PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9541070

Community representatives: representing the "community"?

Abstract

This paper takes as its starting point the apparent disjunction between the assumptions of the self-evidence of the meaning of community in major international declarations and strategies which promote community participation and the observation that meanings of "community" are a subject of extensive debate in literatures of social analysis and to some extent health. Given that the word's meaning is not agreed, those working to promote "community participation" in health are forced to adjudicate on competing meanings in order to operationalise the notion. This raises questions about how this is done and what are the implications of particular choices for what may be achieved by the participating "community". This paper presents the findings of an empirical study which examined the manner in which ideas of "community" are operationalised by people engaged in encouraging community participation in health promotion in the context of the selection of members for health for all steering groups in healthy cities projects in the United Kingdom. It argues that the demands of the role of the "community representative" are such that particular interpretations of "community" achieve ascendance. The paper explores the consequences of the interpretation of "community" as part of the "voluntary sector" and argues that this may compromise one of the stated desired outcomes of community participation i.e. extending democracy in health decision-making.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Jewkes, A Murcott. 1998. Community representatives: representing the "community"?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00209-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Picturing the nurse-person/family/community process in the year 2050.

How will nurses relate with persons in the year 2050? And, how might technology enable or limit the nursing process with persons, families, and communities? These are the questions addressed in this column. Imaging practice in light of the technological imaginings and projections is facilitated by a possible scenario that includes robotics that not only monitor human biological processes, they also emote compassion and caring that may one day be dosed according to the latest diagnostic prescription. Three nurses in this column present their views of how nursing might evolve. Karnick, aligned with the human becoming school of thought, imagines a practice anchored in respect for humanity and quality of life and an accompanying respect for nursing knowledge and nursing work. Senesac and Sato, aligned with Roy's adaptation model, call for nurses to envision and choose the future they want to have. Clear in both perspectives is a reverence for human values and human experience and for the critical role of nursing knowledge as we move toward the not-yet of 2050.

Community Participation↗

Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory.

Governing natural resources sustainably is a continuing struggle. Major debates occur over what types of policy "interventions" best protect forests, with choices of property and land tenure systems being central issues. Herein, we provide an overview of findings from a long-term interdisciplinary, multiscale, international research program that analyzes the institutional factors affecting forests managed under a variety of tenure arrangements. This program analyzes satellite images, conducts social-ecological measurements on the ground, and tests the impact of structural variables on human decisions in experimental laboratories. Satellite images track the landscape dimensions of forest-cover change within different management regimes over time. On-the-ground social-ecological studies examine relationships between forest conditions and types of institutions. Behavioral studies under controlled laboratory conditions enhance our understanding of explicit changes in structure that affect relevant human decisions. Evidence from all three research methods challenges the presumption that a single governance arrangement will control overharvesting in all settings. When users are genuinely engaged in decisions regarding rules affecting their use, the likelihood of them following the rules and monitoring others is much greater than when an authority simply imposes rules. Our results support a frontier of research on the most effective institutional and tenure arrangements for protecting forests. They move the debate beyond the boundaries of protected areas into larger landscapes where government, community, and comanaged protected areas are embedded and help us understand when and why deforestation and regrowth occur in specific regions within these larger landscapes.

Community Participation↗