Shredding the Evidence: Whose Collective Impact are We Talking About?

Woolcock, Geoffrey ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1904-7066 (2019) Shredding the Evidence: Whose Collective Impact are We Talking About? In: Perspectives on Community Well-Being. Community Quality-of-Life and Well-Being. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 157-173. ISBN 978-3-030-15114-0


Abstract

There has been considerable hype in Australia recently accompanying the North American-informed Collective Impact (CI) approach and its claims to deliver real transformative social change for individuals and communities. CI actively promotes its principal incentive and distinctive trait, namely to concentrate the energies of its collaborators to achieve real,long-term,measurable and sustainable outcomes, often quoted as a Social Return on Investment(SRoI).Not coincidentally,the rise of CI’s visibility has emerged alongside diminishing public funding for social change initiatives, with a corresponding and somewhat belated turn to the philanthropic sector to partially meet this funding shortfall. Early signs across Australia indicate that philanthropic funds are no less driven by a ‘value for money’ imperative than governments that in turn, has left many lamenting the shift in community organisations working to satisfy donor expectations rather than working with and for local communities. In this context,some serious questions have already been raised about the Collective Impact approach and ambition, particularly how CI can meaningfully engage with long-term disadvantaged local communities and realistically agree on what successful outcomes would look like for such communities. Community cultural development (CCD) would seem to offer a useful counterpoint to the CI approach with its enduring emphasis on authentic process and bottom-up solutions but CCD too has received its own share of criticism for an obsession with process to the exclusion of real and tangible social outcomes. Whatever approach’s claims are to be tested, this paper starts from the standpoint that their veracity will only be significant if they can actually demonstrate they are making a difference in our most disadvantaged communities and populations.


Statistics for USQ ePrint 39672
Statistics for this ePrint Item
Item Type: Book Chapter (Commonwealth Reporting Category B)
Refereed: Yes
Item Status: Live Archive
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: Current - Institute for Resilient Regions - Rural Economies Centre of Excellence (1 Aug 2018 -)
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: Current - Institute for Resilient Regions - Rural Economies Centre of Excellence (1 Aug 2018 -)
Date Deposited: 01 Dec 2020 04:05
Last Modified: 06 Jan 2021 05:41
Uncontrolled Keywords: Collective impact; Measuring well-being; Community cultural development; Community indicators
Fields of Research (2008): 19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing > 1999 Other Studies in Creative Arts and Writing > 199999 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing not elsewhere classified
16 Studies in Human Society > 1604 Human Geography > 160403 Social and Cultural Geography
16 Studies in Human Society > 1608 Sociology > 160801 Applied Sociology, Program Evaluation and Social Impact Assessment
Fields of Research (2020): 44 HUMAN SOCIETY > 4410 Sociology > 441001 Applied sociology, program evaluation and social impact assessment
45 INDIGENOUS STUDIES > 4505 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, society and community > 450507 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-based research
36 CREATIVE ARTS AND WRITING > 3699 Other creative arts and writing > 369999 Other creative arts and writing not elsewhere classified
Socio-Economic Objectives (2008): C Society > 94 Law, Politics and Community Services > 9401 Community Service (excl. Work) > 940102 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Development and Welfare
C Society > 92 Health > 9203 Indigenous Health > 920301 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health - Determinants of Health
C Society > 95 Cultural Understanding > 9501 Arts and Leisure > 950104 The Creative Arts (incl. Graphics and Craft)
Socio-Economic Objectives (2020): 20 HEALTH > 2002 Evaluation of health and support services > 200299 Evaluation of health and support services not elsewhere classified
13 CULTURE AND SOCIETY > 1301 Arts > 130199 Arts not elsewhere classified
21 INDIGENOUS > 2101 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community services > 210102 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander development and wellbeing
Identification Number or DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15115-7_8
URI: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/39672

Actions (login required)

View Item Archive Repository Staff Only