Final report March 31st 2011

Final report

March 31st

2011 Dr Fiona Bloomer (University of Ulster), Dr Stevie Nolan (Trademark)

Community identities and a shared future

for N.Ireland?

2

About this report

This is a detailed technical report. Readers who wish to move quickly to the summary

conclusions and recommendations may wish to speed-read sections one to five and focus

on section six. Those who are more interested in greater depth should find the detailed

material in sections four and five to contain many useful insights on which the conclusions

and recommendations are built.

Due the sensitive nature of some aspects of this report, we have used fictional names for the

six areas covered.

About the authors

This work has been completed by a team from Identity Exploration Limited and Trademark.

Identity Exploration Limited is a company focused on utilising the power of the Identity

Analysis methodology ISA and our enabling software, Ipseus, to undertake research into

issues of group and individual identity in communities and the workplace. The team from

Identity Exploration included Prof. Peter Weinreich, Allen Erskine, Colin McNeill and Esther

O’Sullivan.

Trademark is one of Northern Ireland’s most respected good relations practitioners playing

an integral part in the development of good relations practice and theory via both research

and practical community work. In the last year alone Trademark will have worked with over

30 public sector organisations in delivering advice, guidance, training and research and

auditing services assisting with anything from flags and emblems disputes to mediation and

attitudinal surveys. The team from Trademark has included Dr Fiona Bloomer, Stevie Nolan,

Peter Maguire, Mel Corry and Alice McLarnon.

Caveats concerning the generality of the results

The investigation uses an ethnographic approach mode for entering selected communities.

The term ethnographic has been used interchangeably with qualitative research and allows

researchers the scope to access the everyday experiences of the participants indigenous to

that environment.1 The goal of ethnographic research is to produce a detailed description of

the culture of interest and as a practice that “places researchers in the midst of whatever it is

they study”2. Six residential areas formed the investigative areas of the study, four in Belfast

and two outside. Two ‘influential networks’ within each residential area were contacted, the

participants of which were interviewed using semi structured interviews and focus groups.

Residents in each area then completed an identity instrument which had been customised

based on the findings of the primary ethnographic stage of the research. The identity

instrument quantifies and measures a series of identity processes, allowing for precise

analysis of similarities and differences between individuals and groups.

• ‘Influential network’ refers to a group of individuals who are sufficiently cohesive for an

ethnographic ‘fieldsite’ – this refers to the spatial characteristics in which the social

1 Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Pearson and Allyn and Bacon

2 Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson and Allyn

and Bacon, 172

3

processes under study take place.3 Defining the network is based upon the skills and

experience of the researchers and involves identifying gatekeepers and socially

significant networks within defined communities where researchers have an established

role as participant-observers.

• The strength of this method is the depth in which the analysis allows for an explanatory

approach of participants’ socio-psychological identity processes, demonstrating their

startling variety in accordance with socio-historical contexts and biographical

experiences. Ethnography allows a researcher to gain an in-depth understanding of the

people and the broader socio-political context in which they live; the outcome of which is

an ethnography, whose aim is the creation of a web of meaning. This ethnography is of

course then rooted in explicit consideration of how the findings tie in with or indeed

contradict existing relevant social theories and generalizations (extrapolations from the

particular).4

• The outcome of the analysis is dependent to one degree or another on the unique

contexts of each area. However common themes are identified throughout the study,

allowing for a broad generalisation of the findings.

A brief introduction to our ISA approach and terminology

This report provides insight into the situation in the six study areas using a series of

measures which are derived from an approach known as Identity Structure Analysis (ISA).

This is an innovative approach which provides a type of analysis not previously available

from typical ethnographic or survey methodologies. It is fundamentally driven by the concept

of group aspirations and identifications as expressed by selecting preferences across a set

of pre-defined alternative perspectives, tailored to the specifics of each research project.

These ‘selections’ are made across a range of contexts covering the individual themselves

and those groups around them which are most relevant to the research.

In undertaking an ISA based analysis of any community, we are seeking answers to some

very fundamental questions, including:

1. What are the fundamental preferences of the study participants and to what extent are

these aspirations being met in their everyday lives?

2. Can we rank these preferences in order of priority?

3. To what extent do these preferences support or prevent better relations with those of a

different community background?

3 Burrell, J (2009) The Fieldsite as a Network: a strategy for locating ethnographic research. Field Methods

21:2, p.181-199 (May 2009). 4 Denscombe, M (2007) The Good Research Guide: for small scale social research projects. McGraw Hill.

4

4. Are there specific issues on which the participants are unsure and to what extent does

this present an opportunity for cross-community interventions?

5. To what extent do people feel that the values and beliefs of those from a different

community are consistent with their own values, publicly stated or otherwise?

6. What community relations issues are participants most engaged by?

7. How do we prioritise actions? Where do we start with a development programme?

An ISA based analysis is driven by providing study participants with a series of choices as to

which behaviours or perspectives they feel are most desirable for them and their community.

These choices are provided as behavioural opposites, not necessarily always universally

recognised as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, so allowing us to identify to what extent certain perspectives

are shared or not across the study participants. An example would be ‘for people from

different traditions to live peacefully in the same place, they have to get to know and respect

each other’ versus ‘people from different traditions can live peacefully in the same place

simply by ignoring each other’. This contrasts with most survey approaches where

respondents are asked to indicate to what extent behaviours which are recognised as

positive are actually in place or not e.g. ‘would you like to work in an area belonging to the

other community?’.

Our approach captures how participants appraise themselves and others in the current time

as well as different contexts such as how they would like things to be both on an individual

basis but also with reference to the group to which they belong. This allows us to build a

picture not only of group aspirations but also of the extent to which people feel that they are

currently living in line with these aspirations. The approach then further requires that they

make the same choices in respect of other people and groups that are pertinent to the

research. In this way, we build up a rich picture of the group’s own identity and the extent to

which that group see other groups as similar or different, positive or negative.

Finally, we report on the participants’ sense of change over time. Our analysis in this case

indicates whether people feel that their world was better or worse ‘at the height of the

Troubles’ (or five years ago for younger respondents) and whether they feel it will become

better or worse five years into the future.

Terminology

The reporting of ISA based results does present the reader with potentially new

measurement parameters and terminology. Many of these are unique to ISA and may

sometimes appear complex but each has an important role to play is providing a different

view on the data and so presents the reader with different types of information. In the report

we do, by necessity, present findings using some of these unique ISA measures and these

are therefore explained in more detail below.

1. Evaluation of an entity – a measure of self or others based around the extent to

which the individual appraises oneself, or the other person, as 'good' or 'bad' when

compared with one's fundamental preferences. In the case of 'self', it is important to

5

understand that people do not always feel they are acting as they would wish to and

we often see significant differences between how people see themselves in different

contexts.

Evaluation is expressed on a scale of -1 to +1

2. Level of identity diffusion – a measure of the extent to which people have at one

extreme a dispersed and conflicted identity (very high diffusion) and at the other

extreme a narrow and rigid identity (very low diffusion), ranging from an overly open

to a restrictedly closed perspective towards their world and the alternative viewpoints

that exist in it. Highly diffuse people may be very open to alternative thought

processes, perhaps too much so, whereas less diffuse people will tend to have more

fixed views. People at extreme ends of the scale can be experiencing difficulties or

may be hard to work/live with.

Identity Diffusion is expressed on a scale of 0 to 1

3. Self-development over time – every ISA based instrument captures the participant's

self-appraisal of how they see themselves in the past, currently and in the future.

Using the measure of Evaluation above, we can tell to what extent people appraise

themselves positively or negatively across this timeframe.

4. Ego-involvement with an entity – a measure of the extent to which the individual feels

something about that particular entity. A low level of ego-involvement means that the

person is not particularly engaged with that entity. Again, the entity in question could

be oneself at a particular point in time or in a particular context, or it could be

someone else. A good example would be a well-known politician. Some people get

very connected with particular figures while others do not form strong views. Note

that a high level of ego-involvement with an entity does not indicate a positive or

negative view of that entity, just that it is important to the participant. So, the ego-

involvement measure and the Evaluation measure are very powerful when taken

together.

Ego-involvement is expressed on a scale of 0 - 5

5. Structural Pressure on a construct – a measure of fundamental pressures arising

from a person's appraisal of self and others that contributes to the manner of

believing certain things designated by the particular construct. Positive pressures

contribute to stability of beliefs, while negative pressures undermine their stability.

This is one of the most important measures in ISA since it indicates very clearly both

the core beliefs and values held by the person on the one hand and those that are

conflicted and under stress on the other.

Structural Pressure (SP) is expressed on a scale of -100 to +100. Higher levels of

SP indicate greater levels of clarity and buy-in to that particular perspective. In this

case people can be expected to hold on to this perspective as something central to

their belief system and are much less likely to change their stance even when

6

presented with a different reality. This is an important issue in terms of people’s

openness to change on particular issues. As levels of SP drop, this indicates less

conviction on this issue so, where someone does express an opinion on a particular

issue, this may be more open to challenge and subsequent change. In the analysis

sections of this report we have used group-based benchmarks to distinguish between

higher levels of SP, (termed Core), moderate levels of SP (termed Secondary) and

low levels of SP (termed Conflicted). These group-specific cut-offs are provided in

the Appendices. Core levels of SP are any results above the ModHi value,

Secondary levels of SP are between ModHi and ModLo and Conflicted levels of SP

are any results below ModLo. Note that the cut-offs used are specific to each group

and are therefore at quite different levels between groups. Some groups with

generally higher levels of SP across all of the issues might be considered to be more

confident and secure in their belief systems, while others with generally low levels of

SP are comparatively less so.

6. Consensus has been measured as a simple proportion (%) of the participants in each

group that have agreed with the majority consensus on the issue presented.

7. Idealistic Identification with another person – this measure assesses the degree to

which the individual appraises the other person as having qualities in accordance

with those of his or her ideal self-image. This measure will indicate who is likely to be

the person's role model or 'hero'.

Idealistic Identification is expressed on a scale of 0 to 1

8. Contra Identification with another person – this measure assesses the degree to

which the individual appraises the other person in terms of qualities from which he or

she would wish to dissociate. This measure will indicate who is likely to be the

person's 'villain'.

Contra Identification is expressed on a scale of 0 to 1

9. Empathetic Identification with another person – this measure assesses the degree to

which the individual appraises him or herself as sharing qualities with that other

person – whether these qualities are positive or negative.

Empathetic Identification is expressed on a scale of 0 to 1

These explanations of ISA terminology are most relevant to section 5.

7

Contents Page

About this report

Executive summary

1. Introduction 20

1.1 The centrality of issues of identity in Northern Ireland

1.2 What constitutes identity?

1.3 The seeming intractability of sectarian processes

1.4 Local sub cultural and demographic factors

2. Terms of reference for the investigation 23

3. Programme of work 34

3.1 Project initiation and planning

3.2 Desk research

3.3 Area engagement and selection

3.4 Ethnographic Fieldwork

3.5 Design of research instruments

3.6 Capture of participant responses

3.7 Analysis and reporting

3.8 Post research intervention

4. Analysis of results by theme 29

4.1 Political Leadership and Community Engagement

4.2 People and Places

4.3 Empowering the next generation

4.4 Respecting cultures

4.6 A cohesive community

4.7 Supporting local communities

5. Results - Identity processes across and within residential area networks 54

5.1 General outlook – comparisons across areas

5.2 Similarities and differences in perspective between networks

5.2.1 Comparison of actual and perceived perspectives between the

two networks in Ashville


two networks in Townville


two networks in Rowville


two networks in Southville

8

5.3 Fundamental identity processes by area and network

5.3.1 Mileville – Data Analysis

5.3.2 Ashville – Data Analysis

5.3.3 Townville – Data Analysis

5.3.4 Rowville – Data Analysis

5.3.5 Southville Belfast – Data analysis

5.3.6 Tigerville - Data analysis

5.4 Evidence of negative cross-community perceptions

6. Observations and implications for policy makers 150

6.1 Introduction

6.2 General conclusions

6.3 Area Specific Conclusions

6.4 Recommendations

6.4.1 Area Interventions

Appendices

- Appendix I - Agenda for interviews

- Appendix II - Instrument content

- Appendix III – Parameter ranges by network

All work copyright of: Identity Exploration Ltd Vico House 110 City Business Park Dunmurry BT17 9HU Web: www.identityexploration.com Email: [email protected] Tel: 028 9062 6558

Fax: 028 9062 6448

9

List of Tables and Figures

Table 3.1 Areas selected for the study

Table 3.2 Number of participants per network

Table 4.1 Themes and bi-polar constructs

Figure 4.1 Evaluation of political parties and the local authority by PUL networks

Figure 4.2 Evaluation of political parties and the local authority by CNR networks

Figure 4.3 Aspirations and current perceptions of the impact of the peace process

Figure 4.4 Aspirations and current perceptions of how to best live together

Figure 4.5 Evaluation of own group versus those of the other community – PULs

Figure 4.6 Evaluation of own group versus those of the other community – CNRs

Figure 4.7 PULs empathetic identifications

Figure 4.8 CNRs empathetic identifications

Figure 4.9 Perspectives on welcoming immigrants

Figure 4.10 Perspectives on welcoming the other community in one’s area

Figure 4.11 Perspectives on shared public spaces

Figure 4.12 Perspectives on cross-community contact and sectarian conflict

Figure 4.13 Perspectives on a personal impact on cross-community relations

Figure 4.14 Perspectives on shared education

Figure 4.15 Perspectives on shared workplaces

Figure 4.16 Perspectives on flags and murals

Figure 4.17 Perspectives on local parades

Figure 4.18 Perspectives on single identity or shared cultures

Figure 4.19 Perspectives on the centrality of religion

Figure 4.20 Perspectives on remembering local history

Figure 4.21 Idealistic identification with the PSNI

Figure 4.22 Perspectives on control by PSNI versus paramilitaries

Figure 4.23 Perspectives on mobility

Figure 4.24 Perspectives on the justification of aggression

Figure 4.25 Perspectives on acceptability of trouble at parades

Figure 5.1 PUL networks – Self Evaluation over time

Figure 5.2 CNR networks – Self Evaluation over time

Figure 5.3 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Ashville from a

CNR perspective

Figure 5.4 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Ashville from a

PUL perspective

10

Figure 5.5 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Townville from a

CNR perspective

Figure 5.6 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Townville from a

PUL perspective

Figure 5.7 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Rowville from a

CNR perspective

Figure 5.8 A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Rowville from a

PUL perspective

Figure 5.9a A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Southville from a

CNR perspective

Figure 5.9b A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Southville from a

PUL perspective

Table 5.10a Mileville PUL One: most significant dimensions of identity

Table 5.10b Mileville PUL One: moderately conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.11 Mileville PUL One: most conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.12 Mileville PUL One: evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.13 Mileville PUL One: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.14 Mileville PUL One: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.15 Mileville PUL Two: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.16a Mileville PUL Two: secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.16b Mileville PUL Two: Highly conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.17 Mileville PUL Two: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.18 Mileville PUL Two: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.19 Mileville PUL Two: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.20 Ashville PUL: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.21 Ashville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.22 Ashville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.23 Ashville PUL: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.24 Ashville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.25 Ashville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.26 Ashville CNR: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.27 Ashville CNR: conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.28 Ashville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.29 Ashville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.30 Ashville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

11

Table 5.31 Ashville CNR: Current Self 1; Identification: with own tradition and other

tradition

Table 5.32 Townville CNR: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.33 Townville CNR: conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.34 Townville CNR: secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.35 Townville CNR: evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.36 Townville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.37 Townville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.38 Townville PUL: conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.39 Townville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.40 Townville PUL: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.41 Townville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.42 Townville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.43 Rowville PUL: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.44 Rowville PUL: conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.45 Rowville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.46 Rowville PUL: evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.47 Rowville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.48 Rowville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.49 Rowville CNR: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.50 Rowville CNR: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.51 Rowville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.52 Rowville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.53 Rowville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.54 Rowville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.56 Southville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.57 Southville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.58 Southville PUL: evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.59 Southville PUL: evaluation of own community and other community

Table 5.60 Southville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.61 Southville CNR: Core dimensions of identity

Table 5.62 Southville CNR: Highly conflicted and conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.63 Southville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.64 Southville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.65 Southville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.66 Southville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

12

Table 5.67 Tigerville CNR One: Core dimensions of identity

Table 5.68 Tigerville CNR One: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.69 Tigerville CNR One: Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.70 Tigerville CNR One: evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.71 Tigerville CNR One: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.72 Tigerville CNR One: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.73 Tigerville CNR Two: core dimensions of identity

Table 5.74 Tigerville CNR Two: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.75 Tigerville CNR Two: a selection of Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.76 Tigerville CNR Two: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

Table 5.77 Tigerville CNR Two: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.78 Tigerville CNR Two: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Figure 5.79 Levels of support for integration across all networks

Figure 5.80 Negative perceptions of the other community by those who themselves support

greater integration

13

Executive Summary

Introduction and Methodology

• This research report explores attitudes and behaviours of residents of six areas in

Northern Ireland with respect to their views on their ‘own’ community and the

communities around them. In particular the research sets out to provide socio-

psychological ‘explanations’ of the intransigence of sectarian attitudes and

behaviours within networks in these communities.

• The research was funded by the Office of the First Minister/ Deputy First Minister

during the period March 2010 to March 2011. Fieldwork in each area took place

during April to July 2010. Six residential areas formed the investigative areas of the

study, four in Belfast and two outside. Two ‘influential networks’ within each

residential area were contacted, the participants of which were interviewed using

semi structured interviews and focus groups. Residents in each area then completed

an identity instrument which had been customised based on the findings of the

primary ethnographic stage of the research. The identity instrument quantifies and

measures a series of identity processes, allowing for precise analysis of similarities

and differences between individuals and groups.

• The research was carried out using an ethnographic approach. The term

ethnographic has been used interchangeably with qualitative research and allows

researchers the scope to access the everyday experiences of the participants

indigenous to that environment.5 The goal of ethnographic research is to produce a

detailed description of the focus of the research within a research practice that

“places researchers in the midst of whatever it is they study”6.

• The areas were chosen in consultation with the commissioning body. A framework

for selection was drawn up to include: rural and urban areas; areas which were

deemed relatively peaceful in recent times; areas which had witnessed recent

community stress; areas around ‘peace lines’; and areas which belonged to one

community. The areas selected are detailed overleaf.

5 Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Pearson and Allyn and Bacon

6 Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson and Allyn

and Bacon, 172

14

Areas selected for the study

• Two influential networks in each area were identified by the research team in

consultation with gatekeepers in the community. In turn each gatekeeper identified

participants for the research. A total of 115 individuals took part in the study. Each

completed an identity instrument. The identity instrument is the primary data

collection tool of Identity Structure Analysis (ISA).

• The outcome of the analysis is dependent to one degree or another on the unique

contexts of each area. However common themes are identified throughout the study,

allowing for a broad generalization of the findings. This is an innovative approach

which provides a type of analysis not previously available from typical ethnographic

or survey methodologies. It is fundamentally driven by the concept of group

aspirations and identifications as expressed by selecting preferences across a set of

pre-defined alternative perspectives, tailored to the specifics of each research

project. These ‘selections’ are made across a range of contexts covering the

individual themselves and those groups around them which are most relevant to the

research.

Area Type of area

(interface/ single identity/ mixed)

Other characteristics of area

Southville � PUL majority � CNR / PUL interface � historical and current conflict

� parading a particularly contentious issue

� urban area

Mileville � PUL majority � historical conflict � BME communities present high

profile racist incidents in recent years

� strong PUL community � urban area

Rowville � CNR majority � CNR / PUL interface � historical and current conflict

� dissenter and traditional faction in CNR community


� urban area

Tigerville � mixed area � historical conflict, quieter in

recent years

� urban area � Surrounding area largely PUL

Ashville � mixed � CNR / PUL interface � recent conflict

� CNR / PUL rural interface � significant rise in sectarian

attacks and intimidation � small village

Townville � mixed area � CNR/ PUL interface � historical and current day

conflict

� CNR / PUL Interface � significant sectarian tension � dissident activity � small town, surrounded by rural

area

15

• An ISA based analysis is driven by providing study participants with a series of

choices as to which behaviours or perspectives they feel are most desirable for them

and their community. These choices are provided as behavioural opposites, not

necessarily always universally recognised as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ so allowing us to

identify to what extent certain perspectives are shared or not across the study

participants. An example would be ‘for people from different traditions to live

peacefully in the same place, they have to get to know and respect each other’

versus ‘people from different traditions can live peacefully in the same place simply

by ignoring each other’. This contrasts with most survey approaches where

respondents are asked to indicate to what extent behaviours which are recognised

as positive are actually in place or not e.g. ‘would you like to work in an area

belonging to the other community?’.

• Our approach captures how participants appraise themselves and others in the

current time as well as different contexts such as how they would like things to be

both on an individual basis but also with reference to the group to which they belong.

This allows us to build a picture not only of group aspirations but also of the extent to

which people feel that they are currently living in line with these aspirations. The

approach then further requires that they make the same choices in respect of other

people and groups that are pertinent to the research. In this way, we build up a rich

picture of the group’s own identity and the extent to which that group see other

groups as similar or different, positive or negative.

• Finally, we report on the participants’ sense of change over time. Our analysis in this

case indicates whether people feel that their world was better or worse five years ago

and whether they feel it will become better or worse five years into the future.

Post research intervention

• Following completion of the initial analysis and report writing Trademark staff, at the

request of groups within study areas, have met informally with community gate

keepers to discuss the implications of the research findings. At the time of report

writing this has included 5 areas. These discussions have included preliminary plans

for the design of intervention work on community relations issues. In one area this

work has already commenced and builds upon previous engagements led by

Trademark.

16

Analysis

• One of the characteristics of an ISA analysis is the richness of results that emerge.

Each participant responds to up to 525 queries and our Ipseus software allows

extensive analysis of this data at an individual and group level. The analysis formed

two key stages; firstly a thematic analysis was conducted. The themes

corresponded with those detailed in the OFMDFM’s consultation document for

Cohesion, Sharing and Integration7. Secondly each area was taken in turn and a

comprehensive analysis was conducted of the two networks with respect to a range

of identify parameters, such as identification conflict, idealistic identification and

empathetic identification. These terms are explained in the technical report. The

analysis allows for insight into how each network viewed themselves and the other

community.

Thematic Analysis

• The results highlight opportunities to engage in community relations interventions

across all communities within local contextual parameters.

• The high levels of at least some shared values and aspirations across all

communities provides some evidence of common ground on which to build a sense

of mutual understanding. There are, in particular, shared and very positive

aspirations on shared living and working space.

• There was little evidence of fear of travelling outside of core residential areas for

work and developing shared workplaces.

• On the issue of shared education, the results show a similar pattern to that seen on

the issue of mixed residential areas, namely a positive aspiration in all networks

which is prevented by short term fears over security and vague fears over ‘loss of

identity’.

• A number of areas highlighted the ongoing negative influence of paramilitarism in

terms of community development and as an obstacle to cross community

engagement.

• The research indicated that young adults’ high aspirations for greater cross

community contact and sharing were as positive as older adults but that their

short-term majority view is sharply one of wishing to remain separate from the other

community.

• It is clear that many from both communities aspire to share in ‘Irish sports, language

and arts’ but that Loyal Order parades were considered exclusive to the

Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist (PUL) community. Controversial parades still pose

significant problems in addressing sectarian tension and conflict.

7 Programme for cohesion, sharing and integration; Consultation document; OFMDFM July 2010.

17

• PUL groups hold unanimously to the view that parading is important, although two

groups, in Mileville and Ashville, were very unsure about this issue. In contrast, five

of the six Catholic/Nationalist/Republican (CNR) networks express strong views

against parades. The Southville CNR network was the only CNR network that felt a

local parade was important, perhaps reflecting realism on their part.

• Significantly, two PUL groups expressed positive attitudes to Irish language and

other cultural activities indicating potential for the investigation of shared heritage

and linguistic programmes.

• The key issue with regard to security surrounded the justification of trouble at

parades in which three networks (all PUL) take this perspective in all circumstances

while no CNR network supports it. However, the PUL perspectives on this issue are

not held with high levels of conviction and there is realisation that this is not

‘acceptable’ in the long term.

• Attitudes to immigration were positive in all CNR networks, whilst the Townville PUL

network was unaccommodating to immigrants living in or moving into the area, it was

the only network with an aspiration to keep immigrants out. Whilst the Mileville PUL

One showed a positive aspiration to welcome immigrants, they exhibited a deep

concern as to their immediate presence, due to perceptions of anti-social behaviour

amongst young male migrants in neighbouring areas.

• Both the PUL and CNR communities viewed their respective main political party as

largely important. Each community also viewed the local council in a similar

manner. However the extent to which the political parties and the councils were

viewed as positive varied. For instance in some PUL areas Sinn Fein were viewed

more positively than the DUP.

• There was no clear sense of a constructive role being played by local councils in

resolving current tensions. The ethnographic research in Townville and Ashville

suggested that capacity in local government was viewed as poor. In other areas

councils were viewed as playing a useful role in providing grants for community

relations work but with limited roles noted in proactive cross-community engagement.

• There is a marked difference in the evaluation of the local community groups - with

the CNR networks being much more positive about local community infrastructure

than the PUL networks. This might suggest a more sophisticated community

infrastructure within CNR areas and a dearth of similar structures in PUL areas. In

PUL areas, it was felt that ongoing paramilitary influence was stifling community

development.

18

Area Specific Conclusions

Mileville (PUL majority area, urban)

• The community is not opposed to the idea of inter-community working since, in

terms of security, they feel no immediate threat from the CNR community. The

evidence also clearly demonstrates that the participants want to see a reduction in

the influence of paramilitarism in the area.

Ashville (Mixed area, rural village)

• The Ashville PUL group have a strong desire for greater cross community contact

and sharing. They recognise the importance of the local parade but are also clearly

conflicted about it; these internal conflicts suggest potential for movement in

resolving the problem. The Ashville CNR group hold negative views of the PUL

community generally and the parading issue in particular but are open to the

development of shared spaces and a shared society if that meant an end to

parading.

Townville (Mixed area, small town)

• The high levels of established segregation in Townville appear to militate against any

desire for shared living space and integration. The PUL group do not appear strongly

cohesive however whilst the CNR group are very cohesive around Irish cultural

issues but remain open to cross community working. There is also a strong

dissociation from dissident republicanism. The separation created by a major

transport route cannot be underestimated; it creates feelings of geographical

isolation for large sections of CNR community, particularly the young, and is thought

to contribute to economic under-development in that part of the town. The levels of

social exclusion are considered intense and leave young adults potentially victim to

dissident influence. According to ethnographic research there has been a recent

injection of funding in single identity capacity building and cross community initiatives

at a youth level but they are thought unlikely to have any major impact on community

relations due to the levels of segregation.

Rowville (CNR majority area, urban)

• Both groups possess strong core ethnic identities but also evidence positive attitudes

towards a range of integrationist values in comparison to other groups in the study.

This is particularly the case for the PUL group which also exhibits a wish to see less

influence from paramilitaries. The CNR group were a very cohesive group with strong

ties to the local area, broad support for mainstream republicanism and a negative

view of their PUL neighbours.

Southville (PUL majority area, urban)

• The Southville PUL population reflects a confidence in identity whilst exhibiting some

conflicted aspirations around parading which, with high aspiration for integrationist

values, may suggest potential for compromise. The CNR group is a relatively

cohesive community; though this is balanced by significant tension and pressure as

result of the parades issue.

19

Tigerville (Mixed area, urban)

• These two CNR groups viewed themselves in a positive and confident manner in the

face of a larger majority PUL neighbour. They hold strong beliefs and values whilst

aspiring to live in a more shared and integrated society whilst remaining aware of the

difficulties in achieving any long term development.

Recommendations

• The desire for separation and segregation suggests that worryingly more sectarian

views are emerging amongst younger networks (within the study three groups

contained predominantly young people - Millville PUL One, Townville PUL, Ashville

PUL). More research is necessary among younger people in these and other areas

to explore why they hold these views and to what extent they are based upon

experience, communal memory, influence of community leaders or an absence of

genuine community relations initiatives.

• The experience of Rowville suggests the potential positive impact of prejudice

reduction, inter-cultural and anti-sectarian initiatives in areas of high segregation and

paramilitary influence. Intervention projects should be directed to adopt these

approaches.

• Given the deep levels of misunderstanding and mistrust witnessed across all the

networks studied, greater emphasis must be placed on the design of local

interventions and the measurable development of local capacity. Future emphasis

should be on direct mediation and anti-sectarian work at a local level including a

greater involvement by local councils in the delivery of community relations

initiatives, particularly in those areas were local council intervention was identified as

weak (Townville and Ashville).

• The research has highlighted that local contexts are crucial in understanding the

identity concerns of local residents and the potential for more integrationist

approaches. The technical report considers each network in detail and makes broad

recommendations tailored to each area regarding local interventions.

20

1. Introduction

1.1 The centrality of issues of identity in Northern Ireland

Much research about the conflict in Northern Ireland has concentrated on the complex

interplay between national, political and religious identities8. The relative importance of

national, religious and political identities and the strength of attachment to those identities

are played out in a myriad of relationships between identity preferences and specific

attitudinal and behavioural indices that broadly reflect the dominance of ethno-nationalist

identity concerns in this contested region.

1.2 What constitutes identity?

In the context of researching the two major communities, previous surveys of identity in

Northern Ireland have described the choice of national, political or religious label using terms

such as British, Irish, Northern Irish, Catholic, Protestant, Republican and Loyalist as

descriptive labels. 9 What the processes might be in the development of the people’s sense

of identity from the earliest day of childhood through adolescence into adulthood are, in

descriptive identity research, not given attention. This results in a lack of consideration of

the complex processes that are the foundations of individual’s identity. This report draws on

an innovative approach to assessing and analysing identity processes (Identity Structure

Analysis10), which is facilitated by the Ipseus software11. A major contribution towards

understanding the underpinnings of the traditions of Northern Ireland is the introduction to

the research here of a description of the potent psychological processes shaping the

individual’s sense of ethnicity and ethnic identity.

8 Whyte, J (1990) Interpreting Northern Ireland, Clarendon Press: Oxford, viii;

Ford, A and McCafferty, J (eds) (2005) The origins of sectarianism in early modern Ireland, Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge, 2-3;

Liechty, J and Clegg, C. (2001) Moving beyond Sectarianism: Religion, Conflict and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland,

Columba, Press Blackrock: Dublin;

McVeigh, R. & Rolston, B. (2007) 'From Good Friday to Good Relations: sectarianism, racism and the Northern Ireland

state', Race & Class, 48, (1), 3;

McGarry, J. and O'Leary, B. (1995) Explaining Northern Ireland. Blackwell: Oxford.

Mitchell, C. (2006) Religion, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland: Boundaries of Belonging and Belief, Aldershot:

Ashgate.

Higgins G and Brewer J (1999) The Roots of Sectarianism in Northern Ireland, [Online], Available:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploads/soc197/The%20roots%20of%20sectarianism%20in%20Northern%20Ireland.do

c [19.03.10];

Jarman N (2005) No Longer A Problem? Sectarian Violence in Northern Ireland, Institute for Conflict Research

Hughes, J., Campbell, A., Hewstone, M. and Cairns, E. (2007) ‘Segregation in Northern Ireland: Implications for Community

Relations Policy’, Policy Study Vol 28 (1) 33-53 9 Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, 2009, ARK. Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey, 1998-2009 [computer file].

ARK www.ark.ac.uk/nilt [distributor], June 2010.McLaughlin, K. Trew, K. & Muldoon, O (2006). Religion, ethnicity and group

identity: Irish adolescents’ views. Nationalism and Ethnic politics, 12, 3-4, 599-616. 10

See Weinreich, P., & Saunderson, W. (Eds.) (2003) Analysing Identity: Cross-Cultural, Societal and Clinical

Contexts. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis 11

See Weinreich, P., & Ewart, S. (2009) Ipseus. Belfast: Identity Exploration, http//:

www.identityexploration.com

21

1.3 The seeming intractability of sectarian processes

Whilst there is general agreement about the significance of identity, social scientists have

struggled to deal with the complexities of defining and writing about them. The difficulties

stem in part from the recognition of the dynamic changes in self-ascribed identity revealed in

diachronic studies of identity in Northern Ireland and the complexity of identities that make

up what are broadly defined as ‘Unionist’ and ‘Nationalist’12. The difficulty also stems from an

initial resistance to employing ‘ethnicity’ as a core component of identity and a factor in

group mobilisation in Northern Ireland. Nonetheless ethnicity has increasingly come to be

accepted as a key component of identity and group mobilisation and assists in reaching an

understanding of the conflict as an ethno-political one13.

Northern Ireland has been described as an “ethnic frontier”14, a place where different and competing national claims exist within the same piece of territory, with both peoples claiming allegiance to more powerful national centres. This ethnic frontier comprising a ‘settler society’ has, created “settler native antagonisms [which] provide the occasions for particularly bitter ethnic conflicts”15 Such societies are examples in extremis of communally divided societies in which: ...if the settlers are not assimilated or the natives are not wiped out the relations between the rival communities normally develop into hierarchical and hostile forms. Settlers justify their dominant position with myths of cultural superiority, while natives regard the settlers as alien interlopers.16 These ethnic foundations of British Unionism and Irish Nationalism dictate that, when these identities are in conflict, sectarianism is the resultant display of irrational fears, hatreds and indeed feelings of superiority and inferiority, that emerge from these identities.17 The centeredness of ethnic identity engenders ethnic honour, pride and loyalty in one’s own group whilst creating an out-group homogeneity effect which predicts that when it comes to attitudes, values and personality traits, out-group members are seen as more alike than in-group members and are more likely to be stereotyped and demonised. The pride and identification with the internal cultural features may indeed become so essentialised that it appears an ontological condition. However the differences in reality are not permanent or ineradicable. This research report attempts to provide socio-psychological ‘explanations’ of the

intransigence of these sectarian attitudes and behaviours in certain networks of people and

the flexibility and permeability of identities in others.

12

O’Connor, F. (1993) In search of a state: Catholic in N. Ireland, Blackstaff Press: Belfast,; Trew, K. (1996)

‘National Identity’, in Breen, P., Devein, P. and Dowds, L. (eds) Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland, The Fifth

report, Appletree Press, Belfast 13

Jenkins R 1984 ‘Understanding Northern Ireland’, Sociology 18 (2) 252-264 14

Morrow, D. (1994) ‘Escaping the bind in Northern Ireland – Teaching and Learning in the Ethnic Frontier’, in

Yarn, K. and Boggler, S. (eds) Meeting of cultures and Clash of cultures: Adult education in multi-cultural

societies, Magnus Press: Jerusalem, 77-91 15

McGarry, J. and O'Leary, B. (1995) Explaining Northern Ireland. Blackwell: Oxford, 329 16

Ibid 329 17

Nolan, S (2010) Understanding Sectarianism and Racism, Trademark Research Papers

22

1.4 Local sub cultural and demographic factors

While developmental psychology may help to explain the intractability of sectarian attitudes,

other major factors contribute to the development of unique individual identities, these being

family, local sub cultural and demographic influences incorporated within people’s

biographies. Parents, kin groups, religious and cultural institutions and other community

agencies provide contexts for people’s biographical experiences that are localised to

particular areas. The person’s identifications with such agencies form crucial aspects of

their identity and resultant views and behaviours. This ‘situational identity’ is an issue which

the ISA approach focuses on specifically, analysing how these people/ groups and

institutions influence the individual’s view of self and how he/she perceives the world around

them.

23

2. Terms of reference for the investigation

Aims

• To identify quantitative aspects of the underlying psychology of residents in a range of

residential areas, allowing comparison between those residents who are able to co-exist

with little aggravation and those who appear to find proximity to people of the other

tradition difficult to handle;

• To apply the ISA methodology to reveal unique insights through a combination of

quantitative and qualitative analysis;

• To complete ethnographic & ISA studies of two influential networks of residents in each

of six residential areas that are recognised as having different characteristics linked to

demographic profile and levels of sectarian tension [Amended 23 April 2010];

• To report the results in a manner that will clearly inform policy makers and those

engaged in the design and delivery of community development programmes.

24

3. Programme of work This has been an intensive research project completed during five months from March to

July 2010, with the majority of the field research completed in the months of April, May and

June.

The project has followed seven logical phases as follows:

1. Project initiation and planning

2. Background research

3. Area engagement and selection

4. Ethnographic interviewing

5. Design of research instruments

6. Capture of participant responses

7. Analysis and reporting

8. Post research intervention

These phases are outlined in greater details below.

3.1 Project initiation and planning

The project was commissioned by the Good Relations Research team at OFMDFM on 26th

March 2010 at which point a Project Initiation Document was prepared and signed off. At

this stage an additional clarification was provided as to the nature of the research approach

being followed, that is that it would be ethnographically based, allowing specific results and

conclusions to be prepared in relation purely to the groups participating in the research.

3.2 Desk research

This process was carried out at all stages of the research but was intensive in the early

stages so as to inform the design of the data collection methods. The team has collated and

reviewed published material on the issues and challenges faced by communities, including

previous research papers, policy documents, descriptions of current community programmes

and evaluation reports. The review also informed the analysis of the data emerging from the

study and the concluding remarks.

3.3 Area engagement and selection

The selection of the study areas for this project was directed by an intersection of the

research aims and the ethnographic experience and contacts of the research partner,

Trademark. In seeking to identify and engage with six areas overall and two networks in

each area, the following criteria were applied:

1. Was the area recognised as a unique residential space, particularly by those living

there?

2. Could we identify and engage with at least two discrete networks in each area?

3. Could we gain entry to these areas and secure the involvement of enough participants?

4. Were issues of sectarian tension prevalent in these areas, whether currently or in the

past?

With further guidance from OFMDFM it was also agreed that at least two of the areas would

be outside Belfast and one of these should be rural. The remaining four areas would be in

Greater Belfast. Another factor in our selection was the existing Shared Living initiative of

the NIHE and we were careful not to select areas covered by this initiative. Likewise, we

25

excluded areas where considerable research had been carried out in recent years, for

example in Suffolk and Lenadoon and in Lower Ormeau.

The final six areas selected for the research were as follow:

Table 3.1 Areas selected for the study

3.4 Ethnographic Fieldwork

As an ethnographic study specific focus was placed on the completion of a programme of

semi structured interviews and focus groups in the study areas on which to build the

research instruments.

The ethnographic research was carried out over the period from April to June, as and when

access was granted. Gatekeepers were identified for each network with semi-structured

interviews completed with gatekeepers. Small groups of residents from each area were then

brought together by each gatekeeper for a focus group. The agenda for these focus groups

was standardised across all the interviews and focus groups and is included in Appendix I.

Area Type of area

(interface/ single identity/ mixed)

Other characteristics of area

Southville � PUL majority � CNR / PUL interface � historical and current conflict


� urban area

Mileville � PUL majority � historical conflict � BME communities present high

profile racist incidents in recent years

� strong PUL community � urban area

Rowville � CNR majority � CNR / PUL interface � historical and current conflict

� dissenter and traditional faction in CNR community


� urban area

Tigerville � mixed area � historical conflict, quieter in

recent years

� urban area � Surrounding area largely PUL

Ashville � mixed � CNR / PUL interface � recent conflict

� CNR / PUL rural interface � significant rise in sectarian

attacks and intimidation

Townville � mixed area � CNR/ PUL interface � historical and current day

conflict

� CNR / PUL Interface � significant sectarian tension � dissident activity

26

The outputs from the interviews and focus groups were a series of area reports describing

the key issues and perspectives on the ground as identified by the residents. These insights

allowed us to build completely bespoke research instruments, which were adjusted to relate

to issues identified in each of the specific areas.

3.5 Design of research instruments

As outlined in the preface, the ISA approach provides an open ended framework of

theoretical processes of identity development and redefinition based on an orientation

derived from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and social anthropology (Weinreich

2003). The approach assesses identity parameters such as positive and negative role

models, empathetic and conflicted identification and the value and belief systems of

participants. These parameters are operationalised through the use of an identity

instrument. The identity instrument comprises a series of entities (key groups, individuals/

institutions, views of self) and a series of bi-polar constructs (paired statements). The

respondent is required to consider how each entity would respond to each construct and to

provide a rating on this.

The entities are split into two types of categories, those relating to the respondents view of

themselves and those which relate to others (key groups, individuals/ institutions,).

The ISA methodology imposes some core requirements on any research instrument,

including:

• The inclusion of four minimum entities covering different personal contexts including:

o Me, as I would ideally be

o Me, as I am currently

o Me, as I was in the past

o Me, as I would not wish to be

In our final instrument these four minimum self-entities were augmented by two

further self-entities covering future self and an additional current self to investigate

the difference in mindset between self in comfortable surroundings and self when

with a group that is found to be intimidating.

• The inclusion of at least four external entities which were felt to be relevant to the

participants in the study. In the final research instrument there were 15 external entities;

all selected as key participants in Northern Irish community life. These included political

parties (DUP/ Sinn Fein), institutions (PSNI, local church, local council) and

organisations (local community group).

• The creation of a minimum of ten bi-polar constructs focused on one specific set of

psychological opposites. In the final research instruments there were between 19 and

24 constructs used with any one group, depending on the locally based issues identified

at the ethnographic stage of the research. These issues included views on parades,

policing, flags and murals, sport, culture, shared spaces and education.

27

The final list of entities and constructs used in the research is included in Appendix II.

3.6 Capture of participant responses

The research instruments were presented to the participants using our dedicated software,

Ipseus. A set of netbooks were acquired to facilitate fieldwork. The data gathering process

was facilitated by Trademark team members. In some cases the respondent was visited in

their home and in others people attended a local venue where they were able to participate.

Financial support was provided to cover childcare where necessary and each participating

group was provided with a small donation to show appreciation of their involvement.

The quality of responses was carefully checked following each session and those datasets

that were clearly not meaningful were discarded. This was only required in five cases across

the whole project and we were impressed by the commitment shown by all participants in

engaging with a rather novel response process.

In total, 115 individuals participated in the process across the twelve network areas. The

numbers of responses in each area are provided in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 Number of participants per network

Area/network (tradition) Number of

participants

Mileville PUL One 9

Mileville PUL Two 12

Ashville PUL 10

Ashville CNR 10

Rowville PUL 10

Rowville CNR 9

Southville PUL 7

Southville CNR 9

Townville CNR 10

Townville PUL 10

Tigerville CNR One 9

Tigerville CNR Two 10

Total 115

28

3.7 Analysis and reporting

One of the characteristics of an ISA analysis is the richness of results that emerge. Each

participant responds to up to 525 queries and our Ipseus software allows extensive analysis

of this data at an individual and group level.

The analysis that follows is one rooted in the study of identity and the approach of Identity

Structure Analysis supported by a robust ethnographic framework. Individual and group

psychological processes are at the fore of this analysis and the terminology used will mean

that the reader may have to deal with concepts that are entirely new. While every effort has

been made to use commonly accepted terminology where possible, some ISA concepts can

only be presented using terminology specific to this approach and we have included an

introduction to some basic concepts and terminology in the report preface.

3.8 Post research intervention

Following completion of the initial analysis and report writing Trademark staff, at the request

of groups within study areas, have met with communities to discuss the implications of the

research findings. At the time of report writing this included Rowville, Townville and Ashville.

These discussions have included preliminary plans for the design of intervention work on

community relations issues. In Rowville this work has already commenced and builds upon

previous engagements led by Trademark.

29

4. Analysis of results by theme

The following analysis presents key results under a series of themes which have been drawn

directly from the OFMDFM’s consultation document for Cohesion, Sharing and Integration18.

This research was conducted prior to the release of the ‘CSI’ document and was not formed

specifically around these themes so there are differing levels of emphasis placed on the

different CSI themes.

The themes covered by this analysis and the corresponding alternative choices that were

presented to the participants are indicated in the following table.

Table 4.1 Themes and bi-polar constructs

18

Programme for cohesion, sharing and integration; Consultation document; OFMDFM July 2010.

Theme Left preference Right preference

Political Leadership and Community Engagement

feels that the peace process has reduced sectarianism

feels that the peace process has increased sectarianism

People and places

thinks that, for people from different traditions to live peacefully in the same place, they have to get to know and respect each other

thinks that people from different traditions can live peacefully in the same place simply by ignoring each other

would think immigrants should be welcomed into our area

would think immigrants should be kept out of our area

would accept people from the other tradition living in my area

would not let the other tradition live in my area

would be happy enough sharing local facilities

would think that separate local facilities are needed

increased contact with people from the opposite tradition reduces sectarian conflict

increased contact with people from the opposite tradition has no effect

Cont’d

30


People and places (Cont’d)

would believe our kids should go to mixed schools and be taught a wide view of the world

would believe our kids should go to schools where they will be with their own kind and be taught our view of the world

wouldn't care where my workplace is located

would only work somewhere I know is my side or mixed

would like to see emblems/flags/murals that reflect my traditions

would think all flags/murals/emblems cause trouble and should be removed

would feel there is plenty of

community spirit in our area

would feel there is no community

spirit in our area

Respecting Cultures

would think that the local parade is not important to the identity of this community

would think that the local parade is an important part of the identity of this community

Irish sports, language and arts should be enjoyed by all sections of the community / The 11th night bonfire and the 12th should be enjoyed by all sections of the community

Irish sports, language and arts are really only for the Catholic community / The 11th night bonfire and the 12th are really only for the Protestant community

would believe religion should play a central role in our community

would believe religion is a personal matter and should not play a role in our community

would never forget about past events in my area

would forget past events and look to the future

A secure community

would know that the paramilitaries are more effective than the police in keeping people in order

would know that the police are more effective than the paramilitaries in keeping people in order

would believe I can go anywhere in and around the city/town/village

would believe there are plenty of areas I just wouldn't go near

would believe people from both sides overreact when dealing with issues of politics and religion

would believe people are justified in taking an aggressive stance when standing up for traditional beliefs

would think that a bit of trouble at parades is OK if it means people can express their traditions

would think that no parade is worth the trouble caused

31


A cohesive

community

feels that Protestants are

gaining advantage

feels that Catholics are gaining

advantage

has a positive impact on cross-

community relations

has a negative impact on cross-

community relations

The basis for this analysis is a simple investigation into:

• the current aspirations of the participants in these networks as a group

• the degree of clarity and consensus on these aspirations across each network

Many of the tables presented contain one key ISA specific measure which is ‘Structural

Pressure (SP)’. This parameter is an indicator of whether the respondent used this issue on

a consistent basis or not to judge the world around them, the higher the consistency the

stronger a sense that this is a core value to the respondent. A more formal definition of

Structural Pressure is included in the preface to this report.

Consensus has been measured as a simple proportion (%) of the participants in each group

that have agreed with the majority consensus on the issue presented.

4.1 Political Leadership and Community Engagement

Unsurprisingly, as figures 4.1 and 4.2 indicate, the evaluations of the two main political

parties map to the cultural background of the different networks, with each community

generally evaluating the others political party negatively. When broken down by

network, we see two PUL groups giving a slightly positive evaluation of Sinn Fein

(Mileville PUL One and Southville PUL) perhaps reflecting an opinion that Sinn Fein are

being seen to negotiate a more positive outcome for ‘their people’ during the peace

process.

32

Figure 4.1: Evaluation of political parties and the local authority by PUL networks

Mileville PUL One Mileville PUL Two Ashville PUL Townville PUL Rowville PUL Southville PUL

DUP 0.12 -0.27 -0.24 0.28 0.13 0.17

Sinn Fein 0.04 -0.21 -0.26 -0.13 -0.04 0.04

The Local Council 0.39 0.52 0.24 0.11 0.38 0.33

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Evaluation of 'political' entities by PUL networks

DUP

Sinn Fein

The Local Council

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the PUL networks differentiate less between the lead political

parties than the CNR networks, evidently seeing more positive elements in the lead CNR

political party’s makeup than CNR networks do in the lead PUL party.

33

Figure 4.2: Evaluation of political parties and the local authority by CNR networks

Ashville CNR Townville CNR Rowville CNR Southville CNR Tigerville CNR One Tigerville CNR Two

Sinn Fein 0.26 0.39 0.58 0.58 0.21 0.17

DUP -0.34 -0.20 -0.10 -0.03 -0.22 0.15

The Local Council 0.77 0.30 0.51 0.39 0.47 0.50

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Evaluation of 'political' entities by CNR networks

Sinn Fein

DUP

The Local Council

Levels of engagement (as measured by the ISA parameter ‘’ego-involvement’) with the

political parties are relatively high overall, suggesting that the respondents in these

networks are responsive to the parties and have reasonably cohesive views about them.

Further data on levels of engagement can be found in Section 5.

While the levels of engagement with the Local Councils are lower across the board than

for the political parties, the evaluation is higher. This is particularly the case among the

CNR networks, which evaluate the Local Council at 50% overall versus 33% for the PUL

networks. This compares with a mean evaluation score of 21% for all entities

(people/groups/organisations, etc) evaluated by the respondents in this study.

In addition to results relating to political parties and the local council, we also

investigated people’s perception on the impact of the peace process overall.

34

Figure 4.3: Aspirations and current perceptions of the impact of the peace process

Network Aspiration SP

Level of

consensus (%) Current Perspective

Mileville PUL One

peace process has reduced

sectarianism -0.4 67


sectarianism

Mileville PUL Two


sectarianism 33.8 100


sectarianism

Ashville PUL



peace process has increased

sectarianism

Ashville CNR




sectarianism

Townville PUL

peace process has increased

sectarianism -21.5 60


sectarianism

Townville CNR




sectarianism

Rowville CNR




sectarianism

Rowville PUL




sectarianism

Southville PUL




sectarianism

Southville CNR




sectarianism

Tigerville CNR One




sectarianism

Tigerville CNR Two




sectarianism

As seen in Figure 4.3 above, we can report that all but one network are of the view that

the peace process has reduced sectarianism (the exception being the Ashville PUL

group). Note that both Mileville PUL One and the Townville PUL are conflicted on this

issue, suggesting that they are not at all sure in their thinking.

4.2 People and Places

This theme links with so much of our research that only selected connections are made

here. Clearly the areas selected for the study will have a major bearing on the type of

outputs and we hope to be able to extend this type of research into many other

residential areas across N.Ireland.

As a general theme, while there are undoubtedly many positive aspirations among all of

the respondents for shared living, amenities, education and workplaces, these

aspirations do not appear to be the current reality in all areas. As seen in Figure 4.4

below, there is support among three of the five PUL networks queried on this issue for

the concept of ‘living peacefully by ignoring each other’ in the immediate term (as

opposed to the approach of ‘living peacefully by knowing and respecting each other).

35

Figure 4.4: Aspirations and current perceptions of how to best live together19


Level of


Mileville PUL One

living peacefully by knowing

and respecting each other 22.0 78

living peacefully by ignoring

each other

Mileville PUL Two




each other

Ashville PUL




each other

Ashville CNR




and respecting each other

Townville PUL





Townville CNR





Rowville CNR





Rowville PUL





Tigerville CNR One





Tigerville CNR Two





However, the high levels of ego-involvement20 suggest that neither side are actually

ignoring each other. Accompanying these high levels of ego-involvement, the current

evaluation that both communities give to the other community is generally negative (see

figures 4.5 and 4.6 below) and this combination goes a long way to explaining ongoing

tensions.

19

The paired networks in Southville were not asked this question since others issues were deemed more

important for this group 20

a specific measure in our analysis best thought of as the level of psychological response one person exhibits

when asked to think about or describe another

36

Figure 4.5: Evaluation of own group versus those of the other community – PULs

Mileville PUL One Mileville PUL Two Ashville PUL Townville PUL Rowville PUL Southville PUL

Own group 0.15 -0.12 -0.19 0.24 0.27 0.19

Loyalist Paramilitaries -0.04 -0.42 -0.40 0.20 -0.01 0.01

Other group -0.03 -0.21 -0.30 -0.11 0.07 0.07

Republican Dissidents -0.22 -0.39 -0.38 -0.14 -0.23 -0.37

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Evaluation of selected entities by PUL networks

Own group

Loyalist Paramilitaries

Other group

Republican Dissidents

Figure 4.6: Evaluation of own group versus those of the other community – CNRs

Ashville CNR Townville CNR Rowville CNR Southville CNR Tigerville CNR One Tigerville CNR Two

Own group 0.41 0.33 0.45 0.56 0.31 0.26

Republican Dissidents -0.14 -0.23 -0.06 0.15 -0.38 -0.01

Other group -0.24 -0.17 -0.24 -0.05 -0.24 0.08

Loyalist Paramilitaries -0.53 -0.35 -0.34 -0.06 -0.40 -0.13

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Evaluation of selected entities by CNR networks

Own group


Other group


The figures above show a more positive evaluation of ‘own group’ among the CNR

networks and it is striking that two of the PUL networks have actually evaluated their

own group negatively. There is a theme throughout the analysis of many PUL

respondents being less content overall with their current circumstances.

37

Further insight into the relationships between the two communities can be drawn from

an analysis of the extent to which each side feels that they share similar viewpoints to

the other (empathetic identification). These results are fairly positive in that both sides

do indicate a shared viewpoint on at least 50% of the issues covered. The PUL

networks have indicated a slightly higher level of empathetic identification with the CNR

community than CNRs have with the PUL community (0.61 or 61% versus 0.51 or 51%).

See figures 4.7 and 4.8 below.

Figure 4.7: PULs empathetic identifications

Mileville PUL

One

Mileville PUL

TwoAshville PUL Townville PUL Rowville PUL Southville PUL

Own group 0.76 0.75 0.84 0.72 0.66 0.52

Loyalist Paramilitaries 0.69 0.68 0.81 0.69 0.57 0.46

Other group 0.65 0.73 0.68 0.52 0.55 0.46

Republican Dissidents 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.44 0.40 0.18

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Empathetic identification with selected entities by PUL networks

Own group


Other group


38

Figure 4.8: CNRs empathetic identifications

Ashville CNR Townville CNR Rowville CNR Southville CNRTigerville CNR

One

Tigerville CNR

Two

Own group 0.82 0.73 0.84 0.86 0.70 0.75

Republican Dissidents 0.59 0.44 0.52 0.75 0.39 0.50

Other group 0.52 0.44 0.43 0.60 0.47 0.62

Loyalist Paramilitaries 0.42 0.35 0.37 0.62 0.32 0.45

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Empathetic Evaluation of selected entities by CNR networks

Own group


Other group


Expectations for the future are that there will be increased levels of shared perspectives,

again supporting the conclusion that aspirations are more positive than reality. Across

the whole sample there were 18 cases where the respondent actually felt that they had

more in common with people from the other tradition than their own community. Of this,

16 were from the PUL tradition, which demonstrates the important point that there can

be blurred edges between two apparently disparate communities. Overall, the level of

shared thinking is contrary to the commonly held viewpoint that there exists in N.Ireland,

two monolithic and separate communities and this appears to present an opportunity for

dialogue on these common issues.

Aside from general observations of the ‘other’, we captured perspectives on

paramilitaries and dissidents. We can report that the evaluation of both loyalist

paramilitaries and republican dissidents is negative overall, with each side obviously

evaluating the group associated with the other community more negatively than their

own. Two exceptions are the Townville PUL and Southville CNR who give low but

positive evaluations to Loyalist Paramilitaries and Republican Dissidents respectively.

The level of ego-involvement21 with these is very high generally, suggesting that they do

continue to have influence on people’s identities.

Of specific concern is the evidence that a number of networks feel that they have more

in common with the paramilitaries/dissidents associated with their community than they

do with the other community overall.

21

a specific measure in our analysis best thought of as the level of psychological response one person exhibits

when asked to think about or describe another

39

Responses on immigrants are very interesting in that both communities have provided

positive evaluations of immigrants. This must be understood in the context of the

research themes which were built around issues pertaining primarily to the two main

communities and it is not surprising that immigrant groups are seen as non-sectarian

and community focused. What is encouraging is the level of support for a welcoming

approach to immigrants from both sections of the community, albeit more strongly

supported from the CNR networks. This is illustrated in Figure 4.9 below.

Figure 4.9: Perspectives on welcoming immigrants


Level of


Mileville PUL One Immigrants welcomed 19.2 78 Immigrants kept out

Mileville PUL Two Immigrants welcomed 48.4 92 Immigrants welcomed

Ashville PUL Immigrants welcomed 32.9 90 Immigrants welcomed

Ashville CNR Immigrants welcomed 63.0 100 Immigrants welcomed

Townville PUL Immigrants kept out -6.4 50 Immigrants kept out

Townville CNR Immigrants welcomed 64.2 100 Immigrants welcomed

Rowville CNR Immigrants welcomed 71.4 100 Immigrants welcomed

Rowville PUL Immigrants welcomed 29.3 70 Immigrants welcomed

Southville PUL Immigrants welcomed 32.6 71 Immigrants welcomed

Southville CNR Immigrants welcomed 47.7 78 Immigrants welcomed

Tigerville CNR One Immigrants welcomed 63.4 100 Immigrants welcomed

Tigerville CNR Two Immigrants welcomed 44.0 78 Immigrants welcomed

Only one network (Townville PUL) actually shows an aspiration to exclude immigrants

but another (Mileville PUL One) does feel that this is their current stance. This is

concerning in that both these networks contain exclusively young people and there is

clearly a challenge here to address this discriminatory thinking.

With regard to mixed housing, while all the networks aspire to accept people from the

other community living in their area, four of the six PUL networks indicated that this was

not their current approach (Mileville x2, Ashville and Townville). See figure 4.10 below.

40

Figure 4.10: Perspectives on welcoming the other community in one’s area


Level of


Mileville PUL One accept other tradition 17.9 67

don't let the other tradition

into their area

Mileville PUL Two accept other tradition 53.7 92


into their area

Ashville PUL accept other tradition 74.6 100


into their area

Ashville CNR accept other tradition 43.6 100 accept other tradition

Townville PUL accept other tradition 10.8 80


into their area

Townville CNR accept other tradition 63.5 100 accept other tradition

Rowville CNR accept other tradition 74.3 100 accept other tradition

Rowville PUL accept other tradition 39.0 80 accept other tradition

Southville PUL accept other tradition 35.5 71 accept other tradition

Southville CNR accept other tradition 33.0 67 accept other tradition

Tigerville CNR One accept other tradition 75.7 100 accept other tradition

Tigerville CNR Two accept other tradition 38.7 78 accept other tradition

The picture for shared public spaces is similar, with all but one network (Townville PUL)

aspiring to shared spaces but with three PUL networks ( Mileville x2,and Ashville) and

one CNR network (Ashville) indicating a current stance of needing separate spaces.

See figure 4.11 below.

Figure 4.11: Perspectives on shared public spaces


Level of


Mileville PUL One happy sharing public spaces 14.3 67 need separate spaces

Mileville PUL Two happy sharing public spaces 47.3 83 need separate spaces

Ashville PUL happy sharing public spaces 73.4 100 need separate spaces

Ashville CNR happy sharing public spaces 32.0 90 need separate spaces

Townville PUL need separate spaces -19.5 50 happy sharing public spaces

Townville CNR happy sharing public spaces 65.5 90 happy sharing public spaces

Rowville CNR happy sharing public spaces 69.6 89 happy sharing public spaces

Rowville PUL happy sharing public spaces 48.9 90 happy sharing public spaces

Tigerville CNR One happy sharing public spaces 60.6 89 happy sharing public spaces

Tigerville CNR Two happy sharing public spaces 18.9 67 happy sharing public spaces

These results are consistent with the results of the Life and Times Survey on both

housing22 and sports/leisure facilities23, if these statistics are taken to indicate aspiration

rather than immediate reality. In reality, there is much more work to be done before

these communities are prepared to integrate.

With regard to the impact of cross-community contact, we can report a unanimous view

among the six networks queried on this issue that increased contact with people from

the other community reduces sectarian conflict. See figure 4.12 below.

22

Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2009 – Query MIXDLIV - 82% of respondents were in favour of more

mixing where people live 23

Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey 2009– Query MIXDLEIS – 87% of respondents were in favour of more

mixing of leisure or sports facilities

41

Figure 4.12: Perspectives on cross-community contact and sectarian conflict


Level of


Mileville PUL One

Increased contact with people

from the opposite tradition

reduces sectarian conflict -3.96 56



reduces sectarian conflict

Mileville PUL Two



has no effect 43.03 92




Southville PUL



reduces sectarian conflict 47.86 71




Southville CNR







Tigerville CNR One







Tigerville CNR Two







This may seem at odds with anecdotal evidence that many of these initiatives are

ineffective and it must be said that not all the networks held this view with great

conviction (Mileville PUL One and Tigerville CNR Two in particular are conflicted on this

issue).

There is certainly a will among all groups to make a positive contribution to cross-

community relations, with all networks sharing this aspiration. Two of the PUL networks

(Mileville PUL One and Ashville) feel that they themselves are not currently making a

positive contribution so there is an opportunity here to help these groups meet this

aspiration. See figure 4.13 below.

42

Figure 4.13: Perspectives on a personal impact on cross-community relations


Level of


Mileville PUL One

positive impact on cross-

community relations 27.9 67

negative impact on cross-

community relations

Mileville PUL Two




community relations

Ashville PUL



negative impact on cross-

community relations

Ashville CNR




community relations

Townville PUL




community relations

Townville CNR




community relations

Rowville CNR




community relations

Rowville PUL




community relations

Southville PUL




community relations

Southville CNR




community relations

Tigerville CNR One




community relations

Tigerville CNR Two




community relations

On the issue of shared education, the results show a similar pattern to that seen on the

issue of mixed residential areas, with all but one network (Townville PUL) expressing

the positive aspiration that ‘our kids should go to mixed schools and be taught a wide

view of the world’. However, four PUL networks and one CNR network do not take this

stance at the moment. See figure 4.14: below.

43

Figure 4.14: Perspectives on shared education


Level of


Mileville PUL One

kids go to school where they

will mix 23.5 67

kids go to school with their

own kind

Mileville PUL Two


will mix 47.4 83


own kind

Ashville PUL


will mix 68.6 100


own kind

Ashville CNR


will mix 7.8 70


own kind

Townville PUL


own kind 11.7 80


own kind

Townville CNR


will mix 29.2 70


will mix

Rowville CNR


will mix 45.5 89


will mix

Rowville PUL


will mix 41.5 80


will mix

Southville PUL


will mix 38.6 71


will mix

Southville CNR


will mix 34.3 67


will mix

Tigerville CNR One


will mix 53.0 89


will mix

Tigerville CNR Two


will mix 33.3 78


will mix

On shared workplaces, the CSI draft strategy quotes a statistic from the NI Life and

Times survey that 85% of people supported more mixing in the workplace24. While our

study approached this subject more from a mobility perspective, all of the networks have

supported the aspiration ‘I wouldn’t care where my workplace was located’ and 70% feel

that this is reality on the ground. See figure 4.15 below.

24

Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey – query MIXDWORK

44

Figure 4.15: Perspectives on shared workplaces


Level of


Mileville PUL One

wouldn't care where my

workplace is located 32.5 67

will only work my side or

mixed

Mileville PUL Two




mixed

Ashville PUL




mixed

Ashville CNR




workplace is located

Townville PUL





Townville CNR





Rowville CNR





Rowville PUL





Southville PUL





Southville CNR




mixed

Tigerville CNR One





Tigerville CNR Two





Three PUL and one CNR network (Mileville x 2, Ashville PUL and Southville CNR)

selected the alternative perspective of ‘will only work with mainly my side or mixed’. In

the context of creating employment opportunities for those in the minority in a particular

area these results suggest that many would not be put off by having to work somewhere

where the workforce was mainly of an alternate persuasion. This is not currently the

case in Mileville or Southville and these may well be special cases given the cohesive

nature of their communities (both perceive themselves to be under siege whether real or

otherwise).

In terms of imagery and public displays of a sectarian nature, the results show a clear

split between PUL and CNR networks, with the majority of PULs supporting the need for

‘flags and murals that reflect my traditions’. See figure 4.16 below.

45

Figure 4.16: Perspectives on flags and murals


Level of


Mileville PUL One

flags and murals that reflect

my traditions 8.0 67


my traditions

Mileville PUL Two

all flags etc should be

removed 49.3 67


my traditions

Ashville PUL


my traditions -47.7 80


my traditions

Ashville CNR


removed 17.6 70


my traditions

Townville PUL




my traditions

Townville CNR


my traditions -7.9 60


my traditions

Rowville CNR


removed 28.0 56 all flags etc should be removed

Rowville PUL




my traditions

Southville PUL




my traditions

Southville CNR



Tigerville CNR One


removed 31.7 56


my traditions

Tigerville CNR Two



The only PUL network that feels that ‘all flags, etc should be removed’ was Mileville PUL

Two and this may reflect the fairly public debate that has been going on for some time in

that area about a long-standing Mileville mural. While five of the six CNR networks

aspire to have all flags, etc removed at some point in the future, the CNR networks in

Tigerville One, Townville and Ashville feel that this should not happen at the current

time. The level of division in these areas was apparent during several disturbances over

the summer months in 2010 and this may explain this persistent territoriality.

4.3 Empowering the next generation

Aside from a generally high level of support for integrated education, we can report

some specific results from three networks in which the respondents were mainly young

people. It is of concern that these networks evidenced the most negative viewpoints

with reference to sharing and integration in the immediate term. Generally speaking,

their aspirations were as positive as anyone elses but their short-term majority view is

that each community should have separate spaces, that the other community should not

be allowed into their area, that kids should go to school with their own kind and that

people can live peacefully simply by ignoring each other. Two of the three youth

networks feel that ‘there are plenty of areas they just wouldn’t go near’. This outcome is

of concern and suggests that more sectarian views and feelings of insecurity / safety are

emerging amongst some younger networks. Recent reports have indicated that some

younger people who have not experienced the harsh realities of the ‘troubles’ are now

romanticising about this period and may see a continuation of violence as a source of

excitement. While it may be that these young people are simply isolationist, these

networks have all indicated that they feel that it is acceptable for there to be trouble at

46

parades, although only one network supports the notion overall that ‘people are justified

in taking an aggressive stance when standing up for traditional beliefs’.

4.4 Respecting cultures

We have already discussed the results of our research on the issues of ‘living peacefully

by knowing and respecting each other’ and on other aspects of imagery. There are

positive aspirations in these areas, albeit with some differences in opinion as to whether

this is actually the case in the current time. In our research we also looked at issues

specific to local parades, gaelic games, language and arts. On the issue of parades

there is a clear split between PUL and CNR networks. See figure 4.17 below.

Figure 4.17: Perspectives on local parades


Level of


Mileville PUL One local parade important 26.9 100 local parade important

Mileville PUL Two local parade important -13.3 92 local parade important

Ashville PUL local parade important -23.9 100 local parade important

Ashville CNR local parade not important 82.7 100 local parade not important

Townville PUL local parade important 37.4 80 local parade important

Townville CNR local parade not important 23.3 78 local parade not important

Rowville CNR local parade not important 40.6 56 local parade not important

Rowville PUL local parade important 30.5 90 local parade important

Southville PUL local parade important 31.8 100 local parade important

Southville CNR local parade important 6.9 56 local parade important

All PUL networks were of the view that their local parade is important and with a high

degree of consensus. In contrast, three of the four CNR networks presented with this

query believe that a local parade is not important (note that the notion of parade was not

specifically linked to either communities’ parade). The Southville CNR network was the

only CNR network that felt a local parade was important and, while this needs

clarification, this may reflect an acceptance (however begrudgingly) that they must live

with PUL parades. It is perhaps also reflective of the high levels of cross community

work carried out in this area since 2003.

On the issue of gaelic games, language and arts (see figure 4.18 below), our query

related to whether these should be solely for the CNR community or open to all. There

is no majority pattern emerging on this issue but it is encouraging that two of the three

PUL networks that were asked to respond to this query believed that gaelic games,

language and arts should be enjoyed by all sections of the community. Participants in

Mileville were presented with a different query to test whether or not a unique PUL

group felt that their own annual celebrations around the 12th July should be open to the

other community. They do not believe they should.

47

Figure 4.18: Perspectives on single identity or shared cultures


Level of


Mileville PUL One

bonfire and the 12th are really

only for the Protestant

community 28.35 78



community

Mileville PUL Two



community 47.64 92



community

Townville PUL

Irish sports, language and

arts are really only for the

Catholic community 18.31 80

Irish sports, language and arts

are really only for the Catholic

community

Townville CNR


arts should be enjoyed by all

sections of the community 64.45 100


should be enjoyed by all

sections of the community

Rowville CNR







Rowville PUL







Southville PUL







Southville CNR







Tigerville CNR One

only sports clubs that cater

for all sections of the

community should be

encouraged 46.52 67

only sports clubs that cater for

all sections of the community

should be encouraged

Tigerville CNR Two

each tradition should have

their own sports clubs -13.3 67

each tradition should have

their own sports clubs

Of the CNR networks responding to the specific query about gaelic culture, all indicated

the same ‘open to all’ perspective. The Tigerville networks had highlighted the

importance of sports clubs in the early focus groups and were asked to respond to a

slightly different query, as indicated above. Respondents linked to the Tigerville CNR

One group were fairly clear that sports clubs should be open to all, while the Tigerville

CNR Two participants indicated that ‘each tradition should have their own sports clubs’

(note again that this is a conflicted notion). The Mileville networks were asked to

respond to a similar query on events such as the 11th night bonfire and the 12th of July

and the results overwhelmingly state that these events should be solely for the PUL

community. While this issue would benefit from closer research it does suggest that

‘Gaelic’ activities may present a better opportunity for cross-community initiatives than

‘Orange’ activities.

Some of the more simplistic definitions of N.Ireland society categorise religion as the

primary factor of each community’s identity but our research produced a mix of

perspectives on the question as to whether ‘religion should play a central role in our

community’. See figure 4.19 below.

48

Figure 4.19: Perspectives on the centrality of religion


Level of


Mileville PUL One religion a personal matter -16.0 56

religion should have central

role

Mileville PUL Two religion a personal matter 9.7 58 religion a personal matter

Ashville PUL


role -38.1 60


role

Ashville CNR


role 45.6 90


role

Townville PUL


role 23.8 90 religion a personal matter

Townville CNR religion a personal matter -11.8 60 religion a personal matter

Rowville CNR


role 23.9 56


role

Rowville PUL religion a personal matter 9.8 60


role

Southville PUL



Southville CNR



Tigerville CNR One


role 15.9 56


role

Tigerville CNR Two religion a personal matter 4.1 56 religion a personal matter

More CNR networks than PUL networks supported the central role of religion as an

aspiration but some felt that this was not the case on the ground at the current time.

The PUL networks are split on this issue, with some feeling that religion has too much of

a role at the moment and that this should reduce. There is certainly not an

overwhelming sense that religion is central to community life at the present time.

Another perspective on dealing with inter-community conflict in N.Ireland is the role of

history in perpetuating perceived (often inaccurate) differences. While history can no

doubt play as much of a role in bringing people together as it does in making them feel

different, our query for the research sought to understand whether people thought it

important to ‘never forget past events in our area’ or that ‘we should forget past events

and move forward’. This query was posed because it became clear in the early focus

groups that communal memory of the troubles continues to play a part in people’s

mistrust of the other community. The results show that the CNR networks are more

inclined to hold on to their local history while PUL networks have more of an aspiration

to forget past events and move on. Tempering this aspiration, most of the PUL

networks report that they still reference the history of their area in their current lives.

See figure 4.20 below.

49

Figure 4.20: Perspectives on remembering local history


Level of


Mileville PUL One history should be forgotten 22.9 89 never forget history

Mileville PUL Two history should be forgotten 44.8 75 never forget history

Ashville PUL never forget history -54.2 90 never forget history

Ashville CNR history should be forgotten 17.0 70 history should be forgotten

Townville PUL history should be forgotten 6.6 70 never forget history

Townville CNR never forget history -7.0 70 never forget history

Rowville CNR never forget history -9.9 89 never forget history

Rowville PUL history should be forgotten 32.5 70 history should be forgotten

Southville PUL history should be forgotten 10.6 57 never forget history

Southville CNR never forget history 13.4 67 never forget history

Tigerville CNR One never forget history -28.7 56 history should be forgotten

Tigerville CNR Two history should be forgotten 57.0 78 history should be forgotten

4.5 A secure community

A number of queries in our research touched on community safety issues. One key

outcome of the research is a generally positive impression of the PSNI by all sections of

the community. Our measure ‘Idealistic identification’ indicates the extent to which a

particular group are felt to exhibit those behaviours considered ideal by the respondent.

As indicated in the results in table 4.21 below, the CNR networks actually see the PSNI

meeting more of their ideals than do the PUL population.

Figure 4.21: Idealistic identification with the PSNI

Mileville PUL

One

Mileville PUL

TwoAshville PUL

Townville

PULRowville PUL

Southville

PULAshville CNR

Townville

CNRRowville CNR

Southville

CNR

Tigerville CNR

One

Tigerville CNR

Two

PSNI 0.57 0.66 0.46 0.49 0.55 0.41 0.69 0.54 0.55 0.65 0.61 0.73

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Idealistic Identification with the PSNI -all networks

We also sought to understand perspectives on the roles of the PSNI and/or

paramilitaries in maintaining order. While all aspire to the PSNI being more effective

than the paramilitaries, five of the twelve networks currently feel that, on balance, the

paramilitaries are more effective. There is no particular pattern here between PUL and

CNR networks. See figure 4.22 below.

50

Figure 4.22: Perspectives on control by PSNI versus paramilitaries


Level of


Mileville PUL One

police better than

paramilitaries 10.1 56

police better than

paramilitaries

Mileville PUL Two

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Ashville PUL

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Ashville CNR

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Townville PUL

police better than


paramilitaries better than

police

Townville CNR

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Rowville CNR

police better than



police

Rowville PUL

police better than



police

Southville PUL

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Southville CNR

police better than

paramilitaries -1.7 56


police

Tigerville CNR One

police better than



police

Tigerville CNR Two

police better than


police better than

paramilitaries

Mobility as linked to fear of attack was also covered. There is some sense that younger

respondents perceive greater limitations on their mobility (the networks in Mileville PUL

One and Ashville PUL and Townville CNR contained younger people). See figure 4.23

below.

Figure 4.23: Perspectives on mobility


Level of


Mileville PUL One I can go anywhere 26.6 67 areas I just wouldn't go near

Mileville PUL Two I can go anywhere 55.3 100 areas I just wouldn't go near

Ashville PUL I can go anywhere 50.7 90 areas I just wouldn't go near

Ashville CNR I can go anywhere 80.4 100 I can go anywhere

Townville PUL I can go anywhere 13.5 80 I can go anywhere

Townville CNR I can go anywhere 1.9 70 areas I just wouldn't go near

Rowville CNR I can go anywhere -4.0 67 areas I just wouldn't go near

Rowville PUL areas I just wouldn't go near -8.9 60 areas I just wouldn't go near

Southville PUL I can go anywhere 38.1 86 I can go anywhere

Southville CNR areas I just wouldn't go near 0.2 56 I can go anywhere

Tigerville CNR One I can go anywhere 40.1 100 I can go anywhere

Tigerville CNR Two I can go anywhere 10.7 56 areas I just wouldn't go near

CNR networks in Townville, Tigerville and Southville, while rather conflicted on this

issue (low SP values), also appear to feel these limitations on mobility. These views

were consistent with those expressed in the early focus groups. The issue of crossing

interfaces was particularly highlighted by Tigerville and Southville CNR while, for

Townville, there was a perception that the town is essentially divided into two parts.

51

The results for a justification of aggression and trouble at parades show variation

between PUL and CNR networks. Overall, two of the twelve networks actually aspire to

justify aggression in the longer term (Townville PUL and Southville CNR) but they are

highly conflicted on this issue (low or negative SP results). Six networks support this

perspective in the current time (Mileville PUL Two, Ashville PUL, Ashville CNR,

Townville CNR, Rowville CNR and Southville PUL). See figure 4.24 below.

Figure 4.24: Perspectives on the justification of aggression


Level of


Mileville PUL One

overreact in politics and

religion 19.0 89


religion

Mileville PUL Two


religion 52.8 58 justified in being aggressive

Ashville PUL



Ashville CNR



Townville PUL justified in being aggressive 7.0 50


religion

Townville CNR



Rowville CNR



Rowville PUL


religion 32.8 90


religion

Southville PUL



Southville CNR justified in being aggressive -18.5 56


religion

Tigerville CNR One


religion 48.1 78


religion

Tigerville CNR Two


religion 25.2 56


religion

On the issue of trouble at parades being acceptable, four PUL networks (Mileville x 2,

Ashville PUL and Townville PUL) take this perspective in all circumstances while no

CNR network supports it. See figure 4.25 below.

52

Figure 4.25: Perspectives on acceptability of trouble at parades


Level of


Mileville PUL One trouble at parades ok -4.2 78 trouble at parades ok

Mileville PUL Two trouble at parades ok -45.8 58 trouble at parades ok

Ashville PUL trouble at parades ok -33.5 100 trouble at parades ok

Ashville CNR

not worth the trouble they

cause 82.7 100


cause

Townville PUL trouble at parades ok 4.8 70 trouble at parades ok

Townville CNR


cause 56.0 90


cause

Rowville CNR


cause 61.3 78


cause

Rowville PUL


cause 13.8 50 trouble at parades ok

Southville PUL


cause 11.9 57


cause

Southville CNR


cause 34.7 67


cause

Tigerville CNR One


cause 63.0 100


cause

Tigerville CNR Two


cause 45.9 89


cause

It should be noted, however, that the PUL perspectives on this issue are not held with

high levels of conviction and there is, in many, a hidden realisation that this is not really

acceptable. (This notion of a viewpoint being ‘conflicted’ is an important one since it

identifies issues on which there is uncertainty and which may therefore present

opportunities for change).

In addition to the above results relating to specific themes, we can also report

quantitative evidence that people’s outlook on many of the issues covered in this

research is directly affected by coming into contact with groups that they feel intimidated

by. This is a complex psychological affect (discussed in greater detail in Section 5)

which suggests that people with less prejudiced attitudes recognise that they tend to

harden those attitudes when in the presence of hard liners.

4.6 A cohesive community

In the CSI document, ‘cohesion’ appears to have been interpreted in the context of an

‘intercultural’ society which brings in minority communities beyond the two main

communities. Our research was primarily focused on differences between the two main

communities but we did include some queries relating to immigrants. In most of the

networks an ‘immigrant’ was defined primarily as someone from the newer Eastern

European EU states (participants were asked via an open question to define who they

thought of when queried about ‘immigrants’). The focus groups suggested a high level of

acceptance of these immigrants and the results of the actual study have borne this out.

From the perspective of the levels of acceptance among local communities of

immigrants, while the majority of results show a high degree of acceptance, there are

exceptions in the PUL community. The Townville PUL network was unaccommodating

to immigrants and was the only network with an aspiration to keep immigrants out.

53

While the Mileville PUL One showed an aspiration to welcome immigrants, their current

approach is also to keep immigrants out. It must be said that, as for the results above

on the PUL networks’ justification of aggression, these views on immigrants are not held

with great conviction and these networks may well respond positively to effective

interventions on this issue.

4.7 Supporting local communities

As indicated above, local councils were evaluated very positively by all networks, being

seen to exhibit very positive leadership on many good relations issues. This very much

validates the CSI emphasis on the role of local councils in delivery.

In addition to local councils, our study sought to understand people’s perceptions of the

kind of community groups through which they had become involved in this research.

There is a marked difference in the evaluation of these community groups between the

two traditions, with the CNR networks being much more positive about their groups than

the PULs. This correlates positively with the results for each network’s evaluation of the

community in which they live, with PUL respondents being much less positive than their

CNR counterparts.

There is an overall trend across the results of the PUL networks being more negative

about themselves, their situation and those around them than the CNR networks. Most

PUL respondents have expressed the view that the CNR population is gaining

advantage at the current time, most CNR networks also have this view. The personal

psychological perspective of some PUL respondents is actually a cause for concern at

an individual level, particularly where individuals have attributed characteristics to

themselves that they see as very negative. Feedback will be provided via the

participating community groups in the hope of addressing this issue and this may well

lead to specific individual interventions.

54

5. Results - Identity processes across and within residential area

networks

5.1 General outlook – comparisons across areas

To begin this analysis, we have analysed the general psychological outlook of the

participants in each of the twelve groups covered in this study. There are important

differences between them, as indicated below. The results are presented for the PUL and

CNR areas separately for ease of presentation but comparisons are made below across

both communities.

Figure 5.1 PUL networks – Self Evaluation over time

Mileville PUL

One

Mileville PUL

TwoAshville PUL Townville PUL Rowville PUL

Southville

PUL

At the height of the troubles -0.05 -0.16 -0.17 0.14 0.08 0.34

Currently with my own group 0.50 0.22 -0.01 0.48 0.49 0.63

As I am likely to be in five years time 0.59 0.50 0.07 0.47 0.72 0.84

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Self-evaluation over time - PUL networks

At the height of the troubles

Currently with my own group

As I am likely to be in five years time

There is significant variation in self-evaluation between networks, with the participants from

the Ashville PUL group providing a negative evaluation of themselves in all contexts bar the

future. While three of the PUL networks negatively evaluate themselves in the past, most do

show significant improvement between past and current self with own. The participants from

Southville PUL have the highest self-evaluation of all the PUL networks covered, although

this does not mean that outside observers would necessarily see this group as exhibiting

positive characteristics, just that the group members are happier with themselves than the

members of the other PUL networks. Whilst the participants from the Ashville PUL group

exhibit a positive evaluation of themselves in the future, this is still at a very low level.

55

Figure 5.2 CNR networks – Self Evaluation over time

Ashville CNR Townville CNR Rowville CNRSouthville

CNR

Tigerville CNR

One

Tigerville CNR

Two

At the height of the troubles 0.15 0.09 -0.04 0.20 0.16 0.22

Currently with my own group 0.67 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.52 0.63

As I am likely to be in five years time 0.84 0.73 0.66 0.57 0.74 0.65

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Self-evaluation over time - CNR networks

At the height of the troubles

Currently with my own group

As I am likely to be in five years time

Overall levels of self-evaluation among the participants from the CNR networks are markedly

higher than for the PUL participants.

The figures above demonstrate the variation in self-evaluation between networks and across

time. To some extent, the same pattern is seen in each network, with a significant

improvement in self-evaluation from the past (as denoted by ‘at the height of the troubles’) to

the current (‘currently with my own group’) and into the future (‘as I am likely to be in five

years time’).

It is encouraging to note that all of the networks have positive expectations of the future,

believing that they will be living much more in line with their aspirations in five years time.

Please refer to the analysis by theme in Section 4 for more information on these aspirations.

56

5.2 Similarities and differences in perspective between networks

In section 4.2 we described how the evaluation given to the other community nearby was, in

most cases, negative. The basis of this negative evaluation is the apparent belief among

most of the networks that the other community do not have the same aspirations and

perspectives. In order to explore these in more detail we have looked at the specific

aspirations and current stances of each network compared with their perceptions of the other

community and then compared this with the evidence that we have of the actual aspiration

and perspectives of that other community. We have completed this analysis across the four

areas where we have networks from the two communities living in relative proximity.

5.2.1 Comparison of actual and perceived perspectives between the two networks in

Ashville

Figure 5.3 below provides specific detail on the similarities and differences between the

preferences expressed by the participants in the two networks in Ashville, in this case from

the perspective of the CNR network and including their perceptions of how they think the

local PUL population think about these issues. Particular attention is drawn not only to the

actual aspirations and current thinking of these groups but also to the perception that each

group has of the other.

Figure 5.3: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Ashville

from a CNR perspective

-4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00

I can go anywhere


overreact in politics and religion

parades not worth the trouble they cause

all flags etc should be removed

accept other tradition

kids go to school where they will mix

positive impact on cross-community relations

happy sharing public spaces

living peacefully by knowing and respecting each other

Comparison of perceptions - Ashville CNR participants

This Group's aspiration

This Group's current view

This Group's view of the other

community's perspective

The other community's current

view

The other community 's actual

aspiration

Note: a negative result indicates a preference for the alternative perspective – please see Appendix II

for the wording of these alternatives

57

The information provided in this graph explains well the separation of opinion in Ashville but

also demonstrates the highly conflicted thinking apparent in the PUL network. Across all of

these issues, the CNR participants feel that the local PUL population have completely

opposite views to themselves. They feel that the local PUL community are against all these

positive cross-community stances and, in the immediate term, the data suggests that they

are correct. It is clear that the PUL participants in this study are not at all ready in the short

term for greater integration. What can also be clearly seen, however, is the extent to which

the PUL network’s current perspective is generally at odds with their aspirations and this

came through in the area coverage as a low evaluation of current self. Consistent with some

of the themes running through this report, the group are really only wedded in the longer

term to two issues and these could be considered to be at the heart of the problem in

Ashville, that is that the PUL participants do believe that their culture should be expressed in

terms of flags and emblems and that it is acceptable for there to be some trouble at parades.

It is important to remember, however, that the group overall was highly conflicted on the

issue of parading and, while the support for this perspective is strong on the surface (and so

appears so in the above diagram) there is scope for change on this issue.

Looking at the same issues from the perspective of the PUL network, we see quite a

different picture. Figure 5.4 below reverses the information provided above and includes the

PUL network’s perceptions of the local CNR community.

Figure 5.4: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Ashville

from a PUL perspective

-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere










Comparison of perceptions - Ashville PUL participants






view


aspiration



58

What is most striking about this data is that those in the PUL network seem to feel that their

CNR neighbours have a similar ‘anti-integrationist’ perspective to themselves; indeed they

feel that this is often stronger in the CNR community. On all issues bar parades and

freedom of movement, the PUL network participants feel that the local CNR community just

does not want to mix, from everything to public spaces, schools and workplaces. They are

correct only to a slight extent and, again, only in the context of the immediate term. The

CNR network have indicated that, in the short-term, they do not want their children to have

an integrated education, they do feel the need to have flags and emblems that represent

their culture and they believe that they are justified in taking an aggressive stance when

standing up for their beliefs. Much like the PUL network, these short-term perspectives are

not, however, in line with their aspirations and this is further evidence of the difficult short-

term situation that these two communities find themselves in. It is almost as if they feel the

pressure, perhaps from outside influence, to act ‘out of character’ in the short-term.

In Ashville we have a situation where, bar the issues of parading and imagery, both

communities appear to have very similar aspirations but also appear to be trapped in the

negativity of their current situation. It could be that positive intervention from the right source

could break this cycle.


Townville


preferences expressed by the participants in the two networks in Townville, in this case from

the perspective of the CNR network and including their perceptions of how the local PUL

think about these issues. Particular attention is drawn not only to the actual aspirations and

current thinking of these groups but also to the perception that each group has of the other.

59

Figure 5.5: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Townville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere










Comparison of perceptions - Townville CNR participants






view


aspiration



The graph above suggests that, on a number of issues, this CNR network has inaccurate

perceptions of the local PUL population. It is certainly the case that, on balance, the PUL

network has expressed a consistent view that supports flags and emblems and accepts

trouble at parades. They are not supportive of integrated education either in the short-term

or as an aspiration but many of their other aspirations run contrary to the impressions that

this CNR network have of them. We have discussed how segregated a town Townville has

become but there are at least some signs of shared, positive aspirations for the future here,

particularly in accepting the other tradition [living in our area], having a positive impact on

cross-community relations, working in a mixed environment and be able to access all parts

of the town.

Looking at the same issues from the perspective of the PUL network, it is clear how

disengaged this network are with the local CNR population, something emphasised in the

area coverage and no doubt a function of the high levels of segregation in Townville. Figure

5.6 below reverses the information provided above and includes the PUL network’s

perceptions of the local CNR community.

60

Figure 5.6: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Townville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere










Comparison of perceptions - Townville PUL participants






view


aspiration



What is most striking about this data is the grouping of the PUL network’s views on the CNR

population around the zero point. Essentially they have little to say about the CNR

population and what they do have to say is rather mixed. On the negative side, they feel that

the CNR population feels that aggression is justified and that they would not be welcoming of

a member of the PUL community living in their areas. In terms of this ‘over-reaction’ the

CNR participants recognises this in their own community and would much prefer that this

was not the case. They do not, however, believe that they would not be welcoming to

someone from the other community in either the short term or as an aspiration and they

appear strong in this view. This is something that the PUL community could be encouraged

to reflect on.

As in Ashville, but to a lesser degree, we also have apparent differences in the acceptability

of trouble at parades

61


Rowville


preferences expressed by the participants in the two networks in Rowville, in this case from

the perspective of the CNR network and including their perceptions of how the local PUL

think about these issues. Particular attention is drawn not only to the actual aspirations and

current thinking of these groups but also to the perception that each group has of the other.

Figure 5.7: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Rowville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere










Comparison of perceptions - Rowville CNR participants






view


aspiration



The graph above suggests that, on many of the issues, this CNR network has inaccurate

perceptions of the local PUL population. They are most accurate on the issue of flags and

emblems and on the issue of mobility (where they are actually of the same view, that being

that there are many areas that are inaccessible to people of each community). It is

encouraging that the PUL network that participated in this study are much more supportive

of shared spaces, living and education than the CNR network believe. It is also very positive

to learn that they both share a strong aspiration to live together by getting to know and

respect each other rather than by simply ignoring each other and that they both share a wish

to make a positive contribution to cross-community relations.

Figure 5.8 below reverses the information provided above and includes the PUL network’s

perceptions of the local CNR community. Looking at the same issues from the perspective

of the PUL network, it appears that the participants from this network have a fairly accurate

62

impression of their CNR neighbours. This may be as a result of specific local programmes

where these two groups have been encouraged to come together to gain a better

understanding of each other’s perspectives.

Figure 5.8: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Rowville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere










Comparison of perceptions - Rowville PUL participants






view


aspiration



The chart suggests that, even where these PUL participants do indicate an understanding of

the positive perspectives of their CNR neighbours, they underestimate the strength of this

belief. It is encouraging at least to see how much common ground there appears to be

between these networks and this can only present an opportunity for further progress. The

more inflammatory issues of imagery and parades would hopefully be tackled in the context

of this wider, shared thinking.

63


Southville

Figure 5.9a below provides specific detail on the similarities and differences between the

preferences expressed by the participants in the two networks in Southville, in this case from

the perspective of the CNR network and including their perceptions of how they think the

local PUL population think about these issues. Particular attention is drawn not only to the

actual aspirations and current thinking of these groups but also to the perception that each

group has of the other.

Figure 5.9a: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Southville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere








Increased contact reduces sectarian conflict

Comparison of perceptions - Southville CNR participants






view


aspiration



These results suggest that the CNR network in Southville have a generally inaccurate

picture of the perspectives on the local PUL population, at least as represented by the views

of the Southville PUL participants. It is only on the issue of flags and emblems that their

perception is accurate to any degree, although the data on ‘trouble at parades’ is rather

inconclusive from a PUL perspective. The results for workplace preference and general

mobility are perhaps an indicator of the limited mobility felt by the Southville CNR residents.

It is clear from these results that there are many shared perspectives across these two

groups and it is intended that specific feedback is provided to this effect.

Figure 5.9b below reverses the information provided above and includes the PUL network’s

perceptions of the local CNR community. These results suggest that this PUL group do

recognise some positive beliefs among the Southville CNR population.

64

Figure 5.9b: A comparison of cross-network perspectives on key issues in Southville


-4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

I can go anywhere








Increased contact reduces sectarian conflict

Comparison of perceptions - Southville PUL participants






view


aspiration



The effect of cross-community contact was an issue not covered in the three areas above

but it is clearly one that unites these two groups. So too does the wish to have a positive

impact on cross-community relations (these are, of course, community organisations with

this as one of their objectives). It is interesting that the PUL participants do not see the

Southville CNR as being welcoming to the PUL community since anecdotal evidence

suggests that this has not been the case throughout ‘the troubles’ (couples in mixed

marriages tended to settle in the CNR areas rather than elsewhere in Southville). The

Southville PUL group do certainly recognise that the Southville CNR residents might feel that

there are areas that they just couldn’t go near and the Southville CNR group themselves

seem rather unsure on this issue.

Certainly there is strong evidence here of misconceived perceptions and a sound basis for

engagement with both groups together on these shared aspirations. The next section

reviews the two networks in each of the six study areas in greater detail.

65

5.3 Fundamental identity processes by area and network

The following sections provide an analysis of the key results that have been calculated using

the underlying ISA algorithms. These types of results are unique to ISA and will no doubt be

somewhat unfamiliar to many readers so specific explanations on the ‘so what’ of these

results are provided wherever necessary. We would also refer the reader to the earlier

section explaining key ISA terminology.

Each area consists of the two participating networks and each network is analysed using the

same structure, as follows:

1. Core aspirations, as defined both by the preferences indicated by the group [endorsement of one pole or the other] and the high degree of clarity/strength of belief on these preferences [as measured by the ISA Parameter Structural Pressure and further defined by group benchmarks] (see appendix II for full list of possible preferences)

2. Conflicted aspirations, as defined again by preferences but also defined by evident confusion about whether these preferences were the right way to think or not

3. Secondary aspirations, as defined again by preferences but, in this case, where these were expressed with more moderate degrees of clarity, defined by group benchmarks as neither core nor conflicted

4. Evaluation of self in the different contexts covered in the survey instrument (see appendix II)

5. Evaluation of selected other groups linked to one community or the other

6. Levels of identification as measured by the ISA parameters, Empathetic identification (how alike is the other group to the study groups own identity structure) and Idealistic identification (to what extent does the other groups exhibit characteristics which are consistent with the study groups aspirations)

The analysis of each area and network is drawn upon in later sections.

66

5.3.1 Mileville – Data Analysis

NETWORK 1 PUL – Participants from Mileville PUL One

(a) Core dimensions of identity (Core aspirations)

Table 5.10 presents the most firmly held perspectives on this youth group. In this case,

none of the views of this group can be described as ‘core’ in the technical sense of having a

level of support above a specific threshold. Compared with established ISA benchmarks25,

this group lack a central base of firmly held beliefs, at least in the context of the issues

covered in this study. Using the benchmarks specific to this small group (see Appendix III),

the group are conflicted on all but one issue, as outlined below.

Table 5.10a: Mileville Network 1 PUL: most significant dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole

(N endorsing this pole)

‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

06 Wouldn’t care where my

workplace is located (N = 6)

Will only work my side or mixed

(N = 3)

32.48

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL One’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

Clearly this group are conceptually prepared to work outside Mileville in a mixed

environment. While classed as moderately conflicted, the group do also aspire to a number

of other positive cross-community perspectives, as outlined below.

25

ISA benchmarks have been established based upon a sample of 500 people from the general population and

are available on request. The benchmarks used in this analysis are specific to the group being discussed.

67

(b) Conflicted dimensions of identity (ambivalent aspirations)

Table 5.10b: Mileville Network 1 PUL: moderately conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

22 Increased contact with people

from the other tradition reduces

sectarian conflict (N = 7)


from the opposite tradition has

no effect

(N = 2)

28.35

13 Positive impact on cross

community relations

(N = 6)

Negative impact on cross

community relations

(N = 3)

27.86

16 Local parade important

(N = 9)

Local parade not important

(N = 0)

26.87

04 I can go anywhere

(N = 6)

Areas I just wouldn’t go near

(N = 3)

26.62

05 Immigrants welcomed

(N = 7)

Immigrants kept out

(N = 2)

20.81

10 Accept other tradition

(N = 6)

Don’t let the other tradition into

their area (N = 3)

18.31

07 Overreact in politics and religion

(N = 8)

Justified in being aggressive

(N = 1)

16.46

18 Happy sharing public space

(N = 6)

Need separate spaces

(N = 3)

15.50

01 Lots of community spirit (N = 6) No community spirit (N = 3) 12.17

02 Police better than paramilitaries

(N = 5)

Paramilitaries better than police

(N = 4)

10.45

09 Flags and murals that reflect my

traditions (N = 6)

All flags etc should be removed

(N = 3)

5.59


So, on balance, the group values cross-community contact as a way of reducing

sectarianism and they (mostly) would like to have a positive impact on cross-community

relations. They would also prefer to be able to go anywhere in the city – this is an aspiration

rather than a reality for this group since it was made clear in the ethnographic interviews that

they felt there were many areas in their immediate hinterland that they would not enter for

fear of attack. In this case, this fear was not just of CNR areas but also included other PUL

areas which were known to have different paramilitary allegiances.

The only issue here that may contradict an overall cross-community position is this group’s

unanimous belief that the local parade is an important part of their identity. Given Mileville’s

well known cultural traditions it is surprising that this issue was not more keenly supported.

68

On other issues, while still conflicted, the group show yet more positive cross-community

perspectives. On balance, they think that the peace process has reduced sectarianism.

They want to be welcoming to Immigrants, they feel that people do over-react on issues of

politics and religion, they want to accept the other tradition into their area to live, they are

happy to share public spaces, believe community spirit does exist in Mileville and accept

(just) that policing should be left to the police and not the paramilitaries.

Although yet more conflicted, this group does hang on to the need for flags and murals that

reflect their tradition.

As presented in Table 5.11, this group were highly conflicted on five of the issues presented

– these could be fruitful ground for the initiation of change to mindsets.

Table 5.11: Mileville Network 1 PUL: most conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct # Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

03 Religion is a personal matter

(N = 5)

Religion should have central

role (N = 4)

-13.17

8 Trouble at parades is OK

(N = 7)

Not worth the trouble they

cause (N = 2)

- 6.98

21 Events such as the 11th night



community (N = 5)

Events such as the 11th night

and the 12th should be

enjoyed by all sections of the

community (N = 4)

- 2.34

14 Peace process has reduced

sectarianism (N = 6)

Peace process has increased


0.78

15 PUL’s gaining advantage

(N = 5)

CNR’s gaining advantage

(N = 4)

3.63


The three most conflicted issues all speak to some degree about underlying cultural beliefs

and demonstrate that this group are not at all sure about some of fundamental tenets of the

PUL stereotype. Religion appears as a highly conflicted issue that splits the group, with the

majority feeling that religion should not have a central role in the community. Secondly,

while they have indicated that the existence of the local parade is an important part of their

identity, they are not sure whether trouble at these parades is acceptable. On balance, they

think it is, but this is a conflicted issue for them - not the kind of highly confident support for

defending cultural traditions, with violence where necessary, that was expressed in public by

some of the participants from this group. The group are also not at all sure whether or not

their own traditions (11th night bonfire, 12th July, etc) should be only for them or opened up

for all sections of the community to enjoy. This may reflect the work done in the area to

transform the events to a more community based focus.

They are also much less sure as a group on whether or not the PUL community should be

gaining advantage, which again is unexpected. In reality, they are firmly of the belief that the

69

CNR community are currently gaining advantage and they expect this to be the reality into

the future26.

(c) Evaluation of self and identity diffusion: evaluation of others

View of self in different contexts:

Table 5.12 below outlines how these participants feel about themselves in a range of

contexts. Evaluation is an indicator of how they feel they measure up to their stated ideals;

ego-involvement is a measure of their level of engagement with this particular self-context

and Identity Diffusion describes the clarity of their thinking about themselves in this context.

As indicated in the Table below, these young men and women are also less involved with

the notion of ‘self in five years time’ than with current self (me when I am with those closest

to me). This is demonstrated by an ego-involvement of 3.55 with the future versus 4.13 with

the present. They have less interest (ego-involvement) in future self than any other aspect of

self addressed in the research. They do at least have positive expectations, as indicated by

the rise in self-evaluation from 0.50 in the present to 0.59 in the future context.

Table 5.12: Mileville Network 1 PUL: evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Me as I would like to be 01 4.42 1.00 0.41

Me as I would hate to be 02 4.58 -0.53 0.49

Me as I am likely to be in five years time 03 3.55 0.59 0.45

Me when I am with those closest to me 04 4.13 0.50 0.47

Me when I bump into people from a group that

scares me

05 3.99 0.28 0.49

Me at the height of the troubles 18 4.24 -0.05 0.51

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL One’, Self: Tabulation; available on request

26

Based on the groups direct responses to the query, using the scenarios ‘me, when with those closest to me

(current self) and ‘me, in five years time’ (future self). Raw data is available in the Ipseus report for this group.

70

Evaluation of current self is moderately high (0.50) but it can be seen that the evaluation of

self drops to low levels (0.28) when faced by someone from a group that they are intimidated

by. This is a clear effect and since responsiveness to this source of intimidation is also high

(3.99) this could be picking up fears that exist day to day in their lives. The interviews with

this group indicated that these intimidators could be either from ‘rival factions’ within the PUL

community or from CNR sources.

Evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.13 presents results for the group’s evaluation of, and engagement with, key groups

linked to their own community or the other. The group’s evaluation of their own community

and the DUP are low in the context of the overall study, albeit positive. Engagement levels

are moderate. Loyalist paramilitaries are negatively evaluated and engagement levels are

high. Clearly this group see these paramilitaries as an important part of their identity but not

one which they would wish to remain so given the option.

Table 5.13: Mileville Network 1 PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity

Own tradition Other tradition

Ego-involvement 4.45 3.78 3.91 4.58 3.90 4.02

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.04 0.12 0.15 -0.22 0.04 -0.03

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL One’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group’s evaluation of the other community and Sinn Fein is low to very low, although it is

interesting that Sinn Fein’s evaluation is marginally positive. Again there is some tacit

acceptance here for the ‘ground’ that Sinn Fein is seen to have negotiated on behalf of the

CNR community. This group’s evaluation of republican dissidents is very negative and the

group are highly reactive to thoughts about this group.

(d) Identification with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.14 below gives us insights into the manner in which this PUL group identify with the

other groups discussed above. Empathetic identification tells us which groups were closest

to their current self-image, good and bad. Idealistic identification tells us which groups are

closest to their own aspirations – their role models.

71

Table 5.14: Mileville Network 1 PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other

tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Empathetic identification 0.69 0.64 0.76 0.55 0.55 0.65

Range 0.00 to 1.00

Idealistic identification 0.48 0.54 0.56 0.39 0.49 0.48

Range 0.00 to 1.00

Contra identification 0.51 0.41 0.43 0.57 0.47 0.50

Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL One’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;

available on request

This group identify strongly with their own community, whatever its limitations (empathetic

identification 0.76). Interestingly they also identify to a substantial extent with the CNR

community (empathetic identification 0.65) and have a similar level of identification with the

DUP (empathetic identification 0.64). Notably, empathetic identification with Loyalist

paramilitaries is also relatively high (0.69). It should be noted that this group have only a

moderate evaluation of themselves and this will mean that many of the perspectives that

they might feel they share with the groups above are not seen as positive.

These young people see the qualities possessed by their own tradition as somewhat less

than they hoped for (idealistic identification on the low side at 0.56). It is not surprising then

that they view their own tradition as having qualities from which they would wish to

disassociate themselves to a considerable degree (contra identification 0.43).

As indicated by moderate to high levels of contra-identification, these young people have a

clear wish to dissociate to a substantial degree from the CNR community and Sinn Fein.

This disassociation is even higher with Republican Dissidents.

72

NETWORK TWO – Participants from Mileville PUL Two


As Table 5.15 demonstrates, the core aspirations of this group are very positive. These

participants want to live peacefully by knowing and respecting each other, to be able to go

anywhere and to accept the other tradition living in Mileville.

Table 5.15: Mileville PUL Two: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

20 Living peacefully by knowing


(N = 10)

Living peacefully by ignoring

each other

(N = 2)

57.25


(N = 12)


(N = 0)

55.26


(N = 11)

Don’t let other tradition into

their area (N = 1)

53.66

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL Two’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

The issue of mobility is clearly an important one for this group. The area could be

considered an ‘enclave’ or sorts and, although the area is bounded on one side by other

PUL districts, it was indicated in the focus groups that there were tensions with these other

areas due to differing allegiances.

(b) Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.16a presents other group aspirations which are held with decreasing certainty.

There are a range of perspectives here that could suggest openness to community relations

engagement.

73

Table 5.16a: Mileville PUL Two: secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

07 Overreact in politics and

religion (N = 7)

Justified in being aggressive

(N = 5)

52.82



Will only work my side or

mixed (N = 0)

51.56

09 All flags etc should be removed

(N = 8)

Flags and murals that reflect

my traditions (N = 4)

49.34

05 Immigrants welcome (N = 11) Immigrants keep out (N = 1) 48.46

13 Positive impact on cross-

community relations (N = 12)



48.26

12 Kids go to school where they

will mix (N = 10)

Kids go to school with their

own kind (N = 2)

47.40

18 Happy sharing public spaces

(N = 10)


(N = 2)

47.29

11 History should be forgotten

(N = 9)

Never forget history (N = 3) 44.76

21 Events such as the 11th night



community (N = 5)

Events such as the 11th night

and the 12th should be

enjoyed by all sections of the

community (N = 4)

43.03





33.78


(N = 11)

Paramilitaries better than

police (N = 1)

30.32

15 PUL’s gaining advantage

(N = 12)

CNR’s gaining advantage

(N = 0)

26.14


Many of the issues above are held with a lot of certainty, albeit not formally classified as

being ‘core. The group think that people overreact in politics and religion and wouldn’t care

where their workplace was located. They would like flags and mural removed, to be

welcoming to immigrants and to have a positive impact on cross-community relations.

Furthermore, they want their children to be educated in a mixed environment, are happy

sharing public spaces and feel that historical events in their area should be forgotten. Bear

in mind that these are aspirations but they are firmly held views.

The only issue above that suggests anything other than a pro-sharing mindset is the view

that events such as the 11th night bonfire and the 12th of July are really only for the

Protestant community. The group are almost evenly split on this issue, however, which

suggests some room for alternative thinking here.

74

(c) Conflicted dimensions of identity (ambivalent aspirations)

Table 5.16 presents those issues on which this group are unclear. There is one issue for

these participants, which is consistently contradictory in terms of their aspirations generally.

They endorse the aspiration to have parades despite the trouble parades can cause. The

structural pressure result would suggest that this is an issue that this group really struggle

with emotionally.

Table 5.16b: Mileville PUL Two: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

08 Trouble at parades OK (N = 7)


cause (N = 5)

-45.81


(N = 11)


(N = 1)

-13.32


(N = 7)

Religion should have a central

role (N = 5)

9.71

01 Lots of community spirit (N

= 12)

No community spirit (N = 0) 17.22


The other two conflicted issues are much less controversial in CSI terms. The group is split

on the centrality of religion and, while all do generally aspire to have community spirit, they

are not too sure about how important this really is.

(d) Evaluation of self and identity diffusion: evaluation of others


Table 5.17 below presents data on the individual’s sense of ‘self’ in different contexts.

Evaluation is an indicator of how they feel they measure up to their stated ideals; ego-

involvement is a measure of their level of engagement with this particular self-context and

Identity Diffusion describes the clarity of their thinking about themselves in this context.

For these participants, ego-involvement with their current situation is moderate at 3.70 while

self-evaluation is low at 0.22. Identity diffusion is also high, this being a measure of the

clarity of thought in the group. The results indicate that they are in a state of some anxiety

and confusion about who they are, their roles, beliefs and commitments. This type of anxiety

is often associated with a period of identity transition - the peace process and the changing

demographic circumstances in Mileville might well be the triggers for such adjustments.

However, it is interesting to note that, although involvement in thinking about the future (“Me

as I’m likely to be in five years time”) is quite high, these community group participants are

more engaged with the past or the present. They are uncertain as to who or what they will

become (identity diffusion of 0.53) but do at least seem to think they will be ‘all right’

(evaluation 0.50 – a moderate estimate).

75

A disconcerting aspect of self at the present time is that the prospect of ‘bumping into

someone that scares them’ is very real. The intensity of their involvement with (thinking

about) such people is moderately high (4.14) and the results indicate that such experiences

leave them with a very poor view of themselves (evaluation 0.02) and raise further

uncertainties about who and what they are (identity diffusion 0.61).

Table 5.17: Mileville PUL Two: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 4.14 0.02 0.61


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL Two’, Self: Tabulation; available on request


Table 5.18 reviews this group’s level of psychological engagement with, and evaluation of,

specific groups in their immediate world. In this case, the group evaluates these others very

negatively. Their lowest ratings are reserved for the paramilitaries of both sides with Loyalist

paramilitaries being evaluated lower than Republican dissidents, if only marginally. Of

particular note is that their evaluation of Sinn Fein is less than that of the DUP (-0.21 versus

-0.27).

76

Table 5.18: Mileville PUL Two: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.72 4.41 3.74 4.69 3.99 4.11

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.42 -0.27 -0.12 -0.39 -0.21 -0.21

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL Two’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group’s psychological involvement (ego-involvement) with all of these entities is high to

very high, particularly so with the paramilitaries of both traditions. This, combined with their

low evaluations, means that this group will definitely experience stress when thinking about

the other groups.

(e) Identification with own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.19 gives us insights into the manner in which this PUL group identify with the other

groups discussed above. Empathetic identification tells us which groups were closest to

their current self-image, good and bad. Idealistic identification tells us which groups are


77

Table 5.19: Mileville PUL Two: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Mileville PUL Two’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


This group’s empathetic identification with both communities and both political parties is

moderately high (above 0.70), and nearly as high with Loyalist paramilitaries (0.68).

Empathetic identification with Republican dissidents is more moderate. Participants believe

that there is not really much difference between the communities, except possibly where the

paramilitaries are concerned, reflecting the ongoing influence exercised by paramilitaries in

the area.

Idealistic identifications with all these groups are again very low. It would seem that this

group do not see much in the way of role models in any of these groups around them. It is

noteworthy that Sinn Fein is more admired than the DUP, although neither is viewed very

positively.

Contra-identification is very high particularly with the paramilitaries. Again it is surprising to

learn that these participants wish to dissociate more from the Loyalist paramilitaries than the

Republican dissidents reflecting the negative daily lived experiences of dealing with Loyalist

paramilitaries as opposed to the more remote threat posed by dissident Republicans.

Summary

The clear finding from the research in Mileville was the persistence of paramilitary

influence. The evidence demonstrates that the participants want to see change in

their community; in particular they want disengagement from paramilitary structures

and greater ownership by the community itself.

With regard to inter-community working with neighbouring CNR areas this is almost

non-existent, largely due to the geographical isolation of the area, bordered as it is by

78

arterial routes and non-residential areas. The community does show some support

for inter-community working as they do not view the CNR community as a direct

threat to it and are therefore open to the sense of a shared society, if not sure of its

actuality.

79

5.3.2 Ashville – Data Analysis

NETWORK 1 PUL – Participants from a local Flute Band


Table 5.20 below presents those preferences that have emerged as core to the Ashville PUL

group. This is a fairly cohesive group with a similar outlook on many of these issues, as

evidenced by the high levels of consensus.

Table 5.20: Ashville PUL: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)


community relations

(N = 10)


community relations

(N = 0)

76.19


(N = 10)

Don’t let the other tradition

into their area(N = 0)

74.58


(N = 10)


(N = 0)

73.43

15 Living peacefully by knowing and

respecting each other

(N = 9)


each other

(N = 1)

71.97

14 Kids go to school where they will

mix (N = 10)


own kind (N = 0)

68.56


workplace was located (N = 10)

Would only work with my

own side or mixed (N = 0)

67.80

08 People over-react on issues of

religion and politics (N = 6)

People are justified in taking

an aggressive stance when

standing up for traditions

(N = 4)

66.21

18 PULs gaining advantage

(N = 10)

CNRs gaining advantage

(N = 0)

61.87



Peace process has

increased sectarianism (N =

0)

55.90

19 People from my area feel

welcomed (N = 9)

People from my area are

bring forced out (N = 1)

53.97


(N = 9)


(N = 1)

50.74

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

80

Their highest core values show that they prefer to have a positive impact on community

relations, accept people of the other tradition, are happy sharing public spaces and want to

live peacefully by knowing and respecting each other (see Table 5.20). They show many

other core values that are generally positive from a cross-community perspective e.g.

preferring their children to go to school where they will mix, don’t care where their workplace

is located, think that people overreact in politics and religion. Given the level of local tension

and the ongoing trouble surrounding parades these findings are at first glance surprising.

They can be explained perhaps by the need for the minority PUL grouping in Ashville to seek

accommodation from what they perceive to be a more dominant majority population; this is

supported by ethnographic information which suggests a ‘war weariness’ and vague hope for

some resolution.

Despite this, all of the group have supported a wish for the PUL population to be gaining

advantage over the CNR population and, with this level of structural pressure, they are sure

on this issue. This reflects the view expressed in the ethnographic interviews that, as a

minority grouping in the town, they feel isolated and disempowered. The group also have

‘feel welcomed’ as a core value, again perhaps a reaction based on a feeling expressed

verbally in this section of this community that they mainly travelled outside the village for

work and leisure and did not feel secure or welcome in their own town.


Table 5.21 below presents the most conflicted or stressed perspectives for this group.

These concern their preference not to forget history, to have flags and murals reflect their

tradition, to believe that religion should have a central role and to endorse that trouble at

parades is OK.

Table 5.21: Ashville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

12 Never forget history

(N = 9)

History should be forgotten

(N = 1)

-54.23

10 Flags and murals that reflect


All flags etc should be

removed (N = 2)

-47.69

03 Religion should have central

role (N = 6)

Religion is a personal matter

(N = 4)

-38.11

09 Trouble at parades OK

(N = 10)


cause (N = 0)

-33.54

04 Local parade is important

(N = 10)

Local parade is not important

(N = 0)

-23.86

02 Police better than

paramilitaries

(N = 10)


police (N = 0)

0.01

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

81

This group of participants have a genuine sense of ambiguity about the relative virtues of

police and paramilitaries. Again, somewhat surprisingly, they are not entirely sure about the

importance of local parades either. That attitude is highly contradictory but may be explained

by a local context in which they are expected to defend the right to march on behalf of a

broader social movement, namely Orangeism, but it is they who must negotiate daily the

results of that defence.

(c) Secondary dimensions of identity (neither core nor conflicted aspirations)

This group have only two secondary aspirations which, while of increasing importance to the

sense of identity of the group, are not at the heart of that identity. These are presented

below in Table 5.22.

Table 5.22: Ashville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#

‘Preferred’ pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)


06 Immigrants welcome (N = 9) Immigrant kept out (N = 1) 32.87

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL 10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

For this group, there is lack of clarity around whether or not there is actually much

community spirit in their area (they do aspire to have this) and also whether or not to be

welcoming to immigrants.





Ego-involvement is a measure of their level of engagement with this particular self-context


The consequences of the identity processes characterised above (particularly the level of

conflicted thinking) are high levels of ego-involvement with one’s situation, low verging on

very low evaluation of self and high identity diffusion.

82

Table 5.23: Ashville PUL: Evaluation of self; past, present and future(1)

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00




Me when I am with those closest to me 04 3.98 -0.01 0.64


scares me

05 4.56 -0.18 0.66


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL’, Self: Tabulation; available on request

This group’s sense of identity is highly troubled. Their appraisals of their social world, and of

their positions in it, are largely at odds with their aspirations, and some of these aspirations

are themselves highly conflicted. There are subtle differences between evaluation of current

self, past self and future self. However these are minimal; lack of positive change over time

is what is apparent here and low expectations for the future. It is very unusual to have a

cohesive group of individuals with such a negative view of their situation but this is again

reflective of the particular context of the group. They are the local representatives of a

powerful cultural group who find themselves disempowered at a local level and for whom

seeking an accommodation would be considered a betrayal.


Table 5.24 gives us further insights into this group’s appraisal of their world. Unsurprisingly,

given the sectarian tensions in Ashville, these participants from the PUL community are very

highly ego-involved with both their own community and the local CNR community. It might

have been expected that these PUL participants would provide a very low appraisal of the

other community, but what is unexpected and more interesting is that their evaluation of their

own tradition is also very low, reflecting a conflicted identity for the reasons outlined above.

83

Table 5.24: Ashville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.73 4.62 4.27 4.43 4.21 4.13

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.40 -0.24 -0.19 -0.38 -0.26 -0.30

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The impact of Loyalist Paramilitaries and the DUP on the participant’s group identity is even

greater. The intensity of involvement with Republican Dissidents and Sinn Fein is again

almost as great. The group’s lowest evaluations of all are reserved for the paramilitary

element in both communities which is a significant insight in the context of cross-community

representation.






84

Table 5.25: Ashville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville PUL’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


These participants from the Ashville loyalist community identify very strongly (empathetic

identification) with Loyalist paramilitaries, the DUP and with their own tradition, and they are

highly ego-involved with them. This demonstrates a significant sense of solidarity with what

they see as their own community. Interestingly this PUL group also empathetically identify at

a moderate to high level with Republican paramilitaries, Sinn Fein and those from a CNR

community background, acknowledging, it would seem, that, in reality, they have much in

common with these groups. It also suggests that as a minority living in a majority context the

Ashville PUL group are faced with negotiating their way through the majority culture and

dynamics, geographically and culturally. This evidences a more sophisticated understanding

of that community than other members of their own community who live on a majority

context elsewhere. This fundamental dynamic explains their own sense of conflicted identity

and their desire for some kind of resolution.

However despite the sense of solidarity with their own community this group’s aspirations

are not being met through paramilitaries, the DUP or their own tradition. Idealistic

identification (again see Table 5.25) with these entities, and their equivalents in the other

community, is very low and contra identification is very high. This leads to a very high level

of conflicted identification with their own tradition, their politics and paramilitary structures.

The Ashville PUL group identify strongly with these other groups but their evaluation of them

is poor - this is entirely consistent with their own low self-evaluation.

85

NETWORK 2 CNR – Participants from the Ashville Women’s Group


Table 5.26 presents the core values of the Ashville Women’s Group. Strongest of these are

the two perspectives surrounding the local parade and this CNR group feel strongly that the

local parade is not important to the identity of the community and is not worth the trouble it

causes.

Table 5.26: Ashville CNR: core dimensions of identity (core values and beliefs:

‘preferred poles’ of constructs (1))

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

09 Not worth the trouble they cause

(N = 10)

Trouble at parades OK

(N = 0)

82.71

04 Local parade not important

(N = 10)

Local parade important

(N = 0)

82.65


(N = 10)

Areas I just wouldn’t go

(N = 0)

80.42


sectarianism

(N = 10)

Peace process has

increased sectarianism

(N = 0)

71.26


(N=10)

Paramilitaries are better than

police (N = 0)

68.27

01 Lots of community spirit

(N = 10)

No community spirit

(N = 0)

65.31

06 Immigrants welcome (N = 10) Immigrants keep out (N = 0) 62.98

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

These very determined perspectives are underpinned by a range of positive cross-

community orientated views, including an aspiration to be able to go anywhere in and around

the village (which is in fact their reality). This is noteworthy because it expresses a dislike for

the invisible barriers that exist in the village. Agreement is also found for the views that the

peace process has reduced sectarianism, that police are better than paramilitaries, that

there is lots of community spirit, and that immigrants and people of their own tradition feel

welcome in the area. The sense here is of a group of people that, without the parading

issue, would be focused on building a positive local community but who do feel strongly

about the parading issue and who will find it difficult to accommodate this culture.

86


Table 5.27 presents the most conflicted or stressed perspectives for this group.

Table 5.27: Ashville CNR: conflicted dimensions of identity

11 Accept the other tradition into

the area

(N = 10)


the area

(N = 0)

43.58


community relations

(N = 9)

Negative impact on cross-

community relations

(N = 1)

42.59

15 Living peacefully by knowing


(N = 9)


each other

(N = 1)

37.11


(N = 9)


(N = 1)

32.00

08 People over-react on issues

of religion and politics (N =

10)




(N = 0)

27.51

10 All flags should be removed

(N = 7)



17.63


(N = 7)

Never forget history

(N = 3)

17.02


will mix (N = 7)


own kind (N = 3)

7.80

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

The table reveals a genuine sense of ambiguity about the relative virtues of flying flags,

forgetting history and mixed schooling. There is strong feeling associated with these matters

and, although only 7 out of 10 participants supported these perspectives, there was a clear

preference for the removal of all flags, the forgetting history and letting kids go to school

where they will mix. This is significant given that the only flag that can be seen flying at times

outside ‘the marching season’ is a large tri-colour in the centre of the village.

For this group, there is lack of clarity around whether or not people over-react on issues of

religion or politics. They would like to believe that people over-react unnecessarily on such

issues and to not feel justification for a more aggressive stance when standing up for their

traditions but they are not sure. They are also conflicted, although less so, about the need

to be able to share public spaces, to live peacefully by knowing and respecting each other,

to have a positive impact of cross-community relations and to accept the other tradition into

the area.

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

87


Table 5.28 below presents a list of aspirations which are in order of increasing importance to

the sense of identity of the group, though none of them are at the very heart of that identity.

The threshold between conflicted ideas and these secondary ideas is calculated as sp 45.48

for this group.

Table 5.28: Ashville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

18 CNRs gaining advantage

(N = 10)

PULs gaining advantage

(N = 0)

47.26


workplace was located (N =

10)



47.54

19 People from my tradition feel

welcomed (N = 10)

People from my tradition are

being forced out (N = 0)

53.98

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

Against many positive cross-community aspirations outlined above, this group hold to a

stronger preference that the CNR community should be gaining advantage over the PUL

community and this aspiration does seem to run contrary to other beliefs. This may be a

reaction to the high levels of tension between the communities in the area and the feeling

among this group that the key issue is the parade. Overall, however it suggests that if

resolution could be found on this issue there is significant potential for the development of a

more shared and indeed peaceful village.

Finally, the group share the aspiration with their PUL neighbours that they would work

anywhere and that the area they live in is welcoming to them.







As the table indicates, these participants are much more positive about themselves in the

current time than they were at the height of the Troubles (self-evaluations of 0.67 versus

0.15). Furthermore, they expect to be living even more in line with their aspirations in five

year’s time (self-evaluation of 0.84). As with most participants in this study, self-evaluation

reduces a little when meeting someone from a group that they find intimidating but this is not

88

a large decrease and we can conclude from this that the group’s identity is strong enough

not to be overly affected by those they find intimidating. This would indicate that this group

are more than capable of engaging with those that they might find intimidating without

weakening their position. Ego-involvement with all three aspects of self is high but not very

high. Identity diffusion is reducing gradually over time as this group become more and more

sure in their value system reflecting the overall dynamic within the peace process of a feeling

of nationalist gain as set against a perception by the PUL community of unionist loss.

Table 5.29: Ashville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future(1)

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 4.12 0.53 0.45

Me at the height of the troubles 18 3.93 0.15 0.52

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR’, Self: Tabulation; available on request


As table 5.30 indicates, these CNR participants are very engaged with both their own

community and the other community they share the village with. This is unsurprising given

the sectarian tensions in Ashville. This group are clearly bothered about the other community

and, in particular, the paramilitaries and political party that they would associate with this

other community. They have a very low opinion of the PUL community in general but

particularly of the DUP and loyalist paramilitaries.

89

Table 5.30: Ashville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Other tradition Own tradition

Ego-involvement

Range 0.00 to

5.00

4.70 4.57 3.93 4.54 4.16 3.75

Evaluation

Range -1.00 to

+1.00

-0.53 -0.34 -0.24 -0.14 0.26 0.41

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group’s evaluation of their own tradition in the area was moderate (0.41) and they also

give a moderate evaluation of Sinn Fein (0.26). They give a low evaluation of Republican

dissidents (-0.14) but this is not as negative as their evaluation of the other community in

general (-0.24)..

(e) Identifications with own tradition and other tradition

Empathetic identification tells us which groups were seen as closest to their current self-

image, good and bad. Idealistic identification tells us which groups are seen as closest to

their own aspirations – their role models. As Table 5.31 indicates, the participants from the

Ashville CNR group identify very strongly with their own tradition.

90

Table 5.31: Ashville CNR: Current Self 1; Identification: with own tradition and other

tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ashville CNR’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


The group also see themselves as ‘close to’ Sinn Fein. They also identify quite strongly, but

to a lesser extent, with Republican Dissidents which suggests an understanding of this group

though not support. When they appraise the other community on this basis ‘empathetic

identification’ is rather low; the local PUL community are seen as being really quite different

types of people.

When the Ashville CNR group consider the other tradition they empathetically identify with

them at quite a low level but contra identification with them is very high. Where Republican

Dissidents are concerned empathetic identification is moderate (0.59) and contra

identification very high (0.59). Loyalist paramilitaries are seen as much worse. Empathetic

identification with them is very low (0.42) and contra identification is exceedingly high (0.76).

There is no indication here that members of this influential network of women think they have

much in common with the other tradition. Some of their thoughts and feelings about the

characteristics of others like them are sources of disquiet and are likely be related to the

local issues.

The group’s aspirations for their own tradition are being met (0.68) through Sinn Fein rather

than through the paramilitaries (idealistic identification 0.62 cf. 0.41). There remain some

aspects of their own tradition and Sinn Fein that they are not entirely happy with hence the

moderate levels of contra identification with them (0.32 and 0.38) but overall it is reflective of

support for Sinn Fein and the results of the peace process.

91

Summary

The Ashville PUL group feel it is important to continue with local parade but at the

same time are clearly conflicted about it. The levels of conflict and their relative

isolation as a minority in the town combine to create pressures which make daily life

difficult. There is also a sense that they feel under pressure to continue with the

parade. These internal conflicts and lived experience suggest potential for resolution

to the problem.

The Ashville CNR group demonstrate a quite cohesive and unified outlook, whilst

holding negative views of the PUL community generally and the parading issue in

particular. The group were however open to the development of shared spaces and a

shared society if that meant an end to parading.

The evidence demonstrates there is potential for a resolution to the local issues,

despite past attempts which have failed. Ethnographic work suggests both sides are

willing to engage if provided with the right environment to do so. The ethnographic

research (focus groups) also suggested a lack of will in local government to deal with

the parading issue which, when combined with a deep distrust of the parades

commission, suggests a dearth of capacity in facilitation and conflict resolution.

92

5.3.3 Townville – Data Analysis

NETWORK 1 CNR - participants from GAA Youth Club


As indicated in Table 5.32, the key beliefs and aspirations of this group demonstrate a pride

in Irish heritage namely sports, language and art and a high degree of openness to others

(happy sharing public spaces with those of the other community and accepting the other

community and immigrants into their area). Alongside these, another core belief is that

parades are not worth the trouble they cause.

Table 5.32: Townville CNR: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

20 Irish sports language and


(N = 9)

Irish sports language and


Catholic community (N = 1)

69.55

13 Happy sharing public

spaces (N = 9)


(N = 1)

66.13


(N = 10)

Immigrants kept out (N = 0) 63.69

11 Accept the other tradition

(N = 10)


into their area (N = 0)

62.37

09 Not worth the trouble they

cause (N = 9)

Trouble at parades is OK

(N = 1)

54.65

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville CNR’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

(b) Conflicted dimensions of identity

Table 5.33 presents a few arenas of stress around this group’s sense of identity.

The group’s most conflicted dimension of identity is whether religion should have a central

role in the community or whether it is a personal matter (sp = -13.50). Six of the ten

participants would prefer it to be a personal matter but the nature of the result suggests that

there is some conflict in these participants regarding their own religious beliefs.

93

Table 5.33: Townville CNR: conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)


(N = 6)


role (N = 4)

-13.50

12 Never forget history (N = 7) History should be forgotten

(N = 3)

-7.09

10 Flags and murals that reflect


All flags etc should be

removed (N = 4)

-7.89


(N = 7)


(N = 3)

2.36


(N = 9)


(N = 1)

21.90


(N=7)


police (N = 3)

26.17

04 Local parade not important

(N = 6)

Local parade important

(N = 4)

23.95


will mix (N = 7)


own kind (N = 3)

28.77


The remaining three dimensions of identity that are conflicted are directly relevant to the

cross-community challenges in Townville. The group are very unsure about how they should

think with regards to history and the visual representation of their community traditions.

Whilst there is a preference to hold on to history and to have public displays that reflect this

group’s traditions these notions are so conflicted that this group may well be willing to

change their views on these issues depending on the context and the potential benefits of

accepting alternative views. While the group would definitely prefer to be able to go

anywhere in Townville, there is a tacit acceptance here of the reality that some areas are

out-of-bounds to this group at the moment. This supports the ethnographic research that

strongly points to a pragmatic acceptance that Townville is seen by both communities as a

town of two halves.

(c) Secondary dimensions of identity (neither core nor conflicted)

Table 5.34 below presents other group aspirations which are held with decreasing certainty.

There are a further range of perspectives here that could suggest openness to community

relations engagement.

94

Table 5.34: Townville CNR: secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)



Peace process has

increased terrorism (N = 1)

51.47

15 Live peacefully by knowing


(N = 9)

Live peacefully by ignoring

each other (N = 1)

50.15

19 People from my tradition feel

welcomed (N = 9)

People from my tradition

are being forced out (N = 1)

47.34

08 People over-react on issues

of religion and politics (N =

10)




(N = 0)

43.79


(N = 8)

No community spirit

(N = 2)

43.45


workplace was located

(N = 9)



36.18


This group believe fairly strongly that people should live peacefully by knowing and

respecting each other and they want to feel that the peace process has reduced

sectarianism. They do feel that people over-react on issues of politics and religion. They

feel it important that there is plenty of community spirit in the area and would wish the area

to be welcoming to people of their tradition (although the underlying data suggests that they

are not to sure about whether it is at the current time). Finally, they have an aspiration to not

be concerned about where they worked, although this is coming closer to being a conflicted

issue for them.







As outlined in the Table below, the Townville CNR participants are very aware (moderately

high ego-involvement 4.12) of their potential for personal development in the medium term.

Their evaluation of self ‘today’ is moderate, 0.54 and in 5 years high, 0.73. This fits with their

high aspirations (involvement with ideal self: 4.16, evaluation of ideal self: 0.94). They have

a coherent sense of identity that is fairly stable across all aspects of ‘self’ addressed here

(range of identity diffusion 0.37 to 0.45).

95

Table 5.35: Townville CNR: evaluation of self; past, present and future(1)

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.68 -0.07 0.45


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville CNR’, Self: Tabulation; available on request

There is some indication that this group’s identity is affected when they come across

someone that intimidates them – in this context their self evaluation dips down to -0.07. The

associated ego-involvement result of 3.68 indicates that this scenario does not, however,

weigh heavily on their minds and it may be that they are simply able to avoid such scenarios

in their daily lives. This reflects the nature of every day lived lives in Townville in which a

major interface is present.


As indicated in Table 5.36, the group’s evaluation of their own community and of Sinn Fein is

moderate (0.33:0.39) and the group are not overly connected to either (ego-involvement

moderate 3.26: 3.32).

96

Table 5.36: Townville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.02 3.32 3.26 3.91 3.84 3.48

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.23 0.39 0.33 -0.35 -0.20 -0.17

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville CNR’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group appear to show greater concern with the nearby PUL community and the DUP

(ego-involvement of 3.48 and 3.84 respectively), perhaps because of the rather low opinion

held of both (negative evaluations of -0.17, -0.20).

The lowest evaluations are given to the paramilitaries on both sides, with Townville CNR

participants being clearly concerned about these paramilitary groups (ego-involvement levels

of 4.02 with Republican Dissidents and 3.91 with Loyalist Paramilitaries). The activities of

Republican Dissidents in and around the Townville and Craigavon areas has clearly

impacted upon them and, more than other groups in this research, the Townville CNR

participants are clearly disassociating themselves from dissident support of any kind.

97

Identification with own tradition and other tradition

As indicated in Table 5.37 below, Sinn Fein is seen as a moderately strong political ‘role

model’ fitting in to a notable extent with the aspirations of this CNR group (idealistic

identification with Sinn Fein is 0.64, while the mean idealistic identification is 0.51). The

group also see their own local community as similarly exemplar, which contrasts greatly with

their low idealistic identification with the PUL community nearby.

Table 5.37: Townville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

S

inn

Fein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville CNR ’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


Clearly Sinn Fein is the main political role model for the Townville CNR group and the group

believe that they and their local community share a great number of beliefs and perspectives

together. The participant’s empathetic identification with both Sinn Fein and their local

community is moderately high (0.73) and higher than their Idealistic identification,

demonstrating that some of their shared characteristics are not seen as positive.

Republican Dissidents too are seen to reflect some of the good and bad characteristics of

the group members, based on a moderate level of empathetic identification of 0.44 (with a

mean at 0.52 and low beginning at 0.29). The group appear to share as many

characteristics with Republican Dissidents as they do with the nearby PUL community and

the DUP, although which characteristics are shared may well be very different. Contra-

identification with Republican Dissidents is very high at 0.60, which indicates that the group

see many more negative characteristics in this movement than positive.

Overall the PUL community are seen as demonstrating very few of the CNR groups

aspirations. Contra identification with the PUL tradition is high at 0.56, meaning that there

are many attributes of the PUL community nearby that this group would actively disassociate

from. Unsurprisingly, Contra Identification with Loyalist Paramilitaries is even higher at 0.63

and this is accompanied by low Idealistic identification of 0.29.

98

NETWORK 2 PUL - Participants from Townville PUL


As with the youth group in Mileville, none of the views of this group can be described as

‘core’ in the technical sense of having a level of support above a specific threshold. This is a

result of this group’s high levels of conflicted thinking across most of the issues covered in

this study. There are very few issues on which this group as a whole are sure.


Table 5.38 lists those issues on which the group are increasingly less sure. Reviewing the

top three most conflicted issues, the participants here are almost evenly divided in their

preferences for the two alternative perspectives given. Feeling and thinking about the

effects of the peace process, shared spaces and immigrants generated both positive and

negative appraisals with a slight edge going to the more isolationist thinkers. It must be

stressed, however, that the group are not at all sure on these issues and uncertainty often

leads to change one way or another.

Table 5.38: Townville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

14 Feels that the peace process has

increased sectarianism (N = 6)

Feels that the peace process

has reduced sectarianism

(N = 4)

-21.54

18 Think that separate local

facilities are needed (N = 5)

Would be happy enough

sharing local facilities (N = 5)

-19.51

05 Immigrants should be kept out

of our area (N = 5)

Immigrants should be

welcomed into our area (N = 5)

-6.39

02 Police are more effective than

paramilitaries at keeping people

in order (N = 6)


police at keeping people in

order (N = 4)

2.46

08 A bit of trouble at parades is OK

if it means that people can

express their traditions (N = 7)

No parade is worth the trouble

caused (N = 3)

4.85

11 Would forget past events and

look to the future (N = 7)

Would never forget about past

events in my area (N = 3)

6.59

Table continues overleaf

99

Table 5.38: Townville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity (cont’d)

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

07 Would believe people are

justified in taking an aggressive

stance when standing up for

traditional beliefs (N = 5)

Would believe people from

both sides overreact when

dealing with politics and

religion (N = 5)

7.04

15 Feels that Catholics are gaining

advantage (N = 5)

Feels Protestants are gaining

advantage (N = 5)

7.95

19 Believes people from my

tradition are being forced out of

this area (N = 6)

Believes people from my

tradition feel welcome in this

area (N = 4)

10.64

10 Would accept people from the

other tradition living in my area

(N = 8)

Would not let the other

tradition live in my area

(N = 2)

10.79

12 Would believe our kids should

go to schools where they will be

with their own kind and be

taught our view of the world

(N = 8)

Would believe our kids should

go to mixed schools and be

taught a wide view of the world

(N = 2)

11.75

04 Believe I can go anywhere in and

around the city

(N = 8)

Would believe there are plenty

of areas I just wouldn’t go near

(N = 2)

13.55

09 Would like to see

emblems/flags/murals that

reflect my traditions

(N = 6)

Would think all

flags/emblems/murals cause

trouble and should be removed

(N = 4)

14.35

21 Irish sports, language and arts


community (N = 8)




(N = 2)

18.31

20 Live peacefully by knowing and


(N = 7)


each other (N = 3)

18.31



Would only work somewhere I

know is my side (N = 3)

19.48

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville PUL 10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

As we go down the list the group’s uncertainty on the issues reduces but does not go away.

On balance they think they would prefer the police to be more effective than paramilitaries

but they are not sure. Likewise, they think a bit of trouble at parades is OK but they could,

given the right circumstances, come to think otherwise. The group are evenly split on the

justification of aggression when defending traditional beliefs and are also unsure as to

100

whether or not to forget the past. They have some sense that people from their tradition are

being forced out and that the CNR population is gaining advantage but this is balanced with

a majority (8/2) view that they should accept people from the other tradition living in their

area.

Their thinking is firmer but still conflicted on issues of mixed education (they are not for this),

mobility (they want to be able to go anywhere), flags and emblems (slight majority for

displays linked to their community) and Irish culture (they feel that this is best left to the CNR

community). Finally, they are of the view that people should live peacefully by knowing and

respecting each other and that they should not be concerned where their workplace was

located.


Table 5.39 presents the most firmly held perspectives on this youth group presented in order

of decreasing certainty. They are surest on the issue of the local parade being central to

their identity but they also aspire to have a positive impact of cross-community relations.

Table 5.39: Townville PUL: most significant secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

16 Local parade important part of

identity of this community

(N = 8)

Local parade not important to

the identity of this community

(N = 2)

37.41

13 Has a positive impact on cross


Has a negative impact on cross


30.97

01 Plenty of Community spirit in

our area (N = 8)

No community spirit in our area

(N = 2)

25.20

03 Religion should play a central

role in our community (N = 9)


and shouldn’t play a central

role (N = 1)

23.81

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville PUL 10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

This group would also wish there to be plenty of community spirit in the area (they are not

sure there is at the moment) and that religion should be at the centre of their community.

This is at odds with the local CNR group who were much more conflicted on the issue of

religion.





101



Evaluation of ‘self at home with those closest to them’ is a moderate to high 0.48 (with low

threshold at 0.21 and high at 0.63). The group presents with a moderate level of identity

diffusion and so (with moderate evaluation) a reasonably well balanced sense of self

(identity diffusion 0.46, with the low threshold at 0.37 and the high at 0.54). Coming into

contact with someone from a group that intimidates them affects their opinion of themselves

quite badly (evaluation reduces to 0.18) but the reduced level of ego-involvement with this

scenario suggests that it is not one that overly shapes the group’s thinking, again most likely

explained by the extent of segregation and separation in the town.

For this group ego-involvement with these aspects of self is at the high end of moderate,

ranging from 4.11 to 4.38 (ego-involvement mean for the group is 3.90) which indicates that

this group have been particularly responsive where responses have related to them

personally.

Table 5.40: Townville PUL: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.76 0.18 0.47


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville PUL 10’, Self: Tabulation; available on request

For these participants there is no more intense involvement with the future than with the

present and no expectations of a better, more rounded, self in the future. It suggests that

these participants are content with what they have and expect little change, for good or bad.

102

Perceptions of own tradition and other tradition

Table 5.41 outlines the Townville PUL group’s perspectives on key groups around them.

Firstly, we find that these participants are not particularly proud of their own community.

Their evaluation of it is at the low end of moderate and this includes paramilitaries, politicians

and the general PUL community itself (respectively evaluations of 0.20, 0.28, and 0.24 with

the low threshold at 0.21). The group are particularly concerned with Loyalist paramilitaries

(ego-involvement 4.42) and this, combined with the low evaluation they give to these

paramilitaries, would suggest minimal support. They are ego-involved to a more moderate

extent with their tradition in their area (4.27) and notably more relaxed about the DUP (ego-

involvement 3.66).

Table 5.41: Townville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.42 3.66 4.27 4.28 4.13 3.53

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation 0.20 0.28 0.24 -0.14 -0.13 -0.11

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Townville PUL 10’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group are less ego-involved with the nearby CNR community than with their own (3.53:

4.27) but are clearly more concerned with Sinn Fein and Republican Dissidents. They do

not distinguish much between the CNR community, Sinn Fein and paramilitaries giving them

all low evaluations of -0.14, -0.13, -0.11 respectively. This again highlights the strength of

stereotypical thinking in the town when considering the other community.


Table 5.42 below gives us further insights into the manner in which this PUL group identify

with those around them.

103

Table 5.42: Townville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report’ Townville PUL 10’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


The beliefs the Townville PUL group attribute to themselves are also seen quite clearly in

their own community, good and bad, (a moderately high empathetic identification of 0.72).

The group have slightly lower empathetic identification of 0.69 with Loyalist paramilitaries but

this is still at a level to suggest that they feel a lot in common with this group and similarly

with the DUP (empathetic identification of 0.68).

The characteristics they attribute to the CNR community and to Sinn Fein are noticeably

different from those of their own tradition (empathetic identifications of 0.52 and 0.51) but

even these levels recognise some similarities. Their lowest empathetic identification is with

Dissident Republicans at 0.44.

The Townville PUL group’s view of their own tradition falls some way short of offering the

qualities they would ideally like it to possess (idealistic identification with same tradition 0.63,

Loyalist Paramilitaries 0.57 and the DUP 0.61: mean 0.55 and threshold to high levels at

0.75). The other tradition offers some but fewer of those ideal qualities (Republican

Dissidents, 0.41, Sinn Fein, 0.43 and other tradition 0.46: mean 0.55 and threshold to low at

0.36).

The extent to which this group want to dissociate from their own tradition because of

characteristics they specifically dislike is moderate, around the level of the mean for contra

identification (Loyalist Paramilitaries, 0.42; DUP, 0.34 and own tradition 0.36: mean 0.39,

threshold to low at 0.21 and to high at 0.57). Contra identification with the other community

is much closer to the high threshold of 0.57 (Republican dissidents, 0.52; Sinn Fein, 0.52

and the other tradition 0.48).

104

Summary

The evidence demonstrates that there are high levels of segregation and separation in

Townville. Whilst there were vague aspirations to be in shared place and have a more

open and inclusive community this was not a strong desire. There was also a sense

that there was no need to share. It was interesting to note a strong dissociation in the

CNR group with dissidents which is supported by the ethnographic research which

suggests that support for dissidents is peripheral to the broad CNR community. The

CNR group were very cohesive around Irish cultural issues, unsurprisingly given their

membership of the local GAA.

The PUL group were highly conflicted on a wide range of issues that suggest an

insecure identity.

105

5.3.4 Rowville – Data Analysis

NETWORK 1 PUL – Participants from Rowville PUL

(a) Core dimensions of identity

Table 5.43 presents the only aspiration of the Rowville PUL group that is classified as ‘core’.

They would like to see people from different traditions living peacefully in the same place. In

the case of this group there are a number of additional aspirations which, while not classified

as core, are held with a fair degree of certainty and these are presented in section (c).

Table 5.43: Rowville PUL: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

15 Think that for people from

different traditions to live

peaceably in the same place they

have to get to know and respect

each other (N = 9)

Think that people from

different traditions can live

peacefully in the same place

simply by ignoring each other

(N = 1)

54.26

Source: Ipseus Report ’Rowville PUL1’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

(b) Conflicted (ambivalent) dimensions of identity

Table 5.44 below presents those issues on which this group are unsure. Many ‘preferred’

perspectives are preferred by narrow margins (as indicated by the N = number) as well as

being conflicted. As a corollary to the perspectives above the group also believe, albeit with

much less certainty, that local parades are important and peace walls keep the peace. They

do, on balance, believe that parades are not worth the trouble they cause but there is 50/50

consensus on this. This split reflects a dynamic in which community activists can change

their views whilst holding on to core beliefs that are reflective of the wider community in

which they live.

106

Table 5.44: Rowville PUL: conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

05 Would believe there are plenty of

areas I just wouldn’t go near (N =

6)

Would believe I can go

anywhere in and around the city

(N = 4)

-8.93

02 Would know that the police are

better than paramilitaries at

keeping people in order (N =6)

Would know that paramilitaries

are better than police at keeping

people in order (N = 4)

0.40

18 Feel that Catholics are gaining

advantage (N = 5)

Feels that Protestants are

gaining advantage (N = 5)

3.81

10 Would like to see

emblems/flags/murals that

reflect my traditions (N = 6)

Would think all

emblems/flags/murals cause

trouble and should be removed

(N = 4)

7.42

03 Would believe religion is a

personal matter and should play

no role in our community (N = 6)

Would believe religion should

play a central role in our

community (N = 4)

9.77


(N = 9)

No community spirit (N = 1) 13.53

09 Parades not worth the trouble

they cause (N = 5)


(N = 5)

13.81

19 Walls keep the peace (N = 7) Walls don’t keep the peace

(N = 3)

22.88

06 Immigrants welcomed (N = 7) Immigrants kept out (N = 3) 29.25


(N = 9)


(N = 1)

30.47

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville PUL 10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

Taking this group as a whole, it is not sure about the value of open access to all parts of the

city or about police or paramilitaries keeping people in order. The group is completely split

on which tradition should be gaining the advantage, is not sure whether or not it wants to see

its flags and emblems in the local area or what role religion should play in community life.

This suggests a degree of uncertainty and is reflective of the high levels of anti-sectarian

work engaged in by this group in which fixed ethno-nationalist and sectarian attitudes have

been challenged and transformed. It should be noted that one or two of the network

members were new to the group and had not engaged in anti-sectarian initiatives to the

same extent as the others. This could further explain the conflicted nature of their views.

107

(c) Secondary dimensions of identity

Table 5.45 lists aspirations that are held with decreasing levels of certainty.

That they want to have a positive impact from community relations and would be happy

sharing local facilities are close to being core beliefs. Mixed schooling for children is also a

firm belief and there is group consensus that they would work in a mixed environment. The

group also believe they would be happy to enjoy Irish sports, language and arts, to accept

the other tradition and to welcome immigrants. Additionally, they want to forget history and

acknowledge that people overreact in politics and religion. All of these perspectives again

reflect the levels of cross community engagement by this group.

Table 5.45: Rowville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

16 Has a positive impact on cross

community relations

(N = 10)

Has a negative impact on

cross community relations

(N = 0)

49.81

13 Would be happy enough

sharing local facilities

(N = 9)

Would think that separate

local facilities are needed

(N = 1)

48.92


will mix (N = 8)


own kind (N = 2)

41.47


workplace was located

(N = 8)


mixed (N = 2)

41.05




(N = 9)



Catholic community (N = 1)

39.49


(N = 8)


into their area (N = 2)

39.02



Peace process has

increased sectarianism

(N = 3)

34.62


(N =7)



religion (N = 9)

Justified in being

aggressive (N = 1)

32.83

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville PUL 10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

108







These participants are very involved in thinking about the future. They know where they

would like to be in five years time and where they would hate to be, that is back in a world

like the Troubles but worse.

Table 5.46 presents the evidence for this. Their intensity of involvement with the future is

high at 4.62 and this group believe that their situation will be much improved then (Self-

Evaluation of 0.72). Conversely, while they are also fairly engaged with the past (ego-

involvement of 4.42), their Self-evaluation is low at 0.08.

Table 5.46: Rowville PUL: evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.87 0.14 0.45


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville PUL’, Self: Tabulation; available on request.

In terms of the current time (me, when I am with those closest to me), this group show a

moderate Self-evaluation of 0.49 and an ego-involvement of 4.06, also moderate. The group

appear to be driven forward by a past they do not wish to return to and today look forward

with some anticipation to a much better future in the medium term.

109

The group as a whole have a moderate psychologically healthy sense of identity (the mean

identity diffusion for the group is 0.43). This shows acceptance of and a capacity to cope

with the usual identity differences and conflicts that we all experience with others. It may

reflect a maturity earned through significant cross community engagement and intensive

anti-sectarian work.


Table 5.47 reviews this group’s level of psychological engagement with and evaluation of

their immediate world. The group’s evaluation of their own community as a whole is relatively

good at 0.30 (mean 0.26). The DUP retains a positive rating though it is on the low side

(0.14) and their evaluation of Loyalist paramilitaries is close to low (0.04, threshold to low at -

0.18). The group’s intensity of involvement with Loyalist paramilitaries is close to high at

4.37 (mean 3.89, high threshold at 4.88), with more moderate levels of ego-involvement with

the DUP and their own community.

Table 5.47: Rowville PUL: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.37 3.62 3.89 3.78 3.55 3.75

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation 0.04 0.14 0.30 -0.18 0.01 0.07

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville PUL 10’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group’s evaluations of the three elements connected with the other community is

notably lower than with their own tradition and touches on very low where Republican

Dissidents are concerned (evaluation -0.18). This is not associated with an intense

involvement with, or sensitivity about, the other community even where Republican

Dissidents are concerned. Indeed levels are much the same as with their own community

(ego-involvement 3.55 to 3.78, mean at 3.89).


As Table 5.48 indicates, the group appears to share quite a few characteristics, good and

bad, with its own tradition and with the other tradition. Empathetic identification with own

community is approaching a high level (0.66: high 0.75) and with the other tradition is

110

moderate (0.55). The other community has qualities that the group admires as indicated by

a near average idealistic identification of 0.53 (mean 0.56) and its own community has an

additional few admirable qualities as indicated by a moderate to high idealistic identification

(0.61). The group do not, however, see their own community as a perfect role model.

Table 5.48: Rowville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville PUL 10’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;

available on request.

Unsurprisingly the Rowville PUL group are very keen to dissociate from what they feel

Republican Dissidents represent. Contra identification with the dissidents is high at 0.61 (the

high threshold is at 0.58). Dissociation from Loyalist paramilitaries and Sinn Fein is

moderately high (contra identifications of 0.50 and 0.52 respectively). Identifications with the

DUP are moderate.

The extent to which the group see similarities and indeed some positive qualities in the other

community, whilst maintaining a desire to dissociate from that tradition, is noteworthy. There

seems to be an element of grudging admiration for the other community and very little sign

of animosity. The group appears to be looking to the future with a pragmatic and realistic

stance and are open to change. This openness was reflected in the ethnographic research

and is related directly to the community relations work conducted over the last three years

with the network.

111

NETWORK 2 CNR – Participants from Rowville CNR


Table 5.49 presents the perspectives of this group that are firmly held. They are all

consistent with a community orientated group of people with very positive objectives.

Table 5.49: Rowville CNR: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)


respecting each other (N = 9)


each other (N = 0)

79.05

11 Accept other tradition (N = 9) Don’t let the other tradition into

their area (N = 0)

74.26

16 Has positive impact on cross


Has negative impact on cross

community relations

(N = 0)

72.90

06 Immigrants welcome ( N = 9) Immigrants kept out (N = 0) 71.40

13 Happy sharing local facilities

(N = 8)

Need separate local facilities

(N = 1)

69.63

09 Parades not worth trouble they

cause (N = 7)


(N = 2)

61.29


should be enjoyed by all sections

of the community (N = 9)



community (N = 0)

59.29

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

The first five constructs simply say this group want to live together in peace with the other

community by knowing and respecting them, that they “would accept people from the other

tradition living in our area” (full text of construct pole), that they wish to have a positive effect

on community relations, would be happy enough sharing local facilities and are welcoming to

immigrants. They are also keen that Irish sports language and arts should be enjoyed by all

sections of the community. The only core belief here that creates an obvious blockage is that

they strongly believe that parades are not worth the trouble they cause.

(c) Conflicted (ambivalent) dimensions of identity

Table 5.50 presents those issues on which this group are much less sure. Construct #19

relates to the requirement for peace walls and this is clearly a difficult issue for the group in

Rowville, perhaps not surprising given their proximity to some of the most extensive physical

barriers in N.Ireland. Their preferred view is that walls don’t keep the peace which could be

interpreted to mean a preference that they are not needed to keep the peace and that other

approaches would be seen as more effective.

112

Table 5.50: Rowville CNR: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

19 Walls don’t keep the peace

(N = 6)

Walls keep the peace (N = 3) -17.55


(N = 2)

-9.93


(N = 6)


(N = 3)

- 4.00

01 Lots of community spirit in our

area (N = 6)

Feel there is no community spirit

in our area (N = 3)

14.93

03 Religion should have a central

role (N = 5)


(N = 4)

23.89

02 Police are better than

paramilitaries (N =5)


police (N = 4)

25.70


(N = 8)

PULs gaining advantage (N =

1)

25.97

10 Think all flags and emblems

cause trouble and should be

removed (N = 5)

Like to see flags and emblems

that reflect traditions (N = 4)

27.99

08 People overreact in politics and

religion (N = 6)

People are justified in being

aggressive standing up for

traditional beliefs (N = 3)

29.37

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

This group are also particularly conflicted on the issues of whether or not to forget history

(local events rather than a broader sense of history) and this suggests that there are aspects

of the group’s past experiences that do play an important part in their current identity.

Likewise, the group are unsure about their ability to move about any part of the city and this

reflects the reality of living in the context of peace walls, security gates and constricted living

space.

Further down the table the issues become gradually less conflicted for the Rowville CNR

group, offering a more substantial contribution to sense of identity. The majority in this group

think that, on balance, there is plenty of good community spirit in the area but there are

clearly those in the group who do not. This ambivalence persists but reduces gradually as

the group considers other issues, broadly concluding that religion should have a central role,

that police are preferred to paramilitaries, that the CNR population is gaining advantage, that

flags and emblems should be removed and that people do tend to overreact in politics and

religion. Again, there are many positive perspectives here in terms of cross-community

engagement reflecting their own experience of cross community engagement and anti-

sectarian training for some of the group.

113


Table 5.51 below presents a list of aspirations which are of growing importance to the sense

of identity of the Rowville CNR group though none of them are at the very heart of that

identity.

Table 5.51: Rowville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

17 Feels that peace process has

reduced sectarianism (N = 6)

Feels that peace process has

increased sectarianism (N = 3)

34.32

04 Local parade not important to


(N = 5)

Local parade is important to


(N = 4)

40.57


will mix (N = 8)

Kid go to school with their own

kind (N = 1)

45.49



Will only work my side of mixed

(N = 0)

51.60

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request

Three of these preferences speak directly to positive community development, namely that

the peace process has reduced sectarianism, that children should be educated in a mixed

setting and that people shouldn’t care where their workplace was located. That said, these

are not firmly held views and some in the group take an alternative perspective.

On balance, this group thinks that the local parade is not important to the identity of their

community. Note however that four of the nine participants preferred to think that the local

parade is important to the identity of the community. In this context, these individuals’

identities are defined as much by what they don’t want as what they do and they are very

sure that parades are not worth the trouble they cause.

114



Table 5.52 presents data on the individual’s sense of ‘self’ in different contexts. Evaluation

is an indicator of how they feel they measure up to their stated ideals; ego-involvement is a

measure of their level of engagement with this particular self-context and Identity Diffusion

describes the clarity of their thinking about themselves in this context.

Table 5.52: Rowville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future(1)

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.88 -0.09 0.45


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Self: Tabulation; available on request

The results here speak of a group that, when looking back, see a negative situation to which

they would not wish to return. This period remains important in their identity, however, as

demonstrated by a high ego-involvement of 4.44. The group are even more engaged with

the future (ego-involvement of 4.54) and have positive expectations of this time, as seen by

a self-evaluation of 0.66.

In terms of the current time, ego-involvement and self-evaluation of self ‘when with those

closest’ are at moderate levels. Clearly there are almost as many aspects of this group’s

current lives that they dislike as they like (at least in terms of the issues covered in this

study).

There is, as with most of the study groups, a significant drop in self-evaluation when finding

themselves with people that they find intimidating suggesting that fear of the ‘other’ still plays

115

a significant role in defining identities. This does not seem to be an ever present issue,

however, since ego-involvement is lower than for any other context.


The summary from Table 5.53 below is that the Rowville CNR group admire Sinn Fein, that

their own community meets their aspirations pretty well and that they hold no support for

Republican Dissidents. They are not significantly more engaged with any particular group.

Table 5.53: Rowville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

S

inn

Fein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 3.90 4.01 3.90 4.20 3.82 3.89

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.06 0.58 0.45 -0.34 -0.10 -0.24

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The group have a low opinion of the other tradition (evaluation -0.24) and its politicians fare

only slightly better (DUP evaluation -0.10). This provides quite a strong contrast with their

expressed willingness to welcome the other community into their area, to share space and

so on with them. Levels of ego-involvement are moderate so it could be said that the other

community is merely a ‘concept’ to some in this group.

Their responsiveness to Loyalist paramilitaries is at a higher level (ego-involvement 4.20)

and may express their concern about the threat they pose or have posed. Certainly their

opinion of Loyalist paramilitaries is very low (evaluation -0.34) and notably lower than their

opinion of Republican Dissidents.

This reflects a well embedded low evaluation of the other community generally which is off-

set by a wish to develop more positive community relations. This points to a clear need for

prejudice reduction and increased levels of cross community contact.

116



groups discussed above. Empathetic identification tells us which groups were closest to this

group’s current self-image, good and bad. Idealistic identification tells us which groups are


Table 5.54: Rowville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Rowville CNR 9’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


This group of women certainly attribute the same aspirations and sense of identity, good and

bad, to their local CNR community. In technical terms, empathetic identification with own

community (‘same tradition my area’) is very high. Likewise, Sinn Fein is also seen as

having a similar set of beliefs (empathetic identification 0.72).

Conversely, the group’s results for the other community (PUL), the DUP and Loyalist

paramilitaries suggest that they are seen as fairly or very different. Technically, empathetic

identification is moderate to low at 0.43, 0.37, and 0.37 respectively. It is more encouraging

to note that there is at least a moderate level of empathetic identification with the PUL

community nearby, although the negative evaluation given above would suggest that what

they have in common might be the aspects that this group don’t like about themselves.

Idealistic identification with Sinn Fein stands at 0.81, making them the clear role model for

this group (more so even than their own community).

In line with the low evaluation of the PUL community described above, this group have low

levels of Idealistic identification with ‘the other tradition’, DUP and Loyalist paramilitaries

(0.36, 0.44, 0.32 respectively; threshold to low 0.42).

117

There are not many attributes of their own tradition from which they would wish to dissociate

(contra identification Sinn Fein, 0.19, own tradition 0.26, with low threshold at 0.14 and mean

0.35).

They are inclined to dissociate themselves from the perceived qualities of Republican

dissidents and all three aspect of the PUL community addressed here (Republican

dissidents contra identification 0.54, loyalist paramilitaries 0.68, DUP 0.54 and other tradition

0.64: threshold to high at 0.56, mean 0.35).

Summary

Both the Rowville groups show evidence of the impact of their participation in anti-

sectarian work, with the PUL in particular evidencing more positive attitudes in

comparison to other PUL groups in the study. The PUL group also exhibited

discomfort with the ongoing influence of paramilitaries, a view also supported by the

ethnographic research.

The CNR were a very cohesive group with strong ties to local area and broad support

for mainstream republicanism. Contact with PUL was dictated by interfaces and a

troubled past and levels of segregation were high. Though recent cross community

activities was reflected in some more positive aspirations around shared education

and living space.

118

5.3.5 Southville Belfast – Data analysis

NETWORK 1 PUL - Participants from the Southville PUL community


None of the views of this group can be described as ‘core’ in the technical sense of having a

level of support above a specific threshold. This is a result of this group’s high levels of

conflicted thinking across most of the issues covered in this study. As was the case with the

Rowville PUL group, there are a number of additional aspirations which, while not classified

as core, are held by this group with a fair degree of certainty and these are presented in

section (c).

(b) Conflicted dimensions of identity (unsure perspectives)

Table 5.56 presents the most conflicted or uncertain perspectives for the Southville PUL

group. The most striking finding here is that many of these aspirations, although conflicted,

retain a positive connotation. Conflicted perspectives are important in that these are the

issues on which people are less sure and so are more likely to be open to positive

interventions.

Table 5.56: Southville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

18 Walls keep the peace (N = 4) Walls don’t keep the peace (N = 3) 9.02


(N = 4)

Never forget history

(N = 3)

10.64

10 Like flags and emblems that

reflect my traditions (N =5)

All flags should be removed (N = 2) 11.79

09 Would think that no parade is

worth the trouble caused

(N = 4)

A bit of trouble at parades is OK if

it means that people can express

their traditions (N = 3)

11.87

17 PULs gaining advantage (N = 4) CNRs gaining advantage (N = 2) 11.91

03 Religion should have central

role (N = 4)

Religion is a personal matter (N

= 3)

16.03

21 Good people have left the area

(N = 5)

Good people have remained (N =

2)

18.82


(N = 5)

No community spirit

(N = 2)

21.01


religion (N = 5)

Justified in being aggressive (N =

2)

26.35

Table continues overleaf

119

Table 5.56: Southville PUL: Conflicted dimensions of identity (cont’d)

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)





28.28




(N = 5)

Irish sports, language and arts are

really only for the Catholic

community (N = 2)

30.03

04 Local parade is important

(N = 7)

Local parade is not important

(N =0)

31.08


(N = 5)

Immigrants kept out

(N = 2)

32.59


(N = 5)


their area (N = 2)

35.47

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville PUL 7’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

In other words, these conflicted perspectives tell us that this group are not really sure

whether walls are needed to keep the peace, whether history should be forgotten or whether

people should like their flags and emblems. The group are split on the issue of parades,

believing that the local parade is central to their identity but also that no parade is worth the

trouble it causes. It is also interesting to note that this group are not at all convinced that it is

a good thing for their community to be gaining advantage at the expense of the other.

As their thinking becomes clearer, we find a number of attitudes emerging which do suggest

that this group would respond well to cross-community initiatives. They want there to be

plenty of community spirit and feel that people over-react on issues of politics and religion.

Similarly, they want to believe that the peace process has reduced sectarianism and that

Irish culture should be open to all. Finally, they are broadly of the view that they should

welcome migrants and people from the other community into their area.



the sense of identity of the group though none of them are at the very heart of that identity.

120

Table 5.57: Southville PUL: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)




mixed (N = 1)

37.43


(N = 6)


(N = 1)

38.09


mix (N = 5)


own kind (N = 2)

38.57


(N = 7)


police (N = 0)

47.60

20 Increased contact reduces


Increased contact has no

effect (N = 1)

47.86

13 New housing and facilities on sites

like Sirocco would really help

improve the area

(N = 6)

There are good enough

housing and facilities in the

area (N = 1)

53.10


community relations

(N = 7)


community relations

(N = 0)

54.66

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville PUL 7’’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

Many of these secondary beliefs cover shared space and some other key community

fundamentals. The group want to be able to go anywhere and work anywhere; they want

their children to go to mixed schools; they want normal policing and they want increased

contact with the other community.

The results for constructs #13 and #15 suggest that the group is aware that the need for

improved facilities internal to their community must be matched by a focus on improving

community relations. The measured structural pressures on these two are close enough to

the upper boundary of core ideas to be regarded as such.

(d) Evaluation of self and others


Table 5.58 outlines how these participants feel about themselves in a range of contexts.

Evaluation is an indicator of how they feel they measure up to their stated ideals; ego-

involvement is a measure of their level of engagement with this particular self-context and

Identity Diffusion describes the clarity of their thinking about themselves in this context.

Expectations for the future are presented using the context of ‘me in five years time’. We

can compare these future aspirations directly with the group’s results for ‘current self’, using

the context ‘Me when I am with those closest to me’ (#04). The increase in self-evaluation

121

from 0.63 to 0.84 suggests that this group are expecting to be meeting more of their

aspirations in the future. Further, the increase in ego-involvement from 3.45 to 3.95

suggests that the group are more responsive to thoughts about their future indicating a

positive psychological state.

The results also indicate that this group feel that they are meeting more of their aspirations

now than they were in the past, as denoted by ‘me, at the height of the troubles’. Moderately

high ego involvement of 3.84, combined with low self-evaluation of 0.34 suggests that

people in this group are certainly aware of the past but are not thinking that the past was a

better place to be.

Table 5.58: Southville PUL: evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.14 0.31 0.35


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville PUL 7’, Self: Tabulation; available on request:

The final insight from this table concerns the effect on people in this group when they ‘bump

into people from a group that scares’. If this was a central issue in the minds of this group

then we would see high ego-involvement evidenced, however this is not the case here

where an ego involvement result of 3.14 suggests that this group are not highly connected

with this issue. This can be contrasted with the results for some other groups in the study

where the reaction to this context is much stronger (for example in Mileville). This is largely

an indication that within the context of the Southville and a majority PUL community they are

less likely to come into contact with the ‘other’ community by virtue of the size and

concentration of that community in a bounded area. As such they evidence less fear of

intimidation and more of a willingness to engage.

Evaluation of and engagement with own community and other community

122


linked to their own community or the other.

Table 5.59: Southville PUL: evaluation of own community and other community

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 3.73 2.66 3.46 3.29 3.02 3.03

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation 0.01 0.17 0.19 -0.37 0.04 0.07

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville PUL 7’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The evaluation results above can be compared with the earlier self-evaluation results and,

as such, are all low. This group’s evaluation of their own community in the immediate area

sits at 0.19, compared with a self-evaluation of 0.63 for ‘current self’ (see Table 5.58).

Essentially this can only mean that there are aspects of the local PUL community that this

group are not comfortable with. This is, however, the highest evaluation of all the groups

covered and the only other group here that is evaluated at a similar level is the DUP. This

group have given a low evaluation of the CNR community living nearby (0.07) and an even

lower evaluation of Sinn Fein (0.04) so there are clearly many negative attributes seen in

these groups. Paramilitaries are given the lowest evaluations but the result for Loyalist

paramilitaries, whilst very low (0.01), is not actually a minus/ negative result and is

significantly higher than the result for Republican Dissidents (-0.37).

The results for Ego-Involvement should be taken alongside the evaluation results to provide

further context. The moderate levels of ego-involvement seen above would suggest that this

group are not highly engaged with any of these bodies. The group is most engaged with

Loyalist paramilitaries (ego-involvement of 3.73) and, combined with their low evaluation, we

could conclude that Loyalist Paramilitaries cause some difficulties in the identity of the

participants. They are a little less responsive to their own tradition (ego-involvement 3.46)

though this is still at moderate levels. In identity terms the group do not appear to be

involved with or responsive to the DUP (ego-involvement is on the low side of moderate at

2.66).

group involvement (psychologically) with all three aspects of the other community is at low to

moderate levels (3.29, 3.02, and 3.03). This may be an indication that this particular group

123

largely seek to ignore the presence of the ‘other community’ again reflecting the dynamics of

being part of large majority community and having little contact with the minority.






It is no surprise to find that they most resemble those from their own community. However,

they do so only at a moderate level (empathetic identification 0.52) and this is consistent with

their lower evaluation of their own community and the point above that there must be

aspects to the local PUL community that they do not see as positive. A lower Empathetic

identification with the other community (0.46) further reinforces this point. In both cases,

though, these levels do indicate that there are aspects of both communities that the

respondents see as similar to themselves and highlighting the potential amongst these

respondents for cross-community engagement.

Table 5.60: Southville PUL: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville PUL 7’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


It is interesting to note that the group align themselves more with Loyalist paramilitaries than

the DUP (empathetic identifications 0.46 and 0.40). This is a possible indicator that they

might look for local leadership as much to paramilitary groups as to elected representatives.

The group do see themselves as very different from Republican Dissidents (empathetic

identification 0.18) and therefore must clearly see Loyalist Paramilitaries in a very different

light to these dissidents. The group show higher Empathetic identification with Sinn Fein

than the DUP, indicating that they see themselves as more similar to Sinn Fein than the

DUP. This cross-ethnic identification is not unexpected given the broad view evidenced in

124

interviews and focus groups that Sinn Fein have delivered a consistent and successful

outcome to the peace process when compared with the DUP.

The Idealistic identification results rather follow the Empathetic identification results,

although with less variation. Loyalist Paramilitaries are considered to be better role models

than either political party, but only just. It is positive to see that this group see the other

community as a better role model than any paramilitary or political group – perhaps a case

for real contact at a grass-roots level as opposed to via political or indeed paramilitary

representatives.

125

NETWORK 2 CNR - Participants from the Southville CNR community


Table 5.43 presents the only aspiration of the Southville CNR group that is classified as

‘core’. The group think that improvements in housing and other facilities is the single most

important issue of those presented.. This evidence supports and is informed by the focus

groups outputs and suggests a group with very positive aspirations for the development of

their area through physical and social improvement.

In the case of this group there are a number of additional aspirations which, while not

classified as core, are held with a ‘near core’ degree of certainty and these are presented in

section (c).

Table 5.61: Southville CNR: Core dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)

23 New housing and facilities on

sites like Sirocco would really

help improve the area

(N = 8)

There is good enough housing

and facilities in the area

(N = 1)

55.96

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.


Table 5.62 presents those psychological choices on which the group were uncertain – there

are indications here of some of the issues that lie at the heart of this community’s frustration

with the situation in which it finds itself.

Of particular note in these results is that not only is the group very unsure about their stance

on these issues but the group are also split with regards to actual preferences – as close to

50/50 as a group of nine can be. If we start with the most ‘stressed’ issue here, one

interpretation is that the group feel that the community is justified in taking an aggressive

stance when standing up for tradition (#08 sp –18.50) particularly when PUL parades pass

close to their area or the community thinks it is threatened in some other way. On the other

hand we see that a slight majority consensus of people in the group (N = 5 cf. N = 4) are

aware that parades, and their opposition to them, has become an important part of the

identity of their community (#04, sp is a conflicted 6.90). Clearly living in what is an enclave

type area and coping with parading issues has become embedded in the identity of the

community. It suggests that the community’s sense of identity is derived to a substantial

extent from the tensions and struggle of living as a minority community in the midst of a

much larger and more dominant majority community.

126

Table 5.62: Southville CNR: Highly conflicted and conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

08 Would feel that people are

justified in taking an aggressive

stance when standing up for

tradition (N = 5)

Would believe that people from

both sides overreact when

dealing with issues of politics

and religion (N = 4)

-18.50

01 Would feel there is no


(N = 5)

Would feel there is plenty of

community spirit in our area (N

= 4)

-2.53


(N = 5)

Paramilitaries better than police

(N =4)

-1.68

17 CNRs gaining advantage (N =

6)

PUL gaining advantage (N = 3) -0.14

05 Areas I just wouldn’t go near

(N = 5)

I can go anywhere

(N = 4)

0.21


workplace was located (N =

5)

Will only work my side or mixed

(N = 4)

2.34

04 Would think that the local

parade is an important part of

the identity of this community

(N = 5)

Would think that the local parade

is not important to the identity of

this community (N = 4)

6.90

12 Never forget history (N = 6) History should be forgotten (N =

3)

13.42

18 Walls keep the peace

(N = 5)

Walls don’t keep the peace (N =

4)

15.63

03 Religion should have a central

role (N = 6)


(N = 3)

15.99



reduces sectarian conflict (N =

6)



no effect (N = 3)

16.99

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

There are other indicators here of the group’s lack of cohesive clarity on some key CSI

issues. A belief, however conflicted, that there is no community spirit in this area (#01 sp -

2.53) may be saying that the community is fed up with the way things are at the interface

and this is undermining community spirit. Intra-community disputes are also likely to have

an impact on the sense of community spirit. This conflicted thinking on the issue of

community spirit is rather at odds with the views that were expressed in the focus groups

where people felt that there was a strong sense of community. It is not unusual, however,

for people to express one view in public which is shown to be less consistent when the

127

individual responds to a robust self-analysis, as in this study. The community spirit issue is

also exacerbated by a conflicted feeling of isolation (#05 ‘areas I just wouldn’t go near’; sp

0.21) and the conflicted desire to be able to find work anywhere (#07; sp 2.34). The group

are also split on their preferences for local control being exercised by the paramilitaries or

the police, which suggests that mistrust of the police remains a factor in the community.

There is still ambivalence around some beliefs such as ‘history should not be forgotten’,

‘walls keep the peace’, ‘religion should have a central role’ and ‘increased contact with the

other tradition reduces sectarian conflict ‘. There does not seem to be great conviction

behind them (sp 13.42 to sp 16.99). The group should be quite open to change on these

issues.



the sense of identity of the group though none of them are at the very heart of that identity.

Table 5.63: Southville CNR: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)


sectarianism

(N = 5)



30.52


should be enjoyed by all sections

of the community (N = 8)

Irish sports language and arts


community (N = 1)

30.56


(N = 6)

Flags and murals reflect

traditions

(N = 3)

31.21

24 Good people have left

(N = 5)

Good people have remained

(N = 4)

31.70


(N = 6)

Don’t let other tradition into

their area (N = 3)

33.03


mix (N = 6)


own kind (N = 3)

34.27

08 Parades are not worth the trouble

they cause

(N = 6)

Trouble at parade is OK

(N = 3)

34.72

05 Immigrants welcome

(N = 7)

Immigrants keep out (N = 2) 47.66




community relations (N =

1)

54.90

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

128

The desire to have a positive impact on cross community relations is held with a level of

conviction close to core and the belief that they should welcome new immigrants into their

area is also strong.

The further beliefs that ‘all flags should be removed’, ‘the other tradition should be accepted’,

‘kids should go to school where they will mix’ and ‘parades are not worth the trouble they

cause’ are particularly relevant to community workers on both side of the divide who are

wrestling with the local problems, with the results indicating that this group are ready to

engage positively with these issues.







Table 5.64: Southville CNR: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 4.32 0.26 0.42


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’, Self: Tabulation; available on request.

The most striking result for this group is that their self-evaluation in the current time (#04) is

very positive (0.53) and nearly at the level of their expectations for their situation in five

129

year’s time (#03 – evaluation of 0.57). A focus group comment that “sense of community

and sense of place is very strong” resonates well with this finding. The intensity of their

involvement with all aspects of self (ranging from 4.32 to 4.74) suggests that this is a group

that is highly self-aware and prepared to engage with the issues.

Like most people in this study their evaluation of self is reduced markedly (evaluation 0.53

goes to 0.26) when they come across ‘people from a group that scares them’ (#05). This is

a clear indication that their behaviour or perspective changes when in this situation in a way

that they are unhappy with. Their intensity of involvement with this ‘entity’ is the same as for

self ‘at home’ (ego-involvement 4.32) and indicates the problems they face as a minority

community that feels ‘surrounded’ on a daily basis.

Evaluation of and engagement with own community and other community


linked to their own community or the other.

Table 5.65: Southville CNR: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.15 4.36 4.34 4.51 4.42 4.43

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation 0.15 0.58 0.56 -0.06 -0.03 -0.05

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

The evaluation of their own community and of Sinn Fein by this group is on the high side of

moderate (evaluations respectively 0.58 and 0.56), as is the intensity of their involvement

with Sinn Fein and their own tradition (ego-involvement 4.36 and 4.34).

While the Southville CNR group show similar levels of ego-involvement with the ‘other

tradition nearby’ and with the DUP, the group has a poor opinion of these others (evaluations

of -0.05 and -0.03). On the surface this might suggest that this would make any attempt at

building good relations between the communities rather difficult but these low evaluations of

the other community should be taken in the context of the many positive aspirations

expressed by the group. We can also say that the perceptions behind this group’s low

130

evaluation of the PUL community nearby are likely to be based upon a combination of

personal experience and historical events and do not, in fact, bear resemblance to the

relatively positive thinking of the PUL group participating in this study. This misreading of

the perspectives of the other community appears as a theme across this study and is

addressed specifically in Section 6.

As with their PUL counterparts, paramilitaries are given the lowest evaluations but the result

for Republican Dissidents (0.15) is not actually negative and is significantly higher than the

result for Loyalist paramilitaries (-0.06). This group’s higher evaluation of Republican

Dissidents than the PUL community living nearby highlights that significant work is to be

done to promote understanding between the two communities and find some resolution to

the parading issue.


Table 5.66 gives us further insights into the manner in which this CNR group identify with the

groups identified above. This group identifies very closely with Sinn Fein and their own

tradition, both in the sense that they believe in and admire the same things, and that in

reality they are the same kind of people (idealistic identification 0.79 and 0.79 and

empathetic identification 0.85 and 0.86).

Table 5.66: Southville CNR: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Southville CNR 9’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


This group’s Empathetic identification with the Republican Dissidents is on the high side of

moderate (empathetic identification 0.75, threshold to high 0.89) and this would be a concern

but for the results for Idealistic Identification, much lower at 0.46, indicating that whilst they

see themselves as similar to Republican Dissidents they do not view them as positive role

models.

131

Empathetic identification with the local PUL community, the DUP and Loyalist paramilitaries

is moderate at between 0.58 and 0.62 but these groups have few qualities they admire, with

idealistic identifications between 0.46 and 0.48. The fact that this CNR community group do

see themselves as like the PUL community in some ways, and yet want so badly to

dissociate from them, means that there is a conflict here within the CNR identity. Here they

find people like them, living in circumstances similar to theirs ( an urban deprived area) but

feeling that this other group have some values they do not admire and this conflicts with their

sense of identity.

Psychologically speaking this does raise a ‘tension’ within their sense of identity that the

CNR community will quite naturally want to resolve. They can do so by distancing

themselves further from the PUL community or by more in-depth engagement with that

community.

Summary

The Southville PUL population reflects a confidence and security that often comes

with large majorities. There are some conflicted aspirations around parading which

whilst considered important to the community suggests room for manoeuvre and

indeed compromise considering high aspiration for greater cross community contact

and sharing.

The CNR group exhibit high levels of self awareness and strong self evaluations

suggesting a relatively cohesive community; though this is balanced by significant

tension and pressure as result of interfaces and the parades issue.

132

5.3.6 Tigerville - Data analysis

NETWORK 1 CNR: Participants from Tigerville Improvement Association


As presented in Table 5.67, this group have a profile of core aspirations that one might

expect to see with membership of broad based community improvement association. These

are not dominant, rigid, core attitudes and beliefs but rather firmly held beliefs that will

motivate and shape group activity. The importance of these aspirations for the group

reduces as one goes down the list.

Table 5.67: Tigerville CNR One: Core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)



(N = 9)


tradition live in my area

(N = 0)

76.30

20 Live peacefully by knowing and

respecting each other (N = 9)


each other (N = 0)

64.22

05 Immigrants welcomed (N = 9) Immigrants kept out (N = 0) 64.04

08 No parade is worth the trouble

caused (N = 9)

A bit of trouble at parades is

OK if it means that people can


63.39


community relations

(N = 9)


community relations

(N = 0)

62.39


from the other tradition reduces




no effect (N = 0)

62.06


(N = 8)


(N = 1)

60.51




mixed (N = 2)

59.20

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n9’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

For this group, the most firmly held aspiration is to accept people from the other tradition

living in their area. The group are unanimous on this point and this suggests that levels of

cross community engagement are having a positive impact.

Other pro-community perspectives are held with slightly less conviction but are still core.

These participants want to live peacefully by getting to know and respect each other, believe

that increased contact will reduce sectarian conflict, would be happy sharing public spaces,

would work anywhere and hope for a positive impact on cross community relations.

133

The only perspective here that might not sit well with all PUL neighbours is that ‘parades are

not worth the trouble they cause’. Isolated as it is amongst these good intentions it still has a

capacity to be a stumbling block to progress with even this progressive CNR group.


Table 5.68 below presents those issues on which this group are unsure.

Table 5.68: Tigerville CNR One: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)


(N = 4)

-28.71

17 Walls don’t keep the peace

(N = 5)

Walls keep the peace (N = 4) 3.53

15 CNRs gaining advantage (N =

6)


(N = 3)

12.57


(N = 5)


role (N = 4)

15.98


02 Police are more effective than

paramilitaries at keeping

people in order (N = 7)


police at keeping people in

order (N = 2)

27.43


(N = 5)



31.96


The group are not only conflicted on these issues but there is little in the way of consensus

within the group. On balance, they prefer to think that history should never be forgotten, that

walls don’t keep the peace, that CNRs should be gaining the advantage and that religion is a

personal matter, but these results are not particularly convincing. Thinking and feeling about

these issues brings a mix of positive and negative connotations that almost cancel each

other out.

The group are clearer in their belief there should be greater levels of community spirit and

that the police are a better source of law and order than the paramilitaries and there is

greater consensus on this. The group splits again on the issue of flags and murals that

reflect community backgrounds.

As ever these conflicted ideas are the ones most open to change.

134


In Table 5.69 (below) the group’s level of conviction increases as one goes down the list.

Freedom to go anywhere in the city is a preference for all participants and, with an average

SP of 40.07 this is becoming important to the group. The focus groups in this area did

indicate that there were significant issues with the feeling of safety around routes in and out

of the area.

Table 5.69: Tigerville CNR One: Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

04 I can go anywhere in and around

the city (N = 9)

There are plenty of areas I just

wouldn’t go near (N = 0)

40.12

25 Only sports clubs that cater for

all sections of the community

should be encouraged (N = 6)

Each tradition should have their

own sports clubs (N = 3)

46.91

07 People from both sides

overreact when dealing with

issues of politics and religion

(N = 7)

People are justified in taking an

aggressive stance when

standing up for tradition

(N = 2)

48.85

14 Believe that the peace process

has reduced sectarianism

(N = 8)

Believe that the peace process

has increased sectarianism

(N = 1)

53.05

12 Believe our kids should go to

mixed schools and be taught a

wide view of the world

(N = 8)

Would believe that our kids

should go to schools where they

will be with their own kind and

be taught our view of the world

(N = 1)

53.31


Although not core aspirations, the remaining four constructs are pretty well embedded in the

group’s value and belief system. Supporting these aspirations would be a sensible

approach, particularly where shared sports clubs and mixed schooling are concerned.

Acknowledgement that people from both sides overreact where matters of politics and

religion are concerned and that the peace process has reduced sectarianism underline the

moderate nature of this group’s identity.



Table 5.70 (below) outlines how these participants feel about themselves in a range of


135


and Identity Diffusion describes the clarity of their thinking about this context.

Generally speaking, participants in this group are quite comfortable with their sense of self in

the current time ‘when with those closest to me’ (evaluation of self at 0.52 a moderately high

level with threshold to high at 0.74 and mean at 0.22). This group again generally speaking

is composed of individuals who have made sense of themselves and the world in which they

find themselves, respect themselves and are probably well respected by others (based on a

moderate level of identity diffusion of 0.42). Taken together with moderate evaluation of self

this is a ‘healthy’ identity state.

Table 5.70: Tigerville CNR One: evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 3.83 -0.01 0.49


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n9’, Self: Tabulation; available on request.

With this group expectations for further improvements in their personal situations in five

years time are very high. Ego-involvement with future self is much stronger than with self at

home, making this a forward looking group.

The group’s psychological involvement with ‘self at the height of the troubles’ is substantial

and the same as their involvement with future self, at ego-involvement 4.04. The contrast in

self-evaluation is stark (0.16 rising to 0.74), indicating that they view their future self in a

much more positive way than their past self, perhaps in recognition of the positive

community development work in which they are involved.

136

Self-evaluation also falls away steeply when participants are confronted by ‘people from a

group that scares them’. Their psychological involvement with this context is moderate

which in this case suggests that the fear seems real enough but the threat is not particularly

high day to day.

Evaluation of own tradition and other tradition:

Table 5.71 presents results covering this group’s evaluation and ego-involvement of others

in their locality. Psychological involvement with their own community and with Sinn Fein is

moderate (3.69 and 3.72) suggesting that this group is comfortable with both. Similarly the

group have a positive but not overly enthusiastic opinion of both Sinn Fein and their own

community (evaluations of 0.31 and 0.21).

Table 5.71: Tigerville CNR One: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.06 3.72 3.69 4.00 3.42 3.78

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.38 0.21 0.31 -0.40 -0.22 -0.24

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n9’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

Crucially, given the group’s core aspirations for sharing space, accepting people from the

other tradition and living together in mutual respect, it has a poor opinion of the other

community and the DUP (evaluation respectively -0.24 and – 0.22). Psychological

involvement is, respectively, at moderate involvement levels of 3.78 and 3.42. This

perspective does not appear to amount to hatred but could be characterised as dislike or

lack of understanding and it is not encouraging for better relations in the immediate future.

It is possible to say that paramilitary activity by both sides is pretty well abhorred by the

group. Republican dissidents and Loyalist paramilitaries attract an ego involvement that is

high for the Tigerville Improvement Association group (4.06 and 4.00) and evaluation is very

low at -0.38 and -0.40. This amounts to rejection of violence as an answer and underpins

the group’s aspirations for a peaceful solution.

137


Table 5.72 below gives us insights into the manner in which this CNR group identify with the




Table 5.72: Tigerville CNR One: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n9’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


Based on moderate levels of idealistic identification with Sinn Fein (0.58) and with their own

community (0.63), it would seem that this group see these as reasonable role models. They

seem to already recognise many of those qualities in themselves and exhibit a moderately

high degree of closeness with their own tradition and with Sinn Fein (empathetic

identifications of 0.70 and 0.59).

This does not say that they feel everything is perfect about their own community or Sinn Fein

and the group would dissociate from some of their attributes. This is reflected in a moderate

level of contra identification (0.33 and 0.36 respectively).

When the group turn to look at the PUL tradition and the DUP it is clear that they do not see

them as role models (idealistic identification 0.37 and 0.36 respectively). When they look for

similar attributes to their own (as perceived by them) in the PUL community and the DUP,

they find moderate similarity (empathetic identification 0.47 and 0.44 respectively), but they

also find a lot they want to dissociate from and this would have implications for sharing

spaces with the other community (contra identification 0.61 and 0.57 respectively).

The combination of believing themselves to be somewhat like the other community and at

the same time wanting to dissociate from some of the others characteristics suggests a

138

realistic evaluation of the challenges of building relationships and sharing space. They feel

like them in some respects and not like them in others. groups tend to form around

similarities with others – if the differences are too many and too conflictual then this

becomes very difficult. Lack of contact simply allows the differences to be reinforced and

ensures no resolution on dealing with the differences.

So far as the paramilitaries from both traditions are concerned, they are certainly not role

models; idealistic identification with them is at low levels (0.30 and 0.27). The group did not

see themselves as having many similarities with either set of paramilitaries. Republican

dissidents seemed a little closer than the Loyalist paramilitaries in this regard with levels of

empathetic identification, 0.39 and 0.32.

NETWORK 2 CNR – Participants from the Tigerville Community Centre


Table 5.73 presents the two core aspirations of this second group from Tigerville. Here we

have a different group of residents from the same area sharing one of the core aspirations

with the other Tigerville group, that is ‘for people from different traditions to live peacefully in

the same place, they have to get to know and respect each other’.

Table 5.73: Tigerville CNR Two: core dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100 to

+100)



(N = 10)


each other

(N = 0)

65.10

11 History should be forgotten (N =

8)


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Ligoniel CNR n10’, Construct Tabulation; available on request.

The two groups do not have the same perspective on whether or not to forget their local

history. The majority (N = 8:2) consensus for Tigerville CNR Two was that they would ‘forget

past events and look to the future’ whereas the other Tigerville group ‘would never forget

past events in their area’ though they were very conflicted on this issue.

139


Table 5.74 presents those issues on which this group are less sure of.

Table 5.74: Tigerville CNR Two: Conflicted dimensions of identity

Construct

#

Preferred pole


‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

25 Each tradition should have their

own sports clubs (N = 6)

Only sports clubs that cater

for all sections of the

community should be

encouraged (N = 4)

-13.34

03 Religion is a personal matter (N

= 5)

Religion should have a central

role (N = 5)

4.05

04 Believe I can go anywhere in and

around the city (N = 6)

Believe there are plenty of

areas I just wouldn’t go near

(N = 4)

10.71

01 Would feel there is plenty of


(N = 8)

Would feel there is no


(N = 2)

11.83

17 Think that peace walls don’t keep

the peace (N = 6)

Think that peace walls do

help keep things quiet (N =

4)

13.62




(N = 6)


from the other tradition has no

effect (N = 4)

13.96

18 Would be happy enough sharing

local facilities (N = 7)

Would think that separate

local facilities are needed (N

= 3)

18.90

09 Think all flags/murals/emblems

cause trouble and should be

removed (N = 8)

Would like to see

emblems/flags murals that

reflect my traditions (N = 2)

22.50


These are all practical matters of community concern about which the group is fairly evenly

divided. The issue of sports clubs is an important one in Tigerville since the focus group with

these participants placed a lot of emphasis on sports clubs as a means of cross-community

contact and relationships. It is a little surprising that the group showed a majority consensus

for segregated clubs but it must be stressed that this is a conflicted issue for this group. It

might have been expected that this group would also have higher levels of conviction on the

issue of access to all parts of the City since, again, the safety of routes in and out of

Tigerville was raised by the participants in the focus group.

140

Issues become clearer further down Table 5.74, thus it is clear that there is more agreement

on the need for community spirit and more clarity on a belief that ‘peace walls don’t keep the

peace’ (interpreted here as ‘we could do without them’). The group also believe that

increased contact reduces sectarian conflict which seems rather at odds with their

preference for separate sports clubs but perhaps not surprising given that these are all

conflicted issues.

The clear preference (N = 7:3 and N = 8:2) is to share local facilities and remove flags and

emblems but these ideas are still a little confused to the extent that it might constrain their

usefulness in fostering cross-community programmes.


Table 5.75 below presents a range of other group preferences on which the group are

increasingly clear.

The three aspirations do have substantial weight though technically are only secondary (not

yet core) dimensions of identity. These are that children should go to mixed schools, that

they should accept the other tradition living in the area and that no parade is worth the

trouble caused. The first two at least offer support to the achievement of the group’s core

aspirations, while the other is a belief held by many, both PUL and CNR.

Table 5.75: Tigerville CNR Two: a selection of Secondary dimensions of identity

Construct

#



‘Contrast’ pole


Sp

(-100

to

+100)

12 Believe our kids should go to

mixed schools and be taught a

wider view of the world (N =

8)

Believe or kids should go to

schools were they will be with

their own kind and be taught

our view of the world

(N = 2)

33.31



(N = 8)


tradition live in my area (N = 2)

38.69

08 Would think that no parade is

worth the trouble caused (N = 9)

Would think that a bit of

trouble at parades is OK if it

means that people can


45.89


141






and Identity Diffusion describes the clarity of their thinking about this context.

Table 5.76: Tigerville CNR Two: Evaluation of self; past, present and future

#

en

tity

Eg

o-i

nvo

lvem

en

t

0.0

0 t

o

5.0

0

Self

-evalu

ati

on

-1.0

0 t

o 1

.00

Iden

tity

dif

fusio

n

0.0

0 t

o 1

.00






scares me

05 4.04 0.45 0.41


Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n10’, Self: Tabulation; available on request.

The results suggest that this Community Centre group are unusual in a number of ways.

What draws attention to this first is the absence of any sense of fear or loss of self worth

when meeting ‘someone from a group that scares me’ (self-evaluation of 0.45) and the

moderate evaluation of ‘self at the height of the troubles’ (self-evaluation of 0.22) since all

other participants in the study gave much lower self-evaluations in these contexts. This is

perhaps reflective of this groups levels of joint working and cross community engagement in

which personal experience and contact has reduced the impact of negative stereotypes.

Ego involvement with future self for this group is close to high (4.67) but the group view is

that there is little prospect of a better future. Low expectations of the future may not matter

so much to this group. They seem quite content as they are. They have a moderately high

opinion of ‘me with those closest to me’ at 0.63, presumably at home or with friends, and

normal levels of psychological involvement with this context (ego-involvement 3.90).

142


Table 5.77 below reviews this group’s level of psychological engagement with, and

evaluation of, specific groups in their immediate world.

Table 5.77: Tigerville CNR Two: evaluation of own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity


Ego-involvement 4.03 3.71 3.58 4.07 3.43 3.74

Range 0.00 to 5.00

Evaluation -0.01 0.17 0.26 -0.13 0.15 0.08

Range -1.00 to +1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n10’, Entity: Tabulation; available on request.

This group appear to have a relatively low opinion of paramilitaries and are more engaged

with the concept of paramilitaries than with the other groups. Their opinion of politicians and

people from both wider communities is a little better but the results also suggest that they

aren’t particularly bothered about these people. They do think slightly better of their own

community but the evaluation is still moderate at 0.26.

Sinn Fein and DUP both get low evaluations, although the group is a little more ego-involved

with Sinn Fein.


Table 5.78 below gives us insights into the manner in which this CNR group identify with the




Consistent with a low evaluation, their own tradition in their area falls some way short of their

ideals (idealistic identification with ‘same tradition’ is 0.65). They have a moderately high

level of empathetic identification (0.75) with their community but recognise that, like them, it

has limitations and positive features and they recognise many of these in themselves.

143

Table 5.78: Tigerville CNR Two: Identification: with own tradition and other tradition

Rep

ub

lican

Dis

sid

en

ts

Sin

n F

ein

Sam

e t

rad

itio

n i

n

my a

rea

Lo

yali

st

para

milit

ari

es

Th

e D

UP

Oth

er

trad

itio

n i

n

the n

earb

y

co

mm

un

ity



Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00


Range 0.00 to 1.00

Source: Ipseus Report ‘Tigerville CNR n10’, Identification: Role Models, Empathetic, and Conflicted;


For the Ligoniel CNR Two group the other tradition is less appealing so far as their

aspirations are concerned (Idealistic identification of 0.54) but the group do recognise a

moderate degree of similarity between the qualities they attribute to the other community and

those they attribute to themselves (empathetic identification is moderate at 0.62).

In spite of the sense that some shared perspectives with the other tradition are emerging

here, the group attributes many qualities to the PUL community that they do not like (as

indicated by contra identification of 0.46). This does not appear to be hatred or animosity or

even a strong dislike more a sense of ‘social distance’ that is well established and accepted

(remember the moderate ego-involvement with ‘other tradition’, 3.74, we saw in Table 5.81).

The group identify to almost the same extent with Sinn Fein and the DUP (empathetic

identification 0.61 and 0.61, idealistic identification 0.56: 0.54, and contra identification 0.39:

0.40). They can separate the parties but only marginally (psychological involvement with

Sinn Fein is greater – see Table 5.80 again (ego-involvement 3.71: 3.43), though

involvement with both is moderate).

The group do not identify with paramilitaries to any great extent. Contra identification with

both paramilitary groups is moderately high to high (Republican dissidents 0.50, Loyalist

paramilitaries 0.55). Idealistic identification is moderately low (0.46: 0.42) and Empathetic

identification is also moderately low (0.50: 0.45).

144

Summary

These two CNR groups exhibit high levels of confidence and positive self evaluation

and little sense of fear or intimidation which is somewhat surprising given their status

as an isolated minority area with several interfaces. They exhibit the broader sense of

‘nationalist gain’ that does not seem to be at all off set by local circumstances. They

exhibit a healthy sense of identity with strongly held beliefs that do not stray into

intransigence and whilst they aspire to live in share living space and see much in

common with the PUL community they are aware of the challenges of negotiating

those differences that do exist. In contrast to another isolated PUL area that of

Mileville, the comparison could not be starker with one exhibiting the social

psychological benefits of a perception of Nationalist gain in the face of an interface

majority; the other exhibiting the characteristics of a perception of ‘unionist loss’

without the presence of any interface.

145

5.4 Evidence of negative cross-community perceptions Part two of section 5 above has provided a detailed analysis of the situation in the six

different study areas and across twelve different networks of participants. It will be evident

from this analysis that the key issues for community relations are rather different in each

network and area and that no single approach to dealing with these issues is therefore likely

to work across all the areas. It is important, however, to be able to draw out some key

themes and recommendations and this is the focus of Section 6.

Another key objective of this research was to be able to compare and contrast areas and to

make a comparison between those residents who are able to co-exist with relatively little

aggravation and those who appear to find proximity to the other community difficult to

handle. It is clear from the analysis above that there are difficulties in the relationships

between the communities in all of the areas covered but these are certainly of a different

magnitude depending on which area is being considered. For example, there were high

profile problems in Ashville in the summer of 2010 as well as in recent years (this research

was conducted in the run-up to the events in July 2010) but in contrast, while there was

some unrest in a CNR area of Townville in the summer of 2010, there has not been

significant inter-community unrest in Townville for some time.

The geographical and demographic differences between Ashville and Townville may go

some way to explaining why the two communities appear able to successfully co-exist in one

defined area and not the other. Townville could be described as two separate settlements

within one town. There are clear and well understood boundaries between the CNR and

PUL communities, with shared retail areas in-between. Each community has in many ways

developed in parallel to the other and is able to access housing, educational, social and a

range of retail facilities that do not demand significant and/or sophisticated levels of sharing

and interaction. The communities are thus able to mediate each other’s presence in the

broad context of Townville by remaining separate within it. There is little requirement or

reason for the two communities to come in to contact and where they do, for instance in the

workplace, this is likely to be for the short-term context from which they return to their own

residential areas. Workplaces are strongly mediated by workplace cultures in which forms of

social politeness and studied avoidance of difference are well established social norms.

This ethnic separation is not class-based but prevails across a wide mix of social

backgrounds, with each defined area of Townville having a mix of housing type, schools and

other facilities. There is also a clear different cultural context to each part of Townville, one

with an evident focus on Gaelic sports and culture evidenced by team colours and the other

with a focus on the ‘colours’ of the PUL community. Each community is thus able to hold

events linked to these cultural contexts in ways which avoid contact with the other

community and, as such, avoid the potential for conflict.

Ashville, by contrast, is a smaller settlement where the two communities live in very close

proximity. Such proximity clearly provides many more opportunities for contact which, when

combined with open expression of ethno-cultural identity and the majority – minority

dynamics of the town, can give rise to serious sectarian tension and conflict.

146

The relatively simplistic answer to the question of why some communities peacefully co-exist

while others can’t is a reflection of the levels of segregation and the extent to which that

segregation is mediated at visible and invisible interfaces; where communities simply do not

have to mix with the other community in any permanent, meaningful way and where

expressions of ethno-cultural identity occur within agreed or at least historically acceptable

boundaries. Where contact occurs it is either in neutral shared public space and/or

increasingly neutralised workplaces following which each can return to the safety of their

own segregated living space. While most clearly seen in Townville, this explanation is

certainly relevant to other areas of the study including Mileville (where issues linked to

paramilitary feuding is as important a part of their identity as any perceived differences with

the CNR community) and Rowville, where the two communities in the study are separated

by both physical barriers and extensive open and industrial space. This is not to suggest

that the long-term solution to inter-community relations in N.Ireland is to promote

segregation but more of an explanation as to why some communities are able to co-exist in

relative but not immediate proximity.

Of course it is not so unusual for communities with strong, unique identities to seek to live,

work and play in close proximity to others from the same community. Few people living in

Manchester or London object to the existence of a ‘Chinatown’ in these cities, indeed these

are supported and celebrated as culturally unique and as evidence of a level of comfort with

multi-culturalism as opposed to a policy of complete integration or indeed assimilation to the

majority community. Such culturally segregated areas seem only to become seen as a

problem when something about that community is seen as posing a threat to the majority

community and or its perceived values. So, in Manchester, areas mainly populated by

people of a Muslim background are not celebrated in quite the same way as ‘Chinatown’ and

indeed these segregated Muslim areas can be sometimes branded, often inappropriately, as

breeding grounds for extreme forms of political Islam.

It is often the case that such negative perceptions are based on misconceptions of the

people living in those areas and our research suggests that this is also an underlying feature

of community division in N.Ireland. Our analysis of the areas provided above does seem to

indicate that there are many people in these networks who genuinely do wish to live in a

peaceful society that is characterised by more integration across all social networks and not

because we live, work and socialise apart. While the research also suggests that cross-

community interventions have been having a positive impact in some of the areas, it is clear

from the ethnographic research and wider experience that significant clear barriers still exist

between the communities. It seems that they want to integrate more but can’t - so what

might be preventing this greater integration?

To answer this question we must look not only at people’s views of themselves but also their

views on the other community. Could it be that people feel ready themselves but don’t feel

that the other community is ready? In order to understand this issue better we have isolated

those people who have expressed the strongest wish to integrate with the other community

and then studied the impression that these people have of those in the other community. We

have used as our independent variable the selection of the perspective ‘to accept the other

tradition living in my area’ and this has allowed us to filter out all those people who have

endorsed this viewpoint, not only as an aspiration but in terms of their thinking in the current

147

time. For clarity, our approach separates out aspirations from current thinking and in this

case the individual cases identified support shared living spaces in both contexts.

From the whole study sample of 115 participants, 59 (51%) feel that they not only aspire to

accept people from the other tradition living in their area but that they would currently. This

is a fairly positive result but hides some significant differences between the networks. If we

split the 59 cases who aspire to let the other tradition into their area, the counts by network

are as follows:

Figure 5.79: Levels of support for integration across all networks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% of participants supporting integration

This table in itself provides somewhat of a summary of the analyses in earlier sections.

Across the whole study the CNR communities emerge as apparently more ready to integrate

than the PUL communities. This is consistent with the perspective of the PUL community

‘losing ground’ through a dynamic of the perception of ‘Unionist loss’ and ‘Nationalist gain’

that has been voiced not just in the ethnographic stages of this study but more widely in the

media over many years as well as previous research27.

27

McAuley, J and Spencer, G (eds) (2011) Ulster Loyalism after the Good Friday Agreement: History, Identity

and Change. Palgrave Macmillan; Southern, N (2008) Territoriality, Alienation, and Loyalist Decommissioning:

The Case of the Shankill in Protestant West Belfast. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20:66–86, 2008; Southern,

N (2007) Protestant alienation in Northern Ireland: A political, cultural and geographical examination Journal

of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol: 33 (1) 2007 Page: 159 -180; Edwards, A and Bloomer, S (2008)

Transforming the Peace Process in Northern Ireland: From Terrorism to Democratic Politics. Irish Academic

148

Despite this, the evidence is that many in both communities favour greater levels of

integration and this specific analysis is aimed at investigating whether or not progress

towards more successful integration is linked to a poor understanding of the values and

beliefs of the other community which is of course a fundamental social psychological aspect

of negative stereotyping and related sectarian attitudes. In order to evaluate this, we have

compared the preferences of this group of 59 in favour of integration with the preferences

that this group perceive the other community to have. To add depth to this analysis, we

have made this comparison across a range of issues all generally seen as integrationist.

The chart below provides details of the average ratings provided by this group of 59 in

favour of integration. The table contrasts the respondent’s rating for ‘ideal self’ with the

rating given to ‘people from the other tradition living nearby’, as denoted by the data for

‘Ideal’ and ‘Other community’.

Figure 5.80: Negative perceptions of the other community by those who themselves

support greater integration

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

I can go anywhere










Ideal Other community

The chart indicates that, for eight of the ten preferences presented above, those in favour of

integration in the study are of the view that people from the other community do not share

their aspirations for a shared society. Where no data appears for ‘Other Community, this

result was a zero. This provides a fundamental answer to the question ‘why don’t we have a

shared society’ – even people who are evidently keen to integrate and feel that they are

ready to do so do not feel that people from the other community feel the same way.

Press Ltd. Dunn, S. and Morgan, V. (1994) Protestant Alienation in Northern Ireland: a Preliminary Survey.

Coleraine: University of Ulster, Centre for the Study of Conflict.

149

The attribution of such negative characteristics to people from the other community may well

explain any lack of enthusiasm for engaging in direct contact and dialogue. There is a self-

reinforcing cycle here that must be challenged if positive changes in community relations are

to be achieved, as indicated in the diagram below.

These findings go some way to explain continued resistance to greater integration but a

deeper question then arises – are they right? Are there actually fundamental differences in

the belief systems of the two communities? Our research suggests that they are right but

only on some specific issues which repeatedly emerge as sources of disagreement between

the communities. The issue of parades is the most common source of this disagreement but

there are others. These are reviewed in more detail in Section 6.

150

6. Observations and implications for policy makers

6.1 Introduction

One of the key aims of this research was ‘To identify quantitative aspects of the underlying

psychology of residents in a range of residential areas, allowing comparison between those

residents who are able to co-exist with little aggravation and those who appear to find

proximity to people of the other tradition difficult to handle.’

The recommendations below are framed within the parameters of this study and what it tells

us about the different types of communities and, with respect to their identities, attitudes and

aspirations for change, what this can tell us about potential programmes for change28.

In terms of overall understanding and mutual accommodation of the other community, the

results show very positive aspirations but significant barriers to change, with four networks

(in Mileville and Ashville) exhibiting a current need for separate spaces, even though they

harbour aspirations for greater integration.

The gap between aspirations and actuality is significant and it is clear that community

relations policy and interventions must be designed and implemented in the context of local

issues.

Across the study the CNR communities emerge as aspirationally more ready to integrate

than the PUL communities, given the right circumstances. Many of the more negative

evaluations of the PUL community by CNR participants are based around parading issues.

Whilst parading is a significant aspect of the PUL networks, our research has identified that

in areas where there is conflict around parades there remain opportunities for movement.

Whilst the evidence is that many in both communities aspire (to various degrees) to greater

levels of integration, progress towards more successful integration is directly linked to a poor

understanding of the values and beliefs of the other community which is central to the

maintenance of sectarian attitudes and related behaviours. The research clearly shows that

even those who are keen to integrate do not feel that people from the other community feel

the same. The attribution of negative aspirations to the opposite community creates a self-

reinforcing cycle of separation and segregation.

28

Note that this research has not included a review or mapping of community relations activities in

each study area but is based upon the information gleaned from the ethnographic research and on

the existing knowledge of the project partners.

151

6.2 General conclusions

• The results highlight many opportunities to engage in community relations

interventions across all communities within local contextual parameters.

• All participants agreed that the peace process has reduced sectarianism and showed

a strong desire to have a positive effect on cross-community relations. Most agreed

that increased contact with the other community reduced sectarian tension.

• The high levels of at least some shared values and aspirations across all communities

provides some evidence of common ground on which to build a sense of mutual

understanding.

• There are, in particular, shared and very positive aspirations on shared living and

working space.

• There was little evidence of fear of travelling outside of core residential areas for work

and developing shared workplaces.

• On the issue of shared education, the results show a similar pattern to that seen on the

issue of mixed residential areas, namely a positive aspiration in all networks which is

prevented by short term fears over security and vague fears over ‘loss of identity’.

• A number of areas highlighted the ongoing negative influence of paramilitarism in

terms of community development and as an obstacle to cross community engagement.

• The research indicated that young adults’ high aspirations for greater cross

community contact and sharing were as positive as older adults but that their short-

term majority view is sharply one of wishing to remain separate from the other

community.

• It is clear that many from both communities aspire to share in ‘Irish sports, language and

arts’ but that Loyal Order parades were considered exclusive to the PUL

community. Controversial parades still pose significant problems in addressing

sectarian tension and conflict.

• With regards to the importance of a local parade, the PUL networks all show majority

support for parading but, when measured on our scale of real psychological 'buy-in',

there is clear evidence that many of the respondents in these networks are not at all sure

of this stated perspective. This is really a 'yes...but' position where, when forced to

chose, they opt to support parading but with underlying reservations.

• In contrast, five of the six Catholic/Nationalist/Republican (CNR) networks express

strong views against parades. The Southville CNR network was the only CNR

network that felt a local parade was important, perhaps reflecting realism on their part.

• Significantly, two PUL groups expressed positive attitudes to Irish language and other

cultural activities indicating potential for the investigation of shared heritage and

linguistic programmes.

152

• The results on the issue of whether or not 'a bit of trouble at parades is OK' point towards

a realisation among PUL networks that trouble is really not acceptable. So, although

the majority of PUL networks state that trouble is acceptable when asked for a yes/no

answer, their true position is actually not so black and white and they may well respond

to initiatives aimed at reducing trouble at parades.

• Attitudes to immigration were positive in all CNR networks, whilst the Townville PUL

network was unaccommodating to immigrants living in or moving into the area, it was the

only network with an aspiration to keep immigrants out. Whilst the Mileville PUL One

showed a positive aspiration to welcome immigrants, they exhibited a deep concern as to

their immediate presence, due to perceptions of anti-social behaviour amongst young

male migrants in neighbouring areas.

• Both the PUL and CNR communities viewed their respective main political party as

largely important. Each community also viewed the local council in a similar manner.

However the extent to which the political parties and the councils were viewed as

positive varied. For instance in some PUL areas Sinn Fein were viewed more positively

than the DUP.

• The local council at a general level was more positively evaluated among the CNR

groups (average evaluation of 50%) compared with the PUL Groups (average evaluation

of 33%). The ethnographic research also suggested less engagement in local politics

among the PUL population. Within the focus groups, there was no clear sense of a

constructive role being played by local councils in resolving current tensions. The

ethnographic research in Townville and Ashville suggested that capacity in local

government was viewed as poor. In other areas councils were viewed as playing a

useful role in providing grants for community relations work but with limited roles noted in

proactive cross-community engagement.

• There is a marked difference in the evaluation of the local community groups - with the

CNR networks being much more positive about local community infrastructure than the

PUL networks. This might suggest a more sophisticated community infrastructure within

CNR areas and a dearth of similar structures in PUL areas. In PUL areas, it was felt that

ongoing paramilitary influence was stifling community development.

6.3 Area Specific Conclusions

Mileville

The community is not opposed to the idea of inter-community working since, in terms of

security, they feel no immediate threat from the CNR community. The evidence also clearly

demonstrates that the participants want to see a reduction in the influence of paramilitarism

in the area.

Ashville

The Ashville PUL group have a strong desire for greater cross community contact and

sharing. They recognise the importance of the local parade but are also clearly conflicted

about it; these internal conflicts suggest potential for movement in resolving the problem.

153

The Ashville CNR group hold negative views of the PUL community generally and the

parading issue in particular but are open to the development of shared spaces and a shared

society if that meant an end to parading.

Townville

The high levels of established segregation in Townville appear to militate against any desire

for shared living space and integration. The PUL group do not appear strongly cohesive

however whilst the CNR group are very cohesive around Irish cultural issues but remain

open to cross community working. There is also a strong dissociation from dissident

republicanism. The separation created by a major transport route cannot be underestimated;

it creates feelings of geographical isolation for large sections of CNR community, particularly

the young, and is thought to contribute to economic under-development in that part of the

town. The levels of social exclusion are considered intense and leave young adults victim to

dissident influence. According to ethnographic research, there has been recent injection of

funding in single identity capacity building and cross community initiatives at a youth level

but they are thought unlikely to have any major impact on community relation due to the

levels of segregation.

Rowville

Both groups possess strong core ethnic identities but also evidence positive attitudes

towards a range of integrationist values in comparison to other groups in the study. This is

particularly the case for the PUL group which also exhibits a wish to see less influence from

paramilitaries. The CNR group were a very cohesive group with strong ties to the local area,

broad support for mainstream republicanism and a negative view of their PUL neighbours.

Southville

The Southville PUL population reflects a confidence in identity whilst exhibiting some

conflicted aspirations around parading which, with high aspiration for integrationist values,

may suggest potential for compromise. The CNR group is a relatively cohesive community;

though this is balanced by significant tension and pressure as result of the parades issue.

Tigerville

These two CNR groups exhibit positive self evaluation and confidence in the face of a larger

majority PUL neighbour. They hold strong beliefs and values whilst aspiring to live in a more

shared and integrated society whilst remaining aware of the difficulties in achieving any long

term development.

6.4 Recommendations

• The desire for separation and segregation suggests that worryingly more sectarian views

are emerging amongst younger networks, as seen in Mileville One, Townville and

Ashville. More research is necessary to explore why young people hold these views and

to what extent they are based upon experience, communal memory, influence of

community leaders or an absence of genuine community relations initiatives.

154

• The experience of Rowville suggests the potential positive impact of prejudice reduction,

inter-cultural and anti-sectarian initiatives in areas of high segregation and paramilitary

influence. Intervention projects should be directed to adopt these approaches.

• Given the deep levels of misunderstanding and mistrust witnessed across all the

networks studied, greater emphasis must be placed on the design of local interventions

and the measurable development of local capacity. Future emphasis should be on direct

mediation and anti-sectarian work at a local level including a greater involvement by local

councils in the delivery of community relations initiatives, particularly in those areas were

local council intervention was identified as weak (Townville and Ashville).

The research has highlighted that local contexts are crucial in understanding the identity

concerns of local residents and the potential for more integrationist approaches. Below we

have suggested some broad recommendations regarding local interventions.

6.4.1 Area Interventions

In Ashville the conflicted identity concerns of PUL and the majority status of the CNR

community indicate a potential for movement on the parades issue. Ethnographic work

suggests both sides are willing to engage if provided with the right environment to do so.

However the research at the focus group and interview stage indicated that there was a lack

of will in local government and / or a lack of skills to engage on the parading issue which,

when combined with a deep distrust of the Parades Commission among the CNR

population, suggests a dearth of capacity in facilitation and conflict resolution.

Mileville - the ongoing influence of paramilitary structures in Loyalist areas is in need of

further research and discussion. The role played by paramilitaries in conflict transformation

has been central to progressive changes in many areas however the extent to which those

same structures are now holding communities back needs investigated.

Southville offers potential for further mediation regarding parades, though again distrust of

the Parades Commission and the lack of capacity in crucial areas mitigates against any

positive change.

Tigerville is a bounded enclave and yet exhibits a positive and outward looking community.

We suggest that further research should be conducted in the neighbouring PUL area to

identify the issues for increased joint working across the interfaces.

Townville is an example in extremis of almost well-structured and mediated segregation;

shared space such as it does exist is well established along lines of politeness and social

distancing. The strong sense of lack of support for dissidents in the CNR network suggests

that ongoing support of its work (and similar work across CNR networks) is crucial in

deflecting support away from dissident activities and towards positive community based

cultural activities.

The two communities in Rowville have been engaged in community relations interventions for a number of years. The PUL community in particular have participated on an ongoing basis with Trademark on a range of community relations issues.

155

The experience of this intervention added to the findings of the report suggest there is further scope for increased anti-sectarian programmes of a challenging nature with a range of stakeholders in the area.

156

Appendices

157

Appendix I

Agenda for interviews

Introduction

We are approaching persons who are actively engaged with the local community, of

particular concern to the project is the contribution such people make to influencing

how the ‘overall identity’ of the community is expressed internally within the

community and externally to the wider society. We are seeking the views of influential

residents about what constitutes effective practice in promoting community identity and well-

being.

1. Interface issues – are there any interface areas in this area? Are they contentious? How does living in an interface area impact on you and this community? What is your view on the interface area? What is your view on peace walls?

2. Community Vision- What is your vision of what this community should be like? What are the barriers to achieving this vision? What can help you achieve this vision?

3. Facilities - What about access to community, sport and leisure facilities in the area – is there easy access? Are facilities shared with other communities? Are there similar facilities nearby used by the other community?

4. Religious institutions – what churches are prominent in this area? What role does the church play in this area? Is it a positive role? Does the church influence the identity of this area?

5. Policing – do you think policing has changed in the last 5 years? Would you like to see it change more?

6. Anti-social Behaviour – is there much anti-social behaviour in this area? How does that have an impact on how you see this community? How does it impact on how others see this community? What are the causes of anti-social behaviour?

7. Cultural identity – what influences the cultural identity of this area? How is the area affected by parades, loyal orders, the GAA?

8. Education – what types of schools are there in this area? How does their presence impact on the identity of the community? What are your views on Irish medium schools, integrated schools, grammar, and secondary schools?

158

9. Immigration – how do you think NI has been influenced by immigration into it from the last 5 years? Has this area been affected by immigration? Has it had an influence on the identity of this area?

10. Sectarianism - – how do you think NI has been influenced by sectarianism in the last 5 years? Has this area been affected by sectarianism? Has it had an influence on the identity of this area?

11. Paramilitaries – do paramilitary organisations have an influence on this area? How? Has this changed in the last 5 years?

12. Any other issues that affect this area?

What key people/ groups/ Organisations influence you and the identity of this area?

From this list who/what would you say has had an impact on your identity and who

has had an impact on the identity of this area?

159

Appendix II

Instrument content

Entity Label : Classification

01 Me as I would like to be Ideal Self

02 Me as I would hate to be Contra Ideal Self

03 Me as I am likely to be in five years time Future Self

04 Me when I am with those closest to me Current Self

05 Me when I bump into people from a group that scares me Current Self

06 My Mother _

07 My Father _

08 Loyalist Paramilitaries _

09 Republican Dissidents _

10 Sinn Fein _

11 The DUP _

12 My nominated local group _

13 The local church _

14 Eastern European Immigrants _

15 Black and Asian Immigrants _

16 The PSNI _

17 Youngsters that I know _

18 Me at the height of the troubles Past Self

19 Same tradition in my area _

20 Other tradition in the nearby community _

21 The local Council _

Construct Label Left : Label Right

01 lots of community spirit no community spirit

02 paramilitaries better than police police better than paramilitaries

03 religion should have central role religion a personal matter

04 I can go anywhere areas I just wouldn't go near

05 Immigrants welcomed Immigrants kept out

06 wouldn't care where my workplace is located will only work my side or mixed

07 overreact in politics and religion justified in being aggressive

08 trouble at parades ok not worth the trouble they cause

09 flags and murals that reflect my traditions all flags etc should be removed

10 don't let the other tradition into their area accept other tradition

11 never forget history history should be forgotten

12 kids go to school where they will mix kids go to school with their own kind

13 positive impact on cross-community relations negative impact on cross-community relations

14 peace process has reduced sectarianism peace process has increased sectarianism

15 PULs gaining advantage CNRs gaining advantage

16 local parade not important local parade important

17 Walls don't keep the peace Walls keep the peace

18 happy sharing public spaces need separate spaces

19 people from my tradition are being forced out people from my tradition feel welcomed

20 living peacefully by knowing and respecting each other living peacefully by ignoring each other

21

Irish sports, language and arts are really only for the

Catholic community

Irish sports, language and arts should be enjoyed by all


22

Increased contact with people from the opposite tradition


Increased contact with people from the opposite tradition

has no effect

23

New housing and facilities on sites like Sirocco would really

help improve this area There is good enough housing and facilities in the area

24 Good people have left Good people have remained

25

only sports clubs that cater for all sections of the

community should be encouraged each tradition should have their own sports clubs

* Note that, for the participants in Mileville, the construct on ‘Irish sports, language and arts’ was

replaced with a similar construct worded ‘events such as the 11th

night bonfire and the 12th

July’.

160

Appendix III

Parameter ranges by network

Note: these ranges are provided primarily to demonstrate the differing

nature of the networks and to provide guidance on the upper and lower

limits by which we have classified results.

A special note on classifying structural pressure( SP) results.

In the analysis sections of this report we have used these group-based benchmarks to

distinguish between higher levels of SP, (termed Core), moderate levels of SP (termed

Secondary) and low levels of SP (termed Conflicted). These group-specific cut-offs are

provided in the parameter range tables below. Core levels of SP are any results above the

ModHi value, Secondary levels of SP are between ModHi and ModLo and Conflicted levels

of SP are any results below ModLo. Note that the cut-offs used are specific to each group

and are therefore at quite different levels between groups. Some groups with generally

higher levels of SP across all of the issues might be considered to be more confident and

secure in their belief systems, while others with generally low levels of SP are comparatively

less so.

161

Mileville PUL One

Mileville PUL Two

162

Ashville CNR

Ashville PUL

163

Townville CNR

Townville PUL

164

Rowville PUL

Rowville CNR

165

Southville PUL

Southville CNR

166

Tigerville CNR One

Tigerville CNR Two

Final report March 31st 2011

Documents

Transcript of Final report March 31st 2011