It was perhaps with this in mind that we decided to take a different approach in the last of our four workshops on home and healthy ageing. Rather than guest speakers being invited to share their knowledge and prompt discussion, the project team attempted to summarise and pitch their ideas for future research back to the group (think Dragons’ Den). This proved to be challenging, as the previous sessions had been so rich that even synthesising them into brief slides was difficult, never mind placing them in a strategic context for the participants to critique and reflect upon. Yet, three key themes were identified. These were in addition to the concept of a ‘home’ being more than just bricks and mortar but personal/psychological, physical and social/environment space(s) – an idea that we used as a starting block in week one and illustrated below.
|More than just bricks and mortar|
'Home' illustration used in the seminars
The key themes were:
- Policies and contexts: not only a tension between housing and health policies, but also the need to consider market and narrative factors influencing housing and health decisions;
- The life course approach: the need to think about housing as an individual pathway, in which preventative measures and services are considered before crisis point;
- Transitions and soft services: the need for support to be available as and when people experience key housing and life changes, such as reduced physical health, retirement, or the loss of support networks and being able to navigate different services on offer.
However, this is where we’d like to leave you with a cliff hanger: rather than going through each of themes in-depth (fans of this series will have to wait for our spin off… er, research papers for that!), we’d instead like to reflect on our process at this stage. These sessions took a slightly different approach as, rather than being a series of open seminars with presentations that people could dip in and out of, we invited several key individuals to attend each session in turn. The reasons for this were many, but primarily we wanted to ensure that a diverse range of backgrounds were represented throughout (housing providers, architects, academics, local authority workers, homelessness workers, etc.) to go on a learning journey with us as a research team. This meant that by the time we reached the final session, there was enough of a shared understanding that we could make the most of the group’s commitment to the project – we would be actually able to start to pin down quite complex concepts, practical issues and, hopefully, future projects.
We tried out different formats to structure the discussions: from world cafés, to games (with Monopoly money!) with researchers pitching ideas to mock panels, which worked to various degrees but always ensured a lively debate.
|Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200|
Pitching ideas with Monopoly money
There were, of course, some difficulties. As I’m sure everyone reading this will know, it is a lot to ask of a practitioner to take one morning out of their schedule, let alone for four seminars. As a result, engagement had to remain a constant focus and I spent much time nervously lingering by the registration desk hoping for just a few more name badges to disappear before we started! It was also a challenge in terms of managing the conversations during the sessions: you want all voices to be heard in such a diverse group but we all needed to be pulling in the same direction by the end.
Yet, by the final session, the rewards were immense. Not only were we able to pitch ideas to a group who had already undergone some of the same learning as us, but this gave everybody the confidence to relate the complex theoretical issues to their own practice (allowing us to capture the breadth of what was possible). It allowed us to discuss concrete projects, and leave the session with a sense of trust that networks were in place to actually deliver on them. Perhaps most importantly we found that, what started as a broad idea, was something of relevance across the housing and health sectors. Even the grumpiest of the project group (naming no names) left the day with a spring in their step. For that alone, everyone who attended deserves some massive thanks…
So, who needs endings, when we can all just sign up to the sequel?
To be continued…