Migration Research Unit

Imag

e ©

UCL

Dig

ital M

edia

UCL Migration Research Unit

This paper may be downloaded for personal research purposes. However any additional reproduction for other purposes, in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), the title, the working paper series, the year and the UCL Migration Research Unit as publisher.

This paper was originally submitted as a dissertation in completion of the requirements for the degree Masters in Global Migration. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of UCL’s Migration Research Unit.

© 2018 Nicolas Sharma

UCL Migration Research UnitUCL Department of GeographyUniversity College London26 Bedford WayLondon WC1H 0AP

www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/mru

LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY

UCL Migration Research Unit

Working Papers

No. 2018/8

Third sector organisations and the de-politicisation of asylum governance

Nicolas Sharma

Working papers cover A4 (2xA5) dps Nicolas Sharma 2018 9.indd 1 08/01/2020 15:28

1

Thirdsectororganisationsandthede-politicisationofasylumgovernance

Candidatenumber:NKPH4

Supervisor:ClaireDwyer

ThisresearchdissertationissubmittedfortheMScinGlobalMigrationat

UniversityCollegeLondon

2017

Nick Sharma

2

Abstract:

De-politicisationhasemergedasadefiningfeatureofasylumgovernanceinthe

UK.Stemmingfromaneoliberalrationality,de-politicisationhastwomain

features.First,responsibilitiesaretransferredfromthestatetothenon-state

sphere.Second,asylumisdiscursivelyrenderedasathreattobemanaged,

alternativeapproachesareclosedoffanddiscourseislimitedtotechnocratic

issues.Thisdissertationisanexaminationofhowstrategiesofde-politicisation

haveaffectedthirdsectororganisations(TSOs)onthegroundinBristol.Building

onrecenttrendswithinmigrationscholarship,itworkswithaframeworkthatis

informedbyanti-essentialistnotionsofstatepowerandfocusesontheactionsof

anetworkofnon-stateactorswithinaspecificlocality.Themethodologyused

hereinvolvestworesearchapproaches-street-levelsearchesasdescribedby

theBelowtheRadarReferenceGroupattheThirdSectorResearchCentre,and

semi-structuredinterviewswiththirdsectorworkers.Thismethodology

capturesboththematerialanddiscursiveeffectsofandreactionstode-

politicisation,andhelpsusunderstandthevolitionalconductofTSOs.Whatwill

bedemonstratedisthatpracticesanddiscourseswithinasylumgovernanceare

notfixedbutareinsteadconstantlybeingchangedanddevelopedastheytake

shapeontheground.De-politicisationhasresultedinatransferof

responsibilitiestothethirdsector,howeverbelowthesurfaceoftheexpanding

roleofTSOsinasylumservicesandsupportthereisanon-goingformationof

counter-hegemonicdiscourse.Throughacoerciveengenderingofaction,TSOs

havebeenmotivatedtoexpandtheiractivities,howeverthisdoesnotmeanthey

havebeenco-optedintohegemonicdiscourseormanipulatedbylegaland

financialstatediscipline.Instead,thecurrentalignmentofasylumTSOsinBristol

meansthatagreatdealofpowerlieswithactorswhoarenotintrinsicallytiedto

theaims,idealsorinterestsofthestate,andwhoareabletobuildcounter-

hegemonicdiscoursesinoppositiontotheneoliberalrationalityofthestate’s

asylumgovernance.

Wordcount:11899

3

Contents:

Introduction–p.5

Chapter1TurningLocal–p.7

1.1 Movingonfrommethodologicalnationalism–p.7

Chapter2:Asylumandthethirdsector–p.10

2.1Governmentalanddiscursivede-politicisation:Neoliberalismandasyluminthe

UK–p.10

2.2Subcontractorsandhandmaidens:Pessimisticviewsofthethirdsector–p.14

2.3Hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion:Gramscianconceptsandthethird

sector–p.15

Chapter3:Methodology–p.17

3.1Phaseone:street-levelsearches–p.18

3.2Phasetwo:interviews–p.20

Chapter4:Analysis–p.22

4.1Forms,missionsandsocialcompositions-p.22

4.2Market-orientedtransferofresponsibilitiesp.24

4.3Resistinggoaldisplacement–p.27

4.4Independenceandautonomy-p.29

4.5Coerciveengenderingofaction–p.31

4.6Counter-hegemonicchallengestode-politicisation–p.33

Conclusion–p.37

Bibliography–p.38

Initialproposal–p.48

Researchdiary–p.53

Interviewschedule–p.56

Interviewtranscriptextract–p.58

CoveringLetter–p.62

4

5

Introduction

Inrecentyearsgrowingnumbersofmigrationscholarshavebeenmovedbya

realisationthat‘localitymatters’(Caglar&GlickSchiller2011:1).Severaltrends

ortendencieswithinthescholarshiphaveresultedfromthis,allofwhich

intersectinthattheygive‘moreattentiontothelocaldimension’(Hingeretal.

2016:441).Thisdissertationisanattempttosynthesisethesetendenciesand

applythemtothestudyofaparticularphenomenonthathasincreasingly

definedthegovernanceofasylumintheUK:de-politicisation.Inhisresearchon

asylumgovernanceintheUK,JonathanDarlinghashighlightedpervasive

practiceswhich‘servetodepoliticisethoseseekingasylumintheUK’(Darling

2013:1).Neoliberalatitscoreandshapedbythedemandsofausterity,de-

politicisationinvolvesthetransferralofasylum-relatedfunctionsfromthe

governmentaltothenon-governmentalsphere.Alongsidethis,thecreationofa

discourseinwhichasylumseekersandrefugees(ASRs)areframedasa

threateningpresencetobepolicedandregulated,restrictstheboundariesof

politicaldebateasdiscourseincreasinglyconcernsitselfwithtechnocraticissues

of“managing”ASRs.Understandinghowasylumde-politicisationworksisvital

forunderstandingasylumtrendsacrosstheglobe,asitisinformedbya

hegemonicneoliberalrationalitytowhichmanygovernmentshavelong

subscribed.Beyonditsprevalenceasamodeofasylumgovernance,itis

importantalsobecauseofitsseriousimpactonthelivesofASRs,whichcanbe

seeninthewidespreadmarginalisationofASRsinsociety,unabletoaccessstate

welfareandostracisedfromthenativepopulation.

Theaimofthisdissertationistoexaminehowthedualstrandsofgovernmental

anddiscursivede-politicisationarerealisedatalocallevel.Thecasestudy

developedthroughthisresearchisBristol,oneoftheeightmembersoftheCore

CitiesGroup,thereasonbeingthatithasawell-establishedasylumthirdsector,

alargeASRpopulation,andIampersonallyfamiliarwithit.Incarryingoutthis

localexaminationthisdissertationwillhighlightthe‘underestimatedrelevance

ofthelocalcontext’(Hingeretal.2016:461)indetermininghowsuchpractices

takeshape.Inordertodosoitwillbringtogetherthreetendencieswithin

6

migrationscholarshipthattogetherformacoherentframeworkforacritical

examinationofthepoliticalgeographyofasylumintheUK.Takingthecityof

Bristolasadiscretelocalityinwhichde-politicisationisgrounded,itwill

foregroundthirdsectororganisations(TSOs)asthekeyactorsbywhichpolicies

andpracticesareembodied.Thethirdsectoristhe‘sectoroforganizedhuman

actioncomposedofcollectiveactorsbeyondthefamilyanddistinctfromthe

stateandthemarket’(Viternaetal.2015:175),andTSOsareintimatelybound

upintheprocessofde-politicisation,havingthepotentialtobothfacilitateand

contestit.Itwillthenexaminetheirinteractionswithde-politicisationwithina

Gramscianconceptualframework.WithitsoriginsinGramsci’swritingsoncivil

society,GramscianismcanhelpelucidatetheactionsofTSOsandthemotivations

behindthoseactionsthroughwell-establishedconcepts.Thede-politicisationof

asylumiscertainlyanationalphenomenon,evenaglobalone,howeverthe

degreetowhichitisrealisedineachplaceisdictatedbyspecificallylocal

configurationsofasylumgovernance.Throughtheuseofthisframeworkthis

dissertationwilldemonstratethatTSOscanbecoercedintofacilitatingde-

politicisation,howevertheyarealsoabletocontestit.

Beginningwithamoredetailedreviewofthetendencieswithinmigration

scholarshipthathaveinformedtheshapeanddirectionofthisstudy,this

dissertationwillthenmoveontodiscusstheliteratureonneoliberalismandde-

politicisation,beforefinishingtheliteraturereviewwithaconsiderationof

relevantthirdsectorliteratureandthekeyGramsciantheoriesthatwillbe

drawnoninlaterchapters.Chapter3willthenpresentthemethodologyusedin

thisresearch,whichconsistsoftwodifferentdata-gatheringtechniquesusedin

successivephases,andaddressitsmeritsandlimitations.Finally,theempirical

findingsoftheresearchwillbeanalysedinchapter4.Thischapterwillbegin

withareviewofthedifferentforms,missionsandsocialcompositionsofasylum

TSOsinBristol,highlightingagrass-rootsoriginandtheparticipationofASRsas

commonalitiesacrossthesector(4.1).Itwillthenoutlinethede-politicising

market-orientedtransferofresponsibilitieswhichistakingplaceandhowTSOs

areincreasinglytakingonrolesofwelfareprovision(4.2).Incontrasttothe

findingsofotherstudies,whatwillbedemonstratedisthatTSOshave

7

neverthelessmaintainedafocusontheirsubstantivegoals(4.3),asituationin

partexplainedbytherelativeautonomyandindependenceofthesector(4.4).

TSOs’acceptanceofnewrolesandresponsibilitiescanbeunderstoodinpartasa

responsetoacoerciveengenderingofaction(4.5),andthischapterwillconclude

byexploringthewaysinwhichTSOscontinuetodevelopcounter-hegemonic

challengestodiscursivede-politicisation(4.6).

Chapter1:TurningLocal

Withinthewidefieldofmigrationscholarshipitispossibletoidentifyseveral

trendsthathavedevelopedinrecentyearsfollowingcriticismsof

methodologicalnationalism.Thischapterwilladdresstheissueof

methodologicalnationalismbeforegoingontoconsiderhowsomeresearchers

havedevelopednewapproachesandperspectivesthatmoveawayfromthe

nationstateasthekeysiteofstudy.Instead,agrowingnumberofstudiesshare

aninterestinexploringissuesofmigrationatalocallevel,eitherbyinvestigating

differentspaces,examiningdifferentactorsordevelopinganti-essentialist

notionsofstatepower.

1.1Movingonfrommethodologicalnationalism

Writingin2010,Gillnotedthattherehaslongbeena‘strongassociation

betweenthenotionofarefugeeandthenotionofstates’(Gill2010:626).The

effectofthisassociationhasbeenatendencywithinmuchworkaround

migration,refugeesandasylumtofocusonthenationstateasa‘keysiteofstudy,

analysisandcritique’(Darling2016a:485).Beginninginthe1970s(Martins

1974),someresearchersbegantovocallyquestionthe‘consistency,coherence

andauthority’(Darling2016b:178)thatmigrationresearchhadtypically

assumedofnationstates,aswellasthepervasivemethodologicalapproach

whichfocussedalmostexclusiveonnationalmodels(Schmidtke2014:79).

HerminoMartinsfirstcriticallydescribedthisas‘methodologicalnationalism’in

1974(Martins1974),atermlaterelaboratedbyAndreasWimmerandNina

Glick-Schillertorefertoanintellectualorientationwhichtiesitselftoa

8

frameworkestablishedbypolicymakersand‘confinesdiscussionsofsocial

processeswithinnationalboundaries’(Caglar&GlickSchiller2011:9).Spurred

onbythedevelopingcriticismofmethodologicalnationalismmanystudieshave

soughttogobeyondanalysisatthenationallevel(Emilsson2015:1).The

traditionalfocusonnationstateshasbeensupplementedwithaconcernfor

exploringwithinnationstates(Darling2016a:485),andfurthermorewitha

growinginterestinaddressingquestionslonglefttopoliticaltheoristsabout

whatastateactuallyis.

Aspartofageneralrejectionofmethodologicalnationalismwecanidentifya

tendencytofocusattentiononresearchingmigrationatdifferentscalesandin

differentspaces.Thistrendreflectsandbuildsonthewidespreadsocial-

scientificinterestinexploringissuesofscaleandthedifferentiationbetween

local,regional,national,transnationalandglobalgeographicunits,which

developedintheearly1990’s(Brenner2011:23).In2015Platts-Fowlerand

Robinsonemphasisedtheimportanceofrecognisingthatmanyaspectsof

migrationare‘groundedandembodiedinspaceandplaceandthatdespite

proceedingunderthesamegeneraloperativeprocesses,canevolveindistinctive

waysindifferentplaces’(Platts-Fowler&Robinson2015:476).Echoesofthis

argumentcanbefoundspanningbackoverthedecade.Inthistimetherehas

beenanemphasisonthe‘localaspectsofintegrationandmigration’(Emilsson

2015:1),withstudiesexploringtheheterogeneityofmigrationpolicieswithin

nation-states(Hilber&Baraulina2012).Withregardstointegration,focushas

shiftedfromnationalmodelstounderstandingwhetherandhownational

policiesareimplementedatthelocallevel(Schmidtke2014:1).Cities,reception

centresandrefugeecampshaveallsurfacedaspopularsitesofstudy(Rygiel

2012;Sanyal2012),bothreflectingandfosteringaninterestinexploringthe

dynamicsofpolicyimplementationinwidelydifferentcontexts(Darling2016a:

485).Itappearsthatmigrationscholarshipisincreasinglyacknowledgingthat‘it

isbothconceptuallymisleadingandfactuallyincorrecttospeakofasingle–

national–modelresponsiblefortheformationofimmigrationandintegration

policies’(Schmidtke2014:80).

9

Asmigrationscholarshiphasconcerneditselfwithexploringdifferentscalesand

spacesithasalsobeguntoaddressmoreandmorethedifferentactorswho

populatethesespaces.Thisis,again,reflectiveofawidershiftinthesocial-

sciencesoccurringinthe1990s,whenglobalgovernanceemergedasa

prominentresearchagenda(Sending&Neumann2006:651)followinghoton

theheelsofregimetheoryanditsshakeupofthestudyofinternational

relations.Acentralelementofbothofthesetheoreticaldevelopmentswasa

growthininterestintheplaceandroleofnon-stateactors.Withinmigration

scholarshipdifferentnongovernmentalgroupsandactorssuchasmigrant

supportgroups(MacKenzieetal.2012),refugeecommunityorganisations

(Piacentini2012)andsocialmovements(Koca2016)havesincebeensubjectto

morescholarlyattention.AnissueofForcedMigrationReviewpublishedearly

thisyearprominentlyfeaturedseveraldiscussionsonrecognisingtheroleof

Non-governmentalOrganisations(NGOs)inrefugeeresettlement(Slaughter

2017),atopicwhichhad‘longbeenneglected’(Snyder2011:565).Inthe

Europeancontext,NGOsandvolunteergroupsactiveoutsidetraditionalstate

frameworkshavebeenseentoplayakeyroleinalleviatingthesufferingof

migrantsandhavethusbeenthefocusofaburgeoningareaofresearch

(Sotiropoulos&Bourikos2014;Chtouris&Miller2017).Theempiricalfindings

ofresearchintonon-stateactorssupportcriticismsofstate-centricityand

methodologicalnationalismbyhighlightingnotonlytheirimportantrolein

differentareasofmigrationgovernancebutalsothedynamicrelationships

betweentheseactorsandthestate.Indeed,asnewsetsofactorsgainpowers

andresponsibilities(Gill2009:215)migrationscholarshavebeenledto

criticallyexaminetheconceptsofstateandstatepowerwhichtheyemploy.

AccordingtoNickGill‘researchintoforcedmigrationhasnotbeenreadily

associatedwithanyparticularstatetheory’.Insteadthestatehasoftenbeen

conceivedofasanessentialentity,‘standingapartfromsocietyandactingupon

itfromadistance’(Gill2010:627),atendencyinformedbytheintellectual

orientationsofmethodologicalnationalism.Innovativeresearchinrecentyears

hasworkedwithanti-essentialistconceptsofthestate,inGill’s(Gill2010:639)

opinionconstitutingan‘emergingcriticalasylumgeography’.Chiefamongst

10

these,andofcriticalimportancetothisdissertation,arethoseworkswhichhave

acknowledgedthe‘differentformsofstatepower,includinggovernmental

power’(Gill2010:639).Researchinthisveinhasexploredthe‘enrolmentof

discretionary,dispersed,non-stateandquasi-stateactorsintostate-orchestrated

andstate-managed(butnotstate-executed)practices’(Gill2009:218).Inthe

currentEuropeancontextthisbandofthoughtfindsmuchtractiondueto

widespreadrecognitionthatmemberstateshavebyandlargeallmadeeffortsto

reducethedirectroleofthestateinmeetingthewelfareneedsofforced

migrants,andthatresponsibilityforsuchprovisionhasinsteadbeendevolvedto

myriadpublic,privateandvoluntaryactorswhooperateatinternational,

regionalandlocallevels(Dwyer2005:622).Inordertoexplorehowpoweris

exercisedthroughincreasinglycomplexnetworksofgovernancesome

researchershaveturnedawayfromessentialistnotionsofthestatewhichrefer

onlytolegalconstraintsandfinancialcurtailments.

Thetendenciesoutlinedabove-theexplorationofhowpoliciesarerealisedin

differentspaces,theroleofdifferentactorsandthedynamicsofasylumsector

governance-shareaninterestinlocalityandthelocaldimensionoflarge

migration-relatedphenomenon.Somestudieshavesynthesisedthesetendencies

toanalysespecificprocesses,forexampleHingeretalhavedevelopeda

frameworkforstudyingthelocaldimensionofasylumhousinginGermanand

theprocessbywhichitisnegotiated.Thisdissertationwillattempttofollow

theirleadbylookingataspecificlocalityinordertoseehowthebroader

dynamicsofaparticularphenomenon(de-politicisation)areactually

constituted,addressingtheroleofnon-stateactors(TSOs)andinformedbya

non-essentialistviewofthestateandstatepower(Gramscianism).

Chapter2:Asylumandthethirdsector

Thischapterwillbeginbyoutliningthebroaderlegal-politicalframeworkof

asylumintheUK,exploringhowasylumpoliciesandpracticesstemfroma

“neoliberalrationality”.Inparticularitwilladdresshowstrategiesofde-

11

politisationhavetransferredasylum-relatedfunctionsfromthegovernmentalto

thenongovernmentalsphereandcreatedadiscourseofasylumasamanagerial

concern.Itwillthenmoveontoconsiderhowanawarenessofsuchstrategiesin

theUKandelsewherehaveledsomethirdsectorscholarshiptoviewthesector

as‘co-opted’bythestate(McCabe2010:7).Theseviewshavebeencriticizedas

pessimisticfortheirreductivesuggestionsthatthirdsectororganisationsareon

a‘uni-directionalcoursetowardsthestate’(Carey2008:14),andincreasingly

researchersaredrawingonGramscianconceptsthatarerelevanttostudiesof

thethirdsector.ThechapterwillfinishbyconsideringGramscianconceptsof

hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion,andhighlighthowtheysupporta

nuancedframeworkforanalyzingthethirdsector.

2.1Governmentalanddiscursivede-politicisation:Neoliberalismandasylum

intheUK

SincetheelectionofMargaretThatcherin1979,whoseGovernmentwasa

‘defining,vanguardproject’ofneoliberalism(Springer2010:1028),successive

UKGovernmentshaveoperatedaccordingtoaneoliberalrationality.

“Neoliberalism”canherebeunderstoodasanassemblageof‘rationalities,

strategies,technologiesandtechniques’(Springer2010:1032)thatimbue

political,economicandsocialarrangementswithanemphasisonmarket

relations,minimalstatesandindividualresponsibility.Thecruxofneoliberalism

canbeseentolieinthe‘transferoftheoperationsofgovernment…tonon-state

entities’(Ferguson&Gupta2002:989),producing,insteadoflessgovernment,a

‘newmodalityofgovernment’(Darling2016c:232)whichfacilitates‘governance

atadistance’(Springer2010:1033).Oneofthekeystrategiesorprocesses

throughwhichthisisachievedisde-politicisation.Thisinvolvesbotha

governmentalmode,inwhichthereisamarket-orientedtransferof

responsibilities,andadiscursivemode,inwhichthistransfer‘becomescommon

sense’(Darling2016c:239)andparticularconcernsaredisplacedfrompolitical

discussionsas‘thedebatesurroundinganissuebecomestechnocratic,

managerial,ordisciplinedtowardsasinglegoal’(Wood&Flinders2014:151).In

12

thecontextofasylumthismeansthetransferofwelfareandother

responsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector,alongsidetheframingofASRs

asaburdentobemanaged.

Agovernmentalde-politicisationofasylumisclearlyvisiblethroughoutthelast

twodecades.NewLabour’sapproachtothethirdsectorwastiedinwiththeir

widerpromotionofa‘ThirdWay’inpublicpolicyplanning,whichemphasiseda

relianceonamixofstateandmarketforces,assessedonthebasisof‘what

mattersiswhatworks’(Jonesetal.2015:2066).ThecoreelementofNew

Labour’sapproachtothethirdsectorthusrevolvedaroundpursuingcloserand

bettermanagedrelationsintheformofpartnerships,whichweretobegoverned

bynationalandlocal‘compacts’whichoutlinedguidelinesfortherelationships

betweenthetwoparties(Halfpenny&Reid2002:521).Withtheintroductionof

theNationalAsylumSupportServicein2000asylumseekersweredispersedto

accommodationaroundthecountryandprovidedwithfinancialsupportat70%

ofincomesupport(Halfpenny&Reid2002:522).Amixtureofsuppliers

includingprivateproviders,localauthoritiesandTSOstookupcontractsfor

housingprovision,andTSOsworkingwithASRsgrewinsizeandnumberand

increasinglytookonroleswhichinvolvedclosecollaborationwiththestate.

TheConservativeandLiberalDemocratCoalitionGovernmentwhichcameto

powerin2010largelycontinuedthepreviousGovernment’sapproachtothird

sectorrelationsthroughtheirvocalpromotionofthe‘BigSociety’policy

programme.WhileithasneverbeencompletelyclearwhattheCoalition

Government’svisionoftheBigSocietyreallyentailed(Rowsonetal.2010:62),

beyondrhetoricof‘turningGovernmentupsidedown’wecanseethatthe

Coalitionpursuedestablishedpolicyobjectivesofdevolvingpowerstothelocal

level,reconfiguringserviceprovisionandgivingnon-stategroupsagreaterrole

inthedeliveryofGovernmentpolicyagendas(McCabe2010:4).Onesubstantial

policydiscontinuitybetweenthetwoGovernmentshasbeenrightlyhighlighted

inthehugereductionofGovernmentfundingforthethirdsectorthatoccurred

asaresultofausterity(McCabe2010:6).Followingthe2008FinancialCrisisthe

CoalitionGovernment,inlinewithmanyGovernmentsacrossEuropeandthe

13

world,implementedaraftofausteritypolicieswhichinvolvedhugespending

cutsacrossGovernment(Darling2016a:487).Whilethethirdsectorhad

previouslygrownthanksinparttocontractingandincreasedGovernment

funding(McCabe2010:6),spendingcutscausedvastdifficultiesacrossthethird

sector(PricewaterhouseCoopers2012:2).However,austerityalsofostered

furthermarketizationofwelfareprovisionandfurtherwithdrawalofstate

supportforASRs,andsowhileTSOshadlessfundingtheyoftenhadgreater

responsibilities(PricewaterhouseCoopers2012).Theapproachesofboth

Governmentstothirdsectorrelationswereclearlyneoliberalincharacter,

involvingatransferofresponsibilitiesoutsideofthestatesphereandthe

involvementofTSOsasmechanismsfordeliveringformerlypublicservices.

Alongsidegovernmentalde-politicisationitisalsoapparentthatadiscursivede-

politicisationhasbeentakingplace.Togetherwithnationalisticrhetoricof

‘protecting’thesovereignstateand‘maintaining’borders,dominantasylum

discoursepositionsASRsaseconomicallyundesirableandathreattosocial

cohesion(Bakkeretal.2016:118;Luecketal.2015:608;Moore2013:356).The

widespreadusageof‘hydraulicmetaphors’byGovernmentministersandinthe

popularpress,whichimaginemigrantsas‘floods’or‘swarms’goeshandinhand

withdepictionsofasylumseekersas‘bogus’,‘undeserving’and‘illegitimate’

(White2002:3).Thesemetaphorsanddepictionstookonparticularemphasisin

thelightofanausteritynarrativethatasanationweneededto“tightenbelts”

andthattherewasnotenoughtogoaround(Perlo2012).Theconfluenceof

thesenarrativesgenerates‘survivalistemotions’,evokingnotionsofthenation

being‘fullup,overcrowded’(Anderson2017:57).Thenarrationofan‘asylum

problem’naturalisestheperceptionofasylumseekersasanunwantedelement

within(Darling2013:81),reinforcesimaginingsofasylumseekersas

‘problematicpresences’andfostersadiscursivede-politicisationinwhichtheir

entranceandpresencebecomesomethingtobepolicedormanagedaccordingto

‘logicsofproceduralefficiencyandemergencymeasures’(Darling2016c:231).

Oncethethreatofasylumseekersdrainingthenationsscarceresourceshasbeen

asserted,politicalalternativestotheGovernment’sapproachofdeterringtheir

accesstotheseresourcesbecomeincreasinglycontentious.Asdiscourseisde-

14

politicised,theboundariesofdebatesolidifyaroundquestionsof‘regulations,

risks,quantificationandprocedure’ratherthan‘politicalrights,political

alternativesandhumanlives’(Darling2013:82).

2.2Subcontractorsandhandmaidens:Pessimisticviewsofthethirdsector

Overthelastseveraldecadesanumberofgovernmentsaroundtheglobehave

engagedinamarket-orientedtransferofresponsibilities,atrendwhichhasbeen

viewedcriticallybymanyresearchers.InthisviewTSOsare‘merely

perpetuatingthewillofthestate’(Carey2008:11)bycarryingoutrolesand

functionsthatpreviouslyhad‘unambiguouslyresidedinthestatesphere’(Gill

2009:216).TSOsareconditionedintothispositionthroughtheuseof

conditionalfundingandwiderlegalandadministrativeregulationsthatdirect

theiractionsintheinterestsofthestate.IntheUKcontext,researchinthisvein

suggeststhattheprocessofcontractingandpartnershipinstitutesTSOsasapart

ofthesystemofgovernance(Carmel&Harlock2008:167).Inordertoqualify

forfundingTSOshavetoconformto‘systemsofregulation,inspectionandaudit’

(Clarke2004:36)thatshapehowtheyfunctionandwhattheydo.Thistiesintoa

widerassertionthatforNGOsadependencyonstate-aligneddonorsandthe

stateforfundingcaneffectivelymakethemsubcontractorsofthestateoreven

para-statalorganisational(Kaldor2003:21).Furthermore,byprovidinga‘social

safetynet’(Kaldor2003:16)TSOsareenablingthe‘withdrawalofthestate’

(MacKenzie2012:263)andthusactingasan‘importantmechanism’(Kaldor

2003:16)fortheimplementationofaneoliberalagenda.

Oneofthemostprevalentperspectivesofthethirdsectorwhichtakesthisview

isdescribedbyOlafCorryasthegovernmentalview(Corry2010:16).This

approachstemsfromMichelFoucalt’swritingsonthenatureofmodern

governmentandhistheoryofgovernmentality,atermheusedtorefertothe

‘conductofconducts’,orthepracticesbywhichthestategovernstheconductof

others(MacKinnon2000:295).Governmentalitythendescribesthesystemof

‘discourseandtechniquesorinstitutionsthatallowcertainpracticestoflourish

andotherstoappearimpossible’(Corry2010:16),andagovernmentalviewof

15

thethirdsectorseesitaspartoforevenatoolofthedominantorderandits

discoursesandinstitutionsasthemeansbywhichacertainkindofgovernanceis

achieved(Corry2010:16).Statepoweristhusregulatory–itworksthrough

institutionsandinducesindividualstoconformtosocialnorms(Carey2008:12),

andTSOsformpartoftheapparatusbywhichgovernmentsareableto‘govern

atadistance’(Carey2008:12)and‘producethemoralregulationofthechoices

ofautonomousindividuals’(Gilbert&Powell2009:7).Thegovernmentalview

hasbeencriticizedbyRaymondBryantforreflectingtooheavilyFoucalt’sown

pessimism(Bryant2002:271),andbyCorryforbeingtoo‘reductionist’inits

analysis(Corry2010:17),reducingTSOstomerelythe‘handmaidens’of

governmentality,andthethirdsectorasawholetolittlemorethanatoolfor

orderingsociety.InthelightofthiscriticismGramscianperspectiveshavebeen

gainingtractionwithinthirdsectorscholarship.

2.3Hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion:Gramscianconceptsandthe

thirdsector

Whilediverseintheirdetails,theseconceptshavealldevelopedfromthe

writingsofAntonioGramsci,theItalianMarxisttheoristandpolitician.Gramsci

iscreditedwithdevelopinga‘culturallyandinstitutionallysensitive

interpretationofMarxisttheory’(Gale1998:270),andhiswritingsoncivil

society,whichhelocatedasastructuralthirdsectorbetweenthestateandthe

economicrealm(Katz2006:334;Viternaetal.2015:178),havebeentakenup

bylaterauthors.Gramscianismbroadenedtheunderstandingofhowpoweris

exercisedbyhighlighting‘opinion-mouldingactivity’aboveandbeyond

traditionaleconomicandmilitaryfactors(Sønderriis2011:33).Attractingthe

attentionoflocalgovernanceresearchersitwaswidelytakenupasabroad

conceptualframeworkfor‘assessinghowgovernanceischannelledand

deliveredthroughlocalstateinstitutions’(MacKinnon2000:294).WhileStuart

Hallcautionedthatitdoesnotoffera‘generalsocialsciencewhichcanbe

appliedtotheanalysisofsocialphenomenaacrossawidecomparativerangeof

historicalsocieties’(Hall1986:5),heneverthelesssharedtheviewthatitoffers

16

atheoreticalbasisfromwhichtoanalysethe‘dynamicsofcontemporarypolitical

contests’(Hall1986:5).

Gramscianconceptsofferausefulframeworkforexaminingthethirdsector

becauseitprovidesbothameansofunderstandingwhatTSOsaredoing,through

thetheoryofhegemonyandcounter-hegemony,andameansofunderstanding

whyTSOsaredoingthesethings,throughtheconceptofcoercion.Hegemony,

accordingtoGramsci,isthedominantwayoflifeandthought,diffusedthrough

societyandinformingitsnorms,values,practicesandsocialrelations(Katz

2006:335).Alongsidehegemonythereisasimultaneousmovementofcounter-

hegemony(Katz2006:336),andwhilehegemonymaintainsthepositionofthe

rulingclass,counter-hegemonypromotesare-arrangementofsocialforces.

Hegemonyisthus‘contingentandunstable’(Levy&Egan2003:807),andthe

thirdsector,accordingtoGramscianthought,canbeseenasazoneof

contestationinwhichsocialforcesviefordominance(Corry2010:17).Inthis

perspectiveTSOareeitherutilisedbytherulingclassto‘formandmaintainits

hegemony’(Katz2006:335),ortheyactassitesandinstitutionsfromwhich‘an

alternativesocialordercanmaterialise’(Sønderriis2011:34).TheGramscian

emphasisonthewayinwhichnon-stateforcesandactorsinsocietycanbeco-

optedbythestateissimilarinitsanalysistothegovernmentalview,howeverit

ismorenuancedinallowingforthepotentialforsocialchangetomaterialise

withinthethirdsector.Itisimportanttonotethathegemonyandcounter-

hegemonyarenotastrictdichotomy,andTSOscanbecomplicatedinboth

promotingandchallenginghegemonysimultaneously.Nevertheless,asa

frameworkthistheoryenablesustomorefullyappreciatewhatTSOsare

actuallydoingbeyondanevaluationofactivitiesandoutcomes.Instead,weare

abletoanalysethethirdsectoras‘thebalanceofsocialforcesinsociety’(Corry

2010:18),andseespecificactionsaseitherfurtheringorcounteringhegemonic

discourses;eitherreinforcingtheexistingsocialorderordeveloping

alternatives.

Whilehegemonyandcounter-hegemonycanhelpusunderstandwhatTSOsare

doing,theycannotexplaininandofthemselveswhyTSOsareactinginthese

17

ways.UsingGramsciantheoriesofcoercionenablesustoexaminethemyriad

strategiesbywhichTSOscanbeco-optedintohegemonicdiscourses.Two

attributesoftheGramsciannotionofcoercionareofparticularrelevancehere.

First,theunderstandingthathegemonycanforma‘coerciveorthodoxy’(Katz

2006:335),inculcatingactorswiththedesiretoactinprescribedways.Inthis

waycoercionoffersaframeworkforexploringhowdominantdiscoursescan

directtheactivitiesofTSOsasmuchasdisciplinarystrategies.Second,the

recognitionthatdisciplinarystrategiescancompelactorstoperformcertain

taskswithoutresortingtoovertlegaloradministrativemanipulation(Carey

2008:12-14).Here,ratherthanseeingTSOswhichcomplywithandfacilitate

neoliberalrationalitiesas“handmaidens”,thinkingabouttheactionsofTSOsas

responsestocoercionencouragesustorecognisehowconsentcanstemfrom

actorsbeing‘outflankedratherthanbrainwashed’(Levy&Egan2003:808).

InrevealingpreviouslyhiddenpressureswhichTSOsmustconstantlynegotiate

theGramsciantheoryofcoercionenablesustobetterunderstandthe‘volitional

conduct’(Gill2009:219)ofactorswithinthethirdsector.

Chapter3:Methodology

Exploringhowde-politicisationhasbeenrealisedatalocallevelrequireda

combinationofdifferentsourcesandtypesofdata.Thisdataneededtocapture

bothitsmaterialeffectsasresponsibilitiesandfundingmovearoundandthe

workthatpeopledochanges,anditsdiscursiveeffectsasthediscoursepeople

useismouldedandinturnmouldspeople’sbeliefsandperceptions.First,I

neededto‘map’asylumthirdsectoractivityinBristolanddevelopa

comprehensivepictureofthevariousorganisations,theirstructuresandforms

oforganisation,theworktheydid,theirstatedaims,theirfundingsources,the

peoplewhoworkedforthem,andhowtheyhavegrownandchangedoverrecent

years.Second,Ineededtoheartheperspectivesofthosewhoworkedwithinthe

sectortounderstandthedynamicsofrelationshipsacrossthesectorand

betweenthegovernmentalandnon-governmentalsphere,theproblemsand

difficultiesTSOsfaced,theinternalchangeswithinTSOs,howgovernment

policieswereperceived,thelanguagewithwhichthirdsectorworkersdescribed

18

theirworkandhowtheyunderstoodtheirownrolesandpositionsinBristol.To

achievethis,thisresearchusedacombinationoftwoseparatedatacollection

methodsemployedinsuccessivephases.

3.1Phaseone:street-levelsearches

ThefirstphaseofresearchwaslargelybasedonworkdonebytheBelowthe

RadarReferenceGroupattheThirdSectorResearchCentreinBirmingham.This

groupwasformedin2009inresponsetoagrowingawarenessofthelackof

informationon‘small,voluntaryorbelowtheradaractivity’intheThirdSector

(McCabeetal.2010:4).Wecangetasenseofresearchers’interestinsuch

groupsfromToepler’sstatementthat‘perhapsoneofthefewremainingbig

mysteriesinnon-profitsectorresearchisthequestionofwhatwearemissingby

excludingthoseorganisationsfromempiricalinvestigationsthatarenoteasily

capturedinstandarddatasources’(Toepler2003:236).Adoptingtheterm

‘BelowtheRadar’asshorthandfor‘smallvoluntaryorganisations,community

groupsandsemi-formalandinformalactivitiesinthethirdsector’(Soteri-

Proctor2011:2)theTSRCbegandevelopingaresearchstrategyforthispartof

thesector.Whilethisresearchisnotsolelyconcernedwith“belowtheradar”

TSOsIfeltthatbeginningfromtheirmethodologywouldallowmetodevelopas

comprehensiveapictureofthirdsectoractivityaspossible.

TheapproachoutlinedbytheTSRCisopenandflexible;thereisnoparticular

sequenceofactivities(Soteri-Proctor2011:9).Theirstrategyinvolvesgoing

beyondofficialrecordsbycollatingdatafromlocalagenciestosupplement

largeradministrativerecordsbeforeconducting‘street-level’mappinginorder

tofindallorganisationalactivitytakingplacewithinsmalllocalareas.Mytakeon

itinvolvedfirstusingBristolCityCouncil’s(BCCs)websitetofindalltherelevant

spacesandlocationswithinthearea,whichincludedcommunitycentres,

communitynoticeboards,jobcentres,faith-basedbuildings,healthcentres,

libraries,sportsfacilitiesandearlylearningeducationproviders.Thesewere

chosenbecauseoftheirpotentialtobeintegratedintoasylumservicesor

support.Ithenmappedoutwalkingroutesaroundthecitywhichconnected

19

around150oftheseandoverthecourseof6daysIvisitingthesepointsof

interest,conductinginformal,fact-findingchatsandconversationswith

volunteers,attendingevents,andoftenstoppinginshopsandbusinessesonthe

routetotalktolocalpeople.TheseconversationsgavemeasenseofwhichTSOs

werethebiggestandmostactive,thetypesofworktheyweredoing,the

physical,culturalandpoliticalenvironmentinwhichtheywereworkingandthe

kindsofproblemstheywerefacing,allofwhichinformedmylaterdiscussions.

DuetotimeconstraintsIcouldnotvisitall,andcontactedaround100

communitycentresbyphoneinsteadofinperson.Alongsidemystreet-level

searchesIalsoconductedsomeveryusefulonlinesearchesusingFacebookand

Twitter,twoofthemostwidelyusedsocialmediaplatforms,whereIusedkey

termssuchas‘refugee’,‘asylum’,‘aid’,‘volunteer’,‘voluntary’,‘community’,

‘immigrant’,‘support’,‘Calais’and‘Syria’.Theseonlinesearchesbroughtup

manyofthesameorganisationsthatIwouldfindduringmystreet-level

searches,andmyexperienceheresupportsthefindingsofGaiaMarcusand

JimmyTideythatthereis‘asignificantamountofoverlapbetweenthe

communityassetsmappedby…onlinedata-gatheringtechniquesanddoor-to-

doorresearch’(Marcus&Tidey2015:1).Thesesearches,bothonthestreetand

online,highlighteddozensofactivegroups,networksandorganisations.

WhilemyonlinesearchesencompassedBristol,conductingstreet-levelsearches

throughoutthewholeofBristolwasnotaviableoption,soasmallerareaofthe

citywaschosen.Thisareawaschosenbasedondemographicinformation

publishedbyBristolCityCouncil(BristolCityCouncil2011)followingthe2011

censuswhichsuggestedthatfourcentralwardsweremostlikelytohostasylum

TSOs.Thesewardshadthehighestimmigrantpopulationandwerethemost

ethnicallydiverse,aswellasbeingrankedthehighestintermsofindicesof

multipledeprivationandhavingthehighestpopulationofpeoplereceiving

means-testedbenefitsandwithlowskillsforemployment.Allofwhichsuggests

thatindividualswhowouldeitherbeinvolvedwithorrequiresupportfromthe

asylumthirdsectorweremorelikelytobelocatedwithinthesewards.

Furthermore,oneoftheconclusionsdrawnbyMacKenzieetal.’sresearchinto

networksofsupportfornewmigrantcommunitieswasthat‘spatialitywaskey’

20

(MacKenzieetal.2012:645);intheircasestudythetowncentreprovidedthe

urbanspacefortheorganisationofthenetworks,andtheareainvestigatedhere

ismostlymadeupoffourofthecentralwardsofBristol,althoughitextends

beyondthesewardboundariesinsomeinstances.

3.2Phasetwo:interviews

Thesecondphaseofresearchinvolvedsemi-structuredinterviewswith

membersofrelevantTSOs.Interviewshavehistoricallybeendistrustedbysocial

scientistsbecausetheyhavebeenunderstoodasaperformanceonthepartof

bothinterviewerandinterviewee(Cochrane2013:40).Manyintervieweeswere

clearlyperformingaroleofrepresentativeoftheirorganization,oftenchecking

theirlanguageoractingawkwardlyorhesitantlywhentheybegantoexpress

opinionswhichdivergedfromthe“officialline”oftheorganization,forexample

whencriticizingBCCorotherTSOs.Oneintervieweequalifiedananswerby

saying‘I’mtalkingasanindividualhere,notarepresentativeof[their

organization]’(interview1).Atthesametime,inallowingtheinterviewerto

observe‘expressions,pausesorshiftsinattitude’(Cochrane2013:44)and

offeringspacefortheinterviewertore-wordquestionsandre-direct

conversation,interviewsofferameanstorecognizeandnegotiatethistension.

Semi-structuredinterviewswerechosenoverothermethods,suchassurveys,

becauseinbeingopentowide-rangingdiscussiontheyallowparticipantsmore

spacetoexpresstheirownthoughtsandopinionsandto‘introducetheirown

concerns’(Valentine1997:111).Semi-structuredinterviewsare‘dialoguerather

thananinterrogation’,a‘conversationwithapurpose’(Valentine1997:111).

ApproachingBristol’sasylumthirdsectorasanoutsiderIwantedtomaximize

theopportunitiesforintervieweestodirectmetopertinenteventsIhadnot

beenawareof,issuesIhadnotanticipated,andavenuesofthoughtand

discussionwhichIhadnotconsidered.LearningabouttheRefugeeForum,which

hadnotappearedinmystreet-levelsearches,andhearingathirdsector

worker’scriticismsoftheSyrianVulnerablePersonResettlementScheme,a

conflictIhadnotexpected,arejusttwoexamplesofhowsemi-structured

interviewsweresuccessfulinthisregard.

21

IbeganthisphasebyselectingasamplegroupofTSOstocontact,initiallyaiming

todevelopasamplewhichwouldincludethekeyactorsinthefieldwhowould

beableto‘answerspecificquestionofsubstantialortheoreticalimportanceto

theresearch’(Johnson&Rowlands2012:150)whilealsobeingillustrativeofthe

differentorganisationaltypesandthirdsectoractivitiesthatcouldbeseen

acrossthecity.However,asignificantnumberoftheTSOsIapproachedwere

eitherunableorunwillingtotakepart,andwhileseveralofthesecouldbe

replacedmysamplesizeoftenTSOswassmallerthanIhadhopedfor.This

difficultyinengagingparticipantswasasignificantlimitationintheeffectiveness

ofthisapproachandforcedmetorespondinlessthandesirableways.Inorder

tomaketheinterviewsmoreattractiveIremovedsomequestionstomakethem

shorterandofferedtoconductthemoverthephoneaswellasinperson.This

resultedinasignificantuptake.ConductinginterviewsoverthephonemeantI

wasunabletoobserveinterviewees’bodylanguage,andtheconversationwas

oftenmorestiltedandawkward,interspersedwithperiodsofpoorphonesignal.

Comparedtomyin-personinterviews,conductedinlocalcafésorinterviewees’

officessothatintervieweeswouldfeelcomfortable,phoneinterviewsweremore

difficultbutnotproblematicallyso.

AnotherwayIrespondedtothedifficultyinengagingparticipantswasby

followingupwithinterviewrequeststhatemphasisedmystatusasan‘insider’,

someonewhois‘similartotheparticipantsinmanyrespects’(Dowling2005:

26).Indecliningtotakepart,onethirdsectorworkertoldmethattheyreceived

alargenumberofinterviewrequestsfromstudentsandthattheydidnothave

thetimetoparticipateinallofthem.Thepresenceofaround50,000University

ofBristolandUniversityoftheWestofEnglandstudentsinBristolwasnot

somethingIhadconsidered.Byreferencingmyownexperiencesvolunteering

foranasylumTSOIsoughttodistancemyselffromstudent“outsiders”and

developapositiverapport.Whilethismayhavehelpedinwinningparticipants

round,italsomayhavecausedfurtherinproblemstermsofassumedknowledge

andobjectivity.OnmultipleoccasionsduringtheinterviewsIhadtoaskfor

furtherclarityonterms,policiesandeventsthattheintervieweehadmentioned

22

inanoff-handmanner,obviouslyexpectingmetohavebeenawareofthefine

detailsalready.InotherinstancesIwasmadeawarethatbyemphasisingmy

insiderstatusIhadpotentiallycompromisedmy‘independencefromtheobject

ofresearch’(Dowling2005:25)intheeyesofinterviewee.JustastheyassumedI

hadcertainknowledgeitalsofeltattimesliketheyassumedIhadacertain

opinion,andwhilethepersonalcharacteristicsandsocialpositionofthe

interviewerwillalwaysinformparticipants’behavioursImadeparticulareffort

toholdbackpersonalopinionsandasknon-leadingquestions.Overall,despite

theselimitations,thesemi-structuredinterviewsweresuccessfulinproviding

mewithrichlydetaileddata,oftenontopicsIhadnotpreviouslyconsidered,that

includednotjustfactualinformationbutasenseofinterviewees’personal

feelingsandopinions.

Chapter4:Analysis

InthefollowingchapterIwillanalysethedatacollectedfromthestreet-level

searchesandinterviews.Beginningwithasurveyofthediverseforms,missions

andsocialcompositionsofTSOs,Iwilldeveloptheargumentthatwhile

responsibilitieshavecertainlybeentransferredfromthestatetothethirdsector,

itwouldbewrongtoattributethistothe‘co-option’ofTSOsbythestate.

Bristol’sasylumthirdsectorremainslargelyautonomousandrelatively

uninhibitedbylegalandfinancialstatediscipline.Instead,TSOshavebeen

coercedintopickingupthepiecesofwelfareprovisionleftbehindfollowingthe

withdrawalofthestatethroughboththeformationofacoerciveorthodoxythat

encouragesparticipationinthirdsectoractivitiesandthecompellingeffectsof

harshasylummeasures.Farfrommerelyperpetuatingthewillofthestate,

asylumTSOsareactivelyengagedinacounter-hegemoniccontestationofthe

discursivede-politicisationofasylum.

4.1Forms,missionsandsocialcompositions

23

ThepoliticalandculturalenvironmentofBristolhasfosteredalargeand

growingnumberofactiveTSOsthatworkwithASRs,demonstratingGill’s

assertionthat‘newsetsofactorsarebecomingincreasinglyempoweredand

responsibilised’intheasylumsector(Gill2009:216).TheseTSOsarenotonly

numerousbutalsodiverseintheirformsoforganisation,missionsandsocial

compositions.Thespanoforganisationalformsrunsfromhorizontal,online-

onlynetworksthroughsmallvolunteer-runcharitiestobranchesofinternational

organisationssuchastheRedCross.MostoftheTSOsidentifiedwereorganised

alongthelinesoftraditionalnonprofitsoroperationalcharities,howevereven

withinthistherewasvariance.Somehavemoreverticalandhierarchical

structures,withseverallevelsofgovernancewhichmayincludeboardsof

governors(interview1;interview4),whileothersoperatemorehorizontally.

Someemploypaidstaffandholdpermanentpremisesandofficespace,while

othersarefullyvolunteerrunonapart-timebasis(interview3).Thereisan

apparentcorrelationbetweenthesizeofanorganisationanditsdegreeof

bureaucracyandhierarchy-smallTSOsmayoperatewithonlyseveralpart-time

staff,meaningthatthereislittlescopeforhierarchicalstructurestotakeshape,

whilelargerTSOsmayrequireseparatebranchesofmanagementfordifferent

activities.

AswellasdiverseformsoforganisationtheTSOswerealsodiverseintheir

missions.Missionscanbeunderstoodastheaspirationsoraimsthatunderliean

organisation’sactions.MaryKaldor,inoutliningfouridealtypesofcivilsociety

actors,suggestssomedegreeofdiscreteboundariesbetweendifferenttypesof

missions;forexample,the‘emancipationofthepoorandexcluded’issetapart

fromthe‘protectionandpromotionofmembersinterests’(Kaldor2003:12).

Whatwasfoundinmyinterviewswasthatintervieweesoftenfelttheir

organisationshadseveraldifferentmissionswhichtheypursuedsimultaneously.

OneTSOcouldaspireto‘supportdestitutemigrants’,‘buildcommunitybonds’

and‘changepeople’sminds’[aboutASRs]allatonce(interview2).Furthermore,

whatwasmadeapparentthroughouttheinterviewswasthatwhenTSOsaligned

themselvesmorecloselywithoneparticularmissiontheydidthatcognisantof

themissionsofTSOsaroundthem.Thedifferentaimsandaspirationswereseen

24

tocomplementeachother(interview2),andintervieweesspokerespectfullyof

organisationswhichhadostensiblydifferentaims.Manyintervieweesused

similarlanguageindescribingtheirmainaimorethosandalsoexplicitly

suggestedasynchronicityacrossthesector.Accordingtooneinterviewee‘we’re

allhereintheinterestsofasylumseekers,andthat’swhatwe’regoingtofocus

on’(interview6),anavowedunityofpurposethatmanyintervieweeswere

similarlykeentopresent.

Acknowledgingthisaspirationalharmonyleadsusontoconsiderthesocial

compositionofTSOs.ThelocalorgrassrootsoriginofmanyofthekeyTSOsand

thewidespreadparticipationofASRswasrecognisedtoplayanimportantrolein

shapingtheaimsandaspirationsofTSOs.EightoutoftenTSOsintheinterview

samplewereoriginallycreatedinBristol,andwhilenationalandinternational

organisationsarepresentandplayanimportantroleitisclearthatthecoreof

thesectorismadeupoflocalTSOs.ManagementofTSOswasusuallytheremit

ofprofessionalvoluntarysectorworkerswhohadworkedinpaidorvoluntary

rolesinthesectorforanumberofyears,reflectingawidespreadtrendwithin

thesector(Randall2015:33).Insomecases,however,ASRsplayedkeyrolesin

thecreationofTSOsandoccupiedthetopmanagementpositions.ASRsalso

makeupasignificantproportionofthevolunteerbaseofmanyTSOsinBristol,

includingfiveinthesample.WhileLucyWilliamsisrighttonotethat‘refugees

andothermigrantsarenotmerepassiverecipientsofcare,butareactivein

findinghelpappropriatetotheirownprioritiesandobjectives’(Williams2006:

867),inBristolwecanseethatASRsarenotjustactiveinfindingappropriate

helpbutincreatingit.Severalintervieweeswereclearinrecognisingthattheir

rootsinthelocalareaandtheparticipationofASRsstronglyinformedtheir

missionsandactivities.The‘livedexperience’ofrefugeestaffhadbeenvitalto

shapingthe‘vision’ofoneorganisation(interview2).Foranother,having

beneficiariesalsovolunteerandtakepartindecision-makingprocessesmeant

thattheycouldknow‘whatmembersreallywant’(interview1).

4.2Market-orientedtransferofresponsibilities

25

WithinthisdiversesectorithasbecomeincreasinglycommonforTSOstofind

themselvesfulfillingtherolesofstatutoryservices.TSOsundertakeavastarray

ofactivitieswithinBristol’sasylumsector.Therolesofthevariousgroups,

networksandorganisationsidentifiedduringonlineandstreet-levelsearches

wereanalysedaccordingtocategoriesprovidedbythe2010NationalSurveyof

CharitiesandSocialEnterprises(IpsosMORI2013:32).Thesecategorisewere

sufficientincapturingthefullrangeofactivityandnonewcategorieswere

developedduringthisresearch.

Table1:RolesofTSOsinBristol

Roles

PercentageofTSOsundertakingroles

Culture&recreation 22%

Employment,education&

training

8.6%

Legalassistance&advice

services

25%

Communitydevelopment&

mutualaid

19.4%

Capacitybuilding/facilities 13.8%

Advocacy,campaigning,

representation,informationor

research

13.8%

Deliveryofpublicservices:

Housing,daycentre,counselling,

healthcare

33.3%

ThismethodofmeasuringactivitiesallowsforsingleTSOstofulfilmultipleroles,

animportantabilityconsideringmostTSOsdisplayedsomedegreeofhybridity,

meaningthattheydidnotconfinethemselvestoonetaskbutundertookmultiple

actionswithdifferentaims.Forexample,oneTSOprovideshousingforasylum

seekerswhilealsorunningadrop-incentre.AnotherTSOworkinginhousing

26

runstrainingprogrammesforitstenantstohelpthemfindwork,and

furthermoreisactivelycampaigninglocallyandnationallytogetemployersto

‘changethewaytheyemploy’(interview2).Thediversityofactivitiesisclosely

connectedtothesizeandageofTSOs.Thosewhichnowofferseveralservices

typicallybeganwithjustonebefore‘growingintootherareas’(interview10),

andsmallerTSOsarefarmorelikelytofocusonasingleactivityduetothe

structurallimitationsofstaffingandfunding.

Overall,TSOsinBristolhavecometoplayavitalroleinprovidingservicesand

supportforASRs.OnoneleveltheycanbeseenasvitalforASRsthemselves,

manyofwhomrelyonTSOsinsomeformoranother,andonanotherlevelthey

canbeseenasvitalforBCC.TSOshavetakenonsomanyrolesand

responsibilitiesthattheirabsencewouldhavedireconsequencesforthecity.

TwointervieweessuggestedthatBCCwaswellawareofthisfact,andthatthis

laybehindtheireffortstomaintainsomedegreeoffinancialsupportduring

widespreadspendingcuts.Accordingtoone,BCChad‘ringfenced’somefunding

becausetheywereawarethat‘iftheydon’tsupportthevoluntarysectoritwill

allcometotheirdoorstep’(interview5).Anotherintervieweepaintedthisin

starktermswhendiscussingthenearclosureofalargeTSOseveralyearsprior,

statingthat‘iftheycloseditwouldbeaverybigproblemforcitycouncilbecause

youwouldhavealotofquiteangryyoungmenonthestreet…ifthosethings

weren’tprovided,Ithink,Isuspecttheremightbesomemoreissuesthanthere

are,peoplekickingoffandgettingangryandupset’(interview3).Intheirview,

BCCreliedonTSOstofulfilvitalroles,andtheclosureofkeyTSOswasa

potentiallydangerousthreattocommunitycohesioninthecity.

ThatthethirdsectoriswidelyconsideredacrucialpillarofBristol’sasylum

sectorcanbelargelyattributedtothefactthatTSOsarenowcarryingoutmany

ofthefunctionsandprovidingmanyoftheservicesthatwouldtraditionallybe

associatedwiththewelfarestate.AgreatdealoftheworkdonebyTSOsinvolves

providingservicestomeetthebasicneedsofASRsinBristol.Whilenoprecise

figuresontheASRpopulationwithinBristolexist,aftercomparingpredicted

numbersagainstthenumbersofbeneficiariesofalltheTSOsitappearslikely

27

thatthevastmajoritymakeuseofservicesprovidedbyTSOsthatcouldbe

consideredessential,suchashousing,healthcare,childcareandfinancialor

materialsupporttopurchasefood,clothingandhygienenecessities.Thisisnot

tosaythatthestateiscompletelyabsentfromasylumwelfare,itstilldelivers

cashbenefitstoasylumseekersviathepostofficeandASRsareabletousethe

NHSandattendschool,howeverintervieweesuniformlyfelttheyweredoingthe

bulkofthework.Onesaidtome‘whatwe’redoing,Imeanreallythe

governmentshouldbedoingit.Idon’tknowiftheyusedtoandthenthey

stopped,butIthinkit’ssad,shameful,thatwehavetostepinandstoppeople

fromstarving,getpeopleoffthestreet.Thisisbasicstuff,themostbasic’

(interview7).The£36.95aweekthatasylumseekersreceivefromthe

Governmentwasspokenofscornfullyduringinterviews,refugeeswereseento

belittlebetterprovidedforandfailedasylumseekerswerehighlightedasbeing

widelyatriskofdestitution,andsoTSOsarenowrequiredtoprovidethebare

essentialsoflife.Indoingsotheyaretakingup‘responsibilitiesandauthorities

thatonceresidedunambiguously’inthestatesector(Gill2009:216).

4.3Resistinggoaldisplacement

Inlinewiththeirexpandingresponsibilities,someTSOarebecoming

increasinglyformalised.Thisprocesscanbeunderstoodastheincreasing

structuringofworkroles,thedevelopmentofrulesandprocedureswhich

governemployeesactivities,andthegrowthofinternalbureaucraticor

administrativesystems.Oneintervieweenotedthatastheirorganisationhad

growntheyhadfacedmore‘requirementsuponusintermsofstandardsofhow

wehavetodothings’(interview1),andwhentalkingaboutanotherorganisation

said‘they’reamuchyoungerorganisation,they’reabletobelooseraround

boundaries,operateinawaywemighthavedoneafewyearsago’(interview1).

ThischimeswithagrowingliteratureonthemanagementofNGOswithinwhich

issuesofinstitutionalisationandaccountabilityhavebeenfrequentlyhighlighted

(Kaldor2003:5).Institutionalisationisrecognisedasatrendwithinthethird

sector,particularlyasTSOsarebroughtintopartnershipwithgovernment.

Whileadvantagestoformalisationareacknowledged,itisoftenassociatedwith

28

specificdisadvantagesorproblems,chieflythedangerthatinstitutionalgoalsof

organisationalsurvivalwilltakeprecedenceoversubstantivegoals(MacKenzie

etal.2012:641).

ThistendencycanbeobservedamongstTSOsinBristol,albeittoalimited

degree.Asoneintervieweeexplained,theneedtobothcontinueproviding

servicesandkeepstaffinworkinfluencedthebehaviouroftheirmanagement

committee,sometimesleadingthemtopursue‘lucrativefundingopportunities’

which‘thoseofusonthegroundwilllookatandsay,wellwedon’twanttodo

that’(interview1).Astheorganisationhadgrownithadbecomemore

formalised,withmanystaffnowemployedfullorpart-time.Thisisaclear

exampleoftheimperativesoforganisationalsurvivalgeneratingbehaviours

whichprioritisesustainingtheexistenceoftheorganisation.Morewidelyacross

thesector,requirementsfromfundingsourcesfordataandassessmentsofthe

impactofTSOshaveshapedbehaviours,asrecognisedby(Harlock2013:1).In

somecasesthishasledtoTSOsallocatingresourcestoproducingtherequired

data,andinothersithasledtoTSOsalteringthenatureoftheservicesthey

providesothattheirimpactcanbebettermeasured(interview10).Measuring

outcomescanbedifficultinmanyareasofworkthatTSOsinBristolareengaged

in,forexamplequantifyingthepositiveoutcomesofabefriendingscheme,andin

somecasesthisledtoorganisations‘rethinkinghowwedothingssothatwecan

knowwhattheresultsare’(interview10).

Acknowledgingthesechangingbehaviours,itdoesnotappearthatthe

formalisationofsomeTSOshasledto“goaldisplacement”.Itwouldbewrongto

suggestthatbehavioursthatfailtoreflectormeettheorganisation’sneeds‘on

theground’signifythatitssubstantivegoalshavebeenobscured.Allthe

intervieweessharedaconcernforthechallengesofsustainabilitytheyfacedin

theirownorganisationandthesectorasawhole;organisationalsurvivalwasnot

solelyaconcernformoreformalTSOs.Inthecontextofausterityandmajor

reductionsinpublicspendingthereisarealriskformanyTSOsacrossthe

countrythattheywillbeunabletosurvive(Sepulvedaetal.2013:645).Several

yearspriortothisresearchRefugeeActionBristol,thenthelargestasylumTSO

29

inBristol,wasforcedtocloseduetolackoffunding,highlightingtheprecarious

positionthatmanyoftheseTSOsoccupy.TSOshaveaccordinglyundertaken

strategicresponsestodiversifytheirfundingsources.However,possiblydueto

thewidespreadinvolvementofASRs,theycontinuetoprovetobeintouchwith

theirbeneficiariesandresponsivetotheirneeds,ashighlightedinthecontinual

developmentofnewprogrammesandserviceswithinthelargerTSOs.While

someofBristol’sTSOsarebecomingmoreformalisedtheydonotappeartohave

succumbedtotheassociateddangers,supportingtheargumentthat‘goal

displacementisnotinevitable’(MacKenzieetal.2012:636).

4.4Independenceandautonomy

Theabilitytoholdontosubstantivegoalsspeakstothewiderstateof

independenceandautonomyinwhichmanyTSOshavepersisted.Somesmall

TSOshaveoperatedcompletelyunderBCCsradarforyears,withlittleorno

contact.WhenaskedabouttheircontactwithBCC,oneintervieweedescribeda

lackofinterestonbothsidesindevelopingaworkingrelationship‘[my

organisation]isverygrassroots.Idon’treallyneedthem,theydon’tneedme.It

iswhatitis,we’reverysmallandjustgetonwithit.’Whilesomestudieshave

outlinedawidespreadco-optionofTSOsthroughgovernmentcontracts(Conlon

&Gill2015:443)thisdoesnotappeartobeparticularlyrelevantinBristol.In

somecasesthishasmadeuparound30%ofthirdsectorincome(Halfpenny&

Reid2002:542),howevergovernmentcontractsarerarehere.Onlythelargest

TSOshavecontractswiththegovernmentandthesemakeuponlyafractionof

theirtotalincome.ThemarginalisationoftheBMEthirdsectorandthe

disproportionatefundingcutsithasfaced(Tilkietal.2015)appearstohave

beensimilarlyexperiencedbytheasylumthirdsector,thevastmajorityofwhich

operateswithoutanygovernmentfunding.Furthermore,asnotedpreviously,

austerityhasledtoadramaticreductioningovernmentfundingacrossthe

wholethirdsector,andsoHalfpenny&Reid’sfigureof30%,producedin2000,is

clearlyout-dated(2002:542).Thislackofdirectgovernmentfundingnarrows

thepossibilitiesforthegovernmenttoenactlegalandfinancialdisciplineon

TSOs.

30

Beyondfunding,thereisanoveralllackofinteractionbetweenTSOsand

nationalorlocalgovernmentandareadilyapparentlackoftop-downcontrol.

TSOshadoftendevelopedwithgenuineautonomypursuingtheirownindividual

objectives,andintervieweesgenerallyperceivedBCCtohavelongbeen

uninterestedinthespecificsoftheirwork,barafewindividuals.ThatTSOs

continuetooperatelargelyautonomouslyinpursuingtheirownobjectivesis

wellillustratedbytherecentintroductionoftheSyrianVulnerablePerson

ResettlementSchemeinBristol.Thisscheme,firstannouncedbythenPrime

MinisterDavidCameronin2015,involvestheresettlementofSyrianrefugees

fromSyriatodifferentpartsoftheUK.Whileover100Syrianshavebeen

resettledinBristolthroughtheschemetheexistingasylumthirdsectorhasbeen

largelyuninvolvedintheprocess,andseveralintervieweesinfactspoke

criticallyoftheschemeasbeinga‘separatestream’totheirownwork

(interview1;interview3;interview4).Thefactthattheschemeisbeing

deliveredoutsideoftheexistingasylumthirdsectorsuggeststhatthe

GovernmentisunabletooruninterestedindiscipliningasylumTSOsinto

carryingoutitsownobjectives,andthattherelationshipbetweenthe

GovernmentandTSOsisnotoneinwhichlocalornationalGovernmentcan

dictatebehaviour.

TherealdynamicsoftherelationshipbetweenBCCandasylumTSOscanbewell

observedthroughtheongoingprocessofBCCsdevelopmentofacitywide‘Cityof

SanctuaryStrategy’.Thisisaveryrecentdevelopment,withthefirstdraftofthe

strategyhavingbeenreleasedlatein2016.Manyofthecoreideasofthe

strategy,nottomentionitstitle,haveclearlydevelopedoutofthegrassroots

‘CityofSanctuary’campaigninBristolwhichmanythirdsectorworkerswere

involvedinaroundadecadeago(interview1).Politicalandpersonnelchanges

withinBCChavenowspurredactiononitspart,anditbeganbyapproaching

asylumTSOsviatheRefugeeForumtodiscussthecreationofthestrategy.The

RefugeeForum,whichwasfoundedin2002,isamulti-agencyforuminwhich

TSOs,councillorsandrepresentativesofHomeOfficecontractorscometogether

forregularmeetingsinwhichtheycancoordinateactionandairdisagreements

31

(interview6).Nowattendedbyaround25TSOstheRefugeeForumisoneofthe

mainvenuesforthirdsectorplanningandorganisationandismanagedby

severalthirdsectorworkers.WhenBCCfirstreachedouttotheForumaboutthe

CityofSanctuaryStrategytheyinitiallyproposedthatthestrategycouldinfact

bemanagedbytheForum,howeverthisideawasrejected.BCCthenwentonto

consultwithkeyTSOsindraftingthestrategyfollowingaplanoutlinedwithin

meetingswiththeRefugeeForum.Thedraftdocumentthatwasthenproduced

nowlargelyconsistsofissuesandrecommendationsraisedbyTSOsratherthan

anythingparticularlyoriginalonthepartofBCC,withoneinterviewer

commentingthat‘alotofthestrategyisjustdescribingwhat’salreadyinthecity’

(interview8).LookingattheinteractionsbetweenBCCandasylumTSOsduring

theprocessdescribedabovethereisaclearabsenceof‘blurredboundaries’

betweenthestateandthethirdsector(Carmel&Harlock2008:155)ortheuse

oflegal-coerciveorfinancial-manipulativemethods.Instead,thereisanapparent

institutionalandoperationalgapbetweenthetwowhichisonlynowbeing

broachedbyeffortstodevelopamoreco-operativerelationship.

4.5Coerciveengenderingofaction

AsylumTSOsinBristolworkindependentlyoflocalgovernmentdirectionand

largelywithoutgovernmentfunding.Thisapparentautonomysuggeststhatin

ordertounderstandtheirvolitionwemayneedtoconsiderlessbluntformsof

coercionthatmaybeatwork.Inhiscritiqueofexteriorisationtheory’sreliance

onlegalorfinancialtermstoexplainTSOsbehaviour,Gillreferencesthe

Gramscianconceptofcoercioninwhich‘statesalsocommandpowersthatare

capableofengenderingthewilltoactinaccordancewithstateobjectivesrather

thansimplygeneratingthenecessityorimperativetodoso’(Gill2009:219).

Followingthislineofthought,itispossibletoidentifyinBristolformsof

coercionwhichhavecompelledTSOstotakeonmoreandmoreresponsibilities.

Ononelevelthiscanbeseenintheformationofa‘coerciveorthodoxy’(Katz

2006:335).Throughspecificframingsinpublicdiscourseindividualscanbe

‘ideationallyconditionedtofreelychoosetoconductthemselvesinwaysthatare

neverthelessparticularandconstrained’(Gill2009:200).Governmentrhetoric

32

sincethebeginningoftheBigSocietypolicyplatformhasbeenparticularly

consistentinframingparticipationinthethirdsectorinapositivelight,as

‘service’,‘duty’or‘communitywork’,andseekingtoattractandincludemore

citizenswithinthissphere(McCabe2010:2-5).SeveralintervieweesItalkedto

reflectedontheboominvolunteersthatoccurredoverthecourseof2014and

2015,aseventsoftheSyriancivilwarandtheplightofrefugeeswererelayedto

theBritishpublicinincreasinglygraphicimages.Thelanguageinterviewees

usedtodescribethistrend,forexamplesayingthat‘theywantedtohelpsothey

cametous’(interview4)and‘alotofpeoplewatchedthenewsandthenwould

comeandaskuswhattheycoulddo’(interview8)suggeststhatforboththem

andthevolunteersthiswasanormalandnaturalaction;thattherewasaclear

andobviouspathwayfrombeingmotivatedtoacttovolunteeringinthethird

sector.ThisreflectsacoerciveorthodoxystrategicallyinculcatedbyGovernment

policyandrhetoricinwhichvoluntarismandthirdsectorparticipationhasbeen

renderedaconventionalchannelforpositiveactionandexpressionsof

solidarity.

AnotherlevelofcoercioncanbeseeninthepervasivedestitutionamongstASRs,

whichcreatesapowerfullycompelling‘need’forTSOstoact.Itiswidely

acceptedthatASRsfaceincrediblytoughlivingconditionsintheUK.Highlevels

ofunemploymentandlowlevelsoflanguagetuitionfosterssocialexclusion,

especiallyinthecontextofdispersalpoliciesthathouseASRsinsocially

deprivedareasupanddownthecountry(Phillimore&Goodison2006:1715).

Manyliveinastateofdestitution,andaccordingtooneAmnestyInternational

reportfailedasylumseekerslive‘livesonthemarginsofsociety,inabject

poverty…withhealthproblemsanddegreesofpsychologicaldistressdirectly

relatedtothispainfullimbocondition’(Amnesty2006:14).Arecentstudy

publishedintheBritishMedicalJournalhasarguedthatsomeasylumseekers’

dietsarecomparabletopre-welfarestateconditions,reflectingtheirlivingina

stateofabsolutepoverty(Collinsetal.2015:1).Intervieweesconfirmedthat

destitutionamongstASRsisrifeinBristol,andgrowing;increasingdemandfor

basicserviceswasaproblemraisedbynearlyeveryinterviewee,andmanyof

theserviceswereoperatingatcapacity.

33

Thisstateofaffairsleadsustoconsideranumberofwarningstatementsmade

duringtheearlydaysoftheCoalitionGovernment.Theleadingpublicationfor

thethirdsectorpublishedanarticlearguingthattheGovernment’sapproach

amountedto‘volunteer,orelse!’(Quainton2010).Intheirwrittenevidencetoa

HouseofCommonsPublicAdministrationSelectCommitteeetheGreaterLondon

Volunteeringforumraisedtheirconcernthat‘volunteeringinthepublicservice

canbeaboutengagingserviceusersindeliveringsolutions,butshouldbea

choiceandnotcoercedunderthreatoflosingaservicealtogetherwhichthe

communitydecidesiscrucialandshouldbestatutory’(GreaterLondon

Volunteering2011).Oppenheimetal.prescientlywarnedthatausteritymeant

‘rollingbackthestateandexpectingcommunitiestoleapintothedrivingseat’

(Oppenheimetal.2010:2),andAngusMcCabearguedthatintegraltotheBig

SocietywasanunderstandingthatTSOswouldhavetorunservicesthestatefelt

itcouldnolongeraffordtoprovide(McCabe2010:5).Thesewarningshave

largelyprovedtrue,withthirdsectorworkersencounteringgrowingpressures

ontheirservicesandbeingcompelledtorespond.ThirdsectorworkersI

interviewedwereunitedinarguingthattheirworkwasrespondingtoarealand

pressing‘need’,thatwhattheyaredoingasanetworkwasvitalandthey‘haveto

doit’(interview7),andthatiftheystoppedtheirworktheresultswouldbe

catastrophic.Thisfitsinwithotherappraisalsthatarguethatasmigrants’rights

andaccesstopublicwelfarehavefallenawaythereisanincreasingonuson

TSOsto‘pickupthepieces’(Mayblin2014:381).Thistiesinwithaveinof

literaturewhichquestionswhethervolunteeringisalwaysvoluntaryand

highlightsthepossibilityforgovernmentsto‘leanonthecompulsionof

intrinsicallymotivatedindividuals’(Tõnurist&Sulva2016:230).Inthiscase,the

intrinsicmotivationliesinthethirdsectorworker’sdesiretoalleviatethe

sufferingofASRs,andthewithdrawalandrestrictionofwelfareprovisionthatis

necessarytosustaininglifecanbeunderstoodinGramsciantermsas‘sublethal

modalitiesofstatecoercion’(Davies2012:2693).

4.6Counter-hegemonicchallengestode-politicisation

34

WhileitistruethatTSOshavebeencoercedintotakingonmoreandmore

responsibilitiesforASRs,itwouldbeasimplificationtoseethistransferas

merelyareplacement,oranexchangeoflikeforlike.Whatwasmadereadily

apparentthroughstudyingTSOsactivitiesandtalkingtothirdsectorworkers

wasthatTSOshaveamuchmoreinclusiveorholisticunderstandingofwhatis

‘essential’or‘vital’forASRs,meaningthattheyprovidemoreservicesatahigher

standardthantheGovernmentorGovernmentcontractorsmaybewillingor

abletoprovide.Oneexampleofthisthatwasrepeatedlyflaggedduring

interviewswasinhousing,whereGovernmentcontractorssuchasClearelwere

widelycriticisedforfailingtoprovideanappropriatestandardofservice.One

intervieweespokedisparaginglyofthenumbersofasylumseekersforcedto

shareaproperty,aswellasthefactthatpregnantwomenormotherswithyoung

childrenwerenotprovidedappropriatespaceandprivacy(interview3).These

propertiesarebyandlargeoutsideofBristolcityinruralorsuburbanareas

whichcausesanumberofdifficultiesforasylumseekerswhocannotaccess

servicesinBristol.Incontrast,thirdsectorhousingproviderstrytosource

housinginareaswhereASRswanttolive,haveminimumstandardsforspace,

cleanlinessandsafetyandseekoutlandlordswhowillbereceptivetotheneeds

ofASRs.AsoneintervieweesaidofHomeOfficecontractorswhoprovide

housing,‘theydowhatwedo,butit’snotthesame,itsjustnot’(interview2).

Beyondbasicnecessitiessuchasfood,clothingandshelterTSOsalsoprovidea

wealthofadditionalservices,supportandfacilities,someofwhichinvolve

recreationalspacesandopportunitiesforsocialinteractionandleisureactivities.

TSOswhichprovidesuchservicesconsiderthemtobeintegraltoenablingASRs

tolive‘reallives’(interview2).Severalexpressedadisbeliefthatpoliticiansand

governmentofficialscouldthinkthatwhatthestateprovidedwassufficient,with

onecommenting‘Dotheyexpectpeopletositathomeandstareatawall?Its

bizarre’(interview8).Otherservicescaterforadditionalneedssuchas

emotionalsupportandadviceandadvocacy.Discussingthelackofgovernment

assistanceforasylumseekerscurrentlygoingthroughtheasylumprocessone

intervieweesaid‘wellontheonehandthere’salotofdemands,theyhavetosign

inweeklyormonthlyorwhatever,quitestrictrules,andontheotherthere’sno

35

oneactuallyhelpingthemdoit.There’snohelpatallasfarasI’mconcerned’

(interview8).InthiswaytooTSOsprovisiongoeswellbeyondthelevelof

serviceandsupportprescribedbytheGovernment.Throughouttheinterviews

therewasmuchtalkofASRs‘needs’,whichwereunderstoodinamuchbroader

andmoreholisticfashionthanmerelyconsistingofthematerialnecessitiesof

life,andTSOscanbeseentobeoperatingaccordingtoadifferentlogicofwhatis

‘necessary’thantheGovernment.

Highlightingthiscontrastinglogicmakesvisibletheimplicitpoliticsinprovision.

Socialworkis‘essentiallyapoliticialactivity’(Gilbert&Powell2009:4,andthe

spaceofthethirdsectorisfarfromapolitical.Bychallengingtheperceived

inadequaciesinstateprovisionTSOsareattemptingtoshapeandstrengthenthe

positionofASRswithinsociety.EngaginginwhatNikHeydenterms‘thepolitics

ofvisibility’(Heynen2010:1226),TSOsareconsciouslyseekingtocounterASRs

reductioninnationalpoliticaldiscoursetoaproblemorburden(MacKenzieetal

2012:639),challengingtheircurrentpositionas“second-class”or“undeserving”

andfurtherprovidingmaterialandsocialsupportwhichcanenableASRsto

participatemorefullyinsociallife.Thenotionof‘normality’wasfrequently

referredtoinmydiscussionswiththirdsectorworkers;theywantedtoprovide

ASRswiththesamestandardofserviceandsupportthat‘anyonewould

normallyexpect’(interview1),theyhopedthatASRswouldbeabletofeel‘like

normalfamilies’(interview2)andlive‘normallives’(interview9),andthatthe

widerpopulationofBristolwouldseethat‘thesearenormalpeoplejustlikeus’

(interview5).Theseactsandaspirationsconstitutethepromotionofadiscourse

inwhichrefugeesarenot‘athreat,arisk,avictim’butinsteadlegitimate‘agents,

actors,andparticipants’(Nyers2010:130)withinthecommunitydeservingof

equaltreatment.

TSOsinBristolareactiveinframingcounter-hegemonicdiscourses;oftenacting

asinstitutionsinwhichalternativeapproachesare‘incubated’(Davies2007:

784)anddiscoursesareproducedwhich‘trytochangethecurrentpoliticaland

socialsituationandofferalternatives’(GarcíaAgustín2012:81).ManyTSOsare

forthrightintheirpoliticsandpoliticalaspirations,whichgenerallyseekto

36

promotesolidaritybetweenlocalresidentsandASRs.OneTSOrecentlylaunched

a‘rethinkingrefugeecampaign’,whichinvolvesengagingwithlocalbusinesses,

publishingresearchpapers,andhostingevents,suchasconferences.Theiraimis

tomakelocalpeople,businessesandhighereducationprovidersmorereceptive

toASRsandthusfacilitatetheirintegrationintosociety.AnotherTSOisthelocal

branchoftheUK-wideCityofSanctuarynetwork,which‘seekstopromotea

cultureofwelcometowardsasylumseekersandrefugees,basedaroundideasof

responsibilityandhospitality’(Darling2016b:185).Theirworkinvolves

buildingacoalitionofbusinesses,politicians,TSOs,localpeopleandASRsaspart

ofa‘bottom-upapproachtopoliticalchange’(Squire2010:295).Many,ifnotall

oftheasylumTSOsinBristoltookpartintheBristolRefugeeFestivalthisyear,a

neweventwhichgrewoutofRefugeeWeek,anation-wideannualeventwhichis

a‘celebration…ofrefugeesandthecontributiontheymake’(interview6).

InemphasisingthecontributionsofrefugeesBristolTSOsaredrawingon

narrativeswhichdirectlycounterthediscursiveframingofrefugeesasaburden.

Intheireffortstoprovideservicesandsupportthatgobeyondthatofthewelfare

statetheyarere-positioningASRsasdeservingmembersofacommunity,rather

thandependentswhosedrainonresourcesmustbemanaged.Insupporting

failedasylumseekerstoremaininthecountrytheyareunderminingand‘quietly

challenging’governmentpolicy(Randall2015:32).Allofthisoccurswhilethere

isanincreasingrelocationofresponsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector.

Whilestrategiesofde-politicisationhavehadsuccessesinthemarket-oriented

transferofresponsibilities,theyhavenotmanagedtoeffectthe‘closureof

alternativeimaginaries’(Darling2016c:233)ornarrowdebateonasylumto

technocraticormanagerialissues.BristolTSOshaveactivelyalignedthemselves

withabroaderhumanrightsmovementandaglobalmovementforthe

protectionofandadvocacyforASRs(GarcíaAgustín2012:81),developingand

promotingacounter-hegemonicdiscoursethatlegitimisesthesocial,political

andculturalparticipationofASRsinsociety.

37

Conclusion

FollowingtheleadofHingeretal.(2016)andtheirefforttopaymoreattention

tothelocaldimensionofasylum,thisdissertationsoughttoanalysethelocal

dimensionofasylumde-politicisation.Inordertodothisitbuiltonrecent

developmentswithinmigrationscholarship,developingaframeworkthatwas

informedbyanti-essentialistnotionsofstatepowerandfocussingontheactions

ofanetworkofnon-stateactorswithinaspecificlocality.Followingthis

frameworkamethodologywasestablishedthatsoughttocaptureboththe

materialanddiscursiveeffectsofandreactionstode-politicisation.

WhiletheroleofTSOsinasylumgovernancehasbeencriticisedbysomefor

facilitatinghegemonicasylumdiscourse,whathasbeendemonstratedhereis

thatbelowthesurfaceoftheexpandingroleofTSOsinasylumservicesand

supportthereisanon-goingformationofcounter-hegemonicdiscourse.TSOs

aretakingongreaterresponsibilities,howeverthisshiftdoesnotnecessarily

resultintheiroriginalgoalsbeingdisplaced,norisitnecessarilyexplainedby

theirco-optionintohegemonicdiscourseortheirbeingmanipulatedbylegaland

financialstatediscipline.Instead,acoerciveengenderingofactionistheprimary

meansbywhichthetransferofresponsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector

istakingplace.Ratherthanbeingco-opted,TSOsinBristolhaveinsomeways

been‘outflanked’(Levy&Egan2003:808),and,possiblythankstotheirrootsin

theASRpopulationinBristol,continuetochallengethediscursivede-

politicisationofasylum.

‘Asylum’isasocialconstruction,createdinpartbyjuridicalinstitutionsbutalso

byadiverseconstellationofsocialactors(Hingeretal.2016).Despitetheclear

directionofhegemonicasylumdiscourse,howASRsareperceivedandtreatedin

societyisamatterofcountlessnegotiationsoccurringatthelocallevel.Inthis

waytootheeffectsandoutcomesofde-politicisationaredynamicallynegotiated

withinspecificconfigurationsofactorsandtheirenvironment.Inthecaseof

Bristol,thecurrentalignmentofasylumTSOsmeansthatagreatdealofpower

lieswithactorswhoarenotintrinsicallytiedtotheaims,idealsorinterestsof

38

thestate,andwhoareabletobuildcounter-hegemonicdiscoursesinopposition

totheneoliberalrationalityofthestate’sasylumgovernance.

Practicesanddiscourseswithinasylumgovernancearenotfixedbutareinstead

constantlybeingchangedanddevelopedastheytakeshapeontheground.This

dissertationhaselaboratedaresearchapproachwhichoffersonewayof

studyingthis.Thereareotherpathstoexplorehere,andothermethodssuchas

participatoryobservation,orotherapproachessuchasthecomparisonof

multiplecasestudies,couldhelpdevelopourunderstandingofthewaysinwhich

de-politicisationcanbenegotiated.Developingthisunderstandingcouldhelpit

betranslatedintoaction,contributingtoconsciousandcoherentactionsthat

shapeasyluminwayswhichimprovesthelivesofASRsandbenefitsthe

communitiestheymakehome.

Bibliography

Alcock,P.(2010)‘Astrategicunity:definingthethirdsectorintheUK’,Voluntary

SectorReview,1,1,5-24.

AmnestyInternational(2006)‘DownandOutinLondon:TheRoadtoDestitution

forRejectedAsylumSeekers’,AmnestyInternational,London.

Anderson,B.(2017)‘Againstfantasycitizenship:thepoliticsofmigrationand

austerity’Renewal,24,1,53-62.

Bakker,L.,S.CheungandJ.Phillimore(2016)‘TheAsylum-IntegrationParadox:

ComparingAsylumSupportSystemsandRefugeeIntegrationinTheNetherlands

andtheUK’,InternationalMigration,54,4,118-132.

39

BristolCityCouncil(2011),Censusdata,https://www.bristol.gov.uk/statistics-

census-information/census-2011[accessed2ndSeptember2017]

Brenner,N.(2011)‘TheUrbanQuestionandtheScaleQuestion:Some

ConceptualClarifications’inCaglar,A.andN.GlickSchiller(eds)Locating

Migration.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress,23-41.

Bryant,R.(2002)‘Non-GovernmentalOrganizationsandGovernmentality:

‘Consuming’BiodiversityandIndigenousPeopleinthePhilippines’,Political

Studies,50,2,268-292.

Caglar,A.andN.GlickSchiller(2011)‘Introduction’inCaglar,A.andN.Glick

Schiller(eds)LocatingMigration.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress,1-23.

Carey,G.(2008)‘ConceptualisingtheThirdSector:Foucauldianinsightsintothe

relationsbetweentheThirdSector,CivilSocietyandtheState’,ThirdSector

Review,14,1,1-22.

Carmel,E.andJ.Harlock(2008)‘Institutingthe'thirdsector'asagovernable

terrain:partnership,procurementandperformanceintheUK’,Policy&Politics,

36,2,155-171.

Chtouris,S.andD.Miller(2017)‘RefugeeFlowsandVolunteersintheCurrent

HumanitarianCrisisinGreece’,JournalofAppliedSecurityResearch,12,1,61-77.

Clarke,J.(2004)‘Dissolvingthepublicrealm?Thelogicsandlimitsof

neoliberalism’,JournalofSocialPolicy,33,27–48.

Cochrane,A,(2013)‘Interviews’,InWard,K.(eds.)ResearchingtheCity:aGuide

forStudents,London,Sage,38–53.

Collins,K.,C.Costelloe,T.Kaldor,T.MaroukisandK.Reyher(2015)‘Austerity,

sanctionsandasylum:someasylumseekers’dietcomparabletopre-Welfare

40

Stateconditions’,BritishMedicalJournal,350,1-2.

Conlon,D.andN.Gill(2015)‘GuestEditorial:InterventionsinMigrationand

Activism’,ACME:AnInternationalE-JournalforCriticalGeographies,14,2,442-

451.

Corry,O.(2010)‘DefiningandTheorizingtheThirdSector’,InR.Taylor(ed.),

ThirdSectorResearch.NewYork:SpringerVerlag,11-20.

Darling,J.(2013)‘AsylumandthePost-Political:Domopolitics,Depoliticisation

andActsofCitizenship’,Antipode,46,1,72-91.

Darling,J.(2016a)‘AsyluminAustereTimes:Instability,Privatizationand

ExperimentationwithintheUKAsylumDispersalSystem’,JournalofRefugee

Studies,29,4,483-505.

Darling,J.(2016b)‘Forcedmigrationandthecity’,ProgressinHumanGeography,

41,2,178-198.

Darling,J.(2016c)‘Privatisingasylum:neoliberalisation,depoliticisationandthe

governanceofforcedmigration’,TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish

Geographers,41,3,230-243.

Davies,J.(2007)‘TheLimitsofPartnership’,PoliticalStudies,55,779-800.

Davies,J.(2012)‘NetworkGovernanceTheory:AGramscianCritique’,

EnvironmentandPlanningA,44,11,2687-2704.

Diamond,J.(2010)‘Challengingthestatusquo:theroleandplaceofThirdSector

organisations’,InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy,30,1/2,8-16.

Donald,B.,A.Glasmeier,M.GrayandL.Lobaod(2014)‘AusterityintheCity:

EconomicCrisisandUrbanServiceDecline?’,CambridgeJournalofRegions,

41

EconomyandSociety7,1,3–15.

Dowling,R.(2005)‘Power,Subjectivity,andEthicsinSocialResearch’,InI.Hay

(eds.)QualitativeResearchMethodsinHumanGeography,2nded.,Oxford

UniversityPress,Melbourne,19-29.

Dwyer,P.(2005)‘Governance,ForcedMigrationandWelfare’,SocialPolicyand

Administration,39,6,622-639.

Emilsson,H.(2015)‘Anationalturnoflocalintegrationpolicy:multi-level

governancedynamicsinDenmarkandSweden’,ComparativeMigrationStudies,

3,1,1-16.

FergusonJandA.Gupta(2002)‘Spatializingstates:towardanethnographyof

neoliberalgovernmentality’,AmericanEthnologist,29,981–1002.

Fisher,W.(1997)‘DoingGood?ThePoliticsandAntipoliticsofNGOPractices’,

AnnualReviewofAnthropology,26,1,439-464.

Gale,F.(1998)‘Cave'Cave!Hicdragones':aneo-Gramsciandeconstructionand

reconstructionofinternationalregimetheory’,ReviewofInternationalPolitical

Economy,5,2,252-283.

GarcíaAgustín,Ó.(2012)‘Enhancingsolidarity:Discoursesofvoluntary

organizationsonimmigrationandintegrationinmulticulturalsocieties’,Journal

ofMulticulturalDiscourses,7,1,81-97.

Gilbert,T.andJ.Powell(2009)‘PowerandSocialWorkintheUnitedKingdom’,

JournalofSocialWork,10,1,3-22.

Gill,N.(2009)‘Presentationalstatepower:temporalandspatialinfluencesover

asylumsectordecisionmakers’,TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish

Geographers,34,2,215-233.

42

Gill,N.(2010)‘Newstate-theoreticapproachestoasylumandrefugee

geographies’,ProgressinHumanGeography,34,5,626-645.

GreaterLondonVolunteering(2011)SubmissionBS21inSmallerGovernment:

BiggerSociety?WrittenEvidencetotheHouseofCommonsPublic

AdministrationSelectCommittee,March2011,79-84.

Halfpenny,P.andM.Reid(2002)‘Researchonthevoluntarysector:an

overview’,PolicyandPolitics,30,4,533-550.

Hall,S.(1986)'Gramsci'srelevanceforthestudyofraceandethnicity',Journalof

CommunicationInquiry,10,5-27.

Harlock,J.(2013)‘ImpactmeasurementpracticeintheUKthirdsector:areview

ofemergingevidence’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,WorkingPaper106,1-29.

Heynen,N.(2010)‘Cookingupnon-violentcivil-disobedientdirectactionforthe

hungry:‘FoodnotBombs’andtheresurgenceofradicaldemocracyintheUS’,

UrbanStudies,47,6,1225–1240.

Hilber,D.andT.Baraulina(2012)‘Migrationanddevelopment.Anewpolicy

paradigminGermany?’IMISBeiträge,40,89-113.

Hinger,S.,P.SchäferandA.Pott(2016)‘TheLocalProductionofAsylum’,Journal

ofRefugeeStudies,29,4,440-463.

Jones,G.,R.Meegan,P.KennettandJ.Croft(2015)‘Theunevenimpactof

austerityonthevoluntaryandcommunitysector:Ataleoftwocities’,Urban

Studies,53,10,2064-2080.

Johnson,J.M.andT.Rowlands(2012)‘TheInterpersonalDynamicsofin-Depth

Interviewing’,inGubrium,J.F.,J.A.Holstein,A.B.MarvastiandK.D.McKinney

43

(eds.)TheSAGEHandbookofInterviewResearch:TheComplexityoftheCraft,

London,SAGEPublications,99-115.

Kaldor,M.(2003)‘CivilSocietyandAccountability’,JournalofHuman

Development,4,1,5-27.

Katz,H.(2006)‘Gramsci,Hegemony,andGlobalCivilSocietyNetwork’,Voluntas,

17,333-348.

Koca,B.(2016)‘NewSocialMovements:“RefugeesWelcomeUK”’,European

ScientificJournal,12,2,96-108

Krijnen,W.(2006)‘SomeResultsonMeanSquareErrorforFactorScore

Prediction’,Psychometrika,71,2,395-409.

Krijnen,W.(2006)‘SomeResultsonMeanSquareErrorforFactorScore

Prediction’,Psychometrika,71,2,395-409.

Levy,D.andD.Egan(2003)‘ANeo-GramscianApproachtoCorporatePolitical

Strategy:ConflictandAccommodationintheClimateChangeNegotiations’,

JournalofManagementStudies,40,4,803-829.

Lueck,K.,C.DueandM.Augoustinos(2015)‘Neoliberalismandnationalism:

RepresentationsofasylumseekersintheAustralianmainstreamnewsmedia’,

Discourse&Society,26,5,608-629.

Maughan,B.(2010)‘TonyBlair’sasylumpolicies:Thenarrativesand

conceptualisationsattheheartofNewLabour’srestrictionism’,RefugeeStudies

Centre,RSCWorkingPaperSeriesNo.69,1-36.

MacKinnon,D.(2000)‘Managerialism,governmentalityandthestate:aneo-

Foucauldianapproachtolocaleconomicgovernance’,PoliticalGeography,19,3,

293-314.

44

MacKenzie,R.,C.FordeandZ.Ciupijus(2012)‘NetworksofSupportforNew

MigrantCommunities’,UrbanStudies,49,3,631-647.

Martins,H.‘TimeandTheoryinSociology’,inJ.Rex(ed.),Approachesto

Sociology,London,194:246.

McCabe,A.(2010)‘BelowtheRadarinaBigSociety?Reflectionsoncommunity

engagement,empowermentandsocialactioninachangingpolicycontext’,Third

SectorResearchCentre,workingpaper51,1-20.

McCabe,A.,J.PhillimoreandL.Mayblin(2010)‘Belowtheradar’activitiesand

organisationsinthethirdsector:asummaryreviewoftheliterature’,Third

SectorResearchCentre,WorkingPaper29,1-30.

NationalSurveyofCharitiesandSocialEnterprises(2013)IpsosMORISocial

ResearchInstitute,1-67.

Marcus,G.andJ.Tidey(2015)‘CommunityMirrorAData-DrivenMethodfor

‘BelowtheRadar’Research’,NestaWorkingPaperSeries,15,7,1-28.

Moore,K.(2013)‘‘Asylumshopping’intheneoliberalsocialimaginary’,Media,

Culture&Society,35,3,348-365.

Mossberger,K.andG.Stoker(2001)‘TheEvolutionofUrbanRegimeTheory’

UrbanAffairsReview,36,6,810-835.

Nyers,P.(2010)‘No-oneisillegalbetweencityandnation’,StudiesinSocial

Justice,4,2,127–143.

Oppenheim,C.,E.CoxandR.Platt(2010)‘Regenerationthroughco-operation:

Creatingaframeworkforcommunitiestoacttogether’,Manchester:Co-

operativesUK,1-6.

45

Pain,R.andL.Staeheli(2014)‘Introduction:intimacy-geopoliticsandviolence’,

Area,46,4,344-347.

Perlo,A.(2012)Austerityandtheeconomiccrisis[onlineAvailableat:

http://politicalafairs.net/austerity-and-the-economic-crisis/].[Accessedat3

Sep.2017]

Phillimore,J.andL.Goodson(2006)‘ProblemorOpportunity?AsylumSeekers,

Refugees,EmploymentandSocialExclusioninDeprivedUrbanAreas’,Urban

Studies,43,10,1715-1736.

Piacentini,T.(2010)‘BelowtheRadarinaBigSociety?Reflectionson

communityengagement,empowermentandsocialactioninachangingpolicy

context’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,workingpaper81,1-20.

Platts-Fowler,D.andD.Robinson(2015)‘APlaceforIntegration:Refugee

ExperiencesinTwoEnglishCities’,Population,SpaceandPlace,21,5,476-491.

PricewaterhouseCoopers(2012)‘ManagingCharitiesintheNewNormal–a

PerfectStorm?’,Fifth‘ManaginginaDownturn’surveyreportproducedbyPwC,

CharityFinanceGroupandtheInstituteforFundraising,1-29.

Quainton,G.(2010)Volunteerorelse!Howanudgecouldturnintocoercion.

[online]ThirdSectorBlog.Availableat:

http://thirdsector.thirdsector.co.uk/2010/05/19/volunteer-or-else-how-

nudging-could-turn-into-coercion/).[Accessed3Sep.2017].

Randall,A.(2015)‘Civilsocietyorganisationssupportingdestitutemigrants’,

IRISWorkingPaperSeries,11,1-37.

Rowson,J.,S.Broome,andA.Jones(2010)ConnectedCommunities:Howsocial

networkspowerandsustaintheBigSociety.London:RSA1-87

46

Rygiel,K.(2012)‘PoliticizingCamps:ForgingTransgressiveCitizenshipsinand

throughTransit’,CitizenshipStudies,16,5–6,807–825.

Sanyal,R.(2012)‘RefugeesandtheCity:AnUrbanDiscussion’,Geography

Compass,6,11,633-644.

Schmidtke,O.(2014)‘BeyondNationalModels?’,ComparativeMigrationStudies,

2,1,77-99.

Sending,O.andI.Neumann(2006)‘GovernancetoGovernmentality:Analyzing

NGOs,States,andPower’,InternationalStudiesQuarterly,50,3,651-672.

Sepulveda,L.,S.SyrettandS.Calvo(2013)‘SocialEnterpriseandEthnic

Minorities:ExploringtheConsequencesoftheEvolvingBritishPolicyAgenda’,

EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,31,4,633-648.

Slaughter,A.(2017)‘HowNGOshavehelpedshaperesettlement’,Forced

MigrationReview,[online]43,32-34.Availableat:

http://www.fmreview.org/resettlement/slaughter.html[Accessed3Sep.2017].

Snyder,S.(2011)‘Un/settlingAngels:Faith-BasedOrganizationsandAsylum-

SeekingintheUK’,JournalofRefugeeStudies,24,3,565-585.

Sønderriis,A.(2011).ChallengingHegemonyGlobalCivilSocietyandthe

ContentiousPotentialofNGDOCoalitions.Ph.D.UniversityofRoskilde.

Soteri-Proctor,A.(2011)‘Littlebigsocieties:micro-mappingoforganisations

operatingbelowtheradar’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,Workingpaper71,1-

32.

Sotiropoulos,D.andD.Bourikos(2014)‘EconomicCrisis,SocialSolidarityand

theVoluntarySectorinGreece’,JournalofPower,Politics&Governance,2,2,33-

53.

47

Springer,S.(2010)‘NeoliberalismandGeography:Expansions,Variegations,

Formations’,GeographyCompass,4,8,1025-1038.

Squire,V.(2010)‘FromCommunityCohesiontoMobileSolidarities:TheCityof

SanctuaryNetworkandtheStrangersintoCitizensCampaign’,PoliticalStudies,

59,2,290-307.

Tazreiter,C.(2010)‘LocaltoGlobalActivism:TheMovementtoProtectthe

RightsofRefugeesandAsylumSeekers’,SocialMovementStudies,9,2,201-214.

Tilki,M.,R.Thompson,L.Robinson,J.Bruce,E.Chan,OLewis,F.Chinegwundoh

andH.Nelson(2015)‘TheBMEthirdsector:marginalisedandexploited’

VoluntarySectorReview,6,1,93-101.

Toepler,S.(2003)‘GrassrootsAssociationsVersusLargerNonprofits:New

EvidenceFromaCommunityCaseStudyinArtsandCulture’,Nonprofitand

VoluntarySectorQuarterly,32,2,236-251.

Tõnurist,P.andL.Surva(2016)‘IsVolunteeringAlwaysVoluntary?Between

CompulsionandCoercioninCo-production’,VOLUNTAS:InternationalJournalof

VoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,28,1,223-247.

Valentine,G.(1997)‘Tellmeabout...Usinginterviewsasaresearchmethodology’

inFlowerdew,R.andD.Martin(eds.)MethodsinHumanGeography:aGuidefor

StudentsDoingaResearchProject,Longman,London,110-126.

Viterna,J.E.CloughandK.Clarke(2015)‘Reclaimingthe“ThirdSector”from

“CivilSociety”:ANewAgendaforDevelopmentStudies’,Sociologyof

Development,1,1,173-207.

White,A.(2002)‘Geographiesofasylum,legalknowledgeandlegalpractices’,

PoliticalGeography,21,8,1055-1073.

48

Williams,L.(2006)‘SocialNetworksofRefugeesintheUnitedKingdom:

Tradition,TacticsandNewCommunitySpaces’,JournalofEthnicandMigration

Studies,32,5,865-879.

WoodM.andM.Flinders(2014)‘Rethinkingdepoliticisation:beyondthe

governmental’,Policy&Politics,42,151–70.

Wolch,J.R.(1990)TheShadowState:GovernmentandVoluntarySectorin

Transition.NewYork:TheFoundationCentre.

Initialproposal

BelowtheradarresponsestotheEUmigrationcrisis

Micro-mappingthirdsectoractivityinBristol

Europeiswitnessingacrisisofresponsibilityregardingrefugees.TheDublin

Regulationhasprovedlargelyunsuitableformanagingthecurrentcrisis,with

memberstatesontheSchengenbordershowinglittledesiretocomply.The

widespreadimplementationofAusteritypoliciesacrossmuchofEuropehas

massivelyreducedessentialwelfareservices.Manyrefugeeshavefound

themselvescaughtinaprotectiongap.Somerefugeeshavebeen‘warehoused’

andsufferedhumanrightsabuses,whileothershavebeenrepelledbyEurope’s

bordersandleftlargelyunassisted.Inmanyinstanceswhennationstateshave

failedtoprovideadequatesupportforrefugees,bothwithinandwithout

Europe’sborders,thirdsectoractivityhascontributedandtriedtofillthe

protectiongap.Despiteitsattimescriticalrolethescaleofthirdsectoractivity

remainslargelyun-quantified.Academicshaveincreasinglycometorecognise

theimportanceofdevelopingabetterunderstandingoforganisedactivityinthe

thirdsectorwhichisnotcapturedbythestandardsources.Suchsourcesinclude

49

theCharityCommissionregisterofrecognisedcharitiesinEnglandandWales

andtheregisterofCompaniesLimitedbyGuaranteeinCompaniesHouse.Major

statisticaldatasourcessuchastheseprovideimportantinformationbutarefar

fromcomprehensive.Manygroupsandorganisationsexistoutsideofthese

registers.Such‘belowtheradar’groupsmaybetoosmalltoregister,maynotbe

ableorwanttobecomeanofficialcharity,ormayonlycometogether

temporarilyaroundspecificissuesratherthanbepermanent.Thisdissertation

willfollowamethodologydevisedbytheThirdSectorResearchCentreto

producea‘micro-map’ofvoluntarygroupsinonelocationintheUKinorderto

assessrefugee-relatedthirdsectorgroupsthathavehithertoremained‘below

theradar’.

Researchquestions:

ThisdissertationwilladaptaseriesofresearchquestionsusedbyTSRCintheir

micro-mappingpilotstudytothecontextofrefugeerelatedBTRgroupsin

Bristol.

1. HowareBTRgroupsstructuredandhowdotheyoperate?

2. Whatistheirroleandfunction?

3. Howeffectivearethey?

4. WhatistherelationshipbetweenBTRgroups,theformalthirdsectorand

localgovernment?

5. IsitpossibletomoreaccuratelyquantifyBTRgroupsandtheir

contributiontocivilsociety?

6. HowhasausterityaffectedrefugeesinBritain?

50

Methods:

ThisdissertationwillfollowthemethodologydevisedbyDrAndriSoteri-Proctor

andtheThirdSectorResearchCentreattheUniversityofBirminghamwhich

theyhavecalled‘micro-mapping’.ThismethodologywillbeappliedtoBristol,as

havinglivedthereforeseveralyearsIamawareofsomelocalgroupsfromwhich

theresearchcanbeginandIwillbeaccommodatedsoIcanspendprolonged

periodsoftimecarryingouttheresearch.Thismethodologyinvolves

establishingageographicalareawithinwhich‘street-level’fieldworkwillbe

carriedout.Multiplesearchtoolswillbeusedincludingsolo-walksduringwhich

Iwilllookforinformationonnoticeboards,advertsandshopsignsandvisiting

spacessuchascommunitybuildingsandfaith-basedbuildings.Peoplewith

knowledgeaboutrelevantactivitieswillbeidentifiedandinterviewed,andusing

asnowballmethodwillbeusedtoidentifyotherparticipants.Oneareaofthe

micro-mappingmethodologywhichwillbedevelopedinthisdissertationisthe

useofsocialmediatoinvestigatevirtualgroupsandcommunitiesthatmayonly

physicallycoalescearoundspecific,non-regularactivities.Forexample,the

CalaisRefugeeSolidarityBristolFacebookgrouphasseveralthousandmembers

whoorganisesolelyonline.Identifyingthesevirtualnetworkswillbevitalto

creatingarepresentativemicro-map.

Timetableforresearch:

April,May Literaturereview

May Identifyareatobemapped

June,July Carryoutstreet-levelresearch

August,September Analysisandwriting

September Finalcheckandhandin

51

Rationale:

Buildingongrowingacademicdiscussionoftheimpactofausterityonrefugees

intheUK,thisdissertationwillhighlighttheroleofBTRgroupsinpromotingthe

rightsandsafeguardingthewelfareofrefugees.Furthermore,itwillcontribute

toworkdonebytheTSRCanddevelopideasandpracticeswithinthemicro-

mappingmethodology.

Barbero,Iker."ScapegoatCitizensInTimesOfAusterity:TheImpactOfThe

CrisisOnTheImmigrantPopulationInSpain".SocialIdentities21.3(2015):244-

256.Web.

Bariagaber,Assefaw."States,InternationalOrganisationsAndTheRefugee:

ReflectionsOnTheComplexityOfManagingTheRefugeeCrisisInTheHornOf

Africa".TheJournalofModernAfricanStudies37.4(1999):597-619.Web.

Diamond,John."ChallengingTheStatusQuo:TheRoleAndPlaceOfThirdSector

Organisations".InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy30.1/2

(2010):8-16.Web.

Hwang,Ki-Sik,andIn-SunSuk."ImmigrantSocialIntegrationCrisisInEurope

AndItsIntegrationPolicyImplications".Journalofinternationalareastudies19.4

(2016):135.Web.

McCabe,AngusandPhillimore,Jenny(2009)Exploringbelowtheradar:issuesof

themeandfocus.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,Birmingham,UK.

52

McCabe,AngusandPhillimore,JennyandMayblin,Lucy(2010)‘Belowtheradar’

activitiesandorganisationsinthethirdsector:asummaryreviewofthe

literature.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,Birmingham,UK.

Robinson,K."VoicesFromTheFrontLine:SocialWorkWithRefugeesAnd

AsylumSeekersInAustraliaAndTheUK".BritishJournalofSocialWork44.6

(2013):1602-1620.Web.

Soteri-Proctor,Andri(2011)Littlebigsocieties:micro-mappingoforganisations

operatingbelowtheradar.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,

Birmingham,UK.

Soteri-Proctor,A.andAlcock,P.(2012)Micro-Mapping:Whatliesbeneaththe

thirdsectorradar?VoluntarySectorReview,Vol.3,No.3,pp.379-98

53

ResearchDiary:

1stFebruary:BeganreadingworkingpapersfromtheBelowtheRadarReference

GroupatBirminghamUni.Interestingmethodologyforthe‘streetlevel’.

FollowingfrommyotherunitsonE.Urefugeelawandtheideaofa‘crisisof

responsibility’havebeenlookingatthethirdsectorandtheroleitcanplayin

fillingaresponsibilitygap.HavebeenincontactwithpeopleIknowinCalais,

talkingaboutwhetherIcouldmapwherepeoplearecomingfrom,howeverit

soundsverydifficultandalsoexpensiveforme.TurningbacktotheUK,begunto

lookatresearchonbelowtheradarmigrantsupportgroups.Notmuchliterature

here.SettledonBristolasacasestudy.

20thFebruary:Submittedfirstproposal

5thApril:Metwithsupervisoranddiscussedmyproposal.Oneissuewhichwas

raisedwasthatthemethodologyoutlinedbytheBelowtheRadarReference

GroupatBirminghamUniisveryvague.ThoughtthroughhowIwouldactually

doit,includingdecidingonacasestudyarea.

8thMay:OralPresentation.wentwell,mainthingItookawayfromthefeedback

wasthatmyapproachwasn’tanalyticalenough.Icanseethatitscloseto

becomingabigsurvey.NeedtofindsomeliteratureIcanconnectwiththis.

21stMay:Meetingwithsupervisor.Talkedabouthowtocreateanactual

researchapproach.Developedtheideaofseparatephases,beginningwitha

largersurveybeforenarrowingitdowntofewerTSOs.

June:Settledonde-politicisationasthespecifictopicforstudy.Havebeen

readingaroundinterviewsinpreparation.TryingtoreadFoucalt,ashisideaof

governmentalityseemsveryimportantforstudyingnon-stateactors.Quite

difficult.BeguntoreadGramsci,followingacriticismofFoucaltasbeingtoo

54

pessimisticwhichIagreedwith.Startedwritingupinterviewquestions.Created

agenericscripttogooverwithsupervisorbeforeInarrowdown.

7th–15thJune:workedonliteraturereview.Stillunsureofwhatmyfocusis,

haveincludedabitofeverything.

14thJune:HandedinLiteraturereview.Wasarushtofinishit,notproperly

formatted.

14th–21stJune:HavebeenreadingmorearoundGramsciandUrbanregime

theory.Ifde-politicisationispartofhegemonicdiscourse,thenGramsciand

counter-discourseconceptisimportant.

20thJune:HandedinRiskAssessment

21stJune:Receivedfeedbackonliteraturereview.IthinkIneedtonarrowdown

myfocusonBTRliteraturesoIhavemoreroomforthetheoreticalstuff.

21stJune:ConductedonlinesearchesusingFacebookandTwitter.Keywords:

refuge,refugee,asylum,Calais,Syria,immigrant.Comeupwithasurprising

amountofgroups.ThinkinghowIchoosewhichonestointerview.

22ndJune:Metsupervisorandtalkedaboutinterviewquestions.Positive

feedback,decidedtorearrangeorderofquestionsandgivemoretimefor

discussingissuesthatImightwanttogointodetailwith.

26thJune:NarroweddownacasestudyareainBristolusingBristolCityCouncil

data.

27thJune:UsingexistinglistsofTSOstosupplementmyownasdevelopedfrom

onlinesearches.

55

28thJune:Writtencoverletters.Findingitdifficulttojustifytheresearch,but

maybebeingoverlycritical.

1-7July:sentoutfirstinterviewrequests.Noresponsestothefirstbatch.Sent

outrequeststoawidergroupofTSOs.Norepliesinfirstfourdays.Writtenand

sentoutnewrequests.Readingonhowtocodeinterviews.

11-18thJuly:Continuedreadingthirdsectorliterature.Decidedonaworking

definitionfordefiningthirdsector.BegantocategoriseTSOsactivity.

20th–26thJuly:Conductedstreet-levelsearchesaroundBristol.Nicetobeback.

Interestingchatswithpeopleandvolunteers,confirmedsomeofmysuspicions

(BRRisthebiggest,therearelotsofpeoplevolunteering).Alsocontinuedtosend

outinterviewrequestsandhavehadsomeresponsesnow.Hastakenmealot

longerthanIanticipated,whichwasnaïveofme.

28thJuly:Firstthreeinterviews.Wentwell,althoughphoneismoredifficultandI

cantmakenotesontheirbodylanguageetc.LearntabouttheRefugeeForum,

whichsurprisedme.Soundsreallyimportantbutnoinformationonitanywhere

online.

29thJuly:Twomoreinterviewstoday.Codingthemimmediatelyafteras

sometimesmynotesaren’tuptoscratch.Peoplecantalkveryfast.

1stAugust:Threemoreinterviews.Interestingideaof‘need’and‘have’keeps

poppingup.Volunteersfeelresponsible.

3rdAugust:Lasttwointerviews.WillbeleavingBristolinthenextfewdays.Has

takenmeamonthtogetalltheinterviewswhichissurprising.Haveamuch

betterideaofhowto‘win’peopleovernow.

56

3rd–10thAugust:Backinthelibrary.Readingaboutcoercion,andvoluntarism,

whichactuallyconnectsbacktoBigSociety.Gramsciagain.Writtenout

methodology.

10th-17thAugust:Completelyre-writtenliteraturereview.Intercuthistorical

contextofasylumpolicywithneoliberalismandde-politicisation.

17th–20th:Writtenthreechapters–‘who’,‘What’and‘why’.Thinkthisisagood

waytoframeit,whoaretheTSOs,whatareTSOsdoingandwhyaretheydoing

it.

20th-27th:rewrittenchaptersaroundthesubheadings.Makesitclearerwhatmy

pointsare.

1st-4thSeptember:Writtenconclusion.

Interviewschedule:

(‘BRR’isplaceholder)

Explainresearchagain

Consent(audiorecorder)

WouldliketostartoffbytalkingaboutBRR

1. CanyoutellmeabitaboutBRRandwhatyoudohere?(Prompt-activities,

size,participantdemographics,finances,structure,function)

2. Whatarethemainaimsormotives?(othpersonnelandBRRaswhole)

3. BRRwasstartedin….Whatwasthemotiveforstarting?Whatwasitdoing

then?

57

4. Doyouthinkithaschangedalotornotmuchbetweenwhenitwasstarted

andnow?(Prompt-activities,aspirations,size,structure,function)

5. Ifyes,why?

6. Doyouthinkotherorgsintheareahavehadsimilarexperiences?

7. WhatdoyouthinkareBRRsstrengths?

8. ArethereanychallengesBRRiscurrentlyfacing?

9. Arethereanyneeds?Whatfor?Isthisconstantorinresponseto

event/circumstance?

WanttotalkabouttherelationshipbetweenBRRandotherorganisations

1. DoesBRRworkwithotherorganisationsalot?

2. Couldyoutellmewhichones?

3. Aretheserelationshipslong-term,ordotheydeveloparoundspecificevents

andthenfade?

4. (similarly)Arethereformalchannelsofcommunication,orisitad-hoc?

5. Doyouthinktheyshareyouraspirations?

AswellasBRRsrelationshipwithotherorgs,imreallyinterestedtoknow

moreaboutyourrelationshipwithlocalgovernment

1. HowwouldyoudescribeBRRsrelationshipwithlocalgovernment?

2. Doyoureceiveanymaterialsupportfromthem?Isitsufficient?Areany

conditionsplacedonthis?Doyouthinktheseconditionsarefair?Arethey

properlymonitored?

3. Islocalgovernmentsupportiveofyourwork?

4. Doyouthinktheysharethesameaspirationsofyourorganisation?

5. Doyouthinkworkingwith(ornot)localgovhasbeenbeneficial,andcould

yougiveanexampleofwhereithashelped?Similarly,hasitcausedproblems

inanyways?

6. Wouldyouliketobeabletoworkmorecloselywithlocalgovernment,or

wouldyouprefertobemoreindependent?

58

7. Doyouthinklocalgovernmenthas(orexercises)alotofauthority?Doyou

thinktheyholdalotofresponsibilities?

8. Howdoyouthinkyourcolleaguesgenerallyviewlocalgov?

9. DoyouthinkthisisthecaseforotherasylumVCOs?Isthereageneralmood

orattitudeamongstVCOstowardslocalgovernment?

10. Doyouthinktheyareparticularlyactiveinthissphere?Whatdoyouthink

theirmainfocusis?Shouldtheyshouldbedoingmore?Doyouthinktheyare

effectiveatwhattheydo?

11. Doyouthinklocalgovernment’srolehaschangedovertime?Why?(prompt–

bigsociety,austerity)

End

Interviewtranscriptextract:

S

Sorefugeeactiontheywere,really,almostthebiggestagencywithinBristolin

thecommunityandvoluntarysectorworkingwithasylumseekersandrefugees.

AndthenwelostfundingfromtheGovernment.Atthatstagemostofourfunding

camedirectlyfromthegovernment,andprobablynotenoughfromsupporters,

theirsupporterbase.Anditmeantthatweweresubjectedtoquiteafewrounds

ofredundanciesandthatkindofstuff.So,so,intermsofgivingadvice–who

doesitnow?Itsshiftedfromrefugeeactionto,um,Iwouldprobablysayrefugee

rights.Sotheyhaveateam,aninformationandadviceteamwhoprobablydo

mostofthatstuffnowthatrefugeeactionusedtodo.andweusedtohavetodo

examsatrefugeeaction,itwasallveryyouknowregulated,andIdon’tknow

that,Idon’tknowhowregulatedtheadviceis.Imean,Iknowrefugeerightsare

brilliant,andIknowtheirvolunteersaretrainedverywell,butitslessformalI

59

wouldthinknowthanitwasthen.Sothat’showIstarted[myorg]about6½

yearsagonow.Lookingroundatalltheotheragenciesnobodywasproviding

oneononesupportforpeopleoutinthecommunity,itwasallaboutpeople

goingtoaservicetoreceivehelp,buttheonuswasonthemgettingthere.And

therewasnothingforpeoplewhoperhapswouldfinditreallydifficulttogointo

areallybusyplace,oraplacewhereitwaspredominantlymen–ifyou’rea

vulnerablewoman,orifyou’rereallydepressedandactuallyyouneededtomeet

someoneinsortofananonymouscoffeeshopratherthanareallybusydropin

typescenario.SoIstartedb.friendandamstilldoingit.

N

So,isthatstillthesamesortofworkyoudo?isthatstillthesameideabehind

[yourorg]?

S

Yeah.It’sreallysimple,it’sareallysimplemodelof–Itrainvolunteers,mostlyin

awarenessofstufflikewhocomestoBristol,whytheycomehere,alsolistening

skills,thatkindofthing.AndI,throughthreesessions,basicallysussoutthese

volunteers(laughter)andtryandworkoutwhetherthey’resuitableornot.And

thenwehaveaninformalinterviewandtheniftheycanprovidemewithtwo

goodreferencesthentheyreabletobevolunteerandtheyarematchedwith

peoplewhoarereferredbyalltheotheragencies.Sothat’skindofhowthat

works,it’sareallyeasy,simple,veryquickwaytomakeadifferenceinsomeones

life,ifitgoeswellandthepartnershipworks.Peoplequiteoften,they’lldoitfor

12monthswhichiskindoftherequirementandthenafterthattheymightsay

wellactuallywestillwanttocarryonmeetingtogether.That’sthenicestthing

forme,whereIseesomeonegothroughthose12monthsandactuallytheystill

wanttosupportthatperson.AndIalwayssaytothemjustcheckthatpersonstill

wantstomeetwithyou,itslikeyou’regonnabesomekindoflimpetyouknow

(laughter).Yeah,so,ivbeenreallyluckywithfunding,noneofmyfundingcomes

fromanywhereremotelyofficiallygovernment…

N

60

Yeah,thatwassomethingIwantedtoaskyouabout,Isawonthebridgesfor

communitieswebsitethatthedifferentsourceswereindividualdonors,andthen

partnershipsandgrants,whatsthesortofdistributionintermsoffunding?

S

(Pullsface)crikey.Itsshiftedabitovertheyears,um,itusedtobethatthe

donationswerebasicallymyfamily(laughter)andnowitsmoreindividuals

ratherthanjustfamilymemberswhowanttoseemebeabletofeedmyfamily.

Um,yeah,so,um,Ihavebeenreallyreallyfortunatewithsometrustfunding,so

theresacoupleoftrustswhoIcameacrossthroughacoursethatIdid,itwasan

entrepeneurshipcoursethatIdidinnorthdevon,um,fouryearsagoitwasnow?

AndIpitchedtolikeadragon’sdenonthiscourseandonthebackofthatwon

somefunding.Boththetrustthathostedthatcourseandalsoanothertrustthat

wastheresaid‘wewillgiveyoufunding’andthey’vebothagreedtogivefunding

overthreeyears.Bothgivenme£15000sothat’sbrilliant.[Myorg]onlycosts–

itsreallycheapbecauseitsjustme–justshortof£19000Ithinkitis.I’mpart

time,21hoursaweek,soinactualfactitsnotanexpensiveoperation,andIthink

peoplelikethatbecausetheycanseethatthemoneytheygivereallydoesmake

adifference,itdoesn’tgetabsorbedintoadmincostsorletterstuffingoranyof

thatstuffitreallydoesgotowardsputtingsomeonetogetherwitharefugeeor

asylumseeker.Itsgood,it’saquickandeasywaytohelp.Andivdonethingslike

runahalfmarathon,neveragain(laughter)andwe’vehadfundraisingtype

things...Imtryingtothinkwhoelsehasgivenmoney,um,ivbeensoblownaway

byunexpectedpeopledonatingmoneythatIdidn’tevenknowthattheyknew

about[myorg].ivhadachequefor£1000throughmyfrontdoor,justrandom

youknow?

N

Justgeneralinterestfromthepublic?

S

Yeah,whichhasbeenamazing,likeabiglawyersfirminBristoljustsentmea

chequefor£600thattheyhadhadacollectionattheirChristmasdinnerandI

61

gotthatinFebruary,andsosomeonehadjustheardabout[myorg]andsaidlets

justgiveittothem.Ididn’tknowaboutthem,itsgreat.

N

Didyou,haveyounoticedanychangessince2014/2015thingshappeningin

Syria,hasthathadanimpactonpublicinterestandinvolvement?

S

Itcertainlyhadanimpactontheamountofpeoplewhocontactedmeofferingto

volunteer.Overoneweekend,whenitwasallgoingmadinthepress,Ihad

overnightprobablytenortwelvetogether–‘IwanttobeavolunteerhowcanI

help?’.AnditwaskindofinterestingbecauseIfoundthat,um,althoughpeople

reallywantedtohelp,actuallynothinghadchangedhere.Theproblemwasstill

there(motionswitharmindicatingsomewhereelse)andthesepoorpeople

havingtomaketheirwayacrosstoEurope,butnoonewasgettingacrossthe

channeloratleastnotmanypeopleweregettingacrossthechannelandso

actuallyitsnotbeenaproblem,oranissuerather.Nowobviouslytheresthe

Syrianresettlementprogramme,but,um,yeahitfeltlikeitwas,itwasgreat

peoplewantedtorespondintermsofaction,butactuallytherewasn’tmuchfor

peopletoactuallydoatthatpointapartfromgivemoneyoraid–nobodywas

hereatthatpoint.sothatwasabittricky.ButIdidhavelotsofpeopleemailing

meandsomeofthembecamevolunteersandthatgreatbutothersdidn’t,Ithink

itsthatsortofthingwhereyouseesomethingandyourespondandinthat

momentyoureallywanttodosomethingbutactuallyyouthengetonwithyour

ownlifeandthereisn’tspace.

62

Coveringletter:

Hello,

MynameisNickSharmaandI’mapostgraduatestudentatUniversityCollege

LondoncurrentlyconductingresearchintoBristol’sasylum-relatedthirdsector.

Themainfocusofthisresearchisinvestigatinghowthirdsectororganisations

haveproceededagainstthebackgroundofausterity-drivenspendingcutsand

reformstopublicservices,voluntarybodiesandwelfareprovision.

AspartofmyresearchIwillbeinterviewingmembersofanumberofgroups,

networksandorganisationsacrossthecity,andIwouldliketoinviteamember

ofBristolHospitalityNetworktotakepartinashortinformalinterviewattheir

convenience.Theinterviewwilltakearound30-45minutesandsomeofthe

topicsofdiscussionincludeyourorganisation’sactivities,organisational

aspirations,theconnectionsyoumayhavewithotherlocalorganisations,and

opinionsonlocalgovernment’sroleinthissector.

RecentpublicationsfromresearchersatLiverpoolJohnMooresUniversityand

theUniversityofBristol,aswellasorganisationssuchasVoscurandtheCharity

FinanceGroup,haveshownthatstudyingtheexperiencesandperspectivesof

participantscanbeofgreatvalueforothersworkingwithinthesamefield.

FollowingmyresearchIhopetoproduceabriefreportbasedontheresearch

findingsandoutcomesthatcouldbeofusetoorganisationsinBristolsuchas

yours.Forexample,accurateandup-to-dateinformationonhowassetsare

distributedacrossthecitycouldfacilitatecollaborativework.

63

Ifamemberofyourteamwouldliketotakepartorfindoutmoreaboutmy

researchIcanbereachedattheemailaddressorphonenumberbelowandwe

canarrangetomeetlocallyataconvenienttimeforyou.

Ilookforwardtohearingfromyou.

Kindregards,

Nick

1

Thirdsectororganisationsandthede-politicisationofasylumgovernance

Candidatenumber:NKPH4

Supervisor:ClaireDwyer

ThisresearchdissertationissubmittedfortheMScinGlobalMigrationat

UniversityCollegeLondon

2017

2

Abstract:

De-politicisationhasemergedasadefiningfeatureofasylumgovernanceinthe

UK.Stemmingfromaneoliberalrationality,de-politicisationhastwomain

features.First,responsibilitiesaretransferredfromthestatetothenon-state

sphere.Second,asylumisdiscursivelyrenderedasathreattobemanaged,

alternativeapproachesareclosedoffanddiscourseislimitedtotechnocratic

issues.Thisdissertationisanexaminationofhowstrategiesofde-politicisation

haveaffectedthirdsectororganisations(TSOs)onthegroundinBristol.Building

onrecenttrendswithinmigrationscholarship,itworkswithaframeworkthatis

informedbyanti-essentialistnotionsofstatepowerandfocusesontheactionsof

anetworkofnon-stateactorswithinaspecificlocality.Themethodologyused

hereinvolvestworesearchapproaches-street-levelsearchesasdescribedby

theBelowtheRadarReferenceGroupattheThirdSectorResearchCentre,and

semi-structuredinterviewswiththirdsectorworkers.Thismethodology

capturesboththematerialanddiscursiveeffectsofandreactionstode-

politicisation,andhelpsusunderstandthevolitionalconductofTSOs.Whatwill

bedemonstratedisthatpracticesanddiscourseswithinasylumgovernanceare

notfixedbutareinsteadconstantlybeingchangedanddevelopedastheytake

shapeontheground.De-politicisationhasresultedinatransferof

responsibilitiestothethirdsector,howeverbelowthesurfaceoftheexpanding

roleofTSOsinasylumservicesandsupportthereisanon-goingformationof

counter-hegemonicdiscourse.Throughacoerciveengenderingofaction,TSOs

havebeenmotivatedtoexpandtheiractivities,howeverthisdoesnotmeanthey

havebeenco-optedintohegemonicdiscourseormanipulatedbylegaland

financialstatediscipline.Instead,thecurrentalignmentofasylumTSOsinBristol

meansthatagreatdealofpowerlieswithactorswhoarenotintrinsicallytiedto

theaims,idealsorinterestsofthestate,andwhoareabletobuildcounter-

hegemonicdiscoursesinoppositiontotheneoliberalrationalityofthestate’s

asylumgovernance.

Wordcount:11899

3

Contents:

Introduction–p.5

Chapter1TurningLocal–p.7

1.1 Movingonfrommethodologicalnationalism–p.7

Chapter2:Asylumandthethirdsector–p.10

2.1Governmentalanddiscursivede-politicisation:Neoliberalismandasyluminthe

UK–p.10

2.2Subcontractorsandhandmaidens:Pessimisticviewsofthethirdsector–p.14

2.3Hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion:Gramscianconceptsandthethird

sector–p.15

Chapter3:Methodology–p.17

3.1Phaseone:street-levelsearches–p.18

3.2Phasetwo:interviews–p.20

Chapter4:Analysis–p.22

4.1Forms,missionsandsocialcompositions-p.22

4.2Market-orientedtransferofresponsibilitiesp.24

4.3Resistinggoaldisplacement–p.27

4.4Independenceandautonomy-p.29

4.5Coerciveengenderingofaction–p.31

4.6Counter-hegemonicchallengestode-politicisation–p.33

Conclusion–p.37

Bibliography–p.38

Initialproposal–p.48

Researchdiary–p.53

Interviewschedule–p.56

Interviewtranscriptextract–p.58

CoveringLetter–p.62

4

5

Introduction

Inrecentyearsgrowingnumbersofmigrationscholarshavebeenmovedbya

realisationthat‘localitymatters’(Caglar&GlickSchiller2011:1).Severaltrends

ortendencieswithinthescholarshiphaveresultedfromthis,allofwhich

intersectinthattheygive‘moreattentiontothelocaldimension’(Hingeretal.

2016:441).Thisdissertationisanattempttosynthesisethesetendenciesand

applythemtothestudyofaparticularphenomenonthathasincreasingly

definedthegovernanceofasylumintheUK:de-politicisation.Inhisresearchon

asylumgovernanceintheUK,JonathanDarlinghashighlightedpervasive

practiceswhich‘servetodepoliticisethoseseekingasylumintheUK’(Darling

2013:1).Neoliberalatitscoreandshapedbythedemandsofausterity,de-

politicisationinvolvesthetransferralofasylum-relatedfunctionsfromthe

governmentaltothenon-governmentalsphere.Alongsidethis,thecreationofa

discourseinwhichasylumseekersandrefugees(ASRs)areframedasa

threateningpresencetobepolicedandregulated,restrictstheboundariesof

politicaldebateasdiscourseincreasinglyconcernsitselfwithtechnocraticissues

of“managing”ASRs.Understandinghowasylumde-politicisationworksisvital

forunderstandingasylumtrendsacrosstheglobe,asitisinformedbya

hegemonicneoliberalrationalitytowhichmanygovernmentshavelong

subscribed.Beyonditsprevalenceasamodeofasylumgovernance,itis

importantalsobecauseofitsseriousimpactonthelivesofASRs,whichcanbe

seeninthewidespreadmarginalisationofASRsinsociety,unabletoaccessstate

welfareandostracisedfromthenativepopulation.

Theaimofthisdissertationistoexaminehowthedualstrandsofgovernmental

anddiscursivede-politicisationarerealisedatalocallevel.Thecasestudy

developedthroughthisresearchisBristol,oneoftheeightmembersoftheCore

CitiesGroup,thereasonbeingthatithasawell-establishedasylumthirdsector,

alargeASRpopulation,andIampersonallyfamiliarwithit.Incarryingoutthis

localexaminationthisdissertationwillhighlightthe‘underestimatedrelevance

ofthelocalcontext’(Hingeretal.2016:461)indetermininghowsuchpractices

takeshape.Inordertodosoitwillbringtogetherthreetendencieswithin

6

migrationscholarshipthattogetherformacoherentframeworkforacritical

examinationofthepoliticalgeographyofasylumintheUK.Takingthecityof

Bristolasadiscretelocalityinwhichde-politicisationisgrounded,itwill

foregroundthirdsectororganisations(TSOs)asthekeyactorsbywhichpolicies

andpracticesareembodied.Thethirdsectoristhe‘sectoroforganizedhuman

actioncomposedofcollectiveactorsbeyondthefamilyanddistinctfromthe

stateandthemarket’(Viternaetal.2015:175),andTSOsareintimatelybound

upintheprocessofde-politicisation,havingthepotentialtobothfacilitateand

contestit.Itwillthenexaminetheirinteractionswithde-politicisationwithina

Gramscianconceptualframework.WithitsoriginsinGramsci’swritingsoncivil

society,GramscianismcanhelpelucidatetheactionsofTSOsandthemotivations

behindthoseactionsthroughwell-establishedconcepts.Thede-politicisationof

asylumiscertainlyanationalphenomenon,evenaglobalone,howeverthe

degreetowhichitisrealisedineachplaceisdictatedbyspecificallylocal

configurationsofasylumgovernance.Throughtheuseofthisframeworkthis

dissertationwilldemonstratethatTSOscanbecoercedintofacilitatingde-

politicisation,howevertheyarealsoabletocontestit.

Beginningwithamoredetailedreviewofthetendencieswithinmigration

scholarshipthathaveinformedtheshapeanddirectionofthisstudy,this

dissertationwillthenmoveontodiscusstheliteratureonneoliberalismandde-

politicisation,beforefinishingtheliteraturereviewwithaconsiderationof

relevantthirdsectorliteratureandthekeyGramsciantheoriesthatwillbe

drawnoninlaterchapters.Chapter3willthenpresentthemethodologyusedin

thisresearch,whichconsistsoftwodifferentdata-gatheringtechniquesusedin

successivephases,andaddressitsmeritsandlimitations.Finally,theempirical

findingsoftheresearchwillbeanalysedinchapter4.Thischapterwillbegin

withareviewofthedifferentforms,missionsandsocialcompositionsofasylum

TSOsinBristol,highlightingagrass-rootsoriginandtheparticipationofASRsas

commonalitiesacrossthesector(4.1).Itwillthenoutlinethede-politicising

market-orientedtransferofresponsibilitieswhichistakingplaceandhowTSOs

areincreasinglytakingonrolesofwelfareprovision(4.2).Incontrasttothe

findingsofotherstudies,whatwillbedemonstratedisthatTSOshave

7

neverthelessmaintainedafocusontheirsubstantivegoals(4.3),asituationin

partexplainedbytherelativeautonomyandindependenceofthesector(4.4).

TSOs’acceptanceofnewrolesandresponsibilitiescanbeunderstoodinpartasa

responsetoacoerciveengenderingofaction(4.5),andthischapterwillconclude

byexploringthewaysinwhichTSOscontinuetodevelopcounter-hegemonic

challengestodiscursivede-politicisation(4.6).

Chapter1:TurningLocal

Withinthewidefieldofmigrationscholarshipitispossibletoidentifyseveral

trendsthathavedevelopedinrecentyearsfollowingcriticismsof

methodologicalnationalism.Thischapterwilladdresstheissueof

methodologicalnationalismbeforegoingontoconsiderhowsomeresearchers

havedevelopednewapproachesandperspectivesthatmoveawayfromthe

nationstateasthekeysiteofstudy.Instead,agrowingnumberofstudiesshare

aninterestinexploringissuesofmigrationatalocallevel,eitherbyinvestigating

differentspaces,examiningdifferentactorsordevelopinganti-essentialist

notionsofstatepower.

1.1Movingonfrommethodologicalnationalism

Writingin2010,Gillnotedthattherehaslongbeena‘strongassociation

betweenthenotionofarefugeeandthenotionofstates’(Gill2010:626).The

effectofthisassociationhasbeenatendencywithinmuchworkaround

migration,refugeesandasylumtofocusonthenationstateasa‘keysiteofstudy,

analysisandcritique’(Darling2016a:485).Beginninginthe1970s(Martins

1974),someresearchersbegantovocallyquestionthe‘consistency,coherence

andauthority’(Darling2016b:178)thatmigrationresearchhadtypically

assumedofnationstates,aswellasthepervasivemethodologicalapproach

whichfocussedalmostexclusiveonnationalmodels(Schmidtke2014:79).

HerminoMartinsfirstcriticallydescribedthisas‘methodologicalnationalism’in

1974(Martins1974),atermlaterelaboratedbyAndreasWimmerandNina

Glick-Schillertorefertoanintellectualorientationwhichtiesitselftoa

8

frameworkestablishedbypolicymakersand‘confinesdiscussionsofsocial

processeswithinnationalboundaries’(Caglar&GlickSchiller2011:9).Spurred

onbythedevelopingcriticismofmethodologicalnationalismmanystudieshave

soughttogobeyondanalysisatthenationallevel(Emilsson2015:1).The

traditionalfocusonnationstateshasbeensupplementedwithaconcernfor

exploringwithinnationstates(Darling2016a:485),andfurthermorewitha

growinginterestinaddressingquestionslonglefttopoliticaltheoristsabout

whatastateactuallyis.

Aspartofageneralrejectionofmethodologicalnationalismwecanidentifya

tendencytofocusattentiononresearchingmigrationatdifferentscalesandin

differentspaces.Thistrendreflectsandbuildsonthewidespreadsocial-

scientificinterestinexploringissuesofscaleandthedifferentiationbetween

local,regional,national,transnationalandglobalgeographicunits,which

developedintheearly1990’s(Brenner2011:23).In2015Platts-Fowlerand

Robinsonemphasisedtheimportanceofrecognisingthatmanyaspectsof

migrationare‘groundedandembodiedinspaceandplaceandthatdespite

proceedingunderthesamegeneraloperativeprocesses,canevolveindistinctive

waysindifferentplaces’(Platts-Fowler&Robinson2015:476).Echoesofthis

argumentcanbefoundspanningbackoverthedecade.Inthistimetherehas

beenanemphasisonthe‘localaspectsofintegrationandmigration’(Emilsson

2015:1),withstudiesexploringtheheterogeneityofmigrationpolicieswithin

nation-states(Hilber&Baraulina2012).Withregardstointegration,focushas

shiftedfromnationalmodelstounderstandingwhetherandhownational

policiesareimplementedatthelocallevel(Schmidtke2014:1).Cities,reception

centresandrefugeecampshaveallsurfacedaspopularsitesofstudy(Rygiel

2012;Sanyal2012),bothreflectingandfosteringaninterestinexploringthe

dynamicsofpolicyimplementationinwidelydifferentcontexts(Darling2016a:

485).Itappearsthatmigrationscholarshipisincreasinglyacknowledgingthat‘it

isbothconceptuallymisleadingandfactuallyincorrecttospeakofasingle–

national–modelresponsiblefortheformationofimmigrationandintegration

policies’(Schmidtke2014:80).

9

Asmigrationscholarshiphasconcerneditselfwithexploringdifferentscalesand

spacesithasalsobeguntoaddressmoreandmorethedifferentactorswho

populatethesespaces.Thisis,again,reflectiveofawidershiftinthesocial-

sciencesoccurringinthe1990s,whenglobalgovernanceemergedasa

prominentresearchagenda(Sending&Neumann2006:651)followinghoton

theheelsofregimetheoryanditsshakeupofthestudyofinternational

relations.Acentralelementofbothofthesetheoreticaldevelopmentswasa

growthininterestintheplaceandroleofnon-stateactors.Withinmigration

scholarshipdifferentnongovernmentalgroupsandactorssuchasmigrant

supportgroups(MacKenzieetal.2012),refugeecommunityorganisations

(Piacentini2012)andsocialmovements(Koca2016)havesincebeensubjectto

morescholarlyattention.AnissueofForcedMigrationReviewpublishedearly

thisyearprominentlyfeaturedseveraldiscussionsonrecognisingtheroleof

Non-governmentalOrganisations(NGOs)inrefugeeresettlement(Slaughter

2017),atopicwhichhad‘longbeenneglected’(Snyder2011:565).Inthe

Europeancontext,NGOsandvolunteergroupsactiveoutsidetraditionalstate

frameworkshavebeenseentoplayakeyroleinalleviatingthesufferingof

migrantsandhavethusbeenthefocusofaburgeoningareaofresearch

(Sotiropoulos&Bourikos2014;Chtouris&Miller2017).Theempiricalfindings

ofresearchintonon-stateactorssupportcriticismsofstate-centricityand

methodologicalnationalismbyhighlightingnotonlytheirimportantrolein

differentareasofmigrationgovernancebutalsothedynamicrelationships

betweentheseactorsandthestate.Indeed,asnewsetsofactorsgainpowers

andresponsibilities(Gill2009:215)migrationscholarshavebeenledto

criticallyexaminetheconceptsofstateandstatepowerwhichtheyemploy.

AccordingtoNickGill‘researchintoforcedmigrationhasnotbeenreadily

associatedwithanyparticularstatetheory’.Insteadthestatehasoftenbeen

conceivedofasanessentialentity,‘standingapartfromsocietyandactingupon

itfromadistance’(Gill2010:627),atendencyinformedbytheintellectual

orientationsofmethodologicalnationalism.Innovativeresearchinrecentyears

hasworkedwithanti-essentialistconceptsofthestate,inGill’s(Gill2010:639)

opinionconstitutingan‘emergingcriticalasylumgeography’.Chiefamongst

10

these,andofcriticalimportancetothisdissertation,arethoseworkswhichhave

acknowledgedthe‘differentformsofstatepower,includinggovernmental

power’(Gill2010:639).Researchinthisveinhasexploredthe‘enrolmentof

discretionary,dispersed,non-stateandquasi-stateactorsintostate-orchestrated

andstate-managed(butnotstate-executed)practices’(Gill2009:218).Inthe

currentEuropeancontextthisbandofthoughtfindsmuchtractiondueto

widespreadrecognitionthatmemberstateshavebyandlargeallmadeeffortsto

reducethedirectroleofthestateinmeetingthewelfareneedsofforced

migrants,andthatresponsibilityforsuchprovisionhasinsteadbeendevolvedto

myriadpublic,privateandvoluntaryactorswhooperateatinternational,

regionalandlocallevels(Dwyer2005:622).Inordertoexplorehowpoweris

exercisedthroughincreasinglycomplexnetworksofgovernancesome

researchershaveturnedawayfromessentialistnotionsofthestatewhichrefer

onlytolegalconstraintsandfinancialcurtailments.

Thetendenciesoutlinedabove-theexplorationofhowpoliciesarerealisedin

differentspaces,theroleofdifferentactorsandthedynamicsofasylumsector

governance-shareaninterestinlocalityandthelocaldimensionoflarge

migration-relatedphenomenon.Somestudieshavesynthesisedthesetendencies

toanalysespecificprocesses,forexampleHingeretalhavedevelopeda

frameworkforstudyingthelocaldimensionofasylumhousinginGermanand

theprocessbywhichitisnegotiated.Thisdissertationwillattempttofollow

theirleadbylookingataspecificlocalityinordertoseehowthebroader

dynamicsofaparticularphenomenon(de-politicisation)areactually

constituted,addressingtheroleofnon-stateactors(TSOs)andinformedbya

non-essentialistviewofthestateandstatepower(Gramscianism).

Chapter2:Asylumandthethirdsector

Thischapterwillbeginbyoutliningthebroaderlegal-politicalframeworkof

asylumintheUK,exploringhowasylumpoliciesandpracticesstemfroma

“neoliberalrationality”.Inparticularitwilladdresshowstrategiesofde-

11

politisationhavetransferredasylum-relatedfunctionsfromthegovernmentalto

thenongovernmentalsphereandcreatedadiscourseofasylumasamanagerial

concern.Itwillthenmoveontoconsiderhowanawarenessofsuchstrategiesin

theUKandelsewherehaveledsomethirdsectorscholarshiptoviewthesector

as‘co-opted’bythestate(McCabe2010:7).Theseviewshavebeencriticizedas

pessimisticfortheirreductivesuggestionsthatthirdsectororganisationsareon

a‘uni-directionalcoursetowardsthestate’(Carey2008:14),andincreasingly

researchersaredrawingonGramscianconceptsthatarerelevanttostudiesof

thethirdsector.ThechapterwillfinishbyconsideringGramscianconceptsof

hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion,andhighlighthowtheysupporta

nuancedframeworkforanalyzingthethirdsector.

2.1Governmentalanddiscursivede-politicisation:Neoliberalismandasylum

intheUK

SincetheelectionofMargaretThatcherin1979,whoseGovernmentwasa

‘defining,vanguardproject’ofneoliberalism(Springer2010:1028),successive

UKGovernmentshaveoperatedaccordingtoaneoliberalrationality.

“Neoliberalism”canherebeunderstoodasanassemblageof‘rationalities,

strategies,technologiesandtechniques’(Springer2010:1032)thatimbue

political,economicandsocialarrangementswithanemphasisonmarket

relations,minimalstatesandindividualresponsibility.Thecruxofneoliberalism

canbeseentolieinthe‘transferoftheoperationsofgovernment…tonon-state

entities’(Ferguson&Gupta2002:989),producing,insteadoflessgovernment,a

‘newmodalityofgovernment’(Darling2016c:232)whichfacilitates‘governance

atadistance’(Springer2010:1033).Oneofthekeystrategiesorprocesses

throughwhichthisisachievedisde-politicisation.Thisinvolvesbotha

governmentalmode,inwhichthereisamarket-orientedtransferof

responsibilities,andadiscursivemode,inwhichthistransfer‘becomescommon

sense’(Darling2016c:239)andparticularconcernsaredisplacedfrompolitical

discussionsas‘thedebatesurroundinganissuebecomestechnocratic,

managerial,ordisciplinedtowardsasinglegoal’(Wood&Flinders2014:151).In

12

thecontextofasylumthismeansthetransferofwelfareandother

responsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector,alongsidetheframingofASRs

asaburdentobemanaged.

Agovernmentalde-politicisationofasylumisclearlyvisiblethroughoutthelast

twodecades.NewLabour’sapproachtothethirdsectorwastiedinwiththeir

widerpromotionofa‘ThirdWay’inpublicpolicyplanning,whichemphasiseda

relianceonamixofstateandmarketforces,assessedonthebasisof‘what

mattersiswhatworks’(Jonesetal.2015:2066).ThecoreelementofNew

Labour’sapproachtothethirdsectorthusrevolvedaroundpursuingcloserand

bettermanagedrelationsintheformofpartnerships,whichweretobegoverned

bynationalandlocal‘compacts’whichoutlinedguidelinesfortherelationships

betweenthetwoparties(Halfpenny&Reid2002:521).Withtheintroductionof

theNationalAsylumSupportServicein2000asylumseekersweredispersedto

accommodationaroundthecountryandprovidedwithfinancialsupportat70%

ofincomesupport(Halfpenny&Reid2002:522).Amixtureofsuppliers

includingprivateproviders,localauthoritiesandTSOstookupcontractsfor

housingprovision,andTSOsworkingwithASRsgrewinsizeandnumberand

increasinglytookonroleswhichinvolvedclosecollaborationwiththestate.

TheConservativeandLiberalDemocratCoalitionGovernmentwhichcameto

powerin2010largelycontinuedthepreviousGovernment’sapproachtothird

sectorrelationsthroughtheirvocalpromotionofthe‘BigSociety’policy

programme.WhileithasneverbeencompletelyclearwhattheCoalition

Government’svisionoftheBigSocietyreallyentailed(Rowsonetal.2010:62),

beyondrhetoricof‘turningGovernmentupsidedown’wecanseethatthe

Coalitionpursuedestablishedpolicyobjectivesofdevolvingpowerstothelocal

level,reconfiguringserviceprovisionandgivingnon-stategroupsagreaterrole

inthedeliveryofGovernmentpolicyagendas(McCabe2010:4).Onesubstantial

policydiscontinuitybetweenthetwoGovernmentshasbeenrightlyhighlighted

inthehugereductionofGovernmentfundingforthethirdsectorthatoccurred

asaresultofausterity(McCabe2010:6).Followingthe2008FinancialCrisisthe

CoalitionGovernment,inlinewithmanyGovernmentsacrossEuropeandthe

13

world,implementedaraftofausteritypolicieswhichinvolvedhugespending

cutsacrossGovernment(Darling2016a:487).Whilethethirdsectorhad

previouslygrownthanksinparttocontractingandincreasedGovernment

funding(McCabe2010:6),spendingcutscausedvastdifficultiesacrossthethird

sector(PricewaterhouseCoopers2012:2).However,austerityalsofostered

furthermarketizationofwelfareprovisionandfurtherwithdrawalofstate

supportforASRs,andsowhileTSOshadlessfundingtheyoftenhadgreater

responsibilities(PricewaterhouseCoopers2012).Theapproachesofboth

Governmentstothirdsectorrelationswereclearlyneoliberalincharacter,

involvingatransferofresponsibilitiesoutsideofthestatesphereandthe

involvementofTSOsasmechanismsfordeliveringformerlypublicservices.

Alongsidegovernmentalde-politicisationitisalsoapparentthatadiscursivede-

politicisationhasbeentakingplace.Togetherwithnationalisticrhetoricof

‘protecting’thesovereignstateand‘maintaining’borders,dominantasylum

discoursepositionsASRsaseconomicallyundesirableandathreattosocial

cohesion(Bakkeretal.2016:118;Luecketal.2015:608;Moore2013:356).The

widespreadusageof‘hydraulicmetaphors’byGovernmentministersandinthe

popularpress,whichimaginemigrantsas‘floods’or‘swarms’goeshandinhand

withdepictionsofasylumseekersas‘bogus’,‘undeserving’and‘illegitimate’

(White2002:3).Thesemetaphorsanddepictionstookonparticularemphasisin

thelightofanausteritynarrativethatasanationweneededto“tightenbelts”

andthattherewasnotenoughtogoaround(Perlo2012).Theconfluenceof

thesenarrativesgenerates‘survivalistemotions’,evokingnotionsofthenation

being‘fullup,overcrowded’(Anderson2017:57).Thenarrationofan‘asylum

problem’naturalisestheperceptionofasylumseekersasanunwantedelement

within(Darling2013:81),reinforcesimaginingsofasylumseekersas

‘problematicpresences’andfostersadiscursivede-politicisationinwhichtheir

entranceandpresencebecomesomethingtobepolicedormanagedaccordingto

‘logicsofproceduralefficiencyandemergencymeasures’(Darling2016c:231).

Oncethethreatofasylumseekersdrainingthenationsscarceresourceshasbeen

asserted,politicalalternativestotheGovernment’sapproachofdeterringtheir

accesstotheseresourcesbecomeincreasinglycontentious.Asdiscourseisde-

14

politicised,theboundariesofdebatesolidifyaroundquestionsof‘regulations,

risks,quantificationandprocedure’ratherthan‘politicalrights,political

alternativesandhumanlives’(Darling2013:82).

2.2Subcontractorsandhandmaidens:Pessimisticviewsofthethirdsector

Overthelastseveraldecadesanumberofgovernmentsaroundtheglobehave

engagedinamarket-orientedtransferofresponsibilities,atrendwhichhasbeen

viewedcriticallybymanyresearchers.InthisviewTSOsare‘merely

perpetuatingthewillofthestate’(Carey2008:11)bycarryingoutrolesand

functionsthatpreviouslyhad‘unambiguouslyresidedinthestatesphere’(Gill

2009:216).TSOsareconditionedintothispositionthroughtheuseof

conditionalfundingandwiderlegalandadministrativeregulationsthatdirect

theiractionsintheinterestsofthestate.IntheUKcontext,researchinthisvein

suggeststhattheprocessofcontractingandpartnershipinstitutesTSOsasapart

ofthesystemofgovernance(Carmel&Harlock2008:167).Inordertoqualify

forfundingTSOshavetoconformto‘systemsofregulation,inspectionandaudit’

(Clarke2004:36)thatshapehowtheyfunctionandwhattheydo.Thistiesintoa

widerassertionthatforNGOsadependencyonstate-aligneddonorsandthe

stateforfundingcaneffectivelymakethemsubcontractorsofthestateoreven

para-statalorganisational(Kaldor2003:21).Furthermore,byprovidinga‘social

safetynet’(Kaldor2003:16)TSOsareenablingthe‘withdrawalofthestate’

(MacKenzie2012:263)andthusactingasan‘importantmechanism’(Kaldor

2003:16)fortheimplementationofaneoliberalagenda.

Oneofthemostprevalentperspectivesofthethirdsectorwhichtakesthisview

isdescribedbyOlafCorryasthegovernmentalview(Corry2010:16).This

approachstemsfromMichelFoucalt’swritingsonthenatureofmodern

governmentandhistheoryofgovernmentality,atermheusedtorefertothe

‘conductofconducts’,orthepracticesbywhichthestategovernstheconductof

others(MacKinnon2000:295).Governmentalitythendescribesthesystemof

‘discourseandtechniquesorinstitutionsthatallowcertainpracticestoflourish

andotherstoappearimpossible’(Corry2010:16),andagovernmentalviewof

15

thethirdsectorseesitaspartoforevenatoolofthedominantorderandits

discoursesandinstitutionsasthemeansbywhichacertainkindofgovernanceis

achieved(Corry2010:16).Statepoweristhusregulatory–itworksthrough

institutionsandinducesindividualstoconformtosocialnorms(Carey2008:12),

andTSOsformpartoftheapparatusbywhichgovernmentsareableto‘govern

atadistance’(Carey2008:12)and‘producethemoralregulationofthechoices

ofautonomousindividuals’(Gilbert&Powell2009:7).Thegovernmentalview

hasbeencriticizedbyRaymondBryantforreflectingtooheavilyFoucalt’sown

pessimism(Bryant2002:271),andbyCorryforbeingtoo‘reductionist’inits

analysis(Corry2010:17),reducingTSOstomerelythe‘handmaidens’of

governmentality,andthethirdsectorasawholetolittlemorethanatoolfor

orderingsociety.InthelightofthiscriticismGramscianperspectiveshavebeen

gainingtractionwithinthirdsectorscholarship.

2.3Hegemony,counter-hegemonyandcoercion:Gramscianconceptsandthe

thirdsector

Whilediverseintheirdetails,theseconceptshavealldevelopedfromthe

writingsofAntonioGramsci,theItalianMarxisttheoristandpolitician.Gramsci

iscreditedwithdevelopinga‘culturallyandinstitutionallysensitive

interpretationofMarxisttheory’(Gale1998:270),andhiswritingsoncivil

society,whichhelocatedasastructuralthirdsectorbetweenthestateandthe

economicrealm(Katz2006:334;Viternaetal.2015:178),havebeentakenup

bylaterauthors.Gramscianismbroadenedtheunderstandingofhowpoweris

exercisedbyhighlighting‘opinion-mouldingactivity’aboveandbeyond

traditionaleconomicandmilitaryfactors(Sønderriis2011:33).Attractingthe

attentionoflocalgovernanceresearchersitwaswidelytakenupasabroad

conceptualframeworkfor‘assessinghowgovernanceischannelledand

deliveredthroughlocalstateinstitutions’(MacKinnon2000:294).WhileStuart

Hallcautionedthatitdoesnotoffera‘generalsocialsciencewhichcanbe

appliedtotheanalysisofsocialphenomenaacrossawidecomparativerangeof

historicalsocieties’(Hall1986:5),heneverthelesssharedtheviewthatitoffers

16

atheoreticalbasisfromwhichtoanalysethe‘dynamicsofcontemporarypolitical

contests’(Hall1986:5).

Gramscianconceptsofferausefulframeworkforexaminingthethirdsector

becauseitprovidesbothameansofunderstandingwhatTSOsaredoing,through

thetheoryofhegemonyandcounter-hegemony,andameansofunderstanding

whyTSOsaredoingthesethings,throughtheconceptofcoercion.Hegemony,

accordingtoGramsci,isthedominantwayoflifeandthought,diffusedthrough

societyandinformingitsnorms,values,practicesandsocialrelations(Katz

2006:335).Alongsidehegemonythereisasimultaneousmovementofcounter-

hegemony(Katz2006:336),andwhilehegemonymaintainsthepositionofthe

rulingclass,counter-hegemonypromotesare-arrangementofsocialforces.

Hegemonyisthus‘contingentandunstable’(Levy&Egan2003:807),andthe

thirdsector,accordingtoGramscianthought,canbeseenasazoneof

contestationinwhichsocialforcesviefordominance(Corry2010:17).Inthis

perspectiveTSOareeitherutilisedbytherulingclassto‘formandmaintainits

hegemony’(Katz2006:335),ortheyactassitesandinstitutionsfromwhich‘an

alternativesocialordercanmaterialise’(Sønderriis2011:34).TheGramscian

emphasisonthewayinwhichnon-stateforcesandactorsinsocietycanbeco-

optedbythestateissimilarinitsanalysistothegovernmentalview,howeverit

ismorenuancedinallowingforthepotentialforsocialchangetomaterialise

withinthethirdsector.Itisimportanttonotethathegemonyandcounter-

hegemonyarenotastrictdichotomy,andTSOscanbecomplicatedinboth

promotingandchallenginghegemonysimultaneously.Nevertheless,asa

frameworkthistheoryenablesustomorefullyappreciatewhatTSOsare

actuallydoingbeyondanevaluationofactivitiesandoutcomes.Instead,weare

abletoanalysethethirdsectoras‘thebalanceofsocialforcesinsociety’(Corry

2010:18),andseespecificactionsaseitherfurtheringorcounteringhegemonic

discourses;eitherreinforcingtheexistingsocialorderordeveloping

alternatives.

Whilehegemonyandcounter-hegemonycanhelpusunderstandwhatTSOsare

doing,theycannotexplaininandofthemselveswhyTSOsareactinginthese

17

ways.UsingGramsciantheoriesofcoercionenablesustoexaminethemyriad

strategiesbywhichTSOscanbeco-optedintohegemonicdiscourses.Two

attributesoftheGramsciannotionofcoercionareofparticularrelevancehere.

First,theunderstandingthathegemonycanforma‘coerciveorthodoxy’(Katz

2006:335),inculcatingactorswiththedesiretoactinprescribedways.Inthis

waycoercionoffersaframeworkforexploringhowdominantdiscoursescan

directtheactivitiesofTSOsasmuchasdisciplinarystrategies.Second,the

recognitionthatdisciplinarystrategiescancompelactorstoperformcertain

taskswithoutresortingtoovertlegaloradministrativemanipulation(Carey

2008:12-14).Here,ratherthanseeingTSOswhichcomplywithandfacilitate

neoliberalrationalitiesas“handmaidens”,thinkingabouttheactionsofTSOsas

responsestocoercionencouragesustorecognisehowconsentcanstemfrom

actorsbeing‘outflankedratherthanbrainwashed’(Levy&Egan2003:808).

InrevealingpreviouslyhiddenpressureswhichTSOsmustconstantlynegotiate

theGramsciantheoryofcoercionenablesustobetterunderstandthe‘volitional

conduct’(Gill2009:219)ofactorswithinthethirdsector.

Chapter3:Methodology

Exploringhowde-politicisationhasbeenrealisedatalocallevelrequireda

combinationofdifferentsourcesandtypesofdata.Thisdataneededtocapture

bothitsmaterialeffectsasresponsibilitiesandfundingmovearoundandthe

workthatpeopledochanges,anditsdiscursiveeffectsasthediscoursepeople

useismouldedandinturnmouldspeople’sbeliefsandperceptions.First,I

neededto‘map’asylumthirdsectoractivityinBristolanddevelopa

comprehensivepictureofthevariousorganisations,theirstructuresandforms

oforganisation,theworktheydid,theirstatedaims,theirfundingsources,the

peoplewhoworkedforthem,andhowtheyhavegrownandchangedoverrecent

years.Second,Ineededtoheartheperspectivesofthosewhoworkedwithinthe

sectortounderstandthedynamicsofrelationshipsacrossthesectorand

betweenthegovernmentalandnon-governmentalsphere,theproblemsand

difficultiesTSOsfaced,theinternalchangeswithinTSOs,howgovernment

policieswereperceived,thelanguagewithwhichthirdsectorworkersdescribed

18

theirworkandhowtheyunderstoodtheirownrolesandpositionsinBristol.To

achievethis,thisresearchusedacombinationoftwoseparatedatacollection

methodsemployedinsuccessivephases.

3.1Phaseone:street-levelsearches

ThefirstphaseofresearchwaslargelybasedonworkdonebytheBelowthe

RadarReferenceGroupattheThirdSectorResearchCentreinBirmingham.This

groupwasformedin2009inresponsetoagrowingawarenessofthelackof

informationon‘small,voluntaryorbelowtheradaractivity’intheThirdSector

(McCabeetal.2010:4).Wecangetasenseofresearchers’interestinsuch

groupsfromToepler’sstatementthat‘perhapsoneofthefewremainingbig

mysteriesinnon-profitsectorresearchisthequestionofwhatwearemissingby

excludingthoseorganisationsfromempiricalinvestigationsthatarenoteasily

capturedinstandarddatasources’(Toepler2003:236).Adoptingtheterm

‘BelowtheRadar’asshorthandfor‘smallvoluntaryorganisations,community

groupsandsemi-formalandinformalactivitiesinthethirdsector’(Soteri-

Proctor2011:2)theTSRCbegandevelopingaresearchstrategyforthispartof

thesector.Whilethisresearchisnotsolelyconcernedwith“belowtheradar”

TSOsIfeltthatbeginningfromtheirmethodologywouldallowmetodevelopas

comprehensiveapictureofthirdsectoractivityaspossible.

TheapproachoutlinedbytheTSRCisopenandflexible;thereisnoparticular

sequenceofactivities(Soteri-Proctor2011:9).Theirstrategyinvolvesgoing

beyondofficialrecordsbycollatingdatafromlocalagenciestosupplement

largeradministrativerecordsbeforeconducting‘street-level’mappinginorder

tofindallorganisationalactivitytakingplacewithinsmalllocalareas.Mytakeon

itinvolvedfirstusingBristolCityCouncil’s(BCCs)websitetofindalltherelevant

spacesandlocationswithinthearea,whichincludedcommunitycentres,

communitynoticeboards,jobcentres,faith-basedbuildings,healthcentres,

libraries,sportsfacilitiesandearlylearningeducationproviders.Thesewere

chosenbecauseoftheirpotentialtobeintegratedintoasylumservicesor

support.Ithenmappedoutwalkingroutesaroundthecitywhichconnected

19

around150oftheseandoverthecourseof6daysIvisitingthesepointsof

interest,conductinginformal,fact-findingchatsandconversationswith

volunteers,attendingevents,andoftenstoppinginshopsandbusinessesonthe

routetotalktolocalpeople.TheseconversationsgavemeasenseofwhichTSOs

werethebiggestandmostactive,thetypesofworktheyweredoing,the

physical,culturalandpoliticalenvironmentinwhichtheywereworkingandthe

kindsofproblemstheywerefacing,allofwhichinformedmylaterdiscussions.

DuetotimeconstraintsIcouldnotvisitall,andcontactedaround100

communitycentresbyphoneinsteadofinperson.Alongsidemystreet-level

searchesIalsoconductedsomeveryusefulonlinesearchesusingFacebookand

Twitter,twoofthemostwidelyusedsocialmediaplatforms,whereIusedkey

termssuchas‘refugee’,‘asylum’,‘aid’,‘volunteer’,‘voluntary’,‘community’,

‘immigrant’,‘support’,‘Calais’and‘Syria’.Theseonlinesearchesbroughtup

manyofthesameorganisationsthatIwouldfindduringmystreet-level

searches,andmyexperienceheresupportsthefindingsofGaiaMarcusand

JimmyTideythatthereis‘asignificantamountofoverlapbetweenthe

communityassetsmappedby…onlinedata-gatheringtechniquesanddoor-to-

doorresearch’(Marcus&Tidey2015:1).Thesesearches,bothonthestreetand

online,highlighteddozensofactivegroups,networksandorganisations.

WhilemyonlinesearchesencompassedBristol,conductingstreet-levelsearches

throughoutthewholeofBristolwasnotaviableoption,soasmallerareaofthe

citywaschosen.Thisareawaschosenbasedondemographicinformation

publishedbyBristolCityCouncil(BristolCityCouncil2011)followingthe2011

censuswhichsuggestedthatfourcentralwardsweremostlikelytohostasylum

TSOs.Thesewardshadthehighestimmigrantpopulationandwerethemost

ethnicallydiverse,aswellasbeingrankedthehighestintermsofindicesof

multipledeprivationandhavingthehighestpopulationofpeoplereceiving

means-testedbenefitsandwithlowskillsforemployment.Allofwhichsuggests

thatindividualswhowouldeitherbeinvolvedwithorrequiresupportfromthe

asylumthirdsectorweremorelikelytobelocatedwithinthesewards.

Furthermore,oneoftheconclusionsdrawnbyMacKenzieetal.’sresearchinto

networksofsupportfornewmigrantcommunitieswasthat‘spatialitywaskey’

20

(MacKenzieetal.2012:645);intheircasestudythetowncentreprovidedthe

urbanspacefortheorganisationofthenetworks,andtheareainvestigatedhere

ismostlymadeupoffourofthecentralwardsofBristol,althoughitextends

beyondthesewardboundariesinsomeinstances.

3.2Phasetwo:interviews

Thesecondphaseofresearchinvolvedsemi-structuredinterviewswith

membersofrelevantTSOs.Interviewshavehistoricallybeendistrustedbysocial

scientistsbecausetheyhavebeenunderstoodasaperformanceonthepartof

bothinterviewerandinterviewee(Cochrane2013:40).Manyintervieweeswere

clearlyperformingaroleofrepresentativeoftheirorganization,oftenchecking

theirlanguageoractingawkwardlyorhesitantlywhentheybegantoexpress

opinionswhichdivergedfromthe“officialline”oftheorganization,forexample

whencriticizingBCCorotherTSOs.Oneintervieweequalifiedananswerby

saying‘I’mtalkingasanindividualhere,notarepresentativeof[their

organization]’(interview1).Atthesametime,inallowingtheinterviewerto

observe‘expressions,pausesorshiftsinattitude’(Cochrane2013:44)and

offeringspacefortheinterviewertore-wordquestionsandre-direct

conversation,interviewsofferameanstorecognizeandnegotiatethistension.

Semi-structuredinterviewswerechosenoverothermethods,suchassurveys,

becauseinbeingopentowide-rangingdiscussiontheyallowparticipantsmore

spacetoexpresstheirownthoughtsandopinionsandto‘introducetheirown

concerns’(Valentine1997:111).Semi-structuredinterviewsare‘dialoguerather

thananinterrogation’,a‘conversationwithapurpose’(Valentine1997:111).

ApproachingBristol’sasylumthirdsectorasanoutsiderIwantedtomaximize

theopportunitiesforintervieweestodirectmetopertinenteventsIhadnot

beenawareof,issuesIhadnotanticipated,andavenuesofthoughtand

discussionwhichIhadnotconsidered.LearningabouttheRefugeeForum,which

hadnotappearedinmystreet-levelsearches,andhearingathirdsector

worker’scriticismsoftheSyrianVulnerablePersonResettlementScheme,a

conflictIhadnotexpected,arejusttwoexamplesofhowsemi-structured

interviewsweresuccessfulinthisregard.

21

IbeganthisphasebyselectingasamplegroupofTSOstocontact,initiallyaiming

todevelopasamplewhichwouldincludethekeyactorsinthefieldwhowould

beableto‘answerspecificquestionofsubstantialortheoreticalimportanceto

theresearch’(Johnson&Rowlands2012:150)whilealsobeingillustrativeofthe

differentorganisationaltypesandthirdsectoractivitiesthatcouldbeseen

acrossthecity.However,asignificantnumberoftheTSOsIapproachedwere

eitherunableorunwillingtotakepart,andwhileseveralofthesecouldbe

replacedmysamplesizeoftenTSOswassmallerthanIhadhopedfor.This

difficultyinengagingparticipantswasasignificantlimitationintheeffectiveness

ofthisapproachandforcedmetorespondinlessthandesirableways.Inorder

tomaketheinterviewsmoreattractiveIremovedsomequestionstomakethem

shorterandofferedtoconductthemoverthephoneaswellasinperson.This

resultedinasignificantuptake.ConductinginterviewsoverthephonemeantI

wasunabletoobserveinterviewees’bodylanguage,andtheconversationwas

oftenmorestiltedandawkward,interspersedwithperiodsofpoorphonesignal.

Comparedtomyin-personinterviews,conductedinlocalcafésorinterviewees’

officessothatintervieweeswouldfeelcomfortable,phoneinterviewsweremore

difficultbutnotproblematicallyso.

AnotherwayIrespondedtothedifficultyinengagingparticipantswasby

followingupwithinterviewrequeststhatemphasisedmystatusasan‘insider’,

someonewhois‘similartotheparticipantsinmanyrespects’(Dowling2005:

26).Indecliningtotakepart,onethirdsectorworkertoldmethattheyreceived

alargenumberofinterviewrequestsfromstudentsandthattheydidnothave

thetimetoparticipateinallofthem.Thepresenceofaround50,000University

ofBristolandUniversityoftheWestofEnglandstudentsinBristolwasnot

somethingIhadconsidered.Byreferencingmyownexperiencesvolunteering

foranasylumTSOIsoughttodistancemyselffromstudent“outsiders”and

developapositiverapport.Whilethismayhavehelpedinwinningparticipants

round,italsomayhavecausedfurtherinproblemstermsofassumedknowledge

andobjectivity.OnmultipleoccasionsduringtheinterviewsIhadtoaskfor

furtherclarityonterms,policiesandeventsthattheintervieweehadmentioned

22

inanoff-handmanner,obviouslyexpectingmetohavebeenawareofthefine

detailsalready.InotherinstancesIwasmadeawarethatbyemphasisingmy

insiderstatusIhadpotentiallycompromisedmy‘independencefromtheobject

ofresearch’(Dowling2005:25)intheeyesofinterviewee.JustastheyassumedI

hadcertainknowledgeitalsofeltattimesliketheyassumedIhadacertain

opinion,andwhilethepersonalcharacteristicsandsocialpositionofthe

interviewerwillalwaysinformparticipants’behavioursImadeparticulareffort

toholdbackpersonalopinionsandasknon-leadingquestions.Overall,despite

theselimitations,thesemi-structuredinterviewsweresuccessfulinproviding

mewithrichlydetaileddata,oftenontopicsIhadnotpreviouslyconsidered,that

includednotjustfactualinformationbutasenseofinterviewees’personal

feelingsandopinions.

Chapter4:Analysis

InthefollowingchapterIwillanalysethedatacollectedfromthestreet-level

searchesandinterviews.Beginningwithasurveyofthediverseforms,missions

andsocialcompositionsofTSOs,Iwilldeveloptheargumentthatwhile

responsibilitieshavecertainlybeentransferredfromthestatetothethirdsector,

itwouldbewrongtoattributethistothe‘co-option’ofTSOsbythestate.

Bristol’sasylumthirdsectorremainslargelyautonomousandrelatively

uninhibitedbylegalandfinancialstatediscipline.Instead,TSOshavebeen

coercedintopickingupthepiecesofwelfareprovisionleftbehindfollowingthe

withdrawalofthestatethroughboththeformationofacoerciveorthodoxythat

encouragesparticipationinthirdsectoractivitiesandthecompellingeffectsof

harshasylummeasures.Farfrommerelyperpetuatingthewillofthestate,

asylumTSOsareactivelyengagedinacounter-hegemoniccontestationofthe

discursivede-politicisationofasylum.

4.1Forms,missionsandsocialcompositions

23

ThepoliticalandculturalenvironmentofBristolhasfosteredalargeand

growingnumberofactiveTSOsthatworkwithASRs,demonstratingGill’s

assertionthat‘newsetsofactorsarebecomingincreasinglyempoweredand

responsibilised’intheasylumsector(Gill2009:216).TheseTSOsarenotonly

numerousbutalsodiverseintheirformsoforganisation,missionsandsocial

compositions.Thespanoforganisationalformsrunsfromhorizontal,online-

onlynetworksthroughsmallvolunteer-runcharitiestobranchesofinternational

organisationssuchastheRedCross.MostoftheTSOsidentifiedwereorganised

alongthelinesoftraditionalnonprofitsoroperationalcharities,howevereven

withinthistherewasvariance.Somehavemoreverticalandhierarchical

structures,withseverallevelsofgovernancewhichmayincludeboardsof

governors(interview1;interview4),whileothersoperatemorehorizontally.

Someemploypaidstaffandholdpermanentpremisesandofficespace,while

othersarefullyvolunteerrunonapart-timebasis(interview3).Thereisan

apparentcorrelationbetweenthesizeofanorganisationanditsdegreeof

bureaucracyandhierarchy-smallTSOsmayoperatewithonlyseveralpart-time

staff,meaningthatthereislittlescopeforhierarchicalstructurestotakeshape,

whilelargerTSOsmayrequireseparatebranchesofmanagementfordifferent

activities.

AswellasdiverseformsoforganisationtheTSOswerealsodiverseintheir

missions.Missionscanbeunderstoodastheaspirationsoraimsthatunderliean

organisation’sactions.MaryKaldor,inoutliningfouridealtypesofcivilsociety

actors,suggestssomedegreeofdiscreteboundariesbetweendifferenttypesof

missions;forexample,the‘emancipationofthepoorandexcluded’issetapart

fromthe‘protectionandpromotionofmembersinterests’(Kaldor2003:12).

Whatwasfoundinmyinterviewswasthatintervieweesoftenfelttheir

organisationshadseveraldifferentmissionswhichtheypursuedsimultaneously.

OneTSOcouldaspireto‘supportdestitutemigrants’,‘buildcommunitybonds’

and‘changepeople’sminds’[aboutASRs]allatonce(interview2).Furthermore,

whatwasmadeapparentthroughouttheinterviewswasthatwhenTSOsaligned

themselvesmorecloselywithoneparticularmissiontheydidthatcognisantof

themissionsofTSOsaroundthem.Thedifferentaimsandaspirationswereseen

24

tocomplementeachother(interview2),andintervieweesspokerespectfullyof

organisationswhichhadostensiblydifferentaims.Manyintervieweesused

similarlanguageindescribingtheirmainaimorethosandalsoexplicitly

suggestedasynchronicityacrossthesector.Accordingtooneinterviewee‘we’re

allhereintheinterestsofasylumseekers,andthat’swhatwe’regoingtofocus

on’(interview6),anavowedunityofpurposethatmanyintervieweeswere

similarlykeentopresent.

Acknowledgingthisaspirationalharmonyleadsusontoconsiderthesocial

compositionofTSOs.ThelocalorgrassrootsoriginofmanyofthekeyTSOsand

thewidespreadparticipationofASRswasrecognisedtoplayanimportantrolein

shapingtheaimsandaspirationsofTSOs.EightoutoftenTSOsintheinterview

samplewereoriginallycreatedinBristol,andwhilenationalandinternational

organisationsarepresentandplayanimportantroleitisclearthatthecoreof

thesectorismadeupoflocalTSOs.ManagementofTSOswasusuallytheremit

ofprofessionalvoluntarysectorworkerswhohadworkedinpaidorvoluntary

rolesinthesectorforanumberofyears,reflectingawidespreadtrendwithin

thesector(Randall2015:33).Insomecases,however,ASRsplayedkeyrolesin

thecreationofTSOsandoccupiedthetopmanagementpositions.ASRsalso

makeupasignificantproportionofthevolunteerbaseofmanyTSOsinBristol,

includingfiveinthesample.WhileLucyWilliamsisrighttonotethat‘refugees

andothermigrantsarenotmerepassiverecipientsofcare,butareactivein

findinghelpappropriatetotheirownprioritiesandobjectives’(Williams2006:

867),inBristolwecanseethatASRsarenotjustactiveinfindingappropriate

helpbutincreatingit.Severalintervieweeswereclearinrecognisingthattheir

rootsinthelocalareaandtheparticipationofASRsstronglyinformedtheir

missionsandactivities.The‘livedexperience’ofrefugeestaffhadbeenvitalto

shapingthe‘vision’ofoneorganisation(interview2).Foranother,having

beneficiariesalsovolunteerandtakepartindecision-makingprocessesmeant

thattheycouldknow‘whatmembersreallywant’(interview1).

4.2Market-orientedtransferofresponsibilities

25

WithinthisdiversesectorithasbecomeincreasinglycommonforTSOstofind

themselvesfulfillingtherolesofstatutoryservices.TSOsundertakeavastarray

ofactivitieswithinBristol’sasylumsector.Therolesofthevariousgroups,

networksandorganisationsidentifiedduringonlineandstreet-levelsearches

wereanalysedaccordingtocategoriesprovidedbythe2010NationalSurveyof

CharitiesandSocialEnterprises(IpsosMORI2013:32).Thesecategorisewere

sufficientincapturingthefullrangeofactivityandnonewcategorieswere

developedduringthisresearch.

Table1:RolesofTSOsinBristol

Roles

PercentageofTSOsundertakingroles

Culture&recreation 22%

Employment,education&

training

8.6%

Legalassistance&advice

services

25%

Communitydevelopment&

mutualaid

19.4%

Capacitybuilding/facilities 13.8%

Advocacy,campaigning,

representation,informationor

research

13.8%

Deliveryofpublicservices:

Housing,daycentre,counselling,

healthcare

33.3%

ThismethodofmeasuringactivitiesallowsforsingleTSOstofulfilmultipleroles,

animportantabilityconsideringmostTSOsdisplayedsomedegreeofhybridity,

meaningthattheydidnotconfinethemselvestoonetaskbutundertookmultiple

actionswithdifferentaims.Forexample,oneTSOprovideshousingforasylum

seekerswhilealsorunningadrop-incentre.AnotherTSOworkinginhousing

26

runstrainingprogrammesforitstenantstohelpthemfindwork,and

furthermoreisactivelycampaigninglocallyandnationallytogetemployersto

‘changethewaytheyemploy’(interview2).Thediversityofactivitiesisclosely

connectedtothesizeandageofTSOs.Thosewhichnowofferseveralservices

typicallybeganwithjustonebefore‘growingintootherareas’(interview10),

andsmallerTSOsarefarmorelikelytofocusonasingleactivityduetothe

structurallimitationsofstaffingandfunding.

Overall,TSOsinBristolhavecometoplayavitalroleinprovidingservicesand

supportforASRs.OnoneleveltheycanbeseenasvitalforASRsthemselves,

manyofwhomrelyonTSOsinsomeformoranother,andonanotherlevelthey

canbeseenasvitalforBCC.TSOshavetakenonsomanyrolesand

responsibilitiesthattheirabsencewouldhavedireconsequencesforthecity.

TwointervieweessuggestedthatBCCwaswellawareofthisfact,andthatthis

laybehindtheireffortstomaintainsomedegreeoffinancialsupportduring

widespreadspendingcuts.Accordingtoone,BCChad‘ringfenced’somefunding

becausetheywereawarethat‘iftheydon’tsupportthevoluntarysectoritwill

allcometotheirdoorstep’(interview5).Anotherintervieweepaintedthisin

starktermswhendiscussingthenearclosureofalargeTSOseveralyearsprior,

statingthat‘iftheycloseditwouldbeaverybigproblemforcitycouncilbecause

youwouldhavealotofquiteangryyoungmenonthestreet…ifthosethings

weren’tprovided,Ithink,Isuspecttheremightbesomemoreissuesthanthere

are,peoplekickingoffandgettingangryandupset’(interview3).Intheirview,

BCCreliedonTSOstofulfilvitalroles,andtheclosureofkeyTSOswasa

potentiallydangerousthreattocommunitycohesioninthecity.

ThatthethirdsectoriswidelyconsideredacrucialpillarofBristol’sasylum

sectorcanbelargelyattributedtothefactthatTSOsarenowcarryingoutmany

ofthefunctionsandprovidingmanyoftheservicesthatwouldtraditionallybe

associatedwiththewelfarestate.AgreatdealoftheworkdonebyTSOsinvolves

providingservicestomeetthebasicneedsofASRsinBristol.Whilenoprecise

figuresontheASRpopulationwithinBristolexist,aftercomparingpredicted

numbersagainstthenumbersofbeneficiariesofalltheTSOsitappearslikely

27

thatthevastmajoritymakeuseofservicesprovidedbyTSOsthatcouldbe

consideredessential,suchashousing,healthcare,childcareandfinancialor

materialsupporttopurchasefood,clothingandhygienenecessities.Thisisnot

tosaythatthestateiscompletelyabsentfromasylumwelfare,itstilldelivers

cashbenefitstoasylumseekersviathepostofficeandASRsareabletousethe

NHSandattendschool,howeverintervieweesuniformlyfelttheyweredoingthe

bulkofthework.Onesaidtome‘whatwe’redoing,Imeanreallythe

governmentshouldbedoingit.Idon’tknowiftheyusedtoandthenthey

stopped,butIthinkit’ssad,shameful,thatwehavetostepinandstoppeople

fromstarving,getpeopleoffthestreet.Thisisbasicstuff,themostbasic’

(interview7).The£36.95aweekthatasylumseekersreceivefromthe

Governmentwasspokenofscornfullyduringinterviews,refugeeswereseento

belittlebetterprovidedforandfailedasylumseekerswerehighlightedasbeing

widelyatriskofdestitution,andsoTSOsarenowrequiredtoprovidethebare

essentialsoflife.Indoingsotheyaretakingup‘responsibilitiesandauthorities

thatonceresidedunambiguously’inthestatesector(Gill2009:216).

4.3Resistinggoaldisplacement

Inlinewiththeirexpandingresponsibilities,someTSOarebecoming

increasinglyformalised.Thisprocesscanbeunderstoodastheincreasing

structuringofworkroles,thedevelopmentofrulesandprocedureswhich

governemployeesactivities,andthegrowthofinternalbureaucraticor

administrativesystems.Oneintervieweenotedthatastheirorganisationhad

growntheyhadfacedmore‘requirementsuponusintermsofstandardsofhow

wehavetodothings’(interview1),andwhentalkingaboutanotherorganisation

said‘they’reamuchyoungerorganisation,they’reabletobelooseraround

boundaries,operateinawaywemighthavedoneafewyearsago’(interview1).

ThischimeswithagrowingliteratureonthemanagementofNGOswithinwhich

issuesofinstitutionalisationandaccountabilityhavebeenfrequentlyhighlighted

(Kaldor2003:5).Institutionalisationisrecognisedasatrendwithinthethird

sector,particularlyasTSOsarebroughtintopartnershipwithgovernment.

Whileadvantagestoformalisationareacknowledged,itisoftenassociatedwith

28

specificdisadvantagesorproblems,chieflythedangerthatinstitutionalgoalsof

organisationalsurvivalwilltakeprecedenceoversubstantivegoals(MacKenzie

etal.2012:641).

ThistendencycanbeobservedamongstTSOsinBristol,albeittoalimited

degree.Asoneintervieweeexplained,theneedtobothcontinueproviding

servicesandkeepstaffinworkinfluencedthebehaviouroftheirmanagement

committee,sometimesleadingthemtopursue‘lucrativefundingopportunities’

which‘thoseofusonthegroundwilllookatandsay,wellwedon’twanttodo

that’(interview1).Astheorganisationhadgrownithadbecomemore

formalised,withmanystaffnowemployedfullorpart-time.Thisisaclear

exampleoftheimperativesoforganisationalsurvivalgeneratingbehaviours

whichprioritisesustainingtheexistenceoftheorganisation.Morewidelyacross

thesector,requirementsfromfundingsourcesfordataandassessmentsofthe

impactofTSOshaveshapedbehaviours,asrecognisedby(Harlock2013:1).In

somecasesthishasledtoTSOsallocatingresourcestoproducingtherequired

data,andinothersithasledtoTSOsalteringthenatureoftheservicesthey

providesothattheirimpactcanbebettermeasured(interview10).Measuring

outcomescanbedifficultinmanyareasofworkthatTSOsinBristolareengaged

in,forexamplequantifyingthepositiveoutcomesofabefriendingscheme,andin

somecasesthisledtoorganisations‘rethinkinghowwedothingssothatwecan

knowwhattheresultsare’(interview10).

Acknowledgingthesechangingbehaviours,itdoesnotappearthatthe

formalisationofsomeTSOshasledto“goaldisplacement”.Itwouldbewrongto

suggestthatbehavioursthatfailtoreflectormeettheorganisation’sneeds‘on

theground’signifythatitssubstantivegoalshavebeenobscured.Allthe

intervieweessharedaconcernforthechallengesofsustainabilitytheyfacedin

theirownorganisationandthesectorasawhole;organisationalsurvivalwasnot

solelyaconcernformoreformalTSOs.Inthecontextofausterityandmajor

reductionsinpublicspendingthereisarealriskformanyTSOsacrossthe

countrythattheywillbeunabletosurvive(Sepulvedaetal.2013:645).Several

yearspriortothisresearchRefugeeActionBristol,thenthelargestasylumTSO

29

inBristol,wasforcedtocloseduetolackoffunding,highlightingtheprecarious

positionthatmanyoftheseTSOsoccupy.TSOshaveaccordinglyundertaken

strategicresponsestodiversifytheirfundingsources.However,possiblydueto

thewidespreadinvolvementofASRs,theycontinuetoprovetobeintouchwith

theirbeneficiariesandresponsivetotheirneeds,ashighlightedinthecontinual

developmentofnewprogrammesandserviceswithinthelargerTSOs.While

someofBristol’sTSOsarebecomingmoreformalisedtheydonotappeartohave

succumbedtotheassociateddangers,supportingtheargumentthat‘goal

displacementisnotinevitable’(MacKenzieetal.2012:636).

4.4Independenceandautonomy

Theabilitytoholdontosubstantivegoalsspeakstothewiderstateof

independenceandautonomyinwhichmanyTSOshavepersisted.Somesmall

TSOshaveoperatedcompletelyunderBCCsradarforyears,withlittleorno

contact.WhenaskedabouttheircontactwithBCC,oneintervieweedescribeda

lackofinterestonbothsidesindevelopingaworkingrelationship‘[my

organisation]isverygrassroots.Idon’treallyneedthem,theydon’tneedme.It

iswhatitis,we’reverysmallandjustgetonwithit.’Whilesomestudieshave

outlinedawidespreadco-optionofTSOsthroughgovernmentcontracts(Conlon

&Gill2015:443)thisdoesnotappeartobeparticularlyrelevantinBristol.In

somecasesthishasmadeuparound30%ofthirdsectorincome(Halfpenny&

Reid2002:542),howevergovernmentcontractsarerarehere.Onlythelargest

TSOshavecontractswiththegovernmentandthesemakeuponlyafractionof

theirtotalincome.ThemarginalisationoftheBMEthirdsectorandthe

disproportionatefundingcutsithasfaced(Tilkietal.2015)appearstohave

beensimilarlyexperiencedbytheasylumthirdsector,thevastmajorityofwhich

operateswithoutanygovernmentfunding.Furthermore,asnotedpreviously,

austerityhasledtoadramaticreductioningovernmentfundingacrossthe

wholethirdsector,andsoHalfpenny&Reid’sfigureof30%,producedin2000,is

clearlyout-dated(2002:542).Thislackofdirectgovernmentfundingnarrows

thepossibilitiesforthegovernmenttoenactlegalandfinancialdisciplineon

TSOs.

30

Beyondfunding,thereisanoveralllackofinteractionbetweenTSOsand

nationalorlocalgovernmentandareadilyapparentlackoftop-downcontrol.

TSOshadoftendevelopedwithgenuineautonomypursuingtheirownindividual

objectives,andintervieweesgenerallyperceivedBCCtohavelongbeen

uninterestedinthespecificsoftheirwork,barafewindividuals.ThatTSOs

continuetooperatelargelyautonomouslyinpursuingtheirownobjectivesis

wellillustratedbytherecentintroductionoftheSyrianVulnerablePerson

ResettlementSchemeinBristol.Thisscheme,firstannouncedbythenPrime

MinisterDavidCameronin2015,involvestheresettlementofSyrianrefugees

fromSyriatodifferentpartsoftheUK.Whileover100Syrianshavebeen

resettledinBristolthroughtheschemetheexistingasylumthirdsectorhasbeen

largelyuninvolvedintheprocess,andseveralintervieweesinfactspoke

criticallyoftheschemeasbeinga‘separatestream’totheirownwork

(interview1;interview3;interview4).Thefactthattheschemeisbeing

deliveredoutsideoftheexistingasylumthirdsectorsuggeststhatthe

GovernmentisunabletooruninterestedindiscipliningasylumTSOsinto

carryingoutitsownobjectives,andthattherelationshipbetweenthe

GovernmentandTSOsisnotoneinwhichlocalornationalGovernmentcan

dictatebehaviour.

TherealdynamicsoftherelationshipbetweenBCCandasylumTSOscanbewell

observedthroughtheongoingprocessofBCCsdevelopmentofacitywide‘Cityof

SanctuaryStrategy’.Thisisaveryrecentdevelopment,withthefirstdraftofthe

strategyhavingbeenreleasedlatein2016.Manyofthecoreideasofthe

strategy,nottomentionitstitle,haveclearlydevelopedoutofthegrassroots

‘CityofSanctuary’campaigninBristolwhichmanythirdsectorworkerswere

involvedinaroundadecadeago(interview1).Politicalandpersonnelchanges

withinBCChavenowspurredactiononitspart,anditbeganbyapproaching

asylumTSOsviatheRefugeeForumtodiscussthecreationofthestrategy.The

RefugeeForum,whichwasfoundedin2002,isamulti-agencyforuminwhich

TSOs,councillorsandrepresentativesofHomeOfficecontractorscometogether

forregularmeetingsinwhichtheycancoordinateactionandairdisagreements

31

(interview6).Nowattendedbyaround25TSOstheRefugeeForumisoneofthe

mainvenuesforthirdsectorplanningandorganisationandismanagedby

severalthirdsectorworkers.WhenBCCfirstreachedouttotheForumaboutthe

CityofSanctuaryStrategytheyinitiallyproposedthatthestrategycouldinfact

bemanagedbytheForum,howeverthisideawasrejected.BCCthenwentonto

consultwithkeyTSOsindraftingthestrategyfollowingaplanoutlinedwithin

meetingswiththeRefugeeForum.Thedraftdocumentthatwasthenproduced

nowlargelyconsistsofissuesandrecommendationsraisedbyTSOsratherthan

anythingparticularlyoriginalonthepartofBCC,withoneinterviewer

commentingthat‘alotofthestrategyisjustdescribingwhat’salreadyinthecity’

(interview8).LookingattheinteractionsbetweenBCCandasylumTSOsduring

theprocessdescribedabovethereisaclearabsenceof‘blurredboundaries’

betweenthestateandthethirdsector(Carmel&Harlock2008:155)ortheuse

oflegal-coerciveorfinancial-manipulativemethods.Instead,thereisanapparent

institutionalandoperationalgapbetweenthetwowhichisonlynowbeing

broachedbyeffortstodevelopamoreco-operativerelationship.

4.5Coerciveengenderingofaction

AsylumTSOsinBristolworkindependentlyoflocalgovernmentdirectionand

largelywithoutgovernmentfunding.Thisapparentautonomysuggeststhatin

ordertounderstandtheirvolitionwemayneedtoconsiderlessbluntformsof

coercionthatmaybeatwork.Inhiscritiqueofexteriorisationtheory’sreliance

onlegalorfinancialtermstoexplainTSOsbehaviour,Gillreferencesthe

Gramscianconceptofcoercioninwhich‘statesalsocommandpowersthatare

capableofengenderingthewilltoactinaccordancewithstateobjectivesrather

thansimplygeneratingthenecessityorimperativetodoso’(Gill2009:219).

Followingthislineofthought,itispossibletoidentifyinBristolformsof

coercionwhichhavecompelledTSOstotakeonmoreandmoreresponsibilities.

Ononelevelthiscanbeseenintheformationofa‘coerciveorthodoxy’(Katz

2006:335).Throughspecificframingsinpublicdiscourseindividualscanbe

‘ideationallyconditionedtofreelychoosetoconductthemselvesinwaysthatare

neverthelessparticularandconstrained’(Gill2009:200).Governmentrhetoric

32

sincethebeginningoftheBigSocietypolicyplatformhasbeenparticularly

consistentinframingparticipationinthethirdsectorinapositivelight,as

‘service’,‘duty’or‘communitywork’,andseekingtoattractandincludemore

citizenswithinthissphere(McCabe2010:2-5).SeveralintervieweesItalkedto

reflectedontheboominvolunteersthatoccurredoverthecourseof2014and

2015,aseventsoftheSyriancivilwarandtheplightofrefugeeswererelayedto

theBritishpublicinincreasinglygraphicimages.Thelanguageinterviewees

usedtodescribethistrend,forexamplesayingthat‘theywantedtohelpsothey

cametous’(interview4)and‘alotofpeoplewatchedthenewsandthenwould

comeandaskuswhattheycoulddo’(interview8)suggeststhatforboththem

andthevolunteersthiswasanormalandnaturalaction;thattherewasaclear

andobviouspathwayfrombeingmotivatedtoacttovolunteeringinthethird

sector.ThisreflectsacoerciveorthodoxystrategicallyinculcatedbyGovernment

policyandrhetoricinwhichvoluntarismandthirdsectorparticipationhasbeen

renderedaconventionalchannelforpositiveactionandexpressionsof

solidarity.

AnotherlevelofcoercioncanbeseeninthepervasivedestitutionamongstASRs,

whichcreatesapowerfullycompelling‘need’forTSOstoact.Itiswidely

acceptedthatASRsfaceincrediblytoughlivingconditionsintheUK.Highlevels

ofunemploymentandlowlevelsoflanguagetuitionfosterssocialexclusion,

especiallyinthecontextofdispersalpoliciesthathouseASRsinsocially

deprivedareasupanddownthecountry(Phillimore&Goodison2006:1715).

Manyliveinastateofdestitution,andaccordingtooneAmnestyInternational

reportfailedasylumseekerslive‘livesonthemarginsofsociety,inabject

poverty…withhealthproblemsanddegreesofpsychologicaldistressdirectly

relatedtothispainfullimbocondition’(Amnesty2006:14).Arecentstudy

publishedintheBritishMedicalJournalhasarguedthatsomeasylumseekers’

dietsarecomparabletopre-welfarestateconditions,reflectingtheirlivingina

stateofabsolutepoverty(Collinsetal.2015:1).Intervieweesconfirmedthat

destitutionamongstASRsisrifeinBristol,andgrowing;increasingdemandfor

basicserviceswasaproblemraisedbynearlyeveryinterviewee,andmanyof

theserviceswereoperatingatcapacity.

33

Thisstateofaffairsleadsustoconsideranumberofwarningstatementsmade

duringtheearlydaysoftheCoalitionGovernment.Theleadingpublicationfor

thethirdsectorpublishedanarticlearguingthattheGovernment’sapproach

amountedto‘volunteer,orelse!’(Quainton2010).Intheirwrittenevidencetoa

HouseofCommonsPublicAdministrationSelectCommitteeetheGreaterLondon

Volunteeringforumraisedtheirconcernthat‘volunteeringinthepublicservice

canbeaboutengagingserviceusersindeliveringsolutions,butshouldbea

choiceandnotcoercedunderthreatoflosingaservicealtogetherwhichthe

communitydecidesiscrucialandshouldbestatutory’(GreaterLondon

Volunteering2011).Oppenheimetal.prescientlywarnedthatausteritymeant

‘rollingbackthestateandexpectingcommunitiestoleapintothedrivingseat’

(Oppenheimetal.2010:2),andAngusMcCabearguedthatintegraltotheBig

SocietywasanunderstandingthatTSOswouldhavetorunservicesthestatefelt

itcouldnolongeraffordtoprovide(McCabe2010:5).Thesewarningshave

largelyprovedtrue,withthirdsectorworkersencounteringgrowingpressures

ontheirservicesandbeingcompelledtorespond.ThirdsectorworkersI

interviewedwereunitedinarguingthattheirworkwasrespondingtoarealand

pressing‘need’,thatwhattheyaredoingasanetworkwasvitalandthey‘haveto

doit’(interview7),andthatiftheystoppedtheirworktheresultswouldbe

catastrophic.Thisfitsinwithotherappraisalsthatarguethatasmigrants’rights

andaccesstopublicwelfarehavefallenawaythereisanincreasingonuson

TSOsto‘pickupthepieces’(Mayblin2014:381).Thistiesinwithaveinof

literaturewhichquestionswhethervolunteeringisalwaysvoluntaryand

highlightsthepossibilityforgovernmentsto‘leanonthecompulsionof

intrinsicallymotivatedindividuals’(Tõnurist&Sulva2016:230).Inthiscase,the

intrinsicmotivationliesinthethirdsectorworker’sdesiretoalleviatethe

sufferingofASRs,andthewithdrawalandrestrictionofwelfareprovisionthatis

necessarytosustaininglifecanbeunderstoodinGramsciantermsas‘sublethal

modalitiesofstatecoercion’(Davies2012:2693).

4.6Counter-hegemonicchallengestode-politicisation

34

WhileitistruethatTSOshavebeencoercedintotakingonmoreandmore

responsibilitiesforASRs,itwouldbeasimplificationtoseethistransferas

merelyareplacement,oranexchangeoflikeforlike.Whatwasmadereadily

apparentthroughstudyingTSOsactivitiesandtalkingtothirdsectorworkers

wasthatTSOshaveamuchmoreinclusiveorholisticunderstandingofwhatis

‘essential’or‘vital’forASRs,meaningthattheyprovidemoreservicesatahigher

standardthantheGovernmentorGovernmentcontractorsmaybewillingor

abletoprovide.Oneexampleofthisthatwasrepeatedlyflaggedduring

interviewswasinhousing,whereGovernmentcontractorssuchasClearelwere

widelycriticisedforfailingtoprovideanappropriatestandardofservice.One

intervieweespokedisparaginglyofthenumbersofasylumseekersforcedto

shareaproperty,aswellasthefactthatpregnantwomenormotherswithyoung

childrenwerenotprovidedappropriatespaceandprivacy(interview3).These

propertiesarebyandlargeoutsideofBristolcityinruralorsuburbanareas

whichcausesanumberofdifficultiesforasylumseekerswhocannotaccess

servicesinBristol.Incontrast,thirdsectorhousingproviderstrytosource

housinginareaswhereASRswanttolive,haveminimumstandardsforspace,

cleanlinessandsafetyandseekoutlandlordswhowillbereceptivetotheneeds

ofASRs.AsoneintervieweesaidofHomeOfficecontractorswhoprovide

housing,‘theydowhatwedo,butit’snotthesame,itsjustnot’(interview2).

Beyondbasicnecessitiessuchasfood,clothingandshelterTSOsalsoprovidea

wealthofadditionalservices,supportandfacilities,someofwhichinvolve

recreationalspacesandopportunitiesforsocialinteractionandleisureactivities.

TSOswhichprovidesuchservicesconsiderthemtobeintegraltoenablingASRs

tolive‘reallives’(interview2).Severalexpressedadisbeliefthatpoliticiansand

governmentofficialscouldthinkthatwhatthestateprovidedwassufficient,with

onecommenting‘Dotheyexpectpeopletositathomeandstareatawall?Its

bizarre’(interview8).Otherservicescaterforadditionalneedssuchas

emotionalsupportandadviceandadvocacy.Discussingthelackofgovernment

assistanceforasylumseekerscurrentlygoingthroughtheasylumprocessone

intervieweesaid‘wellontheonehandthere’salotofdemands,theyhavetosign

inweeklyormonthlyorwhatever,quitestrictrules,andontheotherthere’sno

35

oneactuallyhelpingthemdoit.There’snohelpatallasfarasI’mconcerned’

(interview8).InthiswaytooTSOsprovisiongoeswellbeyondthelevelof

serviceandsupportprescribedbytheGovernment.Throughouttheinterviews

therewasmuchtalkofASRs‘needs’,whichwereunderstoodinamuchbroader

andmoreholisticfashionthanmerelyconsistingofthematerialnecessitiesof

life,andTSOscanbeseentobeoperatingaccordingtoadifferentlogicofwhatis

‘necessary’thantheGovernment.

Highlightingthiscontrastinglogicmakesvisibletheimplicitpoliticsinprovision.

Socialworkis‘essentiallyapoliticialactivity’(Gilbert&Powell2009:4,andthe

spaceofthethirdsectorisfarfromapolitical.Bychallengingtheperceived

inadequaciesinstateprovisionTSOsareattemptingtoshapeandstrengthenthe

positionofASRswithinsociety.EngaginginwhatNikHeydenterms‘thepolitics

ofvisibility’(Heynen2010:1226),TSOsareconsciouslyseekingtocounterASRs

reductioninnationalpoliticaldiscoursetoaproblemorburden(MacKenzieetal

2012:639),challengingtheircurrentpositionas“second-class”or“undeserving”

andfurtherprovidingmaterialandsocialsupportwhichcanenableASRsto

participatemorefullyinsociallife.Thenotionof‘normality’wasfrequently

referredtoinmydiscussionswiththirdsectorworkers;theywantedtoprovide

ASRswiththesamestandardofserviceandsupportthat‘anyonewould

normallyexpect’(interview1),theyhopedthatASRswouldbeabletofeel‘like

normalfamilies’(interview2)andlive‘normallives’(interview9),andthatthe

widerpopulationofBristolwouldseethat‘thesearenormalpeoplejustlikeus’

(interview5).Theseactsandaspirationsconstitutethepromotionofadiscourse

inwhichrefugeesarenot‘athreat,arisk,avictim’butinsteadlegitimate‘agents,

actors,andparticipants’(Nyers2010:130)withinthecommunitydeservingof

equaltreatment.

TSOsinBristolareactiveinframingcounter-hegemonicdiscourses;oftenacting

asinstitutionsinwhichalternativeapproachesare‘incubated’(Davies2007:

784)anddiscoursesareproducedwhich‘trytochangethecurrentpoliticaland

socialsituationandofferalternatives’(GarcíaAgustín2012:81).ManyTSOsare

forthrightintheirpoliticsandpoliticalaspirations,whichgenerallyseekto

36

promotesolidaritybetweenlocalresidentsandASRs.OneTSOrecentlylaunched

a‘rethinkingrefugeecampaign’,whichinvolvesengagingwithlocalbusinesses,

publishingresearchpapers,andhostingevents,suchasconferences.Theiraimis

tomakelocalpeople,businessesandhighereducationprovidersmorereceptive

toASRsandthusfacilitatetheirintegrationintosociety.AnotherTSOisthelocal

branchoftheUK-wideCityofSanctuarynetwork,which‘seekstopromotea

cultureofwelcometowardsasylumseekersandrefugees,basedaroundideasof

responsibilityandhospitality’(Darling2016b:185).Theirworkinvolves

buildingacoalitionofbusinesses,politicians,TSOs,localpeopleandASRsaspart

ofa‘bottom-upapproachtopoliticalchange’(Squire2010:295).Many,ifnotall

oftheasylumTSOsinBristoltookpartintheBristolRefugeeFestivalthisyear,a

neweventwhichgrewoutofRefugeeWeek,anation-wideannualeventwhichis

a‘celebration…ofrefugeesandthecontributiontheymake’(interview6).

InemphasisingthecontributionsofrefugeesBristolTSOsaredrawingon

narrativeswhichdirectlycounterthediscursiveframingofrefugeesasaburden.

Intheireffortstoprovideservicesandsupportthatgobeyondthatofthewelfare

statetheyarere-positioningASRsasdeservingmembersofacommunity,rather

thandependentswhosedrainonresourcesmustbemanaged.Insupporting

failedasylumseekerstoremaininthecountrytheyareunderminingand‘quietly

challenging’governmentpolicy(Randall2015:32).Allofthisoccurswhilethere

isanincreasingrelocationofresponsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector.

Whilestrategiesofde-politicisationhavehadsuccessesinthemarket-oriented

transferofresponsibilities,theyhavenotmanagedtoeffectthe‘closureof

alternativeimaginaries’(Darling2016c:233)ornarrowdebateonasylumto

technocraticormanagerialissues.BristolTSOshaveactivelyalignedthemselves

withabroaderhumanrightsmovementandaglobalmovementforthe

protectionofandadvocacyforASRs(GarcíaAgustín2012:81),developingand

promotingacounter-hegemonicdiscoursethatlegitimisesthesocial,political

andculturalparticipationofASRsinsociety.

37

Conclusion

FollowingtheleadofHingeretal.(2016)andtheirefforttopaymoreattention

tothelocaldimensionofasylum,thisdissertationsoughttoanalysethelocal

dimensionofasylumde-politicisation.Inordertodothisitbuiltonrecent

developmentswithinmigrationscholarship,developingaframeworkthatwas

informedbyanti-essentialistnotionsofstatepowerandfocussingontheactions

ofanetworkofnon-stateactorswithinaspecificlocality.Followingthis

frameworkamethodologywasestablishedthatsoughttocaptureboththe

materialanddiscursiveeffectsofandreactionstode-politicisation.

WhiletheroleofTSOsinasylumgovernancehasbeencriticisedbysomefor

facilitatinghegemonicasylumdiscourse,whathasbeendemonstratedhereis

thatbelowthesurfaceoftheexpandingroleofTSOsinasylumservicesand

supportthereisanon-goingformationofcounter-hegemonicdiscourse.TSOs

aretakingongreaterresponsibilities,howeverthisshiftdoesnotnecessarily

resultintheiroriginalgoalsbeingdisplaced,norisitnecessarilyexplainedby

theirco-optionintohegemonicdiscourseortheirbeingmanipulatedbylegaland

financialstatediscipline.Instead,acoerciveengenderingofactionistheprimary

meansbywhichthetransferofresponsibilitiesfromthestatetothethirdsector

istakingplace.Ratherthanbeingco-opted,TSOsinBristolhaveinsomeways

been‘outflanked’(Levy&Egan2003:808),and,possiblythankstotheirrootsin

theASRpopulationinBristol,continuetochallengethediscursivede-

politicisationofasylum.

‘Asylum’isasocialconstruction,createdinpartbyjuridicalinstitutionsbutalso

byadiverseconstellationofsocialactors(Hingeretal.2016).Despitetheclear

directionofhegemonicasylumdiscourse,howASRsareperceivedandtreatedin

societyisamatterofcountlessnegotiationsoccurringatthelocallevel.Inthis

waytootheeffectsandoutcomesofde-politicisationaredynamicallynegotiated

withinspecificconfigurationsofactorsandtheirenvironment.Inthecaseof

Bristol,thecurrentalignmentofasylumTSOsmeansthatagreatdealofpower

lieswithactorswhoarenotintrinsicallytiedtotheaims,idealsorinterestsof

38

thestate,andwhoareabletobuildcounter-hegemonicdiscoursesinopposition

totheneoliberalrationalityofthestate’sasylumgovernance.

Practicesanddiscourseswithinasylumgovernancearenotfixedbutareinstead

constantlybeingchangedanddevelopedastheytakeshapeontheground.This

dissertationhaselaboratedaresearchapproachwhichoffersonewayof

studyingthis.Thereareotherpathstoexplorehere,andothermethodssuchas

participatoryobservation,orotherapproachessuchasthecomparisonof

multiplecasestudies,couldhelpdevelopourunderstandingofthewaysinwhich

de-politicisationcanbenegotiated.Developingthisunderstandingcouldhelpit

betranslatedintoaction,contributingtoconsciousandcoherentactionsthat

shapeasyluminwayswhichimprovesthelivesofASRsandbenefitsthe

communitiestheymakehome.

Bibliography

Alcock,P.(2010)‘Astrategicunity:definingthethirdsectorintheUK’,Voluntary

SectorReview,1,1,5-24.

AmnestyInternational(2006)‘DownandOutinLondon:TheRoadtoDestitution

forRejectedAsylumSeekers’,AmnestyInternational,London.

Anderson,B.(2017)‘Againstfantasycitizenship:thepoliticsofmigrationand

austerity’Renewal,24,1,53-62.

Bakker,L.,S.CheungandJ.Phillimore(2016)‘TheAsylum-IntegrationParadox:

ComparingAsylumSupportSystemsandRefugeeIntegrationinTheNetherlands

andtheUK’,InternationalMigration,54,4,118-132.

39

BristolCityCouncil(2011),Censusdata,https://www.bristol.gov.uk/statistics-

census-information/census-2011[accessed2ndSeptember2017]

Brenner,N.(2011)‘TheUrbanQuestionandtheScaleQuestion:Some

ConceptualClarifications’inCaglar,A.andN.GlickSchiller(eds)Locating

Migration.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress,23-41.

Bryant,R.(2002)‘Non-GovernmentalOrganizationsandGovernmentality:

‘Consuming’BiodiversityandIndigenousPeopleinthePhilippines’,Political

Studies,50,2,268-292.

Caglar,A.andN.GlickSchiller(2011)‘Introduction’inCaglar,A.andN.Glick

Schiller(eds)LocatingMigration.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress,1-23.

Carey,G.(2008)‘ConceptualisingtheThirdSector:Foucauldianinsightsintothe

relationsbetweentheThirdSector,CivilSocietyandtheState’,ThirdSector

Review,14,1,1-22.

Carmel,E.andJ.Harlock(2008)‘Institutingthe'thirdsector'asagovernable

terrain:partnership,procurementandperformanceintheUK’,Policy&Politics,

36,2,155-171.

Chtouris,S.andD.Miller(2017)‘RefugeeFlowsandVolunteersintheCurrent

HumanitarianCrisisinGreece’,JournalofAppliedSecurityResearch,12,1,61-77.

Clarke,J.(2004)‘Dissolvingthepublicrealm?Thelogicsandlimitsof

neoliberalism’,JournalofSocialPolicy,33,27–48.

Cochrane,A,(2013)‘Interviews’,InWard,K.(eds.)ResearchingtheCity:aGuide

forStudents,London,Sage,38–53.

Collins,K.,C.Costelloe,T.Kaldor,T.MaroukisandK.Reyher(2015)‘Austerity,

sanctionsandasylum:someasylumseekers’dietcomparabletopre-Welfare

40

Stateconditions’,BritishMedicalJournal,350,1-2.

Conlon,D.andN.Gill(2015)‘GuestEditorial:InterventionsinMigrationand

Activism’,ACME:AnInternationalE-JournalforCriticalGeographies,14,2,442-

451.

Corry,O.(2010)‘DefiningandTheorizingtheThirdSector’,InR.Taylor(ed.),

ThirdSectorResearch.NewYork:SpringerVerlag,11-20.

Darling,J.(2013)‘AsylumandthePost-Political:Domopolitics,Depoliticisation

andActsofCitizenship’,Antipode,46,1,72-91.

Darling,J.(2016a)‘AsyluminAustereTimes:Instability,Privatizationand

ExperimentationwithintheUKAsylumDispersalSystem’,JournalofRefugee

Studies,29,4,483-505.

Darling,J.(2016b)‘Forcedmigrationandthecity’,ProgressinHumanGeography,

41,2,178-198.

Darling,J.(2016c)‘Privatisingasylum:neoliberalisation,depoliticisationandthe

governanceofforcedmigration’,TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish

Geographers,41,3,230-243.

Davies,J.(2007)‘TheLimitsofPartnership’,PoliticalStudies,55,779-800.

Davies,J.(2012)‘NetworkGovernanceTheory:AGramscianCritique’,

EnvironmentandPlanningA,44,11,2687-2704.

Diamond,J.(2010)‘Challengingthestatusquo:theroleandplaceofThirdSector

organisations’,InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy,30,1/2,8-16.

Donald,B.,A.Glasmeier,M.GrayandL.Lobaod(2014)‘AusterityintheCity:

EconomicCrisisandUrbanServiceDecline?’,CambridgeJournalofRegions,

41

EconomyandSociety7,1,3–15.

Dowling,R.(2005)‘Power,Subjectivity,andEthicsinSocialResearch’,InI.Hay

(eds.)QualitativeResearchMethodsinHumanGeography,2nded.,Oxford

UniversityPress,Melbourne,19-29.

Dwyer,P.(2005)‘Governance,ForcedMigrationandWelfare’,SocialPolicyand

Administration,39,6,622-639.

Emilsson,H.(2015)‘Anationalturnoflocalintegrationpolicy:multi-level

governancedynamicsinDenmarkandSweden’,ComparativeMigrationStudies,

3,1,1-16.

FergusonJandA.Gupta(2002)‘Spatializingstates:towardanethnographyof

neoliberalgovernmentality’,AmericanEthnologist,29,981–1002.

Fisher,W.(1997)‘DoingGood?ThePoliticsandAntipoliticsofNGOPractices’,

AnnualReviewofAnthropology,26,1,439-464.

Gale,F.(1998)‘Cave'Cave!Hicdragones':aneo-Gramsciandeconstructionand

reconstructionofinternationalregimetheory’,ReviewofInternationalPolitical

Economy,5,2,252-283.

GarcíaAgustín,Ó.(2012)‘Enhancingsolidarity:Discoursesofvoluntary

organizationsonimmigrationandintegrationinmulticulturalsocieties’,Journal

ofMulticulturalDiscourses,7,1,81-97.

Gilbert,T.andJ.Powell(2009)‘PowerandSocialWorkintheUnitedKingdom’,

JournalofSocialWork,10,1,3-22.

Gill,N.(2009)‘Presentationalstatepower:temporalandspatialinfluencesover

asylumsectordecisionmakers’,TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish

Geographers,34,2,215-233.

42

Gill,N.(2010)‘Newstate-theoreticapproachestoasylumandrefugee

geographies’,ProgressinHumanGeography,34,5,626-645.

GreaterLondonVolunteering(2011)SubmissionBS21inSmallerGovernment:

BiggerSociety?WrittenEvidencetotheHouseofCommonsPublic

AdministrationSelectCommittee,March2011,79-84.

Halfpenny,P.andM.Reid(2002)‘Researchonthevoluntarysector:an

overview’,PolicyandPolitics,30,4,533-550.

Hall,S.(1986)'Gramsci'srelevanceforthestudyofraceandethnicity',Journalof

CommunicationInquiry,10,5-27.

Harlock,J.(2013)‘ImpactmeasurementpracticeintheUKthirdsector:areview

ofemergingevidence’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,WorkingPaper106,1-29.

Heynen,N.(2010)‘Cookingupnon-violentcivil-disobedientdirectactionforthe

hungry:‘FoodnotBombs’andtheresurgenceofradicaldemocracyintheUS’,

UrbanStudies,47,6,1225–1240.

Hilber,D.andT.Baraulina(2012)‘Migrationanddevelopment.Anewpolicy

paradigminGermany?’IMISBeiträge,40,89-113.

Hinger,S.,P.SchäferandA.Pott(2016)‘TheLocalProductionofAsylum’,Journal

ofRefugeeStudies,29,4,440-463.

Jones,G.,R.Meegan,P.KennettandJ.Croft(2015)‘Theunevenimpactof

austerityonthevoluntaryandcommunitysector:Ataleoftwocities’,Urban

Studies,53,10,2064-2080.

Johnson,J.M.andT.Rowlands(2012)‘TheInterpersonalDynamicsofin-Depth

Interviewing’,inGubrium,J.F.,J.A.Holstein,A.B.MarvastiandK.D.McKinney

43

(eds.)TheSAGEHandbookofInterviewResearch:TheComplexityoftheCraft,

London,SAGEPublications,99-115.

Kaldor,M.(2003)‘CivilSocietyandAccountability’,JournalofHuman

Development,4,1,5-27.

Katz,H.(2006)‘Gramsci,Hegemony,andGlobalCivilSocietyNetwork’,Voluntas,

17,333-348.

Koca,B.(2016)‘NewSocialMovements:“RefugeesWelcomeUK”’,European

ScientificJournal,12,2,96-108

Krijnen,W.(2006)‘SomeResultsonMeanSquareErrorforFactorScore

Prediction’,Psychometrika,71,2,395-409.

Krijnen,W.(2006)‘SomeResultsonMeanSquareErrorforFactorScore

Prediction’,Psychometrika,71,2,395-409.

Levy,D.andD.Egan(2003)‘ANeo-GramscianApproachtoCorporatePolitical

Strategy:ConflictandAccommodationintheClimateChangeNegotiations’,

JournalofManagementStudies,40,4,803-829.

Lueck,K.,C.DueandM.Augoustinos(2015)‘Neoliberalismandnationalism:

RepresentationsofasylumseekersintheAustralianmainstreamnewsmedia’,

Discourse&Society,26,5,608-629.

Maughan,B.(2010)‘TonyBlair’sasylumpolicies:Thenarrativesand

conceptualisationsattheheartofNewLabour’srestrictionism’,RefugeeStudies

Centre,RSCWorkingPaperSeriesNo.69,1-36.

MacKinnon,D.(2000)‘Managerialism,governmentalityandthestate:aneo-

Foucauldianapproachtolocaleconomicgovernance’,PoliticalGeography,19,3,

293-314.

44

MacKenzie,R.,C.FordeandZ.Ciupijus(2012)‘NetworksofSupportforNew

MigrantCommunities’,UrbanStudies,49,3,631-647.

Martins,H.‘TimeandTheoryinSociology’,inJ.Rex(ed.),Approachesto

Sociology,London,194:246.

McCabe,A.(2010)‘BelowtheRadarinaBigSociety?Reflectionsoncommunity

engagement,empowermentandsocialactioninachangingpolicycontext’,Third

SectorResearchCentre,workingpaper51,1-20.

McCabe,A.,J.PhillimoreandL.Mayblin(2010)‘Belowtheradar’activitiesand

organisationsinthethirdsector:asummaryreviewoftheliterature’,Third

SectorResearchCentre,WorkingPaper29,1-30.

NationalSurveyofCharitiesandSocialEnterprises(2013)IpsosMORISocial

ResearchInstitute,1-67.

Marcus,G.andJ.Tidey(2015)‘CommunityMirrorAData-DrivenMethodfor

‘BelowtheRadar’Research’,NestaWorkingPaperSeries,15,7,1-28.

Moore,K.(2013)‘‘Asylumshopping’intheneoliberalsocialimaginary’,Media,

Culture&Society,35,3,348-365.

Mossberger,K.andG.Stoker(2001)‘TheEvolutionofUrbanRegimeTheory’

UrbanAffairsReview,36,6,810-835.

Nyers,P.(2010)‘No-oneisillegalbetweencityandnation’,StudiesinSocial

Justice,4,2,127–143.

Oppenheim,C.,E.CoxandR.Platt(2010)‘Regenerationthroughco-operation:

Creatingaframeworkforcommunitiestoacttogether’,Manchester:Co-

operativesUK,1-6.

45

Pain,R.andL.Staeheli(2014)‘Introduction:intimacy-geopoliticsandviolence’,

Area,46,4,344-347.

Perlo,A.(2012)Austerityandtheeconomiccrisis[onlineAvailableat:

http://politicalafairs.net/austerity-and-the-economic-crisis/].[Accessedat3

Sep.2017]

Phillimore,J.andL.Goodson(2006)‘ProblemorOpportunity?AsylumSeekers,

Refugees,EmploymentandSocialExclusioninDeprivedUrbanAreas’,Urban

Studies,43,10,1715-1736.

Piacentini,T.(2010)‘BelowtheRadarinaBigSociety?Reflectionson

communityengagement,empowermentandsocialactioninachangingpolicy

context’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,workingpaper81,1-20.

Platts-Fowler,D.andD.Robinson(2015)‘APlaceforIntegration:Refugee

ExperiencesinTwoEnglishCities’,Population,SpaceandPlace,21,5,476-491.

PricewaterhouseCoopers(2012)‘ManagingCharitiesintheNewNormal–a

PerfectStorm?’,Fifth‘ManaginginaDownturn’surveyreportproducedbyPwC,

CharityFinanceGroupandtheInstituteforFundraising,1-29.

Quainton,G.(2010)Volunteerorelse!Howanudgecouldturnintocoercion.

[online]ThirdSectorBlog.Availableat:

http://thirdsector.thirdsector.co.uk/2010/05/19/volunteer-or-else-how-

nudging-could-turn-into-coercion/).[Accessed3Sep.2017].

Randall,A.(2015)‘Civilsocietyorganisationssupportingdestitutemigrants’,

IRISWorkingPaperSeries,11,1-37.

Rowson,J.,S.Broome,andA.Jones(2010)ConnectedCommunities:Howsocial

networkspowerandsustaintheBigSociety.London:RSA1-87

46

Rygiel,K.(2012)‘PoliticizingCamps:ForgingTransgressiveCitizenshipsinand

throughTransit’,CitizenshipStudies,16,5–6,807–825.

Sanyal,R.(2012)‘RefugeesandtheCity:AnUrbanDiscussion’,Geography

Compass,6,11,633-644.

Schmidtke,O.(2014)‘BeyondNationalModels?’,ComparativeMigrationStudies,

2,1,77-99.

Sending,O.andI.Neumann(2006)‘GovernancetoGovernmentality:Analyzing

NGOs,States,andPower’,InternationalStudiesQuarterly,50,3,651-672.

Sepulveda,L.,S.SyrettandS.Calvo(2013)‘SocialEnterpriseandEthnic

Minorities:ExploringtheConsequencesoftheEvolvingBritishPolicyAgenda’,

EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,31,4,633-648.

Slaughter,A.(2017)‘HowNGOshavehelpedshaperesettlement’,Forced

MigrationReview,[online]43,32-34.Availableat:

http://www.fmreview.org/resettlement/slaughter.html[Accessed3Sep.2017].

Snyder,S.(2011)‘Un/settlingAngels:Faith-BasedOrganizationsandAsylum-

SeekingintheUK’,JournalofRefugeeStudies,24,3,565-585.

Sønderriis,A.(2011).ChallengingHegemonyGlobalCivilSocietyandthe

ContentiousPotentialofNGDOCoalitions.Ph.D.UniversityofRoskilde.

Soteri-Proctor,A.(2011)‘Littlebigsocieties:micro-mappingoforganisations

operatingbelowtheradar’,ThirdSectorResearchCentre,Workingpaper71,1-

32.

Sotiropoulos,D.andD.Bourikos(2014)‘EconomicCrisis,SocialSolidarityand

theVoluntarySectorinGreece’,JournalofPower,Politics&Governance,2,2,33-

53.

47

Springer,S.(2010)‘NeoliberalismandGeography:Expansions,Variegations,

Formations’,GeographyCompass,4,8,1025-1038.

Squire,V.(2010)‘FromCommunityCohesiontoMobileSolidarities:TheCityof

SanctuaryNetworkandtheStrangersintoCitizensCampaign’,PoliticalStudies,

59,2,290-307.

Tazreiter,C.(2010)‘LocaltoGlobalActivism:TheMovementtoProtectthe

RightsofRefugeesandAsylumSeekers’,SocialMovementStudies,9,2,201-214.

Tilki,M.,R.Thompson,L.Robinson,J.Bruce,E.Chan,OLewis,F.Chinegwundoh

andH.Nelson(2015)‘TheBMEthirdsector:marginalisedandexploited’

VoluntarySectorReview,6,1,93-101.

Toepler,S.(2003)‘GrassrootsAssociationsVersusLargerNonprofits:New

EvidenceFromaCommunityCaseStudyinArtsandCulture’,Nonprofitand

VoluntarySectorQuarterly,32,2,236-251.

Tõnurist,P.andL.Surva(2016)‘IsVolunteeringAlwaysVoluntary?Between

CompulsionandCoercioninCo-production’,VOLUNTAS:InternationalJournalof

VoluntaryandNonprofitOrganizations,28,1,223-247.

Valentine,G.(1997)‘Tellmeabout...Usinginterviewsasaresearchmethodology’

inFlowerdew,R.andD.Martin(eds.)MethodsinHumanGeography:aGuidefor

StudentsDoingaResearchProject,Longman,London,110-126.

Viterna,J.E.CloughandK.Clarke(2015)‘Reclaimingthe“ThirdSector”from

“CivilSociety”:ANewAgendaforDevelopmentStudies’,Sociologyof

Development,1,1,173-207.

White,A.(2002)‘Geographiesofasylum,legalknowledgeandlegalpractices’,

PoliticalGeography,21,8,1055-1073.

48

Williams,L.(2006)‘SocialNetworksofRefugeesintheUnitedKingdom:

Tradition,TacticsandNewCommunitySpaces’,JournalofEthnicandMigration

Studies,32,5,865-879.

WoodM.andM.Flinders(2014)‘Rethinkingdepoliticisation:beyondthe

governmental’,Policy&Politics,42,151–70.

Wolch,J.R.(1990)TheShadowState:GovernmentandVoluntarySectorin

Transition.NewYork:TheFoundationCentre.

Initialproposal

BelowtheradarresponsestotheEUmigrationcrisis

Micro-mappingthirdsectoractivityinBristol

Europeiswitnessingacrisisofresponsibilityregardingrefugees.TheDublin

Regulationhasprovedlargelyunsuitableformanagingthecurrentcrisis,with

memberstatesontheSchengenbordershowinglittledesiretocomply.The

widespreadimplementationofAusteritypoliciesacrossmuchofEuropehas

massivelyreducedessentialwelfareservices.Manyrefugeeshavefound

themselvescaughtinaprotectiongap.Somerefugeeshavebeen‘warehoused’

andsufferedhumanrightsabuses,whileothershavebeenrepelledbyEurope’s

bordersandleftlargelyunassisted.Inmanyinstanceswhennationstateshave

failedtoprovideadequatesupportforrefugees,bothwithinandwithout

Europe’sborders,thirdsectoractivityhascontributedandtriedtofillthe

protectiongap.Despiteitsattimescriticalrolethescaleofthirdsectoractivity

remainslargelyun-quantified.Academicshaveincreasinglycometorecognise

theimportanceofdevelopingabetterunderstandingoforganisedactivityinthe

thirdsectorwhichisnotcapturedbythestandardsources.Suchsourcesinclude

49

theCharityCommissionregisterofrecognisedcharitiesinEnglandandWales

andtheregisterofCompaniesLimitedbyGuaranteeinCompaniesHouse.Major

statisticaldatasourcessuchastheseprovideimportantinformationbutarefar

fromcomprehensive.Manygroupsandorganisationsexistoutsideofthese

registers.Such‘belowtheradar’groupsmaybetoosmalltoregister,maynotbe

ableorwanttobecomeanofficialcharity,ormayonlycometogether

temporarilyaroundspecificissuesratherthanbepermanent.Thisdissertation

willfollowamethodologydevisedbytheThirdSectorResearchCentreto

producea‘micro-map’ofvoluntarygroupsinonelocationintheUKinorderto

assessrefugee-relatedthirdsectorgroupsthathavehithertoremained‘below

theradar’.

Researchquestions:

ThisdissertationwilladaptaseriesofresearchquestionsusedbyTSRCintheir

micro-mappingpilotstudytothecontextofrefugeerelatedBTRgroupsin

Bristol.

1. HowareBTRgroupsstructuredandhowdotheyoperate?

2. Whatistheirroleandfunction?

3. Howeffectivearethey?

4. WhatistherelationshipbetweenBTRgroups,theformalthirdsectorand

localgovernment?

5. IsitpossibletomoreaccuratelyquantifyBTRgroupsandtheir

contributiontocivilsociety?

6. HowhasausterityaffectedrefugeesinBritain?

50

Methods:

ThisdissertationwillfollowthemethodologydevisedbyDrAndriSoteri-Proctor

andtheThirdSectorResearchCentreattheUniversityofBirminghamwhich

theyhavecalled‘micro-mapping’.ThismethodologywillbeappliedtoBristol,as

havinglivedthereforeseveralyearsIamawareofsomelocalgroupsfromwhich

theresearchcanbeginandIwillbeaccommodatedsoIcanspendprolonged

periodsoftimecarryingouttheresearch.Thismethodologyinvolves

establishingageographicalareawithinwhich‘street-level’fieldworkwillbe

carriedout.Multiplesearchtoolswillbeusedincludingsolo-walksduringwhich

Iwilllookforinformationonnoticeboards,advertsandshopsignsandvisiting

spacessuchascommunitybuildingsandfaith-basedbuildings.Peoplewith

knowledgeaboutrelevantactivitieswillbeidentifiedandinterviewed,andusing

asnowballmethodwillbeusedtoidentifyotherparticipants.Oneareaofthe

micro-mappingmethodologywhichwillbedevelopedinthisdissertationisthe

useofsocialmediatoinvestigatevirtualgroupsandcommunitiesthatmayonly

physicallycoalescearoundspecific,non-regularactivities.Forexample,the

CalaisRefugeeSolidarityBristolFacebookgrouphasseveralthousandmembers

whoorganisesolelyonline.Identifyingthesevirtualnetworkswillbevitalto

creatingarepresentativemicro-map.

Timetableforresearch:

April,May Literaturereview

May Identifyareatobemapped

June,July Carryoutstreet-levelresearch

August,September Analysisandwriting

September Finalcheckandhandin

51

Rationale:

Buildingongrowingacademicdiscussionoftheimpactofausterityonrefugees

intheUK,thisdissertationwillhighlighttheroleofBTRgroupsinpromotingthe

rightsandsafeguardingthewelfareofrefugees.Furthermore,itwillcontribute

toworkdonebytheTSRCanddevelopideasandpracticeswithinthemicro-

mappingmethodology.

Barbero,Iker."ScapegoatCitizensInTimesOfAusterity:TheImpactOfThe

CrisisOnTheImmigrantPopulationInSpain".SocialIdentities21.3(2015):244-

256.Web.

Bariagaber,Assefaw."States,InternationalOrganisationsAndTheRefugee:

ReflectionsOnTheComplexityOfManagingTheRefugeeCrisisInTheHornOf

Africa".TheJournalofModernAfricanStudies37.4(1999):597-619.Web.

Diamond,John."ChallengingTheStatusQuo:TheRoleAndPlaceOfThirdSector

Organisations".InternationalJournalofSociologyandSocialPolicy30.1/2

(2010):8-16.Web.

Hwang,Ki-Sik,andIn-SunSuk."ImmigrantSocialIntegrationCrisisInEurope

AndItsIntegrationPolicyImplications".Journalofinternationalareastudies19.4

(2016):135.Web.

McCabe,AngusandPhillimore,Jenny(2009)Exploringbelowtheradar:issuesof

themeandfocus.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,Birmingham,UK.

52

McCabe,AngusandPhillimore,JennyandMayblin,Lucy(2010)‘Belowtheradar’

activitiesandorganisationsinthethirdsector:asummaryreviewofthe

literature.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,Birmingham,UK.

Robinson,K."VoicesFromTheFrontLine:SocialWorkWithRefugeesAnd

AsylumSeekersInAustraliaAndTheUK".BritishJournalofSocialWork44.6

(2013):1602-1620.Web.

Soteri-Proctor,Andri(2011)Littlebigsocieties:micro-mappingoforganisations

operatingbelowtheradar.WorkingPaper.UniversityofBirmingham,

Birmingham,UK.

Soteri-Proctor,A.andAlcock,P.(2012)Micro-Mapping:Whatliesbeneaththe

thirdsectorradar?VoluntarySectorReview,Vol.3,No.3,pp.379-98

53

ResearchDiary:

1stFebruary:BeganreadingworkingpapersfromtheBelowtheRadarReference

GroupatBirminghamUni.Interestingmethodologyforthe‘streetlevel’.

FollowingfrommyotherunitsonE.Urefugeelawandtheideaofa‘crisisof

responsibility’havebeenlookingatthethirdsectorandtheroleitcanplayin

fillingaresponsibilitygap.HavebeenincontactwithpeopleIknowinCalais,

talkingaboutwhetherIcouldmapwherepeoplearecomingfrom,howeverit

soundsverydifficultandalsoexpensiveforme.TurningbacktotheUK,begunto

lookatresearchonbelowtheradarmigrantsupportgroups.Notmuchliterature

here.SettledonBristolasacasestudy.

20thFebruary:Submittedfirstproposal

5thApril:Metwithsupervisoranddiscussedmyproposal.Oneissuewhichwas

raisedwasthatthemethodologyoutlinedbytheBelowtheRadarReference

GroupatBirminghamUniisveryvague.ThoughtthroughhowIwouldactually

doit,includingdecidingonacasestudyarea.

8thMay:OralPresentation.wentwell,mainthingItookawayfromthefeedback

wasthatmyapproachwasn’tanalyticalenough.Icanseethatitscloseto

becomingabigsurvey.NeedtofindsomeliteratureIcanconnectwiththis.

21stMay:Meetingwithsupervisor.Talkedabouthowtocreateanactual

researchapproach.Developedtheideaofseparatephases,beginningwitha

largersurveybeforenarrowingitdowntofewerTSOs.

June:Settledonde-politicisationasthespecifictopicforstudy.Havebeen

readingaroundinterviewsinpreparation.TryingtoreadFoucalt,ashisideaof

governmentalityseemsveryimportantforstudyingnon-stateactors.Quite

difficult.BeguntoreadGramsci,followingacriticismofFoucaltasbeingtoo

54

pessimisticwhichIagreedwith.Startedwritingupinterviewquestions.Created

agenericscripttogooverwithsupervisorbeforeInarrowdown.

7th–15thJune:workedonliteraturereview.Stillunsureofwhatmyfocusis,

haveincludedabitofeverything.

14thJune:HandedinLiteraturereview.Wasarushtofinishit,notproperly

formatted.

14th–21stJune:HavebeenreadingmorearoundGramsciandUrbanregime

theory.Ifde-politicisationispartofhegemonicdiscourse,thenGramsciand

counter-discourseconceptisimportant.

20thJune:HandedinRiskAssessment

21stJune:Receivedfeedbackonliteraturereview.IthinkIneedtonarrowdown

myfocusonBTRliteraturesoIhavemoreroomforthetheoreticalstuff.

21stJune:ConductedonlinesearchesusingFacebookandTwitter.Keywords:

refuge,refugee,asylum,Calais,Syria,immigrant.Comeupwithasurprising

amountofgroups.ThinkinghowIchoosewhichonestointerview.

22ndJune:Metsupervisorandtalkedaboutinterviewquestions.Positive

feedback,decidedtorearrangeorderofquestionsandgivemoretimefor

discussingissuesthatImightwanttogointodetailwith.

26thJune:NarroweddownacasestudyareainBristolusingBristolCityCouncil

data.

27thJune:UsingexistinglistsofTSOstosupplementmyownasdevelopedfrom

onlinesearches.

55

28thJune:Writtencoverletters.Findingitdifficulttojustifytheresearch,but

maybebeingoverlycritical.

1-7July:sentoutfirstinterviewrequests.Noresponsestothefirstbatch.Sent

outrequeststoawidergroupofTSOs.Norepliesinfirstfourdays.Writtenand

sentoutnewrequests.Readingonhowtocodeinterviews.

11-18thJuly:Continuedreadingthirdsectorliterature.Decidedonaworking

definitionfordefiningthirdsector.BegantocategoriseTSOsactivity.

20th–26thJuly:Conductedstreet-levelsearchesaroundBristol.Nicetobeback.

Interestingchatswithpeopleandvolunteers,confirmedsomeofmysuspicions

(BRRisthebiggest,therearelotsofpeoplevolunteering).Alsocontinuedtosend

outinterviewrequestsandhavehadsomeresponsesnow.Hastakenmealot

longerthanIanticipated,whichwasnaïveofme.

28thJuly:Firstthreeinterviews.Wentwell,althoughphoneismoredifficultandI

cantmakenotesontheirbodylanguageetc.LearntabouttheRefugeeForum,

whichsurprisedme.Soundsreallyimportantbutnoinformationonitanywhere

online.

29thJuly:Twomoreinterviewstoday.Codingthemimmediatelyafteras

sometimesmynotesaren’tuptoscratch.Peoplecantalkveryfast.

1stAugust:Threemoreinterviews.Interestingideaof‘need’and‘have’keeps

poppingup.Volunteersfeelresponsible.

3rdAugust:Lasttwointerviews.WillbeleavingBristolinthenextfewdays.Has

takenmeamonthtogetalltheinterviewswhichissurprising.Haveamuch

betterideaofhowto‘win’peopleovernow.

56

3rd–10thAugust:Backinthelibrary.Readingaboutcoercion,andvoluntarism,

whichactuallyconnectsbacktoBigSociety.Gramsciagain.Writtenout

methodology.

10th-17thAugust:Completelyre-writtenliteraturereview.Intercuthistorical

contextofasylumpolicywithneoliberalismandde-politicisation.

17th–20th:Writtenthreechapters–‘who’,‘What’and‘why’.Thinkthisisagood

waytoframeit,whoaretheTSOs,whatareTSOsdoingandwhyaretheydoing

it.

20th-27th:rewrittenchaptersaroundthesubheadings.Makesitclearerwhatmy

pointsare.

1st-4thSeptember:Writtenconclusion.

Interviewschedule:

(‘BRR’isplaceholder)

Explainresearchagain

Consent(audiorecorder)

WouldliketostartoffbytalkingaboutBRR

1. CanyoutellmeabitaboutBRRandwhatyoudohere?(Prompt-activities,

size,participantdemographics,finances,structure,function)

2. Whatarethemainaimsormotives?(othpersonnelandBRRaswhole)

3. BRRwasstartedin….Whatwasthemotiveforstarting?Whatwasitdoing

then?

57

4. Doyouthinkithaschangedalotornotmuchbetweenwhenitwasstarted

andnow?(Prompt-activities,aspirations,size,structure,function)

5. Ifyes,why?

6. Doyouthinkotherorgsintheareahavehadsimilarexperiences?

7. WhatdoyouthinkareBRRsstrengths?

8. ArethereanychallengesBRRiscurrentlyfacing?

9. Arethereanyneeds?Whatfor?Isthisconstantorinresponseto

event/circumstance?

WanttotalkabouttherelationshipbetweenBRRandotherorganisations

1. DoesBRRworkwithotherorganisationsalot?

2. Couldyoutellmewhichones?

3. Aretheserelationshipslong-term,ordotheydeveloparoundspecificevents

andthenfade?

4. (similarly)Arethereformalchannelsofcommunication,orisitad-hoc?

5. Doyouthinktheyshareyouraspirations?

AswellasBRRsrelationshipwithotherorgs,imreallyinterestedtoknow

moreaboutyourrelationshipwithlocalgovernment

1. HowwouldyoudescribeBRRsrelationshipwithlocalgovernment?

2. Doyoureceiveanymaterialsupportfromthem?Isitsufficient?Areany

conditionsplacedonthis?Doyouthinktheseconditionsarefair?Arethey

properlymonitored?

3. Islocalgovernmentsupportiveofyourwork?

4. Doyouthinktheysharethesameaspirationsofyourorganisation?

5. Doyouthinkworkingwith(ornot)localgovhasbeenbeneficial,andcould

yougiveanexampleofwhereithashelped?Similarly,hasitcausedproblems

inanyways?

6. Wouldyouliketobeabletoworkmorecloselywithlocalgovernment,or

wouldyouprefertobemoreindependent?

58

7. Doyouthinklocalgovernmenthas(orexercises)alotofauthority?Doyou

thinktheyholdalotofresponsibilities?

8. Howdoyouthinkyourcolleaguesgenerallyviewlocalgov?

9. DoyouthinkthisisthecaseforotherasylumVCOs?Isthereageneralmood

orattitudeamongstVCOstowardslocalgovernment?

10. Doyouthinktheyareparticularlyactiveinthissphere?Whatdoyouthink

theirmainfocusis?Shouldtheyshouldbedoingmore?Doyouthinktheyare

effectiveatwhattheydo?

11. Doyouthinklocalgovernment’srolehaschangedovertime?Why?(prompt–

bigsociety,austerity)

End

Interviewtranscriptextract:

S

Sorefugeeactiontheywere,really,almostthebiggestagencywithinBristolin

thecommunityandvoluntarysectorworkingwithasylumseekersandrefugees.

AndthenwelostfundingfromtheGovernment.Atthatstagemostofourfunding

camedirectlyfromthegovernment,andprobablynotenoughfromsupporters,

theirsupporterbase.Anditmeantthatweweresubjectedtoquiteafewrounds

ofredundanciesandthatkindofstuff.So,so,intermsofgivingadvice–who

doesitnow?Itsshiftedfromrefugeeactionto,um,Iwouldprobablysayrefugee

rights.Sotheyhaveateam,aninformationandadviceteamwhoprobablydo

mostofthatstuffnowthatrefugeeactionusedtodo.andweusedtohavetodo

examsatrefugeeaction,itwasallveryyouknowregulated,andIdon’tknow

that,Idon’tknowhowregulatedtheadviceis.Imean,Iknowrefugeerightsare

brilliant,andIknowtheirvolunteersaretrainedverywell,butitslessformalI

59

wouldthinknowthanitwasthen.Sothat’showIstarted[myorg]about6½

yearsagonow.Lookingroundatalltheotheragenciesnobodywasproviding

oneononesupportforpeopleoutinthecommunity,itwasallaboutpeople

goingtoaservicetoreceivehelp,buttheonuswasonthemgettingthere.And

therewasnothingforpeoplewhoperhapswouldfinditreallydifficulttogointo

areallybusyplace,oraplacewhereitwaspredominantlymen–ifyou’rea

vulnerablewoman,orifyou’rereallydepressedandactuallyyouneededtomeet

someoneinsortofananonymouscoffeeshopratherthanareallybusydropin

typescenario.SoIstartedb.friendandamstilldoingit.

N

So,isthatstillthesamesortofworkyoudo?isthatstillthesameideabehind

[yourorg]?

S

Yeah.It’sreallysimple,it’sareallysimplemodelof–Itrainvolunteers,mostlyin

awarenessofstufflikewhocomestoBristol,whytheycomehere,alsolistening

skills,thatkindofthing.AndI,throughthreesessions,basicallysussoutthese

volunteers(laughter)andtryandworkoutwhetherthey’resuitableornot.And

thenwehaveaninformalinterviewandtheniftheycanprovidemewithtwo

goodreferencesthentheyreabletobevolunteerandtheyarematchedwith

peoplewhoarereferredbyalltheotheragencies.Sothat’skindofhowthat

works,it’sareallyeasy,simple,veryquickwaytomakeadifferenceinsomeones

life,ifitgoeswellandthepartnershipworks.Peoplequiteoften,they’lldoitfor

12monthswhichiskindoftherequirementandthenafterthattheymightsay

wellactuallywestillwanttocarryonmeetingtogether.That’sthenicestthing

forme,whereIseesomeonegothroughthose12monthsandactuallytheystill

wanttosupportthatperson.AndIalwayssaytothemjustcheckthatpersonstill

wantstomeetwithyou,itslikeyou’regonnabesomekindoflimpetyouknow

(laughter).Yeah,so,ivbeenreallyluckywithfunding,noneofmyfundingcomes

fromanywhereremotelyofficiallygovernment…

N

60

Yeah,thatwassomethingIwantedtoaskyouabout,Isawonthebridgesfor

communitieswebsitethatthedifferentsourceswereindividualdonors,andthen

partnershipsandgrants,whatsthesortofdistributionintermsoffunding?

S

(Pullsface)crikey.Itsshiftedabitovertheyears,um,itusedtobethatthe

donationswerebasicallymyfamily(laughter)andnowitsmoreindividuals

ratherthanjustfamilymemberswhowanttoseemebeabletofeedmyfamily.

Um,yeah,so,um,Ihavebeenreallyreallyfortunatewithsometrustfunding,so

theresacoupleoftrustswhoIcameacrossthroughacoursethatIdid,itwasan

entrepeneurshipcoursethatIdidinnorthdevon,um,fouryearsagoitwasnow?

AndIpitchedtolikeadragon’sdenonthiscourseandonthebackofthatwon

somefunding.Boththetrustthathostedthatcourseandalsoanothertrustthat

wastheresaid‘wewillgiveyoufunding’andthey’vebothagreedtogivefunding

overthreeyears.Bothgivenme£15000sothat’sbrilliant.[Myorg]onlycosts–

itsreallycheapbecauseitsjustme–justshortof£19000Ithinkitis.I’mpart

time,21hoursaweek,soinactualfactitsnotanexpensiveoperation,andIthink

peoplelikethatbecausetheycanseethatthemoneytheygivereallydoesmake

adifference,itdoesn’tgetabsorbedintoadmincostsorletterstuffingoranyof

thatstuffitreallydoesgotowardsputtingsomeonetogetherwitharefugeeor

asylumseeker.Itsgood,it’saquickandeasywaytohelp.Andivdonethingslike

runahalfmarathon,neveragain(laughter)andwe’vehadfundraisingtype

things...Imtryingtothinkwhoelsehasgivenmoney,um,ivbeensoblownaway

byunexpectedpeopledonatingmoneythatIdidn’tevenknowthattheyknew

about[myorg].ivhadachequefor£1000throughmyfrontdoor,justrandom

youknow?

N

Justgeneralinterestfromthepublic?

S

Yeah,whichhasbeenamazing,likeabiglawyersfirminBristoljustsentmea

chequefor£600thattheyhadhadacollectionattheirChristmasdinnerandI

61

gotthatinFebruary,andsosomeonehadjustheardabout[myorg]andsaidlets

justgiveittothem.Ididn’tknowaboutthem,itsgreat.

N

Didyou,haveyounoticedanychangessince2014/2015thingshappeningin

Syria,hasthathadanimpactonpublicinterestandinvolvement?

S

Itcertainlyhadanimpactontheamountofpeoplewhocontactedmeofferingto

volunteer.Overoneweekend,whenitwasallgoingmadinthepress,Ihad

overnightprobablytenortwelvetogether–‘IwanttobeavolunteerhowcanI

help?’.AnditwaskindofinterestingbecauseIfoundthat,um,althoughpeople

reallywantedtohelp,actuallynothinghadchangedhere.Theproblemwasstill

there(motionswitharmindicatingsomewhereelse)andthesepoorpeople

havingtomaketheirwayacrosstoEurope,butnoonewasgettingacrossthe

channeloratleastnotmanypeopleweregettingacrossthechannelandso

actuallyitsnotbeenaproblem,oranissuerather.Nowobviouslytheresthe

Syrianresettlementprogramme,but,um,yeahitfeltlikeitwas,itwasgreat

peoplewantedtorespondintermsofaction,butactuallytherewasn’tmuchfor

peopletoactuallydoatthatpointapartfromgivemoneyoraid–nobodywas

hereatthatpoint.sothatwasabittricky.ButIdidhavelotsofpeopleemailing

meandsomeofthembecamevolunteersandthatgreatbutothersdidn’t,Ithink

itsthatsortofthingwhereyouseesomethingandyourespondandinthat

momentyoureallywanttodosomethingbutactuallyyouthengetonwithyour

ownlifeandthereisn’tspace.

62

Coveringletter:

Hello,

MynameisNickSharmaandI’mapostgraduatestudentatUniversityCollege

LondoncurrentlyconductingresearchintoBristol’sasylum-relatedthirdsector.

Themainfocusofthisresearchisinvestigatinghowthirdsectororganisations

haveproceededagainstthebackgroundofausterity-drivenspendingcutsand

reformstopublicservices,voluntarybodiesandwelfareprovision.

AspartofmyresearchIwillbeinterviewingmembersofanumberofgroups,

networksandorganisationsacrossthecity,andIwouldliketoinviteamember

ofBristolHospitalityNetworktotakepartinashortinformalinterviewattheir

convenience.Theinterviewwilltakearound30-45minutesandsomeofthe

topicsofdiscussionincludeyourorganisation’sactivities,organisational

aspirations,theconnectionsyoumayhavewithotherlocalorganisations,and

opinionsonlocalgovernment’sroleinthissector.

RecentpublicationsfromresearchersatLiverpoolJohnMooresUniversityand

theUniversityofBristol,aswellasorganisationssuchasVoscurandtheCharity

FinanceGroup,haveshownthatstudyingtheexperiencesandperspectivesof

participantscanbeofgreatvalueforothersworkingwithinthesamefield.

FollowingmyresearchIhopetoproduceabriefreportbasedontheresearch

findingsandoutcomesthatcouldbeofusetoorganisationsinBristolsuchas

yours.Forexample,accurateandup-to-dateinformationonhowassetsare

distributedacrossthecitycouldfacilitatecollaborativework.

63

Ifamemberofyourteamwouldliketotakepartorfindoutmoreaboutmy

researchIcanbereachedattheemailaddressorphonenumberbelowandwe

canarrangetomeetlocallyataconvenienttimeforyou.

Ilookforwardtohearingfromyou.

Kindregards,

Nick