Car share & walk for transportation

Life is much harsher, considering the economic climate, than in the past. Economically, life is hasher than it used to be. Life was a lot easier in the past. In the past, you could look for work within two weeks, and you will get something. But now even to do a cleaning job, they will ask you to bring a CV. So job situation is actually harder than it used to be. So people have developed all kinds of coping mechanisms to cope with the way things are. Now, because job is hard, you tend to want to do everything to keep it. But there are many ways you can cope with the hardship. If you work in an organisation that is big, some people do car sharing to reduce cost of transportation. You can only share if you have somebody to share with. Also, you can minimise your use of car. For instance, coming to this interview, I have to walk as my partner has got the car.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off


Research Time Table

Time Line Activity Location
May/June Data collection:  interviews and observations. 12 interviews to be targeted. Various – including Wester Hailes, Leith, Pilton, Muirhouse
June Workshops - London – number to be confirmed

Edinburgh – 2 workshops

July Reflective Brainstorming Session on: strategy for presentation of findings and engaging with the Young Foundation Edinburgh
August Report Writing & Publishing,

Show Case Event

Beyond the research – Follow on application

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off


Howdy! and welcome to the ‘Community Hacking & Big Society’ project. The project is a research consortium of the Edinburgh College of Arts, University of Leciester and Brunnel University. The investigators are interested in exploring the extent to which parallels between virtual society (Internet) and actual society (communities) may be extended in such a way that helps make sense of both the opportunities and risks of the ‘Big Society’ for communities. Specifically it will explore a concept of ‘community hacking’, which is defined as the capacity for individuals within groups to develop creative social solutions that transgress established protocols for the betterment of their lives.

Many aspects of the ‘new’ rhetoric of the Big Society hark back to the infrastructures that are seen to have bound communities in the past in which neighbourhoods were viewed as public spheres in which people were watched by each other and taking part in local services was viewed as part of community life. Such an approach may be seen to have fostered reciprocal benefit for being part of a community as well as senses of common purpose (Tönnies, 1957). The guiding principles for the use of ‘Common Land’ across the UK represent one instance of this principle and it is no surprise that the Creative Commons movement has adopted it within it’s title to express it’s redistributive approach to copyright. The sense of community implied in work such as Tönnies, and also the value of the commons have both of the source of continuing debates, and recourse to it by proponents of the ‘Big Society’ might be seen as idealistic or ideological, unintentionally or deliberatively ignoring how surveillance can lead to control, participation both requires and brings with it resources, and self-interest often prevails over common purpose. The ‘Big Society’ might be viewed as much as a ”downloading’ of social problems as it is an attempt to build a society: a practice of the Web rather than Web2.0.

On the other hand, if the theoretical proposition of the ‘Big Society’ share more than rhetorical links with Web2.0, then perhaps we might expect there to be some rather more complex dynamics to emerge. For example, we might expect there to be a more/read right relationship, with issues becoming uploaded as well as downloaded. We might expect people and communities to pursue forms of social hacking as more power is passed on to them, and if core services that previously ‘policed’ their behaviour are cut or relaxed. Consequently the aims of the investigation focus upon how to understand forms of ‘Community Hacking’: transgressive processes that facilitate a groups access to resources that was previously untapped. These processes may not be illegal but have the characteristics of a community (virtual or actual) identifying an opportunity to empower themselves in a way that provides them benefit beyond that which the State is currently willing or able to provide.

  • The research will reveal examples of ‘community hacking’ and identify a continuum of processes from benign and socially constructive to deviant and socially destructive.
  • The research aims to understand the parameters of emergent activity and in particular the potential for particular processes to offer empowerment with minimum of harm to communities or individuals.
  • The research project aims to identify viable strategies for communities that operate across traditional jurisdictional boundaries, but in a way that their benefits out-weigh their transgression.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment