The process of community ownership within the participating projects was evident after, and in response to, the initial negotiating of values, meaning and boundaries which provided the foundation for the new RCD communities’ identity.
Founding RCD community members acknowledged that the processes of engaging community ownership were linked to people’s need for meaning in life. RCD communities provided the opportunity for expression and continued shaping of members’ individual identity (in relation to engagement with a collective identity). As part of the RCD community, individuals had the opportunity to meet a need to belong and engage a purpose in their lives.
“I’ve come across a number of friends and acquaintances who, will go out and buy 50 or 100 acres somewhere out in the sticks and they don’t have a community, you know it’s a long drive into the community and they don’t like it, and it doesn’t take long before they’re unwinding and wanting to get back into things. But they don’t want to go back to the big smoke. But
they do then recognise that what they really crave for, was motivating them in the first place, was to get into a small community.” (2c)
Participants saw that filling this personal void was an important aspect of membership in an RCD community. This personal benefit was a significant consideration alongside the project goals.
“They wanted to be part of something. .. Having to be part of it.” (1c)
In some projects, community ownership was difficult to achieve.
“But that’s when – it’s a frustrating time. You know the outcome, you could see the outcome; but trying to convince the people to see it, that’s the hard part.” (3d)
This was particularly true where there had been years of depressed economic conditions with reduced health, business and education services, youth moving away for study and employment, and where previous development attempts had been associated with high conflict between constituent communities with different values.
“I think it’s getting through that negativity of, like we’d gone through 20 years or 15 years of nothing happening in [Rural town]. And like, the first thing people say is that, ‘oh this will never happen’.” (1c)
Leaders responded in various ways. In some projects developing ownership was actively managed. “I’m looking at from community development approach. What we are trying to do now we get people on board with us, and after that – I’m not going to stay here forever .. usually people they come here work for one year, they leave, everything go back to the first step.” (3d) While the recruitment of local and long term constituent community members was considered an important process in all participating projects, this was clearly articulated where short-term or temporary residents initiated RCD activity. As described in the above quote, without the
recruitment of broader community members, and the establishment of an RCD community with a corresponding ownership, the RCD activities did not continue when the temporary residents left.
Some projects utilised the need to belong within the marketing strategy of their project to encourage community ownership and build the membership of the RCD community. They endeavoured to promote the project as something the community would want to be a part of.
“I gather in the mission statement .. the marketing thrust is to make members of the community feel left out.” (2c)
Others promoted the benefits of their projects, and seeded ideas with influential rural community members.
Community ownership of project tasks, involved commitment of time and resources by individual members. This was acknowledged in the proactive recruitment of members likely to take
responsibility for tasks.
“Between us we just planned certain strategies and set ourselves objectives and took off from there. .. picked the people that they thought could get things done.” (2j)
Ownership of tasks was sustained by satisfaction and enjoyment in the processes, further reinforcing the contribution and commitment of members’ time and work.
“.. and so we’ll get a lot of satisfaction out of it because we’re putting something in there.” (2b)
While described as highly satisfying, it was in balance with a recognised cost to individuals due to the workload demands.
“I’m getting pretty run down now. The last thing I want to be is a committee rep at the moment. But I’ve enjoyed every bit of it.” (1b)
Despite the “hard going” (1c participant emphasis) and fatigue, in addition to fulfilling a need to belong and experiencing purpose and enjoyment, commitment was connected to the knowledge of the significance of each member’s contribution in the process.
“.. and they didn’t lose interest because they knew that their opinion counted.” (2i)
The commitment involved in community ownership was not only to the tasks of the project, but also the emotional and relational aspect of the RCD community. As described in the establishment of the
RCD community values in 6:3.2, engaging in warm and fuzzy community processes could not be ignored. The process of interaction and working together as a community as a well as the achievement of project goals were important and further motivated giving time to the tasks.
“It was a pleasure to meet them all and work with them and, you know, and to be a part of, you know, what we’ve achieved.” (2g)
Yet, the level of commitment required resulted in a core few being the mainstay of the RCD
community. This core was seen where there were a core number of participants, yet the community membership was much larger.
“We’ve been only getting eight or nine lately, but we’ve been up to twenty.” (1c) It was particularly apparent during times were the momentum slowed in response to time consuming tasks.
“When things were going well, a lot of enthusiasm, and when things got tough we would lose people or they’d become, you know, less enthusiastic.” (1a)
At these times, the momentum for the project, and the maintenance and continuance of the RCD community relied on the labours of its core members.
A process was described of balancing community ownership and leadership control. RCD
community leaders juggled exerting control to maintain the momentum towards project goals, and releasing control and power so community members can take full ownership, and in turn be encouraged by contributing to shaping the RCD community, determining the process and direction.
“.. you’re there for the long haul. When do you have to let people have ownership? When do you have to have a bit of control coming in there to push it a little bit more to help it along?” (3b)
Community ownership was founded on individuals’ need for purpose and meaning. The boundary processes, values and meanings associated with the identity of the RCD community needed to be engaged with individually by members in the establishment of the new community. As these were
embraced and the community identity emerged, ownership occurred around the concept and responsibility of the project tasks. Community ownership was difficult to engage where there was a history of a depressed rural community and previous failure. In each RCD community, a significant component of the workload was held by a core few who in turn had to manage the extent to which they held control or encouraged other members to determine community direction, activities and processes. Ownership entailed commitment by individuals of time and energy, and this was willingly given where satisfaction could be found in engaging with others and achieving together; purpose and meaning was gained from this process.