Bridging social boundaries and building social connectedness. Through youth development programs

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2018-0019
• Published date: 17 January 2019
• Date: 17 January 2019
• Pages: 976-992
• Subject Matter: Hr & organizational behaviour
• Author: Keith Trevor Thomas

Bridging social boundaries and

building social connectedness

Through youth development programs

Keith Trevor Thomas

College of Business, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –The youth leadership development program is an opportunity to establish best practices for the

development of youth and of the wider community. Based on underpinning research related to socialcohesion

and social capital, the purpose of this paper is to focus on connectedness is consistent with the work of Putnam

(Bowling Alone).

Design/methodology/approach –Reflecting the multi-level character of all complex problems and also the

need to explore common values, social networks and problem-solving mechanisms, the initial approach was a

pre- and post-activity survey for participants, and focus groups with elders and parents. The pilot survey,

however, revealed participants were unable to discriminate between the nominated Likert scales. The

consequent approach turned to appreciative inquiry involving observational data and selected interviews with

a random sample of participants from both gender groups, as well as focus groups with community elders.

Findings –The study presents findings from an experiential activity in a youth group to bridge social

boundaries. Findings are presented using a social-ecosystem model. Key constructs relevant to a discussion of

social cohesion and connectedness are discussed, and the youth development initiative identified bridging

capital strategies and noted countervailing forces to engagement and successful integration. Central to

effective social development strategies is the need for peer- and community-based initiatives to foster shared

responsibility, hope anda sense of significance. The social-ecosystem framework offers a potential and realistic

approach to enabling families and community groups to be the foundation of a safe and resilient country.

Research limitations/implications –A single case study, where the pilot survey revealed participants

were unable to discriminate between the nominated Likert scales. The consequent approach turned to

appreciative inquiry involving observational data and selected interviews with a random sample of

participants from both gender groups, as well as focus groups with community elders.

Practical implications –Looking first at the participants in this program, engagement requires challenge

and buy-in, much the same as in classroom-based educational strategies. There are some preconditions that

vary by gender. For young men, there is a mask that they adopt. As well, there is a rift between fathers and sons

–confirmed in the community consultation and a more general inter-generational gap that requires attention.

There are competing tensions that emerge at the family, community and societal levels. For example, the

prevailing discourse is on acute VE related responses. However, what is needed is a greater focus onbuilding

social cohesion. Conversely, if family commitment is an important motive to disengage from VE, then cultural

realities such as fractured communities, lack of role models, as well as a lack of suitable knowledge and the

infrastructure for people to deal with vulnerable youth makes the whole issue highly problematic.

Social implications –Central to community-based primary prevention responses and to bridging capital is the

need for common values, strong social networks and shared problem-solving mechanisms. Table I presents a

summary of key insights and countervailing forces (in italics and with a *) that illustrates a tug-of-war between

different stakeholders in the social-ecosystem. This list is not exhaustive, but it provides a formative framework for

the deeper exploration of community participation and evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention.

Originality/value –An experiential approach to bridging social boundaries based on a youth development

program in a refugee community is presented. Findings are presented using a social-ecosystem model was

presented. Key constructs include an ecosystem model, and a framework that links social cohesion, capital and

connectedness. The study presents ideas to activate bridging capital strategies and highlights countervailing

conditions to engagement and development.

Keywords Belonging, Inclusion, Boundary crossing, Social connection, Social-ecosystem

Paper type Case study

Concern over social cohesion in pluralist societies such as Australia has been fostered by

threats of violence and of terror, both internal and external (Grossman and Tahiri, 2015).

What makes the threat of terrorism more pronounced is the accessibility to destructive tools

EDI

41,7

976

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 1 February 2018

Revised 25 July 2018

Accepted 23 August 2018

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 41 No. 7, 2022

pp. 976-992

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2018-0019

and, more recently, the access to media that allows the internationalization of issues such as

the Palestinian question. In the post 9/11 environment, the terms violent extremism (VE) and

radicalization are used to refer to the shift toward VE by individuals as opposed to groups

and movements, with the dominant framework that of a transnational Islamist network

(Nasser-Eddine et al., 2011). To counter this threat, literature has emphasized collaborative

and multi-disciplinary approaches within national governments and also between

governments, non-government organizations, industry groups and civil society, even to

local levels (Aly et al., 2015;Nasser-Eddine et al., 2011). The approach reflects the realization

that traditional strategies involving the military and police are insufficient. Rather, what is

needed are multi-faceted approaches (Atran, 2015) that use soft power (Nye, 2008) and that

focus on prevention, rather than only responding, to threats from VE (Nasser-Eddine et al.,

2011) by addressing social drivers that can lead to disengagement and isolation in our

migrant youth (AG’s_Department, 2017).

Understanding the need for an inclusive role in prevention, strategies must focus on socio-

cultural aspects of society (Putnam, 2000), but how might this work from a community

perspective? The path is not clear, particularly as countering VE approaches can conflate

social harmony (living safely together) with security and terrorism (Aly et al., 2015), and

broadly targeted prevention programs risk stigmatizing entire migrant communities (Harris-

Hogan et al., 2016). As boundary crossing, blurring and shifting are central to negotiations

between newcomers and the dominant group (Lamont and Moln

ar, 2002), this paper, based on

a leadership development (or capacity building that captures more fully the multi-

dimensional nature) intervention for youth in a refugee community in Melbourne, will make

visible some symbolic boundaries that migrants and refugees can transport from one cultural

context to another. The paper will also catalogue mechanisms for and countervailing forces to

possible bridging, crossing and ending boundaries. This focus is consistent with work by

Putnam (2000) that detailed a marked decline in civic ties and the price we pay for these

frayed ties. Given communities are important places for relationships and connection

(Rogers, 2012) they are a useful place to address social ills such as isolation and disconnection

(Fincher and Iveson, 2008) that are key precursors to social disquiet.

To what end in policy (and practice)

The changed political landscape of home-grown terrorism (Akbarzadeh, 2013) has meant that

Muslim youth are cause for concern (Neumann, 2015;Atran, 2015). However, less obvious is

the growing body of evidence that shows that young people can and do play active roles as

agents of change (UNIANYD_WG, 2016). Neumann (2015), an expert in countering VE, has

argued that radicalization is a process that can occur in any society and that it has no single

cause. However, while radical fighters might differ in profiles, what many have in common is

a sense of exclusion, of not belonging, that is described as a “precondition”for all that follows

(Neumann, 2015, p. 5). Likewise, a search for a meaningful life and for adventure collectively

underline the limited appeal of material rewards (Atran, 2015). Moreover, as Atran (2015) also

says, friends can play a key role in recruitment, while parents are seen as rarely being aware

of their children’s interest. In terms of responding to radicalism, “firefighting”efforts –such

as stopping people traveling, arresting them, sharing information, as well as interventions for

people on the cusp of joining extremist groups or when they return, as well as preventative

detention orders and tracking devices –are described as not enough (Neumann, 2015). Rather,

as he says, there is a need to create more inclusive societies and more inclusive identities,

while Atran (2015) flags three broad needs: the chance for a life of significance, engagement

that is attuned to the individual (and their networks), and providing youth an opportunity to

create their own local initiatives. Notably, Atran (2015) also cautions against a reliance on

military and police, through either secondary interventions at the earliest signs of violence

Bridging social

boundaries

977