly to position itself as a channel for public sympathy and raised massive sums from the public.  The standout example of this remains the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami appeal which raised a remarkable record sum of £392 million.

However, modern aid agencies are also beholden to how the mass media operates —pursuing ratings, roaming quickly from one emergency to the next, drawn to simplistic accounts and negative images of distant suffering.  In the rush to raise money, DEC appeals have often provided a simplistic view of overseas emergencies, presenting them as existing outside of politics and easily solved with more cash.  More recently, the DEC has strived to provide concrete information concerning how its members spend their funds, and the contexts in which they work, to the public.  This contrasts with many early DEC appeals which provided little information of substance to viewers beyond guilt-inducing calls to give money.  Many DEC appeals have relied heavily on graphic images of starving children which have been consistently effective at raising money from the public.  The use of such images has been denounced within the aid community since the 1970s for promoting an unethical view of the world and reinforcing problematic stereotypes.

DEC East African Emergency Appeal

DEC East African Emergency Appeal. The Guardian, June 1980.

The history of the DEC also sheds light on the impressive growth of the humanitarian sector in recent decades and the competition between aid agencies that this has created.  The DEC was set up to dampen rivalry between its five founding members.  It also excluded non-members from the benefits provided by television appeals.  As the British humanitarian industry grew in size and number, the DEC came to be perceived by other organisations as a self-interested ‘cartel’ which refused to open up its membership.  These tensions eventually culminated in an independent review into the Committee, triggered by a problematic appeal for the Rwandan genocide in 1994.  This review examined all aspects of the DEC’s operations and resulted in the barriers to DEC membership being relaxed.  The DEC was also formally established as a non-profit organisation with charitable status at this time. The ‘New DEC’ was officially relaunched in 1997, comprised of fifteen members with an independent Council and more professional evaluation methods.  Despite concerns at the time that the DEC would not survive in a more competitive broadcast environment, the Committee has thrived in the years since.  The DEC is now often lauded as a successful model of collaboration for other charitable sectors to emulate.

Clearly, to understand the development of non-state humanitarianism in Britain requires an understanding of the history of the DEC.  But what does this history tell us about the current Ebola appeal?  For a start, it suggests that despite claims to be ‘unprecedented’, the Ebola campaign is actually quite a conventional DEC appeal.  The Committee has responded to public empathy about Ebola victims whipped up by recent news coverage and has harnessed this for fundraising purposes.  This includes television appeals and press advertisements characterised by evocative language, images of suffering children, and dire warnings of impending catastrophe.  These have been reinforced by inventive campaigns on social media under the hashtag #StopTheSpread.  This approach to fundraising and publicity actually fits quite neatly into a longer history of emergency humanitarianism in Britain.

The DEC takes its own accountability and transparency very seriously.  Any money it raises will undoubtedly be put to life-saving uses by its members.  However, the timing of the appeal also raises questions about why it was not launched earlier.  The Committee has received some criticism for being slow to respond to the epidemic.  This may reflect the reluctance of the broadcasters to agree to an appeal for a disease outbreak.  More likely, it highlights how the DEC and its members are continually one step behind media coverage, rather than out in front.  The Ebola epidemic has been unfolding throughout the year and arguably no non-governmental humanitarian agency has done more than Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) to spearhead the international response.  Revealingly, MSF-UK is not a member of the Disasters Emergency Committee.

Andrew Jones
University of Birmingham

For more on the Disasters Emergency Committee, visit:

For more on the DEC Ebola appeal and to donate, visit:

Posted in Andrew Jones, Features | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Crystal Palace Triangle Project: Studying Voluntary and Community Action in Crystal Palace

Colin Rochester was the founding Chair of the Voluntary Action History Society and is a founding partner of the Practical Wisdom R2Z Research Consultants. He has worked in and with the voluntary sector for over forty years.

Why on earth have my colleagues and I at the Practical Wisdom R2Z research consultancy embarked on a study of voluntary and community activity in the Crystal Palace area of South London (for details see our website)? How can we possibly justify adding to the existing piles of largely unread studies of local voluntary action?

There has been no shortage of well-conceived and well-executed local studies since Stephen Hatch carried out his pioneering research on the voluntary sectors in three English towns, which provided the Wolfenden Committee on the Future of Voluntary Organisations with much of the evidence that informed its influential report[1]. Later research has included Tony Marshall’s ambitious series of Local Voluntary Action Surveys for the Home Office in the 1990s[2]; Konrad Elsdon’s in-depth studies of local organisations[3]; and Andri Soteri-Proctor’s more recent micro mapping of a few adjacent streets[4].

UnknownIt was, however, during the first decade of this century that the production of locality studies boomed and became a minor industry in its own right. Local infrastructure bodies like councils of voluntary vervice -– stimulated by New Labour’s programme of ‘modernising’ the sector – commissioned or produced a steady stream of reports designed to advertise the importance of the local sector by producing statistics to demonstrate its scope and significance. With some honourable exceptions these studies were of poor quality and added little to our understanding of local voluntary action.

While most of these products fell well short of the standards set by Hatch. Marshall, Elsdon and Soteri-Procter, they did share with them a similar aim or purpose. They were designed to provide statistical information about the number of organisations in a given area, the resources they deployed and the activities they carried out. Their purpose was to map and measure local voluntary action.

Unknown-2By contrast our justification for undertaking yet another local study is that we are taking a radically different approach. It is different not only in what it sets out to achieve but also in the methodology we have adopted to enable us to meet our aims.

It is true that we will be developing a working map of voluntary and community activity in Crystal Palace, but this is not the end of our enquiry so much as an important means of working towards it. Our aim is to understand ‘how things work’ – why and how people become involved in voluntary and community activity; how they organise to make it happen; and what factors encouraged or inhibited voluntary action in the area.

Unknown-3And we will explore these questions through in-depth interviews in the manner of Tony Parker or Studs Terkel[5] to present the views of key individuals who are the ‘experts‘ on voluntary and community activity in the area. These will be supplemented by the use of documentary and on-line sources, observation of, and participation in, many of the activities we identify and a series of short ‘vox pop’ interviews with local residents as they go about their everyday activities. And we will maintain a relationship with our interviewees that will help us over time to shape both the conduct of the enquiry and the ways in which we will present our findings.

Finally, the study is also unusual in that it is a voluntary activity in its own right. No one has asked us to do it and nobody has funded it. We are free to explore where our interests take us constrained only by the willingness of our collaborators to travel with us.

So, what we have begun is not so much another step along a well-trodden path but a new and different approach to understanding how voluntary and community activity ‘works’.

[1]Stephen Hatch, Outside the State: Voluntary Organisations in Three English Towns (London: Croom Helm, 1980).

[2]Tony Marshall, Local Voluntary Action Surveys (LOVAS) Research Manual: LOVAS Paper 1 (London: Home Office, 1997).

[3]Konrad Elsdon, Voluntary Organisations: Citizenship, Learning and Change (Leicester: NIACE, 1995).

[4]Andri Soteri-Proctor, Little big societies: micro-mapping of organisations operating below the radar (Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 71; Birmingham and Southampton: Third Sector Research Centre, 2011).

[5]See Tony Parker, The People of Providence (London: Hutchinson, 1983) and Studs Terkel, Division Street America (New York: Pantheon, 1967).

Posted in Colin Rochester | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment