THE CASE STUDY SETTINGS

For the purposes of this study, community is understood and investigated through the specific form of ‘community group’, as in the group of families selected by a school to be recipients of the Computers in Homes free home internet. In this sense ‘community group’ is prescribed in the present study as a number of families who share an interest as members of a particular intake of families at a particular school location, all experiencing free home internet for the first time together.

The unit of analysis for the study is therefore the group of families involved in the Computers in Homes free home internet scheme in selected cases. Initially, research took place at three such sites in suburban Auckland; however ultimately two sites (cases) became the primary focus of the study. The reasons behind this decision are summarised here.

The research preparation phase from mid-2002 to mid-2003 (refer Figure 3-1, page 77) involved a good deal of relationship building at Computers in Homes sites in south Auckland. In the course of meeting school staff and attending events, I was able to create a foundation for a study involving, potentially, three Auckland school communities identified in Figure 3-2 on the next page. As events evolved, however, School C became less viable for research purposes because it had been a Computers in Homes pilot school in 2000 and was in 2002 endeavouring to re-launch the programme among a new set of families. However only a handful of parents joined Computers in Homes in the new intake, and of those only one was interested in the research I proposed. Therefore the study focuses on two sites, Case A and Case B where the majority of research participants were available, and while “multiple-case designs may be preferred over single-case designs” (Yin, 2003, p. 53) and by inference the more case studies the better, “the analytic benefits from having two …cases may be

substantial” (ibid, p. 53). School C served only as a reference point for background information and norms of Computers in Homes practice because the scheme had been established there for some time, rather than being a case study in its own right.

While the cases were neighbourhood based, the research did not encompass whole neighbourhoods but rather, selected families within them who were all involved in the

Computers in Homes scheme. Persons included in the research in each case were volunteers from lists of families recently recruited to the Computers in Homes scheme supplied to me by school staff; data collection was confined to these individuals, all directly involved in

Computers in Homes. Case A and Case B are now described in terms of population and general characteristics. A brief backgrounder on School C is provided to establish some facts even though it has not been treated as a complete case study.

3.2.1 CASE A – DECILE 1

Until 2004, Case A existed as two schools on one site in Clendon, a relatively new suburb in an outlying coastal, industrial region of suburban Manukau (see Figure 3-2), a district in the larger Auckland metropolitan area. Clendon grew from large subdivisions of cheap group housing built in the early 1980s. Many houses dating from that time now appear run down; the newer ones are crowded together in raw, unadorned streets. Almost half of the study participants came from this community.

Located between Auckland’s southern motorway and a tidal mudflat coastline, Case A at Clendon has been the site of a Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) Community Renewal initiative since 2001, as its rapid growth and population in-flow has resulted in a number of social problems such as poor educational achievement, high unemployment, poverty and a high incidence of violent crime including child abuse. Here, the government’s housing agency “recognises community capacity and confidence building are essential if individual residents and community groups are to take greater responsibility for the wellbeing of their communities … rather than take full responsibility for capacity and capability building in communities, Community Renewal acts as a catalyst” (Housing New Zealand Corporation, 2006, 'Overview' section).

Figure 3-2: Auckland region showing research site locations

The two schools on this site (one, junior primary classes, and the other, senior), operating from the same street address, have historically drawn on a single neighbourhood. However a restructure into two distinct, separately located schools occurred from the end of 2003 when one school moved to a brand new, state-of-the-art facility a few streets away, creating two entirely separate mixed age schools. Although many staff and families from the original single school moved to the new school premises, in practice they all still belonged to a single close community, still participated together in community and school events and operated very much as two “arms” of a single educational venture in the same suburban locality. When the current research began the families all belonged to a single school. For these reasons it became simpler as the research proceeded, even though the school divided in two, to consider all the participants in this grouping as members of Case A.

Issues arising from the restructure coincided with the launch of Computers in Homes in October 2003, so that broader organisational distractions conflicted somewhat with the

School C

CASE A

practical aspects of establishing the free home internet scheme. For example, the question of just who was responsible for day-to-day Computers in Homes issues became unclear, leading to a period of disarray in the scheme at Case A from mid 2004 to mid 2005. Additionally, accountability issues were exacerbated by the fact that Computers in Homes was one of a raft of schemes being offered under the aegis of the Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) Community Renewal project. Within a broad social services umbrella, the HNZC Community Renewal Project Manager had established a HNZC Information Centre in a house converted from its original use as a standard suburban family home. Located near the school, it had a welcoming look despite its government agency function, and appeared to be a hub of activity in the neighbourhood. It seemed natural enough for Computers in Homes to be offered within this context, whereas usually a school is directly responsible for the administration and oversight of the scheme. In this case, HNZC appeared to consider Computers in Homes as a special project under its own management. Therefore responsibility for implementation and long term continuity were blurred both by the school restructure and HNZC’s desire, expressed to me by the HNZC Community Renewal Project Manager, to use Computers in Homes as one tactic in a larger strategy aimed at overcoming neighbourhood social exclusion.

Computers in Homes project staff intended that the 25 new families in this area for whom funding was available should be recruited via the two schools. However in practice, the schools decided to limit the scheme to 20 families in total, for reasons that were not apparent. Further, the project champion (a key administrative role in Computers in Homes) was the secretary of the local Residents’ Group, which had an office in the HNZC Information Centre. The first meeting to plan the setting up of Computers in Homes at Case A was held there, attended by representatives of all interest groups: school principals, the Residents’ Group,

HNZC, Computers in Homes, and parents. In this way it may be inferred that Computers in Homes staff intended that the schools, Computers in Homes and HNZC could work

collaboratively. Thus this research site had a complex social ecology including school politics, educational priorities, Computers in Homes goals, and government agency (HNZC) agendas.

Of 20 potential participant families from the two schools at Case A, twelve parents stepped forward to become participants in the present study, and later, three more expressed an interest in being interviewed.

3.2.2 CASE B – DECILE 1

The Computers in Homes scheme was being launched for the first time at Case B at about the same time as at Case A in October 2003. Located in Papakura (population 40,000), on the southernmost, semi-rural fringes of the greater Auckland area, this school is a troubled community, bordered on the southern side by lifestyle blocks of the wealthy.

Papakura district has had a significant Māori and Pacific Islander population. Just prior to the

present research, the area had “24.4% of people [who] belong to the Māori ethnic group

compared with all of New Zealand at 14.7%” and “a larger proportion of Pacific peoples (7.9%)… compared with the whole of New Zealand (at 6.5%)” (Statistics New Zealand, 2001, 'Ethinic groups' section). Also, the population was younger with “25.5% of people (10,350) in the Papakura District aged under 15, compared with 22 .7% for all of New Zealand” (2001, 'Age and sex' section). The Case B school’s special character at the time of the research is best illustrated by its ethnic make-up: seventy-five percent are Māori, 14 percent were

European, ten percent Pasifika (Pacific Island Polynesian), and one percent Indian. For New Zealand as a whole, the figures for Māori and Pākehā are roughly the reverse. The proportion

of Māori (three quarters) and Pacific Island students (one tenth) is also much higher within the

school than it is in the surrounding district, a factor that influences school culture and practice: for example it runs a Māori bi-lingual class and two “immersion” classes conducted entirely in

Te Reo Māori 9. Also, given that there are higher rates of reliance on welfare, higher fertility

rates (Smeith & Dunstan, 2004) and related social issues among Māori and Pacific Island

families than other ethnic groups, it could be expected that this school may have to manage a greater share than other schools of struggling families and troubled children.

At the time of the present research, Case B had a large school roll, and, like all schools that qualify for Computers in Homes, is rated by the Ministry of Education as decile 1 (Education Review Office, 2001) - refer chapter 1, page 8 for an explanation of decile rankings. According to official statistics, in 2001 school pupils at this site numbered 420 (Education Review Office, 2001) and the roll had grown to 488 by 2003 (Principal B, personal communication, 27 November 2003). Furthermore the principal stated at that time an expectation that the school roll was projected to grow to more than 500. In New Zealand, a primary school of more than 500 pupils is very large. Twenty families from Case B joined

Computers in Homes at the October 2003 launch; of these, thirteen caregivers became involved as participants in the research.

3.2.3 SCHOOL C

School C was originally intended to be the principal research site for this study. Computers in Homes was already fully established here when the current study commenced in 2003, as it had been a Computers in Homes pilot school since 2000. The Computers in Homes scheme was familiar to the school community, and so much a part of the school’s daily life that the teacher aide in charge of Computers in Homes, and working in administration at the school, was herself a Computers in Homes graduate, and knew all the families and computer issues comprehensively. By 2003 the school was preparing to involve a new group of families who would inherit computers no longer being used. This meant that the timing was suitable for research to begin as the new families experienced the internet at home for the first time.

In practice, the process of “re-launching” Computers in Homes with a new set of families became complex here. A re-launch is by its nature a more low-key process compared to the excitement of a project launch with a large group of families in a new setting. Ultimately few (perhaps six, not the desired 25) came forward showing an interest in joining the scheme, and it was difficult for me as researcher to establish contact with any of them. Ultimately only one parent became involved, and thus the project became focused only on Case A and Case B.