This paper investigates whether regional patterns of uneven charitable distribution are evidenced at a local neighbourhood level. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative evidence of charitable resources in two case-study areas, one affluent and one deprived, it argues that there is a clear distinction between the case-study areas. Charities in the affluent area are more numerous, run by volunteers, and meet a broad range of social, community and cultural needs of that community.Charities in the deprived area are less numerous, meet urgent needs related to deprivation, and are more likely to be larger charities run by professionals with statutory funding. There is great concern, within the deprived area, about the impact of austerity cuts and measures, and what this will mean for the future of these charities, and the community which they support. Introduction:The question of the distributional effects of charitable activity is the central concern of a project at Southampton on quantitative and qualitative aspects of the geographical distribution of charities. It is well-known that the distribution of registered charities in the UK is uneven (Mohan and Rolls, 2006), but this tells us relatively little about where charitable activity takes place. Extensive work needs to be done on methods for apportioning expenditure by charities to geographical areas because it is unrealistic to assume that all expenditure can be allocated to the area in which an organisation is based. In a separate paper (Mohan, 2011) this topic is discussed in more detail. In this paper we argue for case-study research to investigate the flows of charitable resources, and of expenditure by charitable organisations, on a local scale. We explore the distribution of resources, the distinctive features of charitable activity, the barriers to organisational success and the challenges organisations are likely to face.A mixed method approach was taken, combining a desktop analysis of available accounts and annual reports of all the registered charities within the chosen case-study areas alongside up to 50 semistructured interviews with stakeholders and the managers/chairs of charities of a cross-section of registered charities in these areas.Two contrasting neighbourhoods that lie within 3 miles of each other in the same local government district were selected for study. One case-study area is a neighbourhood defined as one of the 20% most deprived areas in the country, dominated by social renting and high levels of reliance on state benefits, and characterised by relatively high population turnover. The other case-study area is one of the 20% least deprived areas in the country, a prosperous village with high levels of owner occupation
No abstract
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG).
This paper explores the challenges arising from the ‘re-use’ of Mass Observation Project (MOP) writing (1981 to present day) encountered by the authors when setting up an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded, longitudinal, mixed-methods research project on civic engagement. The paper begins with a brief review of the present UK social science research environment, highlighting the evidence for an increasing Research Council focus on interdisciplinary research and secondary analysis/re-use of data. It argues that this shift in focus gives rise to unique methodological challenges such as those encountered by the authors in this project. After providing some background and context, the paper discusses different obstacles encountered in the course of setting up this project. These include difficulties in: communicating within and across disciplines; re-using data across disciplines; the use of metadata, and its role in choosing writers from a longitudinal secondary data source; choice of analytical tools and approaches; and the Mass Observation writer's role in the research process. By sharing these experiences, the paper seeks to enable potential users of the MOP to see the value of MOP as a source of longitudinal qualitative secondary data; appreciate its potential for use with other data sources and across different disciplines; and equip other researchers to meet some of the challenges that the longitudinal use of MOP writing throws up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.