Suchergebnisse

There is growing interest in identifying the social impact of everything: academic research, funded projects, organisations themselves, whether in public , private, or community sectors. The central questions are first what benefits do organizations create and deliver for society and second how do we measure these benefits? These questions are notoriously difficult to answer and yet go to the heart of efforts by governments and civil society organisations to create a better world, to generate social value. The importance of finding a way to measure social impact becomes all the more crucial when it comes to arguing that the benefits obtained far outweigh the cost of producing those benefits, and indeed the benefits may directly or indirectly increase economic wealth. This line of thinking has started to generated various attempts in Australia and elsewhere in the neo-liberal world, to find objective indicators of social impact, and preferably to frame these in terms of monetary cost and benefit. Indeed there is increasing insistence on the part of funding bodies that we measure the social impact. However, exactly what it is that we should be measuring remains contested and elusive

This paper constructs a theoretical model of social impact as it applies to civil society organisations. It does so by drawing on the recent literature on the topic as well as recently completed empirical studies. First, the relationship between impact and evaluation is examined. This is followed by an exploration of the capitals, notably social, human, and cultural capital and their interrelationships, as a theoretical base for the explication of social impact. A formal model of social impact is then identified together with a set of basic principles that may be said to define social impact. Finally the implications of the model are discussed for social policy and organisational management.

There is growing interest in identifying the social impact of everything: academic research, funded projects, organisations themselves, whether in public , private, or community sectors. The central questions are first what benefits do organizations create and deliver for society and second how do we measure these benefits? These questions are notoriously difficult to answer and yet go to the heart of efforts by governments and civil society organisations to create a better world, to generate social value. The importance of finding a way to measure social impact becomes all the more crucial when it comes to arguing that the benefits obtained far outweigh the cost of producing those benefits, and indeed the benefits may directly or indirectly increase economic wealth. This line of thinking has started to generated various attempts in Australia and elsewhere in the neo-liberal world, to find objective indicators of social impact, and preferably to frame these in terms of monetary cost and benefit. Indeed there is increasing insistence on the part of funding bodies that we measure the social impact. However, exactly what it is that we should be measuring remains contested and elusive

This article reflects on the nature of Community-University engagement from a research focus. This entails several steps. In this I start with 'engagement' and what that might mean in the context of a University-based research centre. I then reflect on the nature of 'community' and the significance of the third sector globally and in Australia. The Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management (CACOM) was the first research centre in Australia, and one of the first in the world designed explicitly to study the Community Sector and its impact. The article outlines one significant research program that emerged from the work of CACOM, namely the story of social capital research. This research was initiated by a request from community partners, and was carried out in collaboration with them. The research program led to several significant research projects which have had a major impact on theory and public policy. It challenges the nature of the University as 'expert' and illustrates the co-production of knowledge. The article concludes by discussing the various roles that the University can play within the co-production of research knowledge with the community, as collaborator in the research process itself, as mediator in the development of linking social capital between community and more powerful players, and as the potential site for independent and critical analysis.

There has been a steep rise over the past 20 years in the proportion of women who enter the workforce, with a concomitant increase in the number of women who will be retiring in the next 20 years. In the past, the majority of women over 60 have either been supported by their husbands superannuation benefits, or have been dependent on a government pension. This situation is unlikely to continue; it is becoming increasingly essential for women to make provision for their own post‐retirement income. However available evidence suggests that women are not effectively planning for their retirement and are increasingly at risk of facing a life of poverty in their old age. This research project examines some of the factors that impact on women's capacity to effectively plan their retirement. In particular, the research explores the attitudes of women to retirement planning, access to information, and external impediments particularly labour market conditions.

Our research challenges the limitations of extant knowledge of social formation by its focus on the ordinary, everyday lived reality of maintaining community and on identifying its operations from the internal perspective of civil society. We aim to explore the actual mobilising processes and structures that underpin the formation of social capital in the community. We examine how networks emerge and operate.

AbstractThe research presented in this article employed a deliberate intervention to mobilize social capital and then studied the dynamics of the way in which it influenced community development. Whether or not social capital is able to facilitate development depends on the specific context in which it occurs. Although the general context of this study was that of small rural towns in Australia's outback that are experiencing decline, each of the four towns studied had unique features which could influence the mobilization of social capital. Rural communities have the willingness and capacity to mobilize but whether this capacity is actualized may well depend on the presence of other mobilizing factors. Specifically the intervention study found that a structure needs to be in place which can take the initiative and work across the community — engaging a range of organizations. Second, the structure needs to be supported, but not controlled, by local government. Third, it needs the kind of social entrepreneurship that can sustain a community‐wide vision and bring together the diverse groups within the community.Résumé Les recherches présentées s'appuient sur une opération destinée à mobiliser le capital social, afin d'étudier les dynamiques selon lesquelles il a influé sur le développement communautaire. L'aptitude du capital social à faciliter le développement dépend du contexte dans lequel celui‐ci se produit. Bien que cette étude se place dans de petites villes de campagnes reculées d'Australie confrontées à un déclin, chacune des quatre villes concernées présentaient des spécificités propres susceptibles d'influencer la mobilisation du capital social. Les communautés rurales ont la volonté et la capacité de se mobiliser, mais la concrétisation de cette capacité peut dépendre largement de la présence d'autres facteurs mobilisateurs. En particulier, l'analyse de l'opération montre qu'il doit exister une structure capable de prendre l'initiative et de travailler avec toute la communauté en impliquant tout un éventail d'organismes. Ensuite, il faut que la structure soit épaulée, et non contrôlée, par le gouvernement local. Enfin, elle a besoin d'une sorte d'esprit d'entreprise sociale qui puisse nourrir une vision à l'échelle communautaire et réunir les différents groupes présents dans la communauté.

How can institutions contribute to the building of civil society in the twenty- first century? It is clear that the old laissez-faire approach and the more recent neo-conservative reliance on the market have failed to deliver housing for many people. On the other hand the state-based welfare housing model espoused by the Australian Labor Party over the twentieth century has also been beset by problems. Social alienation, and the crisis in affordable housing make the case that individualist approaches to urban living are not working. More communal solutions are needed - solutions attuned to a complex view of civil society outlined by Michael Edwards' tripartite definition. At the same time the onset of global warming now prompts Australians to create more environmentally sustainable ways of living. Addressing the theme of responsibility, this paper focuses on citizenship in its broader environmental, social and active forms. It analyses interviews and documentary evidence concerning the planning and development of Christie Walk, an innovative, medium density eco-city development in Adelaide. The investigation reveals the effects of some Australian institutions on residents' efforts to live socially and environmentally sustainable lives in an urban environment. The paper offers transdisciplinary research and analysis, linking the fields of history, urban housing, community development and environmental theory.