Th

e In

tern

atio

na

l Jou

rna

l of

Diversity in O

rganizatio

ns, Co

mm

unities & N

ations

Volume X

,Num

ber X

,2010

The Internat ional Journal of Divers i ty in Organizat ions, Communit ies and Nat ions creates a space for discussion for anyone with an interest in, and concern for, mediating cultural difference and diversity. The journal examines the realities of difference and diversity today, empirically and critically as well as optimistically and strategically, touching upon the topics of globalisation, identity and social group formation. At a time of virulent reactions to difference and globalisation (ethnonationalism, racist backlash, parochialism and protection-ism), there is a pressing need to reflect critically on the shape and the possibilities of the normative agendas of diversity and globalism. The journal is a place for thinking about and discussing these pressing matters, and in ways that range from the ‘big picture’ and the theoretical, to the practical and everyday business of negotiating difference and diversity in organisations, communities and civic life.

The journal is relevant for academics,, educators and research students in the fields of globalisation, nationalism, anthropology and cultural studies, tourism studies, ethnic studies, indigenous studies, gender studies, disability studies, gay and lesbian studies, diversity management; public administrators and policy-makers; private and public sector leaders: diversity management, equal employment opportunity, human resource development and workplace trainers and change agents—anyone with an interest, and concern for, mediating cultural difference.

The Internat ional Journal of Divers i ty in Organisat ions, Communit ies and Nat ions is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

in Organizat ions,Communit ies & Nat ions

DIVERSITY

www.Diversity-Journal.comwww.Diversity-Journal.com

JOURNALT H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

of

Volume 11

A Conceptual Framework Review of SocialExclusion, and its Relation with Social Cohesion

and Poverty in Europe

Safaa Shaaban

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS, COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS http://www.Diversity-Journal.com First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com ISSN: 1447-9532 © 2011 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS, COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

A Conceptual Framework Review of Social Exclusion,and its Relation with Social Cohesion and Poverty inEuropeSafaa Shaaban, University of Salford, Manchester, UK

Abstract: Purpose: the purpose of this paper is to engage with the debate, explore and analyse someof the literature on the concept argument of social exclusion in the literature overview and its relationwith social cohesion and poverty. Furthermore the paper distinguishes between social exclusion andpoverty. The debate about social exclusion this paper suggests is at the same time a debate about thesocial inclusion dynamics of European modernity. Design/ methodology/ approach: Research reviewsof articles and research study, that will summarise and identify common themes and gaps in the liter-ature without using statistical techniques and a brief examination of the social exclusion and socialcohesion in Europe, with distinguish between poverty and social exclusion. Implication: a long termstudy is needed to present a practical methodology for measurement and assessment of social exclusion,and to identify the groups of individuals most at risk. Searching and piloting different ways to makecommunities are more inclusive but rather to change their nature, make them at one and the sametime both less exclusives and less inclusive. Finding: the most highlighting findings in this paper arethe social exclusion dimensions, underpinnings of social exclusion, and the different between povertyand social exclusion; however the social exclusion can lead to poverty, poverty in knowledge, povertyin skills, poverty in citizenship and poverty in community participating full in the economic, social andpolitical life of the society where they live - often because of their language, culture, religious or racialcharacteristics. These groups are typically also poor. Research limitation/ implementation: a realaction research need to be carried and highlight the most causes of social exclusion, and a real distin-guish need to be raised on social exclusion causes in different countries even in Europe for benchmark-ing.

Keywords: Social Exclusion, Poverty, Social Cohesion

Introduction

RECENTLY, A NEW social disease has been identified and it seems to be becominga critical issue in advanced social studies. Beginning with in early 1990`s, both inUS andWestern Europe, social researchers, political scientists and especially studentsin Anthropology discussed exclusion as themain `disease` of contemporary societies.

Exclusion and marginality have clear and distinct meanings; even though they use to focuson similar problems.ince the 1960s social exclusion became the subject of debate in France, but only after the

economic crisis in the 1980s and the introduction of the Revenu Minimum d’Insertion (thenational assistance law) the concept was widely used (Silver 1994: 532). Once social exclusionhad become a prominent item on the EU’s policy agenda in the second half of the 1990s,attention began to focus on defining and specifying the concept more closely, the AmsterdamTreaty made the combating of exclusion an explicit objective of the community (Traty estab-

The International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and NationsVolume 11, 2011, http://www.Diversity-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9532© Common Ground, Safaa Shaaban, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

lishing the European Community, Article 136). The policy to combat social exclusion hasto be evaluated, and to do this it is necessary to establish what social exclusion requires,what indicators can be used to establish its existence, and which aspects influence it. Whilethis has intensified the scientific debate on the meaning of social exclusion considerably, uptill now, policy-makers have not been presented with a generally agreed scientific conceptu-alization.Social exclusion will be defined on the basis of a number of social indicators, or ‘risk

factors’. These risk factors, which are assumed to imply some negative influence on the viewof social inclusion, are low income, unskilled labor, poor health, immigration, low educationlevel, school dropout, gender inequality, discrimination and racism, old age, divorce, drugabuse, alcoholism and living in a ‘problem accumulation area’ (European Commission 2002:10).Social exclusion is a sophisticated concept that encompasses linked problems and may

affect people or areas. Allin (2000) suggests that there appears to be some confusion as towhether it is people or areas that suffer exclusion. Likewise, Glass (2000) has raised thequery ‘do we want to measure social exclusion or the effects of trying to combat social ex-clusion?. Quite clearly, people can be socially excluded, for example, because of poverty,and/or factors such as age or disability, even if they live in prosperous communities.Poverty may be considered as a complete lack, e.g. persons who do not attain the income

level required for the completion of their basic needs. For social exclusion there is no suchcomplete demarcation point. It can only be assessed in a relative way, by comparing a personscircumstances vis-à-vis others in the same socio-historical context (Goodin et al., 1999).Silver (1994) argues that, poverty relates to a single dimension: a shortage of financial or

material resources, or income deprivation (Silver 1994: 545). Social exclusion involves thelack in several dimensions, which are associated with ‘full citizenship’, paid work and income,education, housing, health care, legal assistance, accessibility of public provisions (Silver,1994: 545).Poverty relates to the distribution of economic aspects of disadvantage in income or con-

sumption. Social exclusion also concerns relational and socio-cultural aspects, such assolidarity, social bonds and participation, integration, engagement, discrimination, and normsof social citizenship (e.g. reciprocity, mutual obligations). This difference is also often de-scribed as the material versus nonmaterial nature of the two concepts (Vrooman & Snel1999).Social exclusion and related concepts such as social binding and social coherence are

much more prominent on today’s political agenda of EU.Social cohesion as a social policy goal has recently appeared in policy statements in relation

to outcomes associated with social exclusion settlement. This paper explores some of theliterature on social cohesion and illustrated with Europe perspective and international per-spective. A definition has been presented by author such as Dahrendorf et al. (1995), for thesocial cohesion by relating to the concepts of social exclusion/ inclusion and of social capital.For example Dahrendorf et al. (1995) described a social cohesive society as a society pre-venting social exclusion; social cohesion comes in to describe a society which offers oppor-tunities to all its members within a framework of accepted values and institutions. Such asociety is, therefore, one of inclusion. People belong; they are not allowed to be excluded”(Dahrendorf et al. 1995: VII). Other authors have highlighted that the social capital of a so-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

ciety is an essential basis of its social capital of a society is an essential foundation of itssocial cohesion (Mc Cracken 1998).Over the last decade, social exclusion has become the first dimension of social cohesion.

Social exclusion represents a further concept which has become more popular. In recentyears, it has increasingly attracted attention in scientific and socio-political discussions onactual social concerns. The popularity of the concept was especially promoted through thegrowing interest in matters of social exclusion at the level of European Union. As a resultof that, The European Commission lunched a series of research programmes in the agendaof the European observation on National policies to combat social exclusion and the EuropeanPoverty programmed (Maxwell 1996).This paper is a review of literature about social exclusion and social cohesion in Europe

and will cover the argument of social exclusion and its relation with social cohesion andpoverty.

Research Method and DataThis paper provides Research reviews for articles, that will identify common themes andgaps in the literature without using statistical techniques and a brief examination of the socialexclusion and social cohesion in Europe, with distinguish between poverty and social exclu-sion. The research based on published literature in the social exclusion and social cohesionwith support illustrated example from the UK based on literature review and one exampleraised during the author research on “learning approach to improve the workforce skills inNorth East of England” conduct on 2007, also this study provides a brief review of the termof social exclusion, as well as the trend in social exclusion research themes.

Social Exclusion ConceptThe concept of ‘social exclusion’ has diffuse origins. Discussions in France as far back asthe 1960s involving politicians, academics, officials and journalists saw the poor referredto as ‘les exclus’ (Burchardt et al, 2002; Silver, 1994). In a European context, from 1990onwards, ‘social exclusion’ was used instead of ‘poverty’ in the European Union PovertyProgrammes (Room, 1995b). The term ‘social exclusion’ first appeared in British mainstreampolitical vocabulary in the summer of 1997, in a speech by Peter Mandelson (Benn, 2000).Since then it has retained a prominent place in the Labour Party lexicon (Wagg, 2004). Yetdespite its significance to the current UK policy agenda, social exclusion remains the focusof fierce debates. Questions concerning its definition and measurement are discussed atlength elsewhere (Burchardt et al, 2002; Percy-Smith, 2000). It is useful, however, to lookbriefly at these issues; since they relate specifically to the way in which social inclusionpolicy can be evaluated.The difficulty of hypothesis of providing an adequate explanation of social exclusion is

illustrated by a definition given by a United Kingdom government agency: ‘a sick communityand cities can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problemssuch as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environment,bad health and family breakdown’ (Social Exclusion Unit 2001).Social exclusion is seen as a potential consequence of a number of risk factors, without

that consequence being spelled out (Edwards and Flatley 1996). What may be understood

SAFAA SHAABAN

by the term social exclusion is left embedded, in several studies preference is given to an‘indirect’ definition, by indicating which factors or indicators influence the risk of socialexclusion (Burchardt et al. 2002: 5-6)Themain determinants of social exclusion are the relation to the isolation or marginalization

of certain people within a society. It is often connected to a person’s social class, educationstatus and living standards and how these might affect their access to various opportunities;It also applies to some degree to the disabled, racial minorities, low income, unemployed,living in a one parent household, ex-prisoner, women and the elderly. Anyone who divergesin any perceived way from the mean of population can become a subject to forms of socialexclusion. In London as pointed out by Lansley (2006), the wealthier lead the best education,housing and healthcare. In this City salaries greatly distort the housing market, priceing outpoorer groups. The research shows that Rich Britain draws on a wealth more unequal soci-eties show higher levels of ill-health, crime, and racial discrimination (Wilkinson,1996).The Lansley’s bookmessage was “Ignoring the wealthy is not good enough, for the inequalitythat results from the widening gap between rich and poor hurts everyone (Lansley 2006:265)”.He argues that the wealthy in Britain today are disengaged to the point of social exclusion.This ‘detached and insular super-class’ are ‘ring-fenced’ from the rest of society: many nolonger pay tax in the UK . They live segregated lives in gated communities a world apartfrom the realm of social responsibility and citizenship, refusing to participate in the servicesand activities that define the lives of the great majority.Lansley (2006) pointed out that the term ‘social exclusion’ is usually take place to describe

the effects of lasting poverty – but claims that it should be applied to the new super-classwho are ‘increasingly divorced from common experience’. He quotes positively the Amer-ican social historian Christopher Lasch who argues that Western societies are increasinglycomposed of business elites that monopolise money, education and power, ‘choosing to livein an exclusive world of their own’ (Lasch, 1996:98). Yet it is not at all clear that any coherentclass of socially excluded wealthy individuals could be robustly defined andmeasured. Socialexclusion has been the leading metaphor deployed by the UK Government since 1997.Social exclusion is used to describe many different things; it refers primarily to problems

encountered in modern welfare states, such as long-term unemployment and ‘modern’poverty. Such problems may lead to people being excluded from participation in all kindsof institutional, social, cultural and political associations. It is related to lack of resourcesthat people commonly use to participate in society, in other words, there is a ‘deficient cit-izenship’. Such resources are not only financial ones (income, consumption) but also non-financial ones (health, welfare, social participation, housing, education, paid employment).Poverty indicates a lack of these resources in relation to what is regarded as minimally ne-cessary in a society.Social exclusion dimensions: it is often argued that the social exclusion usefulness lies

in emphasising the different dimensions or realms of everyday life where inequalities arise,(de Haan 1999 and Vobruka 2000). Reviews of the kind emphasize the importance of makinglinks across these dimensions and focus on different societal dimensions where social exclu-sion is obvious, which are summarised in Table 1. Sommerville (1998), for instance, identifiesthree dimensions of social exclusion: the economic; political; and moral. Madanipour (1998)emphasises similar dimensions, incorporating the economic, political and cultural arenas.De Haan (1999) refers to exclusion in the economic, political and social spheres. Within thedifferent realms, (see Table 1) questions about exclusion and social integration range from

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

concerns about access to social networks and supports, to enabling access to resources,democratic decision-making and common cultural practices.

Table 1: Societal Spheres Where Social Exclusion is Manifested,Source: Adapted from Arthurson (2002: 4)

Using the British Household Panel Survey indicators, Burchardt et al (1999) measure fivedimensions of social exclusion. These are: Consumption activity; Savings activity; Productionactivity; Political activity; and Social activity. They conclude that it would be erroneous toview those who are socially excluded as homogenous groups. An individual’s ability toparticipate on each of these dimensions is affected by a wide range of factors includingpersonal characteristics, life events and the political institutions of society. People excludedat one dimension are likely to be excluded at other levels.In England Four dimensions of social exclusion has been identified in poverty and social

exclusion survey in Britain 2000 report, published by Joseph Rowntree Foundation. TheseFour dimensions of exclusion are: impoverishment or exclusion from adequate income orresources; labour market exclusion; service exclusion; and exclusion from social relations.The first of these aspects, poverty itself (David Gordon et al 2000).Social Exclusion underpinnings: The different viewpoints about cause and effect highlight

the finding that social exclusion is grounded in conflicting social science paradigms andpolitical ideologies, enabling it to be deployed in different ways. The concept allows fordifferent elaborations of underlying values and ways of thinking about where the causes andsolutions of inequality lie. Silver’s (1994) work elaborates this point about the inexact natureof the concept of social exclusion, showing that despite common usage of the term, inNorthern Europe and Britain, the concept is conceived of differently in different countries

SAFAA SHAABAN

due to diverse historical and political traditions. Three paradigms of social exclusion areidentified as Solidarity, Specialisation andMonopoly. The key characteristics of each modelare summarised in Table 2.De Haan (1999) suggests that these three typologies represent ‘ideal’ models and most

societies reflect a mix of ideas, encompassing a diversity of debates and meanings of socialexclusion. Levitas (1998) reinforces this point showing how social exclusion is deployed inat least three different ways in contemporary British politics and social policy. She identifies:first, a ‘redistributionist discourse’, which emphasises poverty and the lack of full citizenshipas the main causal factors of inequality Second, the ‘moral underclass discourse’, whichhighlights the individual morality of people living in poverty as the principal cause of exclu-sion; and third, a ‘social integrationist discourse’, which extols the importance of employmentas a means to combat social exclusion.

Table 2: Silver’s Paradigms of Social Exclusion Model Tradition Cause of Social ExclusionSolutions

Differences between Social Exclusion and PovertyThe debate on what social exclusion actually means in concrete terms was launched mainlyby scientists and researchers who were concerned with the problem of poverty in the 1990s(Todman 2004: 1).Currently the policy goals concentrate on reducing social exclusion rather than combating

poverty. This has led to the use of two different concepts in both literature and research(Saraceno 2001: 6). The meaning of each concept is controversial, which can be traced backto differences between the French and the Anglo-American scientific tradition (Gough 1997:82). The French school builds social cohesion and solidarity upon the theories of Durkheim(1897) that social cohesion and solidarity, the importance of combined values and norms,and the risk of social alienation (anomie) Social cohesion and solidarity are considered es-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

sential to uphold the social contract on which a society is based. This perspective tends muchmore towards the concept of social exclusion than poverty, the core issue in the Anglo-American literature. Here research took its lead from theories of social inequality and relativedeprivation, which regard unequal access to income, basic goods, public services and citizen-ship rights as the starting point for research into poverty and social exclusion (Levitas, 2006:135).A research by Durkheim (1897) took its lead from theories of social inequality and relative

deprivation which regard unequal access to income, basic goods, public services and citizen-ship rights as the starting point for research into poverty and social exclusion (Jenson 1998b).While some authors such as Somerville 1998; Bhalla and Lapeyre 1997; Nolan and

Whelan1996 agreed that there is hardly any difference between poverty and social exclusion,others such as Room 1995; Vrooman& Snel 1999; Todman 2004 argue that the two conceptsare fundamentally different from each other in a number of respects.The concept of social exclusion is used to illustrate a group of people who are excluded

from the ordinary activities of their society, in various ways. Although the concept was ini-tially developed in Europe, it has increasingly been applied to small minority groups in theBritain. While the accurate definition various, there is broad agreement that social exclusionconsists of “Exclusion from social, political and economic institutions resulting from acomplex and dynamic set of processes and relationships that prevent individuals or groupsof people from accessing to resources, participating in society and asserting their rights”(Beall & Piron, 2004).The debate on what social exclusion actually means in concrete terms is fed mainly by

scientists and researchers who were concerned with the problem of poverty in the 1990s(Todman 2004: 1). The reason for this is the shift in policy that took place at the end of the1990s, and led to segregation of the two concepts in both literature and research. Povertyand social exclusion, it was argued, differ from each. The author identifies a number of re-spects; five concepts bases on literature review will illustrate the different between povertyand social exclusion as follows:

First, multidimensional: poverty relates to a single dimension, namely a shortage offinancial resources, whereas Social exclusion is a multidimensional, including politicaldimensions as well as social and economic dimension. These demotions as been pointout in poverty and social exclusion survey in Britain 2000 report, published by JosephRowntree Foundation. These Four dimensions of exclusion are: impoverishment orexclusion from adequate income or resources; labour market exclusion; service exclu-sion; and exclusion from social relations. The first of these aspects, poverty itself(David Gordon et all 2000). The four concepts of poverty, monetary, capability, parti-cipatory a general growth alone will not improve Social Exclusion but requires an im-provement in the relative position of those excluded, including a change in power rela-tions (Stewart, Ruggeri Laderchi & Saith (2003).

Second, static versus dynamic: poverty relates to a given income situation, while socialexclusion has to do with a process of impoverishment and a lack of future prospects.Social exclusion has a complete and reinforcing processes, lack of power, or unequalpower relations, is at the bases of every type of exclusion. Social exclusion has a processand agency involved. The behaviors of particular orgainsations and institutions lead to

SAFAA SHAABAN

the exclusion of certain group. In fact some literature include this as part of the definitionof social exclusion which “social exclusion is the process through which individualsor group which individual or groups are wholly or particularly excluded from full par-ticipation in the society in which they live”(de Haan andMaxwell, 1998); Social exclu-sion occurs when the institutions that allocate resources and assign value operate inways that systematically deny some groups the resources and recognition that wouldallow them to participate fully in social life” (Zeitlyn, 2004).

Third, distributional versus relational dimension: poverty relates to the distribution ofincome and goods, whereas social exclusion involves relational aspects such as socialparticipation, integration, social engagement and the sharing of norms and values(Zeitlyn, 2004).

Fourth, individual versus environmental dimension: poverty arises due to a lack ofpersonal resources, whereas social exclusion derives from a lack of community resources;including an adequate social infrastructure. Social exclusion has a tendency to be afeature of groups rather than individuals. As noted the identification and characteristicsof excluded groups are necessarily society dependent. Most social exclusion groupsare not only deprived in multiple ways but also have different characteristics (otherthan their deprivations) from others in the society in which they live, which enablesthem to be identified as a group and discriminated against. These distinguishing char-acteristics differ across societies .These groups may be distinguished from others insociety by their culture, religion, colure, gender, age, physical or mental disabilities orillness, or in developed countries, particularly by their housing or lack of it (DavidGordon et all, 2000).

Fifth, social exclusion will need to address a wider range of issues than is normallyincluded in anti-poverty agendas. Thus for reducing social exclusion it becomes essentialto devise policies towards multidimensional aspects, especially including political ex-clusion, which are often ignored in anti-poverty programmes. Moreover, in general re-ducing social exclusion in a significant way will involve tackling power relations –confronting those institutions that are responsible for the exclusion (i.e. institutionswhich monopolizing political power or economic opportunities and discriminate againstparticular groups). Social exclusion often results from discriminatory rules and behaviourso that policies must be addressed to sources of group discrimination and not solely theproblems of deprived individuals. For example, simply expanding educational oppor-tunities will not reduce social exclusion of scheduled castes or women in some societiesunless accompanied by strong anti-discrimination programmes.

Social Exclusion and Social CohesionRecently, Social cohesion is the social policy goal that appeared in policy settlement in relatedto outcomes associated with social exclusion settlement.“Social cohesion is the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values,

shared challenges and equal opportunity within the country, based on a sense of trust, hopeand reciprocity among all citizens.” (Social Cohesion Unit 2001).

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

Several implicit propositions on the dimension of social cohesion can be taking out fromdescriptions of the social exclusion and of experiential results. Wolley (1998) has distin-guished three ways of defined social cohesion (Wolley 1998: 2-5) as fellows: as absence ofsocial exclusion; as interactions and connections based on social capital; as shared valuesand communities of interpretation based on group identity.There is diversity to verify the dimensions of social cohesion. For example the Canadian

policy research networks and the policy research initiative of the Canadian Governments,explored the dimensions of social cohesion as indicated in four policy documents of theCanadian Government, the French Government, the OECD, and the Club of Rome. Fourdimensions were identified ( Jenson 1998 b: 15), these dimensions are belonging as solutionfor isolation which mean, shared values, identity, feeling of commitment; Inclusion assolution for Exclusion which concerns equal opportunities of access; Recognition as solutionfor Rejection which addresses the issue of respecting and tolerating differences in a pluralistsociety, this aspect was emphasized in the document of the club of Rom (Berger 1998); Le-gitimacy as solution for Illegitimacy with respect to the institutions acting as a mediator inconflicts of a pluralist society.From the review of the dimension above, the social cohesion as a feature of two main

goal dimensions can be distinguished as follows. the first concern is concerned with the re-duction of unfairness, inequalities and social exclusion. The Second is concerned with thestrengthening of social relations, interactions and links.Recently, social cohesion has received great attention by social scientists as well as by

politicians. Social cohesion represents a central societal goal at the national and the suprana-tional level. For example, the European Commission has strongly emphasised the economicand social cohesion of Europe as a main policy goal of the European Union. Social cohesionrepresents a concept which focuses on societal qualities such as the extent of inequality orthe strength of social relations and ties within a society. In contrast, quality of life as anothergoal guiding national and European Union Policy has been mostly dealt as a concept relatedto the individual welfare.There are some interesting and significant international differences. In Canada, social

cohesion was identified as a central policy issue with regard to immigration in the mid-1990s,and significant resources were directed to developing an adequate policy response (Jeanotte2002). By the late 1990s social cohesion was defined as: “an ongoing process of developinga community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, basedon a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians”. (Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment 2000:34)Jeanotte (2000) points out that, in Europe, the political investments in the social exclusion

lead to an emphasis on cohesion in the face of economic and social threats – especially inrelation to exclusion – and a “rights deficit” approach. Jeanotte identifies four characteristicperspectives that include: lack of a sense of European citizenship; political disenchantment;rights deficit, unemployment; poverty and income inequality; rural deprivation/regionaldisparities; urban distress, deterioration of the environment and quality of life; social exclusionfrom the Information Society, cultural diversity and demographic change; changing valuesregardingwork and society; influence of American culture and shift from “culture of collectivesecurity” to “culture of individual opportunity” (Jeanotte 2000: 213).Also, there is another European view example by the Council of Europe (2000) that estab-

lishes a link between cohesion and inclusion and observes that: “Inclusion is a two way

SAFAA SHAABAN

process of adaptation and adjustment on the part of immigrants and minorities and the largersociety, thus requiring the active involvement of all stakeholders”. (Council of Europe2000:13). The Council of Europe supports this viewpoint by defining cohesion as a combin-ation of political, social and economic forms of cohesion that reflect concerns about exclusionand inclusion. The Council’s list of defining characteristics of cohesion includes: sharedloyalties and solidarity, strength of social relations and shared values, feelings of a commonidentity and sense of belonging to the same community, trust among members reduction ofdisparities, inequalities and social exclusion (Council of Europe 2000:13)While in the United Kingdom, the debate concerning social cohesion and immigrants has

been recently defined by the work of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain(Parekh 2000). Cohesion was defined in relation to “ a community of communities and acommunity of citizens” where: Cohesion in such a community derives from a widespreadcommitment to certain core values, both between communities and within them; equalityand fairness; dialogue and consultation; tolerance, compromise, and accommodation; recog-nition and respect for diversity; and by nomeans least determination to confront and eliminateracism and xenophobia. (Parekh 2000:56)In the United Kingdom, as in the European Union, specific organisations have been either

established and have taken a role to concentrate and distribute understanding about socialcohesion. The Home Office Community Cohesion Unit and Cohesion Advisory Panel andthe Social Exclusion Unit have been established. The body acting as does the Council ofEurope’s Directorate General of Social Cohesion in the European Union (Vertovec 1999).The literature indicates that there is also a discussion in the international literature about

social cohesion as a policy goal for governments (Vertovec 1999). A number of themesemerge from this literature that describe the various policy dimensions of social cohesion,including shared values and participation, systemic and individual barriers, spatial separationand exclusion, social capital and integration (Beauvais and Jenson 2002).From a British perspective, Adrian Favell (2001: 116) notes that “integration” has become

something of an all-purpose rubric: “a vague yet technical sounding term that encompassesa range of positions from more assimilatory policies through to more openly multiculturalones.” While integration conceives and conceptualises practical steps in a long process ofmigration settlement, it does so by projecting both social change and continuity between thepast and some idealised end-point. “Integration”measures cover an exhaustive list, including:basic legal and social protection, formal naturalisation rights, anti-discrimination laws, theredistribution of resources, policies on public housing, law and order, tolerance, languageand multicultural education. Ultimately, integration aims for “the extremely difficult andimprobable…construction of a successful, well-functioning, multi-cultural or multi-racialsociety” (Favell 2001: 118).A research conducted in 2005 by a scholar at Newcastle University, UK shows that the

small minority groups living and acting in the British community acting as small communityimbedding. Although these small communities are British citizens, they hardly speak Englishand they use their indigenous languages and cultures brought from origin countries. Thesecommunities have lack of language, skills and high unemployment. The research shows,these small communities came to Britain with its own problems such as poverty, disguisedunemployment, lack of skills. So instead of building the community they are helping in morenon-cohesion community (Shaaban, 2007).

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

By increasing research on social exclusion previous term of poor living, condition suchas poverty or deprivation have been replaced to some extent with social exclusion. The termsocial exclusion has often been used n the sense of a multidimensional notion of poverty(Hanna, 1999). This lead to the question of how to define social exclusion and how to contrastthe term form notion of poverty, the origin of social exclusion can be traced back to France,where the term was used in the context of debates on a new poverty and defined as a ruptureof the relationship between the individual and the society due to the failure of societal insti-tutions to integrate individuals (Silver, 1994).

ConclusionAlthough social exclusion has become a key issue on the European policy agenda, there isno clear vision of the phenomena, its shapes, ways of monitoring it, its causes and effect andpractical cohesion solution theory. In response to this many researcher interested in developinga conceptual model for social exclusion and methodology for practical measurement andassessment.How to measure social exclusion became the subject of academic debate and a number

of different approaches have been devised. Most approaches have focused on people ratherthan geographic areas and some have attempted to include measures that take account ofpeople’s societal exclusion or isolation. The author believed that we need to consider bothpeople and geographical area.Robert Goodin (1999), the solution is not to make our communities more inclusive but

rather to change their nature- making them at one and the same time both less exclusive andless inclusive.Although, a initiative taken by the European Community in the late 1980s and early 1990s

have been involved in promoting the concept of social exclusion in social policy dialogueand in making some progress in analysis (Berghman, 1995), and many studies and researcheshave been conduct on social exclusion, however experimental investigations are few and farbetween, confirming the needs, both from a research and policy perspective, for comparableinformation on social exclusion across different European countries. Apparently, the Gov-ernment policies were not as effective at tackling social problems as they could have been.In many cases the structure of UK Government meant that the joined-up problems of socialexclusion did not receive a joined-up response.These studies do not observe social exclusion itself, but rather its potential causes or pre-

dictors, with the focus being mainly or exclusively on individual risk factors. In the Povertyand Social Exclusion Survey of Britain, however, a direct measurement of several aspectsof social exclusion was attempted (Levitas 2006: 135).The European Union, Council of Europe and OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-op-

eration and Development) have also invested a considerable amount of resource in the notionof social cohesion and how it might be measured. Jeanotte notes (2000) that, The OECDhad the narrowest implicit definition of social cohesion, focusing almost exclusively on theeconomic and material aspects of the social exclusion. The Council of Europe, on the otherhand, had an extremely broad definition of cohesion – so broad, in fact, that it had separatedcohesion into three interrelated categories – democratic cohesion, social cohesion and culturalcohesion. The European Union has characterised its approach to social cohesion as beingconsistent with “the European Model of Society”, founded on a notion of solidarity which

SAFAA SHAABAN

is embodied in universal systems of social protection, regulation to correct market failureand systems of dialogue. (Jeanotte 2000: 2)This paper has given a clear vision of the social exclusion throughout a literature overview

of the conceptual framework of social exclusion and its reflection on social cohesion andhow distinguishes from poverty. Hence, social exclusion implicates a multiplicity of causesand effects of inequality as presented in this paper. At first consideration, this broad focusappears advantageous. However, it poses numerous conceptual and analytical difficulties.Which this paper has grappled with in debates the concept. Some of the problems identifiedinclude that it is so broad in its scope that just about anyone or anything can become or beconsidered socially excluded (Saunders & Tsumori 2002: 32). Compared to poverty, whichassociates inequality with lack of material resources, social exclusion is a more impreciseconcept and this lack of precision renders the exact meaning intangible.Madanipour, Cars and Allen (1998) argue that the effects of this imprecision are that social

exclusion is used carelessly and interchangeably with other concepts, including poverty andsocial segregation. Likewise, Marsh and Mullins (1998: 5) argue that once you break thelink between poverty and deprivation, there is a danger that all households might be depictedas enduring some degree of social exclusion and this limits its analytical use. Therefore thispaper has given a clear view of social exclusion concept and distinguishes between the SocialExclusion and poverty.

ReferencesAllin, P, Creative Research. A Modernising Government Review of DCMS’s Statistical & Social

Policy Research Needs, Statistics and Social Policy Unit, Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport, November 2000

Arthurson, K. (2002) ‘Social Inclusion and Public Housing Estate Regeneration’, AHURI SouthernResearch Centre Occasional Paper, Social Inclusion and Housing: Developing

Beauvais, C. and J. Jenson (2002) Social Cohesion: Updating the State of Research, Canadian.Benn M (2000), New Labour and Social Exclusion’, Political Quarterly, 71: 3, pp. 309-318.Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000) Social Cohesion as an Aspect of the Quality of Societies: Concept and

Measurement, Towards a European System of Social Reporting and Welfare Measurement,A TSER-Project funded by the European Commission, Mannheim.

Berger, P.L. (ed.) (1998) The Limits of Social Cohesion: Conflict AndMediation In Pluralist Societies:A Report Of The Bertelsman Foundation To The Club Of Rome. Boulder: Westview Press

Beall, J. & Piron, L. H. (2004) DFID Social Exclusion Review. LSE/ODI, London.Berghmann, J. (1995). Social exclusion in Europe: policy context and analytical framework. In G.

Room (ed.). Beyond the Threshold: the Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion.Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 10-28.

Bhalla, A. and Lapeyre, F. (1997). Social exclusion: Towards an Analytical and Operational Framework.In: Development and Change 28: pp. 413-433

Burchardt T, Le Grand J, and Piachaud D (2002), Introduction, in J Hills, J Le Grand and D Piachaud(eds) Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford: Oxford

Burchardt, T., J. LeGrand, J. & Piachaud, D. (1999) ‘Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995’, SocialPolicy and Administration, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 227-244.

Burchardt, T., le Grand, J. and Piachaud, D. (2002). Introduction. In: Hills, J., le Grand, J. and Piachaud,D. (eds.). Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford: University Press, pp. 1-12.

Canadian Council on Social Development, for Social Cohesion Network, Department of CanadianHeritage and Department of Justice, Ottawa, www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2001/si/sra-543.pdf

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

D. Gordon and R. Levitas (eds.). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain; The millennium survey.Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 123-160

Dahrendorf, R. et al.: Report on Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a Free Society. - London:1995

David Gordon, Laura Adelman, Karl Ashworth, Jonathan Bradshaw, Ruth Levitas, Sue Middleton,Christina Pantazis, Demi Patsios, Sarah Payne, Peter Townsend, and Julie Williams (2000)Poverty and social exclusion in Britain” Joseph Rowntree Foundation, uk

De Haan, A. (1999) ‘Social Exclusion: Towards a Holistic Understanding of Deprivation’, VillaBorsig Workshop Series, Sussex, University of Sussex, pp. 1-14.

Durkheim, E. (1897), Le Suicide: Étude de Sociologie, Paris: Félix Alcan.Edwards P. and J. Flatley (Eds.) (1996) The Capital Divided: Mapping poverty and social exclusion

in London, London Research Centre, November.European Commission (2002). Joint Report on Social Inclusion 2001. Luxembourg: Office Publications

of the European CommunitiesFavell, A. (2001) Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and

Britain, London: Macmillian Press.Glass, N,(2000) Social exclusion: concepts, measurement and policy. Paper delivered at the seventh

annual Cathie Marsh Memorial Seminar jointly hosted by the Royal Statistical Society andSocial Research Association.

Goodin, R.E., B. Headey, R. Muffels & H.-J. Dirven (1999). The real worlds of welfare capitalism.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gough, I., Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J. and Whiteford, P. (1997) “Social Assistance in theOECD Countries”, Journal of European Social Policy 7 (1): 17–43.

Haan, A. de (1999) Social Exclusion: Towards a Holistic Understanding of Deprivation. DeutscheStiftung für internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Villa Borsig Workshop Series. – Berlin:1999 (http://www.dse.de/ef/poverty/dehaan.htm) http://epolis.cz

In: Housing Studies, Volume 13, and Number 6, 1998: pp. 761-780. International Labour Review,133, pp. 531-578.

Jeannotte, M. Sharon (2002) Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social cohesion andsustainable communities” Proceedings of The Second International Conference on CulturalPolicy Research, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Jeanotte, M. Sharon (2000) Social Cohesion Around the World: An International Comparison ofDefinitions and Issues, Strategic Research and Analysis, Canadian Heritage, Ottawa.

Jeanotte, M. Sharon (2003) Social cohesion: Insights from Canadian research presented at StrategicResearch and Analysis, Department of Canadian Heritage, Gatineau.

Jenson, J. (1998a): Mapping Social Cohesion. Canadian Policy Research Networks, BackgrounderSpeech Presented at he Policy Research Secretariat’s Conference, “Policy Research: CreatingLinkages”, October 1, 1998, Ottawa

Jenson, J. (1998b): Mapping Social Cohesion: the state of Canadia Research Canadian Policy researchNetworks, CPRN Study No. F/03. Ottawa at (ftp://ftp.cprn.org/family/msc2 e.pdf).

Labour Review, Vol. 133, Nos. 5-6, pp. 531-579.Lasch, C. (1996), The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, New York: W.W.Levitas, R. (1998) The inclusive society? Social Exclusion and New Labour, London, Macmillan.Levitas, R. (2006). The concept and measurement of social exclusion. In: Pantazis, C.,Madanipour, A. (1998) ‘Social Exclusion and Space’, in Social Exclusion in European Cities, Processes,

Experiences and Responses, A. Madanipour, G. Cars and J. Allen (eds), London,Matt Barnes, Christopher Heady, SueMiddleton, and JaneMillar (2003) Poverty and Social Exclusion

in Europe.Marsh, A. and Mullins, D. (1998) ‘The social exclusion perspective and housing studies: origins, ap-

plications and limitations’, Housing Studies, vol 13, no 4: 749-760

SAFAA SHAABAN

Maxwell, J. (1996) Social Dimensions of Economic Growth, Eric John Hanson Memorial LectureSeries, University of Alberta.

McCracken, M.: Social Cohesion and Macroeconomic Performance. Centre for the Study of LivingStandards (CSLS), Conference: The State of Living Standards and the Quality of Life, Oc-tober 30-31, 1998, Ottawa, Ontario/Canada

Nolan, B. and Whelan, C. (1996). Resources, Deprivation and Poverty. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Papadopoulos F. and Tsakloglou, P. (2001). Indicators of Social Exclusion in euromod.Working Paperem8/01. Athens: University of Economics and Business.

Parekh, B. (2000) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, Runnymede Trust, London. Council of Europe(2000) Diversity and Cohesion: New Challenges for the Integration of Immigrants andMinorities, Council of Europe.

Percy-Smith J (ed) (2000), Policy Responses to Social Exclusion: Towards Inclusion? Berkshire: OpenUniversity Press.

Policy Research Initiative (PRI) (2003) Social Capital Workshop June 2003, InterdepartmentalWorkshop on Social Capital, Canada. Research and Policy Agendas, Flinders University,Adelaide.

Room G (1995), Poverty and Social Exclusion: The New European Agenda for Policy Research’, inG Room (ed) Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion,Bristol: Policy Press.

S. Lansley (2006), Rich Britain: The Rise and Rise of the New Super Wealthy. London: Politico. pp.265, hbk. doi:10.1017/S0047279407001808

Saraceno, C. (2001). Social exclusion, Cultural Roots and Diversities of a Popular Concept. Paperpresented at the conference ‘Social exclusion and children’, 3-4 may 2001at the Institute forChild and Family Policy. Columbia: Columbia University.

Saunders, P. & Tsumori, K. (2002) ‘Poor Concepts, ‘Social Exclusion’, Poverty and the Politics ofGuilt’, Policy, Vol 18, No. 2, pp. 32-37.

Silver, H. (1994) ‘Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: three paradigms’ InternationalSocial exclusion Unit (2001). Preventing Social Exclusion: Report by the Social Exclusion Unit.Somerville, P. (1998) ‘Explanations of social exclusion: where does housing fit in?’ Housing Studies,

Vol. 13, No 4, pp. 761-780.Southall Report (2004) Cultural Diversity and Community Cohesion: Executive Summary Swrt-Shrg

Conference 9 November 2002, Southall, Middlesex” http://www.shrg.net/events/ 20021109%20Southall/southall_conf_report.pdf

Stewart, F., C. Ruggeri Laderchi, and R. Saith. 2003. Does it matter that we do not agree on thedefinition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches. Oxford Development Studies, 31(3):243-274.

The social exclusion support in Czech (2008) the polis project, Social exclusion.The Stationary Office, pp. 75-94.Todman, L.C. (2004). Refl ections on Social Exclusion. Paper. Italy: University of Milan, Department

of Sociology and Social Research.Vertovec, S. (1999) Introduction” in S. Vertovec (ed.),Migration and Social Cohesion, Cheltenham,

Elgar.Vobruba, G. (2000) ‘Actors in Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion: Towards a Dynamic Approach’

Social Policy and Administration, Vol 34, No 5, pp. 601-613.Vrooman, C. and Snel, E. (1999). Op zoek naar de “echte armen” (‘Looking for the truly poor’). In:

G. Engbersen et al. (eds.). Armoede enVerzorgingsstaat: vierde jaarrapport armoede en socialeuitsluiting. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Wagg S (2004), ‘Fat City? British Football and the Politics of Social Exclusion at the turn of theTwenty-First Century’, in S Wagg (ed) British Football and Social Exclusion, London:Routledge

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANISATIONS,COMMUNITIES AND NATIONS

Woolley, F.: Social Cohesion and Voluntary Activity: Making Connections. Centre for the Study ofLiving Standards (CSLS), Conference: The State of Living Standards and the Quality ofLife, October 30-31, 1998, Ottawa, Ontario/Canada www.cabinet-offi ce.gov.uk/seu/in-dex.htm, consulted in March 2002

Wilkinson, R. (1996) Unhealthy societies; The afflictions of inequality Routledge: LondonZeitlyn, S. 2004. Social exclusion in Asia – some initial ideas. London: DfID

About the AuthorDr. Safaa ShaabanDr. Safaa Shaaban, MSc in Human Resource Management (University of Manchester) -PhD in learning and planning (University of Newcastle) Dr. Safaa Shaaban joined CCI inFebruary 2010. Safaa has over 15 years experiences in managing and evaluating projectsand contracts with the British Council, DFID, Save the children, USAID, UNDP and theEU. Safaa has extensive experience in learning, training, capacity building, performancemanagement, workforce development and facilitated many workshop in project design andproposal writing (PDPW) and time management. Safaa is part of NWCKH team responsiblefor assisting SMEs working in construction to reduce their carbon emissions and waste,create more jobs.

SAFAA SHAABAN

Editors Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Paul James, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia

Editorial Advisory Board Ien Ang, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Joanna van Antwerpen, Research and Statistics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Samuel Aroni, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Vivienne Bozalek, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Susan Bridges, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Duane Champagne, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Guosheng Y. Chen, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Jock Collins, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Heather Marion D’Cruz, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. James Early, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Denise Egéa-Kuehne, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA. Amareswar Galla, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Grethe van Geffen, Seba Cultuurmanagement, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Barry Gills, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Jackie Huggins, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Andrew Jakubowicz, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Ha Jingxiong, Central University of Nationalities, Beijing, China. Jack Levin, Northeastern University, Boston, USA. Cristina Poyatos Matas, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Peter McLaren, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Joe Melcher, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, USA. Greg Meyjes, Solidaris Intercultural Services, Falls Church, USA. Walter Mignolo, Duke University, Durham, USA. Brendan O’Leary, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Aihwa Ong, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Peter Phipps, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Ronald Prins, Bos en Lommer Neighbourhood Council, Amsterdam-West,

The Netherlands. Peter Sellars, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Michael Shapiro, University of Hawai’i, Manoa, USA. David S. Silverman, Kansas Wesleyan University, Salina, USA. Martijn F.E. Stegge, Diversity Platform, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Geoff Stokes, Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University,

Melbourne, Australia. Terry Threadgold, Cardiff University, Wales, UK. Mililani Trask, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues for the Economic Council of the UN

Assembly, Hawai’i, USA. Marij Urlings, Inholland University, Amsterdam-Diemen, The Netherlands. Rob Walker, Keele University, Keele, UK. Ning Wang, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. Owens Wiwa, African Environmental and Human Development Agency, Toronto, Canada.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Diversity-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

The Diversity Community This knowledge community is brought together by a shared interest in diversity in one or another of its manifestations, in organizations, communities and nations. The community interacts through an innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round virtual relationships in a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the affordances of the new digital media. Member of this knowledge community include academics, public administrators, policy makers, private and public sector leaders and research students.

Conference Members of the Diversity Community meet at the International Conference on Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, held annually in different locations around the world. The Diversity Conference was first held in Sydney, Australia in 2000; Melbourne, Australia in 2001; University of Hawai’i, Manoa, Hawai’i, USA in 2003; University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA in 2004; Institute of Ethnic Administrators, Beijing, China in 2005; Xavier University and Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Lousiana, USA in 2006; OZW-School of Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands in 2007; HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada in 2008; Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration (RISEBA), Riga, Latvia in 2009 and Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland in 2010. In 2011, the Conference will be held at the University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe. The Conference is a site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging scholars, and examines the concept of diversity as a positive and at times fraught aspect of an interconnected world and globalised society. Those unable to attend the conference may opt for virtual participation in which community members can either submit a video and/or slide presentation with voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in the Journal. Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing The Diversity Community also enables members to publish through three media. First, by participating in the Diversity Conference, community members can enter a world of journal publication unlike the traditional academic publishing forums – a result of the responsive, non-hierarchical and constructive nature of the peer review process. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations provides a framework for double-blind peer review, enabling authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard. The second publication medium is through the book imprint On Diversity, publishing cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and manuscript submissions are welcome. The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news updates from Diversity Community, as well as major developments in issues of diversity and community. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter or subscribe to our email Newsletter.

Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/

ARTS The International Journal of the Arts in Society.

Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK The International Journal of the Book

Website: www.Book-Journal.com

CLIMATE CHANGE The International Journal of Climate Change:

Impacts and Responses Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT The International Journal of the

Constructed Environment Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal

DESIGN Design Principles and Practices:

An International Journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY The International Journal of Diversity in

Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

FOOD Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/

GLOBAL STUDIES The Global Studies Journal

Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

HEALTH The International Journal of Health,

Wellness and Society Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES The International Journal of the Humanities

Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com

IMAGE The International Journal of the Image

Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING The International Journal of Learning. Website: www.Learning-Journal.com

MANAGEMENT The International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture and Change Management. Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum

Website: www.Museum-Journal.com

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY The International Journal of Religion and

Spirituality in Society Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY The International Journal of Science in Society Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com

SOCIAL SCIENCES The International Journal of Interdisciplinary

Social Sciences Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of

Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SPORT AND SOCIETY The International Journal of Sport and Society

Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal

SUSTAINABILITY The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,

Economic and Social Sustainability Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com

TECHNOLOGY The International Journal of Technology,

Knowledge and Society Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal

Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/

UNIVERSITIES Journal of the World Universities Forum Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com