What do we value? And why?



We have talked a lot about value both on this blog and in our conversations as a research team. It has recently come up for me in the context of one of the chapters I’m working on for my PhD. I’m arguing that one of the reasons the women in self-reliant groups value their involvement is because it helps them meet the expectation set for them by the job centre and work programmes. Thus the groups become valued on these terms. My supervisor asked me whether I thought that this meant that the women had simply taken on board the values of the job centre…or is there something more going on?

I can think of many examples of ways that they want to challenge and rail against that system so my immediate answer would be ‘no’. Nevertheless I can’t ignore the fact that women are framing some of their values in these terms. The women talk about lots of other things that they value and aspire to in their lives which challenge the expectations of the job centre and other such structures. In the here and now what is important, and therefore valued by the women, is the fact that certain aspects of their involvement in the SRG will help them justify their time and experience within the terms recognised and valued by the job centre. This can, in the words of one of my respondents, ‘help get the job centre off my back’.

However, it all gets more complicated when you consider that there are times when the job centre and related institutions do not recognise the value of the SRG. Nevertheless, by framing the value of SRGs in terms of skills development and confidence building the SRG members can claim that the groups are more effective at delivering on ‘work-readiness’ than any work programme delivered by external agencies.

This means women in groups can simultaneously claim a certain amount of social worthiness (in a context where paid work is valued above any contribution they make as mothers, carers, volunteers etc.) as well as challenge some of the assumptions about what they can expect for themselves in the longer term as the recognise the potential for SRGs to create work spaces that are sociable, in which they are considered as equal and there is a sense of ownership and pride in their jobs.

If we are to measure value, whether in quantitative or qualitative terms we should be considering why certain things are valued over others and who is setting the terms. Within organisations are values set by external factors related to funding or other external pressures or do they relate to the intrinsic purpose and nature of the organisation- is it both? How do they measure it? Which values are prioritised? We should also consider the timeline or context of value- is it seen in the here and now, meeting an immediate need for money, safety, employment or might it be valued in the longer term in relation to raising aspirations, challenging a status quo or reducing inequalities.




The Value of Work


Recently I’ve been struck by the number of TV programmes gracing our screens that have been dubbed ‘Poverty Porn’. The premise of shows such as Benefits Street and The Job Centre seems to be that there is a whole section of the population who are ‘scroungers’ and ‘skivers’, who choose to be out of work and reliant on benefits and therefore deserve the scrutiny of the television lens. This is in contrast to the rest of us who are in work and ‘strivers’ who are obviously part of hardworking families we’ve heard so much about in the past few months.

Work has been extolled as the solution to poverty by a variety of politicians including Iain Duncan Smith who claimed: ‘In improving people’s prospects, the evidence has always held that work is the best way for individuals to lift themselves and their children out of poverty.’ (Full speech available here)

In fact the sheer volume of governmental reports relating to unemployment and the need to get people off benefits and into work is overwhelming. As I write up my PhD and reflect on the experiences of those I have worked with I’ve been thinking about what we mean by work and what we think, or want, it to do for us.

Moving away from the financial claims made by those touting the value of work (which have been questioned and critiqued here), the themes emerging from my research with the CommonHealth project has made me start to think through some of the health implications surrounding the issue of employment and quality of work .

A report from the DWP found that:

‘Work can be therapeutic and can reverse the adverse health effects of unemployment. That is true for healthy people of working age, for many disabled people, for most people with common health problems and for social security beneficiaries. The provisos are that account must be taken of the social context, the nature and quality of work, and the fact that a minority of people may experience contrary effects.’

Of interest here is the question of the ‘nature and quality’ of work and what might contribute to work that can be considered therapeutic.

The implication in the report is that it is paid work that can offer solutions to the negative health effects of unemployment. But some of my early findings suggest that the value of work and its effect on health is less related to the payment of wages and more in the satisfaction of producing something, offering a service to someone and getting positive feedback on something you have achieved.

Lorna (one of my research participants) told me about the others things, beyond money, that she gets out of her involvement with the group: ‘I’ve never had a wage from it but there are other rewards like when you finish a product and someone says ‘Oh that’s great I want to buy that!’’. Jo described to me how good it felt to run an informal lunch club and know that people enjoyed and valued the service she gave. Stacey valued the activities in her group as something that gave her a rest from the other worries in her life; she said, ‘If you’re busy doing something you relax more’.

This kind of informal (and unpaid work) is not only of benefit to those involved but also to their families and communities who will benefit from the provision of certain services and a potentially more relaxed home life. In Oxfam Scotland’s work on the HumanKind Index they found that one of the factors people ranked as most important to their quality of life was ‘satisfactory work (paid or unpaid)’.

The distinction that we need to draw here is that the kind of short-term, low paid work offered to people on unemployment benefits is not the kind of work associated with the therapeutic benefits identified in recent research. Much of the paid work currently on offer may not deliver an acceptable standard of living, yet it is still held up as the ideal activity for all in society. With this in mind it is important to question what other purposes it serves and what, in an ideal world, we want work to look like.

“I have been speaking to people up and down the country…”


I’m writing this blog on the day of the most interesting election in decades. The old tennis match of British politics, with the ball being knocked across the net every 5 or 10 years, has been replaced by World of Warcraft- a new political landscape which the old guard doesn’t understand and are frantically asking the young people to help them with. By the time you read this there will be more claims of legitimate power than an episode of ‘Game of Thrones’ and the majority of the UK will say they are underrepresented by the resulting government, assuming there is one at all!

Representation is key to politics, candidates are voted for because they represent the views of the voter, and are then tasked with doing so in parliament. Claims of representing the views of the populace then justify, rightly or wrongly, many of the decisions made in parliament. Every party claims to represent the people, so who is telling the truth? How do they know they are representing people’s views? This issue of representation is something that I myself have been grappling with throughout my research. So let’s consider some of the ways in which this can be done.

One of the ways I am attempting to discover how social enterprises impact upon people’s health is through analysing social impact reports. After searching through all available reports, only 17 were found to be written by social enterprises in Scotland which, I would guess, forms only a tiny fraction of the sector. So can the results of my analysis be claimed to be representative?

Perhaps they can in the same way that Ed Miliband claims the existence of a labour surge, based on the people he has spoken to “up and down the country”. Ed is a busy man and can only speak to so many people. Of the total population of people that he is capable of speaking to, the vast majority have told him that they will be voting for him. I recognise that there are other factors influencing who those people happen to be but, limitations aside, is there anything wrong with the conclusion he has derived from his research?

Another method I am using is to focus on case studies of three organisations in an attempt to understand context-specific factors relevant to the work and impacts of social enterprises. This process of focusing on very few areas and attempting to garner data which is relevant to the entire country appears very similar to UKIP’s election policy. Nigel Farage tends to focus his research on certain constituencies and is truthfully told by residents there of their support for him. He then generalises those findings to the whole country. Is there anything inherently wrong with this method?

My third stream of research involves interviewing ‘industry experts’ regarding their views on the potential cross-overs between public health and social enterprise. I am considering them as interested parties who have a strategic knowledge of each sector and the ramifications of any decisions affecting them. It is not difficult to see the similarities to David Cameron’s use of the open letter signed by thousands of small business owners claiming to represent the sector and warning of the dire consequences of voting Labour. Are the Tories wrong to use this result for campaign purposes?

The answer to the above questions is no. Their methods appear valid and there is nothing to suggest the results have been tampered with. So why have they arrived at three different conclusions? The difference between me and these politicians is that I would like to arrive at one particular conclusion and I don’t know what it is yet, whereas they want to arrive at three conclusions knowing exactly what they want them to be. They are conducting research to arrive at a result which is already known. Which begs the question, how is it known? How do they know they are representing the people without knowing what the people want? One hypothesis is that they don’t know what the people want, they don’t care about representation and they are justifying their own ideological standpoints through a façade of research.

But I would need to test that hypothesis so I don’t get labelled a hypocrite, or even worse, a politician.

(Stop Press! In light of the monumental differences between the opinion polls and today’s result, perhaps it’s not just politicians that need to consider their research methods!)