Day Conference Details and Abstracts

The following papers were presented on 5 November 2003 at the University of Birmingham, hosted by Pete Alcock :-

• Ben Cairns and Romayne Hutchison – Aston University, Introducing Technological Change to the Voluntary Sector: Critical Success Factors
• Meta Zimmeck - The Home Office Voluntary Sector Panel Survey
• Jon Griffiths – University of East London, Managing in the Real World – Part 2
• Kate McLaughlin – University of Birmingham, Towards a ‘modernised’ UK voluntary sector? Lessons from the local government modernization experience
• Sue Jones – Bristol University, Who are the ‘vulnerable’?

Ben Cairns and Romayne Hutchison – Aston University, Introducing Technological Change to the Voluntary Sector: Critical Success Factors

We shall report on the findings of a study carried out by the Centre for Voluntary Action Research at Aston Business School to set up and evaluate on a pilot basis two electronic discussion groups for Citizens Advice (formerly NACAB) money advisers. We draw on this research, and some of the limited range of literature available on the subject, to discuss some of the issues involved in introducing new technology to voluntary organisations. We highlight some of the barriers to involvement in online discussion groups, and conclude by drawing out some critical success factors to facilitate participation.

Jon Griffiths – University of East London, Managing in the Real World, the Re-emergence of Social Enterprise, and Shareholder Democracy post-Enron

Some earlier research on 'Managing in the Real World' (presented at ISTR in 1998) explored management systems: often fragile arrangements, arrived at through deft negotiation and compromise, craft and wisdom, skilful handling of other people inside and outside the organisation, and reflection on, revision of and re-use of the prior knowledge of the people involved; and the idea that 'indigenous management knowledge' - about how to do things, and how to change what is being done - enables appropriate systems to be created, but tends to be displaced by new management knowledge. 

I'm returning to the research with some new thinking about emerging social enterprises, and the differences between the managerial imperatives facing them and those facing established (and more conservative) not-for-profit organisations.

Where this leads me is some revised research questions:

What kind of management systems are used by organisations providing services, especially those intended to meet essential needs (eg health care, welfare, rescue)?

What determines the kind of management system adopted?

How far, in the creation or reform of their management systems, does indigenous management knowledge gets displaced by new management knowledge? what are the costs? and how does indigenous management knowledge get incorporated into newly created or reformed management systems?

What are the differences - in management systems, and   incorporation of indigenous management knowledge - between organisations that are more market-oriented, those that are more state or grant-funder oriented, and those that keep their distance from both?

I hope to present a paper at ISTR next year on work in progress, to be based on some initial interviews in the UK and beyond.

Meanwhile I would like to use the VSSN session to discuss some of the ideas.

Kate McLaughlin – University of Birmingham, Towards a ‘modernised’ UK voluntary sector? Lessons from the local government modernization experience

This paper argues that relationships between government and the voluntary and community sectors [VCS] are being primed for `modernization` as a result of the publication of the Treasury Cross Cutting Review [TCCR] (2002). Unless debate is engendered on this controversial intent, the VCS faces the prospect of diminishing its strategic impact over a major rising government agenda – and one that has the potential to impact upon the structure, values and operating ethos of the sector. The spectre of modernization, it is argued, poses a threat and challenge to the distinctive competencies of the VCS and its distinctive contribution to policy making and service delivery [McLaughlin and Osborne, 2003]. But it also offers opportunities to the sector to clarify its own thinking and actively influence future scenarios for relationships with government within the public policy system.

The publication of the TCCR marks a step change in the government’s vision toward the VCS. Until recently the VCS was viewed by government as a welcome agent in the process of modernising government with an ability to exert positive influence for change upon the performance and politics of government institutions under the community governance paradigm. The tables have now turned and the TCCR has propelled the VCS into the modernisation process as a subject.

The implications for the VCS of the transition from `agent` to `subject` of modernisation are the subject of the paper. It is argued that a new policy trajectory is emerging that will encourage divisions within the VCS between an `institutionalised` VCS and a `de-institutionalised` VCS – with the former structured upon conditions of modernisation. This trajectory is examined in terms of the key lessons for future VCS modernisation that can be discerned from evaluations of the local government modernisation experience [McLaughlin, 2002; McLaughlin and Jenei, 2002].

Sue Jones – Bristol University, Who are the ‘vulnerable’?

Increasingly, the clients of voluntary and public sector organisations are termed ‘vulnerable’. A current buzzword, ‘vulnerable’ is embedded in Government goals, in funding and service criteria, and is used widely by politicians, policy-makers, managers, practitioners, academics, the media and hence the public. The term is embraced as convenient, politically correct (for the moment), and apparently non-judgemental.

But is it? As the use of ‘vulnerable’ increases – even extending to reification (‘the vulnerable’) – so its meaning broadens and it becomes less useful conceptually. Moreover, some clients and research respondents object to the term’s negative associations – of victim, powerlessness and stigma – which tend to contradict the current ethos of partnership, whereby voluntary and public sector staff and volunteers work alongside ‘clients’ in an empowering way.

This paper explores whether a discourse of ‘vulnerability’ is emerging, which affects how voluntary and public sector clients and their problems are viewed. If it is, researchers need to be aware of the consequences of this perspective for services and their users.