New RCD communities spent time establishing a clear sense of their identity as separate from aligned communities, particularly the rural community and the funding source. The focus was on being an identifiable entity able to offer benefit to the rural community. They also made it clear to the rural community that while they were aligned with their sources of funding, they were separate identities with different values and agendas.
6: 3.3.1 RCD community and rural community boundary
RCD community members developed a clear sense of their relationship to the broader community. They talked about motivating “the community” and gaining “community support”, referring to “we”
as the RCD community going out to the broader or rural community. This was done by promoting their existence as a constituent community.
“.. right from day one we were in the face of the community.” (2i)
While moving amongst the rural community, RCD community members actively identified themselves as RCD members, through dress, conversation and other marketing strategies. Concurrently, they were quick to highlight their role.
“So we’re, we’re out there showing that we are supporting the community, helping them to achieve their goals, you know. The way I see it is you have to be out doing it. You have to be seen. You’ve got so show that you are supporting people and community events.” (2b) 6: 3.3.2 RCD community and funder boundary
The RCD community also actively sought to be identified as a separate entity to the funder. This was felt passionately even at the risk of conflict with the funding community.
Funder’s had strong rules around project identities, directing local input regarding project names and presentation. In two of the three communities, names had to be approved by the funder and these were not as the community preferred. RCD community members felt strongly about having an identity of their own, separating themselves from funder’s values and agendas. The conviction emphasised in the below quote highlights the importance of these boundary processes.
“I had to work fairly hard in PR terms to make the [RCD community] separate .. [Funder] always want to make it: [Funder! Funder! Funder! Funder! Funder!]. I mean I can’t say
[Funder] anything as often as they want us. They want to put spin on all my press releases and stuff and I just say get off with you. I don’t want to talk about [Funder], I want to talk about [RCD community].” (2d)
The boundary was highlighted when the funding source was seen to be hindering or slowing decision making processes, taking control away from the RCD community.
“The most trouble is actually [Funder] themselves. .. Well they’ve given us more grief than anything else. .. and it’s been a three week muck around just to try and get some Ok’s out of [Funder] itself .. Everything’s got to be ran through them.” (2a)
In juggling different agendas, funding was sometimes spent on activities akin to, but broader than the funder’s agenda. Such management of boundary processes created understandable tensions in the accountability processes between the funding source and the RCD community.
“So we got a grant for that, spent the money on the [activity] then when they were acquitting the grant they said, ‘This money isn’t for that’, (laugh). We said to them, ‘Well, it’s bad luck, we spent the money’. .. We got it for a business plan actually for [the project], so .. even though we [used it for other components of the project] and so forth, we also did the business plan as well. So we covered ourselves. They accepted it in the finish. They didn’t want to accept it at first.” (1c)
While these tensions were resolved, such boundary management had risks that were emphasised both in contractual documents, and in the ongoing interaction between funding sources and RCD communities. The role of power in boundary processes is further demonstrated in the below quote. Where interactions were around other differences of opinion, it was impressed that the power lay with the funder regarding the communities’ ongoing access to the funding.
“.. we had a senior [Funder] person in a couple of weeks ago and he was saying ‘well look, I could stop that payment, and I wouldn’t, but if you’re not spending it where I think you should be, I could just say ‘no payment’. Sort of half-jokingly, but at the same time!” (1a)
The tensions in these interactions indicated the depth of feeling associated with having control. The motivation behind some RCD community activities was the opportunity to have their own say.
“.. and it’d be a good chance to shove it up those blokes up the road and get our own” (1b) Establishing a sense of equality was for one RCD community, part of the initial construction of boundaries with the funders. This was a conscious approach of showing control and ownership.
“There’s a strong feeling [in the RCD community] that we didn’t want the [Funder] people to think we were going to jump every time they said jump. .. We needed their help .. hopefully we weren’t arrogant about it. But, we, there were one or two people in the [funder] earlier on, who came across on the basis that these were your instructions for the month, and we very quickly tried to diplomatically tell them they could make their suggestions, but we were going to do it our way.” (2c)
Within this RCD community, pursuing equality entailed addressing differences throughout the funding period. For example, they initiated the negotiation of procedures that better met the communities’ interests and needs.
“.. and it was quite amusing really because he’d come in time and again with guidelines for us and we’d go back and say, ‘Look this isn’t the way to do it [Funder], it’s better to do it this way’ (laughter)” (2c)
It involved directly challenging directions given by the funding source.
“We were probably pretty proactive. If there was something we didn’t agree with or didn’t like, if it come from emails or phone, we just ring up and say, ‘Hey this is a load of bullshit’, you know, ‘This is bureaucratic codswallop’ ..” (2f)
For example, where there was sufficient confidence, the local agenda would be pushed through when funder’s timelines did not respond to the local agenda.
“[Funder said] ‘.. you can’t get a public meeting organised in the ten days’. And we said, ‘well if you’re available, we’ll have the meeting. Turn up, we’ll do it.’” (2h)
Thus, although the boundary and responsibilities between the RCD community and the funder were defined up front, there remained a belief that these were negotiable:
“[Funder] have got some fairly set rules on what you’re allowed to and what you’re not allowed to [do]. .. [Funder] have got very strict policies on a lot of those sorts of things. And we can change; their policies are not set in concrete, right. If we come up with a reason to change something .. suggestion and discussions and all that sort of stuff.” (2h)
While these RCD community members claimed power by negotiating boundary processes throughout the project, this instance was in contrast to the quote on page 135 where RCD community members did not push their own agendas directly. By applying them creatively but surreptitiously, the potential conflict in these boundary processes was delayed not avoided.
The funders’ agendas were initially presented within the contracts and policy documents given at the beginning of funding. They were re-iterated and the power balance clarified in further
not always so clearly described to funders. The need to balance the differing agendas in these boundary processes thus fell to the RCD communities.
Despite the juggle, RCD communities welcomed the endeavours of funding sources to build alignments across like RCD communities from different rural communities. It created a sense of belonging to a larger RCD community, but did not detract from the identity of the individual RCD constituent communities.
“But you know we were welcomed into it as, we were as welcome as any other members of the [funder] staff. And I felt that was really good. They talked about that and how they’ve got a strong community group within the [funder] structure itself, and that was good to know that you’re part of it.” (2h)
At these times the funding source was recognised as a supportive alignment for the RCD constituent community.
“But the training courses with [funder] .. were incredibly informative, and the support from [funder] has just been phenomenal. You know you ring up people and you talk to anybody and everybody.” (2h)
The establishment of the RCD community identity included very active management of boundary processes to develop a clear distinction between them, the rural community, and the funders. The distinction with the rural community was achieved by members being highly visible and focusing on noncontroversial values, as they promoted the role, purpose and benefit of their project. The boundary process with the funding community was a balancing act of strong alignments for the benefits of support and infrastructure, while attaining differentiation and a sense of equality between the two communities, to facilitate local control of activities.