A Community Profile of a Brownie unit

The Community Chosen

Community Profiles

Data Collection and Presentation

Discussion

References

The Community Chosen

Girlguiding is divided into many different sections, including Rainbows, Brownies and Guides, with around 501,590 members (Girlguiding, 2018). The overarching charity, and individual units, could be considered communities within their own rights due to a fluidity surrounding the definition, and due to a focus on common interests, beliefs and values (Kerridge and Sayers, 2007) that underpin the charity and unit meetings and result in continued attendance. This results in around 27,000 active Girlguiding communities in the United Kingdom being assisted by over 110,000 volunteers (Girlguiding, 2018). The focus of this profile will be a Brownie unit based in the locality of Benhall and The Redding’s ward, Cheltenham (Gloucestershire County Council, 2015) The unit has been meeting since 1977 and has 20 active young members enrolled at present. Although this unit could be considered established, I would like to analyse for any areas of vulnerability using three key themes of young members, leaders, and the wider community. Since I am an active member of this community, I would like to use the information gathered to aid future development in terms of strategic planning, helping to ensure the preservation of the unit.

Community Profiles

The research method that involves the identification of nature, needs and resources of a particular community is commonly referred to as community profiling (Blackshaw, 2010). It is the active participation of community members that makes this research method distinctive, and because of this, projects can be initiated by members, in addition to statutory agencies and voluntary organisations (Hawtin and Percy-Smith, 2007). Typically, community profiling is conducted with a predominant intention of aiding a community, although specific purposes and aims will vary. Because of this, research cannot be confined to a single approach (Goodson and Phillimore, 2012) and must be adapted to suit the intent of the profile, including approaches and data collection methods. 

One approach to community profiling is to focus on the existing community. Members are typically involved in this method and are challenged with identifying their community’s needs and resources. Due to the emphasis on where a community is currently at, this is often thought of as a ‘bottom-up’ approach (Gilchrist and Taylor, 2016). Underpinning this is Freire’s critical pedagogy which suggests that in order for the world to change, individuals need to adopt a critical stance which is easier to achieve in relation to their everyday lives. Therefore, when members are actively involved in profiling, useful change may be more probable as community members are in a better position to critic the reality of their community (Ledwith, 2016). According to Gilchrist (2009), this can create a sense of empowerment where community members consider their voices as recognised and respected. However, the nature of ‘bottom-up’ approaches means community members typically have to actively participate in the profile. Because of this, it may only be a small minority of the community that contribute, leading to a ‘snowballing’ affect whereby the profile only becomes familiar with one network (Twelvetrees, 2017). To overcome this, a representative sample of the community should be taken, helping to ensure a encompassing profile that allows for any progressive agendas that ensues to aid the whole community, rather than a few.

Another method of community profiling is whereby the identification of needs and resources are led by official representatives, such as from the local authority, also referred to as a ‘top-down’ approach. The nature of this approach means that little involvement is needed from community members as statistical information can indicate areas with particular problems, educational under-achievement for example (Hawtin and Percy-Smith 2007). This can lead to more efficient dispersion of resources, in addition to generating baseline data for monitoring. Although, Mayo, Mendiwelso-Bendek and Peckham (2013, p.6) suggest that a ‘top-down’ approach can ‘legitimise reductions in service provision’. This could result in feelings of resentment from a community as they may have differing views about which service provisions are crucial, leading to distrust of local government. Therefore, communities and authorities should work in harmony in profiling, helping to empower members by enabling their voices to be heard whilst aiming to meet the purpose of community development (Taylor, 2011).

When conducting a community profile, methodological decisions must be made regarding data collection. Typically data gathering takes two forms, primary and secondary. Primary data is collected using first-hand experience, as opposed to secondary data which has been gathered by someone else. Often, community profiles are driven by measurements, particularly in ‘top-down’ approaches, meaning that data gathered is often quantitative (Blackshaw, 2010). Secondary quantitative data can require little time and be simple to access, although it crucial to consider that the data was collected for a purpose different to the profile, thus it may not fulfil the profile’s specific aims (Hawton and Percy-Smith, 2007). Following decisions about the purpose and aims of the profile, subsequent methodology decisions must consider ethics, including informed consent, invasion of privacy and deception, allowing for an action plan to be formed with the intent of aiding community development.

Data Collection and Presentation
 

Forming the basis of the young members and wider community themes will be information provided by an annual parents/carers information update. The questionnaire was last distributed in September 2018, meaning that all information represented is likely to be valid. The data for the leaders theme will be generated from the Girlguiding membership system, and will be formulated from the young members starting date. Because of this, all data collected will be quantitative, with the majority generated through primary collection methods. Data in the leaders theme was gather through personal knowledge, and informal conversations, producing qualitative primary data. If I researched this community more extensively, I would use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data for each theme. This would generate more pervasive data, and increase the involvement of community members other than myself, thus creating a more accurate and comprehensive profile (Szyjka, 2012).

Considering I am an active member of the community, technically there has been community involvement, albeit significantly limited, thus could be labelled as ‘bottom-up’. Although, the use of statistical data to identify areas of vulnerability could classify my data collection approach as top-down. Therefore, I would not consider the research to specifically as ‘bottom-up’ or a ‘top-down’ approach, rather a mixed approach.

Young members

The age distribution of the young members is represented in Figure 1. The average age for the unit is 8.3 years, with ages spanning form 7 years to 10 years.