Pub Date : 2020-01-29DOI: 10.46692/9781447348030.012
B. Morgan, Morag A Mcdermont, M. Innes
This concluding chapter seeks to build inductively from the findings of the research projects discussed in previous chapters, summarising their collective implications to address what makes it possible to regulate for engagement. It argues that the answer is a processual one. A threefold dynamic process underpins effective regulation for engagement, constituted by three factors that build upon and support each other. The chapter first elaborates on this threefold process, drawing on micro-illustrations from the preceding chapters. It follows by acknowledging the limits and perils of these dynamics, especially if they are institutionalised through traditional regulatory policy or legally enforceable programmes. Responding to these limits is the aim of the chapter's conclusion, where it is argued that embedding these practices and processes in experientially sensitive infrastructure is the key to preserving and stabilising their creative potential.
{"title":"Conclusion: Towards an organic model of regulating for engagement","authors":"B. Morgan, Morag A Mcdermont, M. Innes","doi":"10.46692/9781447348030.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447348030.012","url":null,"abstract":"This concluding chapter seeks to build inductively from the findings of the research projects discussed in previous chapters, summarising their collective implications to address what makes it possible to regulate for engagement. It argues that the answer is a processual one. A threefold dynamic process underpins effective regulation for engagement, constituted by three factors that build upon and support each other. The chapter first elaborates on this threefold process, drawing on micro-illustrations from the preceding chapters. It follows by acknowledging the limits and perils of these dynamics, especially if they are institutionalised through traditional regulatory policy or legally enforceable programmes. Responding to these limits is the aim of the chapter's conclusion, where it is argued that embedding these practices and processes in experientially sensitive infrastructure is the key to preserving and stabilising their creative potential.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131968553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
G. Bond, Dániel Balla, A. Cantwell, Brendan Tate Wistreich
This chapter focuses on the work co-produced with Coexist, one of the Productive Margins programme's community partners, in response to the theme of ‘spaces of dissent’. Coexist is a social enterprise set up to create a space where different communities and individuals can grow, share, collaborate, and learn what it is to live in coexistence with each other. Coexist performs the role of regulator, responsible for the safety of the users of Hamilton House and ensuring that the project is economically sustainable. In the period covered by the research, Coexist discovered problems reconciling its core purpose and values — being open to all and providing space for the community — with the challenge of managing the unequal power relations that make this vision potentially unachievable. Here, the chapter foregrounds notions of dissent not only as a practical question facing Coexist, but also as a means of addressing wider issues of privilege, disagreement, and other difficult aspects of socially engaged work.
{"title":"Regulating engagement through dissent","authors":"G. Bond, Dániel Balla, A. Cantwell, Brendan Tate Wistreich","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.16","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the work co-produced with Coexist, one of the Productive Margins programme's community partners, in response to the theme of ‘spaces of dissent’. Coexist is a social enterprise set up to create a space where different communities and individuals can grow, share, collaborate, and learn what it is to live in coexistence with each other. Coexist performs the role of regulator, responsible for the safety of the users of Hamilton House and ensuring that the project is economically sustainable. In the period covered by the research, Coexist discovered problems reconciling its core purpose and values — being open to all and providing space for the community — with the challenge of managing the unequal power relations that make this vision potentially unachievable. Here, the chapter foregrounds notions of dissent not only as a practical question facing Coexist, but also as a means of addressing wider issues of privilege, disagreement, and other difficult aspects of socially engaged work.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127189888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-29DOI: 10.46692/9781447348030.008
D. Watson, Sue Cohen, Nathan Evans, Marilyn Howard, Moestak Hussein, Sophie Mellor, Angela Piccini, Simon Poulter
This chapter explores how contemporary social practice art materialises interactions between regulatory regimes and low-income families with children and enables disruptions of regulatory regimes in ways not possible using traditional social science approaches. It focuses on a research team that included artists Close and Remote. Here, the chapter explains how the team co-produced, with community members and academics, a socially engaged artwork — Life Chances — that aimed to generate new knowledges about the regulatory regimes that low-income families with children experience. Aiming towards a form of improvisational empathy, Life Chances worked with Thomas More's (1516) Utopia and Ruth Levitas's (2013) Utopia as Method as ‘a form of speculative sociology of the future’. By staging and troubling contradictory notions of ‘life chances’ through art, the chapter specifically asks how the regulatory services that families encounter in two urban settings — the Easton area of Bristol and Butetown, Riverside and Grangetown in Cardiff — shape, constrain, and enable the life chances of individual families and communities.
{"title":"Life Chances: thinking with art to generate new understandings of low-income situations","authors":"D. Watson, Sue Cohen, Nathan Evans, Marilyn Howard, Moestak Hussein, Sophie Mellor, Angela Piccini, Simon Poulter","doi":"10.46692/9781447348030.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447348030.008","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores how contemporary social practice art materialises interactions between regulatory regimes and low-income families with children and enables disruptions of regulatory regimes in ways not possible using traditional social science approaches. It focuses on a research team that included artists Close and Remote. Here, the chapter explains how the team co-produced, with community members and academics, a socially engaged artwork — Life Chances — that aimed to generate new knowledges about the regulatory regimes that low-income families with children experience. Aiming towards a form of improvisational empathy, Life Chances worked with Thomas More's (1516) Utopia and Ruth Levitas's (2013) Utopia as Method as ‘a form of speculative sociology of the future’. By staging and troubling contradictory notions of ‘life chances’ through art, the chapter specifically asks how the regulatory services that families encounter in two urban settings — the Easton area of Bristol and Butetown, Riverside and Grangetown in Cardiff — shape, constrain, and enable the life chances of individual families and communities.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123058047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter tells the story of a research-engagement project called Making, Mapping and Mobilising in Merthyr (otherwise known as the 4Ms project). The project explored young people's sense of place and well-being while growing up in Merthyr Tydfil (hereafter referred to as Merthyr), a small post-industrial ex-mining and steel-making town in the South Wales Valleys. Once a hub of industrial activity and innovation, Merthyr has experienced a deep social rupture in recent years owing to deindustrialisation and the closure of ironworks, coal mines, and manufacturing industries that had served as cultural links underpinning the rhythms and rituals of Valleys life. The 4Ms project took place predominantly in a housing estate based on a design reputed to have been inspired in the 1950s by romantic Italian hilltop villages. The estate expanded in the 1970s, and by the 2000s, had become dilapidated and a place with high levels of unemployment. In a context of tightening austerity, this housing estate and the people living there have been subject to stigmatising media accounts fuelled by television's ‘poverty porn’ industry and, at times, by local residents themselves. The ‘realities’ of poverty tend to be portrayed in popular media through no-hope narratives of despair.
{"title":"The Making, Mapping and Mobilising in Merthyr project: young people, research and arts activisms in a post-industrial place","authors":"E. Renold, G. Ivinson, G. Thomas, E. Elliott","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.15","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter tells the story of a research-engagement project called Making, Mapping and Mobilising in Merthyr (otherwise known as the 4Ms project). The project explored young people's sense of place and well-being while growing up in Merthyr Tydfil (hereafter referred to as Merthyr), a small post-industrial ex-mining and steel-making town in the South Wales Valleys. Once a hub of industrial activity and innovation, Merthyr has experienced a deep social rupture in recent years owing to deindustrialisation and the closure of ironworks, coal mines, and manufacturing industries that had served as cultural links underpinning the rhythms and rituals of Valleys life. The 4Ms project took place predominantly in a housing estate based on a design reputed to have been inspired in the 1950s by romantic Italian hilltop villages. The estate expanded in the 1970s, and by the 2000s, had become dilapidated and a place with high levels of unemployment. In a context of tightening austerity, this housing estate and the people living there have been subject to stigmatising media accounts fuelled by television's ‘poverty porn’ industry and, at times, by local residents themselves. The ‘realities’ of poverty tend to be portrayed in popular media through no-hope narratives of despair.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127691663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N. Millner, Sue Cohen, T. Cole, Kathleen Webster, Heidi Andrews, Makala Cheung, P. Evans, A. Oliver
This chapter focuses on the forms of regulation that shape food habits in ways that we are often unaware of. Here, the chapter presents some of the results of a co-produced research project that explored how people experience the regulation of food habits in their communities. It explores the notion of food justice, which seeks to embed discussion of food regulation in attention to the spatial dimensions of food access. The chapter points to the ways in which the project sought to make visible invisible rules and to develop processes of ‘commoning’ in order to address the spatial inequalities of urban food spaces. It then challenges notions of ‘cheapness’ and instead present ideas of food affordability. Finally, this chapter establishes the building blocks for a ‘more-than-food policy’ by demonstrating the importance of working with assets rather than deficits.
{"title":"Who gets to decide what’s in my fridge?","authors":"N. Millner, Sue Cohen, T. Cole, Kathleen Webster, Heidi Andrews, Makala Cheung, P. Evans, A. Oliver","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvvsqcb1.13","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the forms of regulation that shape food habits in ways that we are often unaware of. Here, the chapter presents some of the results of a co-produced research project that explored how people experience the regulation of food habits in their communities. It explores the notion of food justice, which seeks to embed discussion of food regulation in attention to the spatial dimensions of food access. The chapter points to the ways in which the project sought to make visible invisible rules and to develop processes of ‘commoning’ in order to address the spatial inequalities of urban food spaces. It then challenges notions of ‘cheapness’ and instead present ideas of food affordability. Finally, this chapter establishes the building blocks for a ‘more-than-food policy’ by demonstrating the importance of working with assets rather than deficits.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130325680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-27DOI: 10.46692/9781447348030.002
Marilyn Howard, Morag A Mcdermont, M. Innes
This introductory chapter sets out concerns with the current state of theories and practice in regulation. It identifies a fundamental problem of regulatory practice, which turns more and more inward-looking, shutting out the expertise of citizens who experience the effects of regulatory systems. It was this gap that led to the five-year research programme, ‘Productive Margins: Regulating for Engagement’, which led to this book. The chapter then presents a brief outline of the book, exploring both the methodology of co-production and citizens' experiences of a number of substantive fields of regulatory practice in order that one can begin to see and know regulatory systems differently. Finally, the chapter sets the scene for explorations in regulating for engagement by illustrating some of the ways in which regulation is discussed — or not — in everyday life by drawing on interviews with participants in the research programme.
{"title":"Introduction: From the Regulation of Engagement to Regulating for Engagement","authors":"Marilyn Howard, Morag A Mcdermont, M. Innes","doi":"10.46692/9781447348030.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447348030.002","url":null,"abstract":"This introductory chapter sets out concerns with the current state of theories and practice in regulation. It identifies a fundamental problem of regulatory practice, which turns more and more inward-looking, shutting out the expertise of citizens who experience the effects of regulatory systems. It was this gap that led to the five-year research programme, ‘Productive Margins: Regulating for Engagement’, which led to this book. The chapter then presents a brief outline of the book, exploring both the methodology of co-production and citizens' experiences of a number of substantive fields of regulatory practice in order that one can begin to see and know regulatory systems differently. Finally, the chapter sets the scene for explorations in regulating for engagement by illustrating some of the ways in which regulation is discussed — or not — in everyday life by drawing on interviews with participants in the research programme.","PeriodicalId":201160,"journal":{"name":"Imagining Regulation Differently","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131573006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：