Masters Of Professional Practice Learning Agreement

Heathcote Village
Project: Communityled-practice in a Post
Natural Disaster
Setting
Sense Making and Future
Developments

Name: Susan Harris 96001010

Contents
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
2. Brief biography of the author....................................................................................... 3
3. Aim of the Project......................................................................................................... 3
4. Goals of the Project...................................................................................................... 4
5. Literature Review......................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Christchurch Earthquakes....................................................................................... 5
5.2 International perspectives...................................................................................... 6
5.21 Impact of disasters on Wellbeing.......................................................................6
5.22Community Led Initiatives..................................................................................6
5.23 Impact of Community Led Initiatives on post disaster recovery........................6
5.24 Impact of Community Led Initiatives on individual and community wellbeing. .7
5.25 A contrasting view point.................................................................................... 7
5.3 The Christchurch experience..................................................................................8
5.31Impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on wellbeing........................................8
5.32Community Led Initiatives in Christchurch.........................................................9
5.33 Community-led-initiatives valued in Christchurch.............................................9
5.34 Impact of Community led initiatives on Wellbeing...........................................10
5.35 Heathcote specific community-led- initiatives....................................................10
5.36 Recording and learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes...............................10
5.4 What contributes to the community led response we have been exploring?........11
5.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................ 11
6. Project Design............................................................................................................ 12
6.1Methodology.......................................................................................................... 12
6.11Phase1. Practice: To record what has happened in post-quake Heathcote with a
specific focus on the Heathcote Village Project, and the many creative and
proactive initiatives................................................................................................. 12
6.12 Phase 2: Paradigm Exploration: To explore theories and practice that help us
understand what we have done and why it has worked. To identify ideas and
directions for the future........................................................................................... 13
6.13 Phase 3: Putting Paradigm and Practice Together............................................13
6.2 Reflexivity Journaling............................................................................................ 15
6.3 Ethical Considerations.......................................................................................... 15
7. Relationships.............................................................................................................. 16
8. Reflection Process...................................................................................................... 17
References..................................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 1..................................................................................................................... 22
Defining the term paradigm..................................................................................... 22
1

Appendix 2..................................................................................................................... 23
Heathcote Community Profile..................................................................................... 23
Appendix 3..................................................................................................................... 24
Heathcote Village Project Vision and Values...............................................................24
What are we aiming for:.......................................................................................... 24
Our Values............................................................................................................... 24
How we have been working to achieve this.............................................................24
Status as an organisation........................................................................................ 24

Heathcote Village Project: Community-ledpractice in a Post Natural Disaster Setting

Sense Making and Future Development

1. Introduction
Heathcote Village Project (HVP) is a community led initiative that grew
organically out of the experience of our community, as we faced the challenges
of thousands of earthquakes, loss at many levels of our lives, and disruption for
months following the Christchurch 2011 quakes. HVP developed out of the
challenges we faced, our individual backgrounds (both professional and
personal), and the history of our community. It served as a forum to provide a
melting pot of ideas and connections that enabled many different people
throughout our community to have the confidence, support and relationships to
do something about the challenges and ideals they have for where they live.
HVP has become a permanent part of this community now, and focuses largely
on enabling people to take positive actions in our community.

2. Brief biography of the author

I trained as an Occupational Therapist in Otago graduating in 1999 with a
Batchelor of Occupational Therapy with Honours. I have ten years of clinical
experience working as an Occupational Therapist in acute and rehabilitative
neurological clinical areas, adolescent mental health, and alternative education.
Throughout my working life I have begun to develop an interest in community
development and engagement. There have been various experiences that have
shaped this interest, of particular note are; four months living and working in an
urban slum in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in 2008; becoming a mother in 2009 and
experiencing the increased opportunity to be involved in local community; the
2010 and 2011 earthquakes which dramatically impacted my local community
and led me to start Heathcote Village Project. I have maintained my
Occupational Therapy registration despite not working recently in traditional
health settings, as the Occupational Therapy profession internationally, is
growing in its contribution to non-traditional clinical areas such as community
wellbeing and development. I believe Occupational Therapy practice can make
a valuable contribution to the exploration of individual and community wellbeing
in the Heathcote Community.

3. Aim of the Project

A review of community development and disaster response literature found that
Community-led-activity (practice) such as Heathcote Village Project is indeed
seen as best practice in both disaster response and ongoing individual and
community wellbeing. Realising the significance of what we have been a part of
in Heathcote, supported my sense that recording our experience in some way is
3

important, for our own sake, but also to contribute to the growing record of
learnings (described later in the literature review) coming out of the
Christchurch experience, and to contribute to the growing international
evidence of the power of community led responses in a post disaster setting.
However I realised that it is not only what we did but why and how we did it.
When I started home vegetable gardening some years ago, I soon realised there
is a lot more to a productive and flourishing garden than good soil and water.
There are many principles of gardening that make the difference between an
average garden and a flourishing garden. In the same way exploring and
understanding the principles or paradigms (appendices 1) through which our
practice has occurred, has the potential to greatly increase the yield from our
efforts, and support our future growth. While the learnings from this project are
in the initial instance for the benefit of the Heathcote community, they may
indeed be of interest to other communities, locally and internationally.
Therefore, in addition to recording our experience, my focus in this project is
also to explore the paradigms we have drawn upon to inform our practice; to
make sense of what we have done, but also to explore the paradigms we could
use as we continue to see Heathcote Village Project as a vehicle for ongoing
individual and community well-being and change. A range of paradigms from
community development and organisational change will be drawn on throughout
this project as well as paradigms from my own professional background of
Occupational Therapy.

4. Goals of the Project

1. To record the practice of Heathcote Village Practice from inception to its
current form.
2. To explore the paradigms we have drawn on, and could draw on as we
develop Heathcote Village Project.
3. To facilitate a participatory action research process to support the
development of Heathcote Village Project.
4. To identify my future practice direction and goals within and beyond
Heathcote community.

5. Literature Review
A review of the literature demonstrates the complexity of disaster recovery but
also shows that what has been experienced in Heathcote Valley, with the
establishment of the Heathcote Village Project and the engagement of locals, is
not uncommon. Our experience sits in the context of many stories of good will
and communities working together, as well as a significant body of research
indicating the vital role that community led recovery plays in post disaster
recovery.
After setting the scene of the Christchurch 2010/2011 earthquakes, this
literature review explores international perspectives on the impact of disasters
on individuals and communities. In turn the impact of community led activities
on disaster recovery, and individual and community wellbeing is addressed. An
alternative voice is also discussed at this point, exploring what opportunity
disasters might offer us. The Christchurch experience is then explored and
parallels are drawn between our experience and the international views. A brief
reflection on the Heathcote experience follows with a final description of where
current literature sits in relation to recording both what has occurred in
Christchurch as well as how community-led practice that builds well bonded
energised communities occurs.
5.1 Christchurch Earthquakes
In the early hours of September 4th 2010, Christchurch residents were awoken
to a 7.1 magnitude earthquake, centred to the west of the city. Residents
experienced damage to homes and property, inconvenience from delays in
services being accessible to parts of the city, and some infrastructure damage.
In the months following, Canterbury residents experienced a large number of
aftershocks. However the most significant aftershock occurred on February 22nd
2011, with a magnitude of 6.3 and was centred between Heathcote Valley and
Lyttleton communities. 185 people were killed, and this was described as New
Zealands most deadly peace time disaster (n.d., Wiki pedia)
The Central and eastern suburbs were hardest hit, experiencing many
challenges including;
temporary or permanently uninhabitable homes
broken infrastructure such as water and sewer (Heathcote residents were
without water for approximately 3 weeks, and used portaloos situated on
the streets for 6 months)
lack of services and recreational spaces (Heathcote school was closed for
3 weeks and residents lost all shops in the community including a dairy
and caf, the Valley Inn, bowling club, local library, access to recreational
walking and biking on the surrounding hills, access to nearby swimming
pools, and access to natural water features such as the harbour and beach
for more than a year due to water quality)
5

lost meeting spaces in communities (Heathcote was fortunate to still have

the St Marys church Village Hall which has become a vital community
facility since the quakes)
issues with insurance and land damage (Heathcote has had 70 of its 1000
homes become red-zoned which deems their properties unsafe to live or
rebuild on)
emotional stress of ongoing aftershocks with many leaving the city in the
early weeks and months.
Three years on, Christchurch is very much in recovery and rebuild stage, and
on reading international literature on disaster recovery, this stage could
continue for some years.

5.2 International perspectives

5.21 Impact of disasters on Wellbeing
Experiencing a significant natural disaster has a huge impact on individuals and
communities and provides a challenging recovery journey for all involved. A
number of authors have provided a trajectory of recovery post disaster that is
described as a series of stages (Gordon, 2011; Quarantelli 1999 Cited in CERA,
2013). These conceptualisations differ from one another but do have in
common some key features; recovery can take up to 5 10 years; there are
periods of disillusionment; progress through the stages is a tentative forward
and back process; individuals and communities all respond in different ways and
at different times; recovery is complex; there is often an increase in emotional
and relational problems around 2 -3 years.
Additional to the many physical and economic effects of natural disasters, not
surprisingly many negative impacts on individual wellbeing are described.
Gordon (2004) describes the initial numbing of emotions followed by a huge
surge of emotions including anger, fear and grief. He describes how people
experience loss of routines and familiarity, links to identity, and raised levels of
anxiety and stress leading to exhaustion, difficulty with concentration and
irritation. Silove et. al., (2006) describe how the majority of people will
experience an acute stress reaction to disasters but that only a small minority
will have severe needs (clinical PTSD) that will require specialist intervention.
They state that the majority will recovery spontaneously with normal supports.
Science advisor to the New Zealand Government, Peter Gluckman also supports
this stating the majority of people need basic support such as listening and
community initiatives to allow their innate psychological resilience and coping
mechanisms to come to the fore (2011 In CERA 2012, p.4).
5.22Community Led Initiatives
Much has been written of how people tend to turn to their community for
support and camaraderie following a natural disaster. The literature describes
6

significant upsurges of community led recovery responses (CRC 2011; Solnit

2009; Silove et.al. 2006 ). These responses range from formal meetings to
neighbours helping neighbours, addressing practical issues to numerous
creative and interactive expressions of art, and sculpture, advocating and
lobbying authorities, to simply having fun. Most authors describe these
communities as being geographically defined or neighbourhood communities,
however there is acknowledgement that some people find communities of
interest, faith, or workplace their key support (Thornley et. al. 2013).
5.23 Impact of Community Led Initiatives on post disaster recovery
Community led initiatives following a disaster are widely accepted as a vital part
of post disaster recovery (Gordon 2004, 2011; Silove et. al. 2006; Thornley et.
al. 2013; Klinenberg In CERA 2012; Solnit 2009). In their review of international
understandings of disaster recovery, CERA (2012) describe how positive,
inclusive, self-organising, often spontaneous, diverse and satisfying responses
at neighbourhood and community levels (p.40) are an important factor in
psychosocial recovery. Klinenberg (2002, In CERA, 2012) describes much better
outcomes in a post disaster environment for communities with increased
connectedness. Silove et. al. (2006) describe how the most comfort comes from
people we know, and how raising expectations of outside agencies increases
passivity and resentment but that in contrast positive collective action is an
antidote to embitterment and feeling overwhelmed, creating more sustainable
recovery. Their model for psychosocial recovery following disasters, ADAPT
(Adaptation and Development after persecution and trauma) places supporting
and encouraging community initiatives at its forefront. Gordon (2011) describes
how communities can provide such things as, an increased opportunity for fun
and gathering, leadership at a local level, and opportunities for community and
culture specific spiritual responses to disasters.
5.24 Impact of Community Led Initiatives on individual and community
wellbeing
Community led initiatives are not only vital in assisting recovery following a
natural disaster, but also have ongoing value to the wellbeing of the individual
and community. Stone (In Solnit, 2009) describes how helping others, gives
people a sense of purpose and connectedness with others, a view that is
supported by the work of Thornley et. al. (2013). The 5 Winning Ways promoted
by the All Right? campaign in Christchurch (http://www.allright.org.nz/) after the
earthquakes, was first described by British researchers Aked et. al. (2009) Two
of these winning ways, Give and Connect reinforce how strong connection
and giving to one another within a community context can have positive impact
on an individuals wellbeing. Ivory et. al. (2012) carried out a study measuring
neighbourhood social fragmentation in New Zealand. They describe how local
neighbourhoods are an important context for how we live, and healthy
neighbourhoods have a strong correlation with increased health and wellbeing
of individuals in those communities. However in contrast, they also caution
against over-connected communities, describing how they can subsume a
7

persons individuality. Gordon (2011) provides another voice of caution,

describing how communities can become so focussed on recovery goals, that
this can have a negative impact on community members trying to recapture
their complex pre disaster self with its range of interests and facets. These two
cautions will provide points for reflection when making sense of the Heathcote
response occurs in this project.
5.25 A contrasting view point
Rebecca Solnit, author of A Paradise Built in Hell: the extraordinary
communities that arise in disaster (2009), provides an interesting view point.
Not only does she explore the impact of community response on disaster
recovery, she focusses especially on the positive impact and opportunity that
disasters can afford us. Solnit spent a number of years interviewing people
from 5 disasters including the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake, the hurricane and
flood in New Orleans, the Halifax explosion in 1917, and the September 11th
2001 tragedy. What she found was that as people described stories of their
experiences in the weeks and months following a disaster, she noted a joy or
lightening up when people speak of disaster. She describes this as an
emotion graver than happiness but deeply positive (p. 5) Other authors write
of this response but describe it as a honeymoon period that soon is superseded
by reality and a challenging journey of recovery (Gordon, 2011; Quanrantelli
1999, Cited in CERA 2013). Solnit views this in a different light.
To describe the phenomenon she uses the analogy of a citys street and
commercial lighting. These lights are all we are usually aware of as we go about
our lives. When a power cut occurs or we go into the country we suddenly notice
the other, brighter lights of the starry canvas above. She describes the street
lights as a picture of the usual social orders that influence the way we live.
These include individualism, capitalism, power, economics, fear and scarcity.
When a disaster occurs, it is as if the street and commercial lights are switched
off, and we find we see what else the world could be like (p.312). We see the
latent characteristics of altruism, bravery, empathy, resilience, generosity, and
people acting together in solidarity, with a sense of purpose, love and hope.
She writes, in its (the suspension of the usual order) place appears a revision to
improvised, collaborative, co-operative and local society. (p.10) A statement
from Foucault (Cited in Bennett et. al. 2012 ) also echoes this sentiment, As
soon as people begin to no longer be able to think things the way they have
been thinking them, transformation becomes at the same time very urgent,
very difficult, and entirely possible (p. 35). Solnit (2009) sets before us a
challenge. Disaster may offer us a glimpse, but the challenge is to make
something of it, before or beyond disaster to bring them (characteristics) into
the realm of the everyday. (p.307).

5.3 The Christchurch experience

5.31Impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on wellbeing

The CERA Wellbeing Survey
The CERA Wellbeing survey was conducted in 2012, and involved 2381 people
participating in a survey. Results were consistent with the international
perspectives on disaster impact already discussed. The most prevalent
negative impacts described by participants included, increased anxiety and
distress, loss of recreation and leisure opportunities, challenges with insurance,
and increases in relationship problems. Thornley et. al. (2012) carried out a
report for the Health Research Council and Canterbury Medical Research
Foundation exploring community in Christchurch. They interviewed and ran
focus groups with key informants from 6 different neighbourhood and other
communities in Christchurch exploring what factors contributed to a heightened
community and individual resilience in the 2 years following the initial quakes.
Their results also discuss the many challenges for residents including fear of
further aftershocks, stress of ongoing uncertainty, burnout, and grief over losses
at many levels.
Political Context
The political context of Christchurch has been fraught over the last 3 years. The
Christchurch City Council have experienced significant internal conflict and
come under much scrutiny nationally. CERA (Christchurch Earthquake Recovery
Authority) was established in March 2011, as the public service department of
the New Zealand government to co-ordinate the rebuild of Christchurch.
Amongst other things, in 2011 CERA appeared to put aside a significant body of
work the council had done to engage residents in the planning of the inner city
(Share An Idea, https://www.facebook.com/shareanidea.org.nz), which left many
feeling disillusioned about the value of the democratic process. Alongside this
EQC (Earthquake Commission) have frustrated many residents with poor
communication and seemingly ever changing policy, residents have
experienced huge uncertainty with the unfolding of the new land zoning in
Christchurch, and insurance challenges have felt insurmountable for many.
However consistent with international perspectives already described, this
environment of cant do and disempowerment, has seen many respond by
focussing on what we can do, and so we have seen a swell of ground up
response at the community levels (Thornley et. al. 2012).

5.32Community Led Initiatives in Christchurch

There has been an extensive outpouring of creativity and initiative at the
community level across the city. Christchurch: the Transitional City Part
IV(Bennett et. al. 2012), showcases many of these initiatives that have sprung
up after the quakes. These initiatives include Ministry of Awesome
(http://www.ministryofawesome.com/), Student Volunteer Army (
www.sva.org.nz), flowers in road cones
(http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/1342785) , and Greening the Rubble
9

(http://greeningtherubble.org.nz), which are examples of collaborative positive

responses. Other groups such as CANCERN (www.cancern.org.nz) and
Insurance Watch (www.insurancewatch.org)have set themselves up to take on
advocacy roles assisting and empowering people to deal with challenges
relating to insurance, EQC, and other bureaucratic challenges. There are also
numerous examples of neighbourhood specific responses. Most widely spread
was the simple responses of neighbour to neighbour coming together to share
resources, encourage and support (Thornley et. al. 2012 ). However there have
also been a large number of neighbourhood wide responses throughout the city
but especially in the hardest hit Eastern suburbs. Some examples include New
Brighton Project ( www.newbrightonproject.org.nz), Sumner Residents Group
(http://www.sumnercommunity.co.nz/), Project Lyttleton Timebank
(http://lyttelton.timebanks.org/.), and of course Heathcote Village Project
(https://www.facebook.com/heathcotevillageproject).
5.33 Community-led-initiatives valued in Christchurch
Despite the challenging political environment, encouragingly community-ledinitiatives have been valued in the post recovery process. In the CERA
Psychosocial Recovery Plan, Community In Mind (2013 ) one of their central
goals is enabling and empowering local communities to shape and lead their
own recovery, growing capacity, knowledge, and skills within the community to
build resilience (p. 7 ). The plan focuses on building links and increasing
support between community-led initiatives and the service sector. Thornley et.
al. also (2012) describe community participation in disaster response and
recovery as extremely important for the adaptation of communities, stating that
communities that identified their own needs and solutions were well placed to
adapt (p. 2). They suggest three strategies for increasing community
resilience; Encourage community-led action; understand community
complexity and diversity; develop and strengthen partnerships between nongovernment and government (p.3)
Consistent with what Solnit (2009) described in her book, some participants in
Thornley et. al.'s (2012) study reported their experience as being absolutely
fantastic and beautiful. However interestingly in noting these and other
responses, Thornley et. al. describes the responses as part of a honeymoon
period, the same perspective taken by Gordon (2011) and Quarantelli (In
CERA,2013 )(as described earlier).
5.34 Impact of Community led initiatives on Wellbeing
The CERA Wellbeing survey (2012) presents results consistent with international
perspectives about the positive impact that disasters and communities response
to them can have on individuals. The key positive impacts identified by
participants include, a pride in their ability to cope, increased resilience of their
family, renewed appreciation of life, and heightened sense of community.
Another study carried out in post-quake Christchurch as a collaborative work
between Healthy Christchurch and Council of Social Services (CCOSS ) also
10

exploring community resilience, described participants reporting increased

community spirit and community responsiveness ( Torstonson et. al.; 2011)
Participants in the study by Thornley et. al. (2012) describe how being together
helped and provided reassurance, and how the wellbeing of individuals in their
communities were helped significantly by being part of a supportive community.
One theme apparent in their study focussed on the impact of giving and
receiving within community with one participant reportedly stating giving and
helping others counteracted feelings of helplessness and provided structure,
purpose and meaning at a times when all the structure wed ever know had
been blown away (p.20). Thornley et. al. also described a phenomenon they
termed a virtuous cycle noting that participants reported a heightened sense
of community and continued to feel energised and empowered by a post-quake
culture of possibility where subsequent innovation and community action could
more easily happen (p.3).
5.35 Heathcote specific community-led- initiatives
Heathcote community also reflects a similar picture, of a community with many
losses but responding with increased connectivity and positivity. The
Christchurch City Council puts out a community profile every 3 years (2011).
The 2011 community profile for Heathcote is of particular interest as it shows
the community pre and post-earthquakes. Of particular note is the graph (shown
in appendix 2) which demonstrates how the community has suffered significant
losses in the natural, economic, and built environment, while the social
environment has moved from a position of moderate strength to very strong.
Heathcote has always been known as a place with a strong sense of community,
and has at times been called a village because of this. However, there is no
doubt that this community came together in a much greater way after the
earthquakes with the Heathcote Village Project being a central hub in this
response.

5.36 Recording and learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes

As has occurred in many post disaster environments before, there is a desire to
record what has occurred and what we have learned through our experience.
The Free Range Project (www.projectfreerange.com) have released the book
Christchurch the transitional city Part IV(Bennett et. al., 2012), which records
many of the ground up initiatives that have flourished after the quakes. These
are recorded in a simple format of pictures and bullet point questions giving the
reader a sense of the can do creative environment that has prevailed over the
last 3 years. The online Community Research Group
(www.communityresearch.org.nz) has recently launched a collection called
Learning from Christchurch(The Tangata Whenua Community and Voluntary
Sector Research Centre, 2013). They plan for this to be a permanent home for a
collection of experiences and reflections from narratives to scholarly analysis

11

about communities and community organisations response to the earthquakes

and are inviting contributions to be included in this collection.
5.4 What contributes to the community led response we have been
exploring?
CERA (2013) states that while community participation is seen as good practice,
there is not the same international acceptance and understanding of how this
happens. Others describe community development principles as important for
informing how this community led activity happens (Mamula-Seadon et. al.In
Thornley et. al. 2012; Torstonton et. al. 2011) In my reading I have however
noticed numerous factors that seem to provide an environment that cultivates
and enables community led activity, with Thornley et. al.s Study (2012)
providing an extensive list of recommendations to other communities. I will not
explore these here, but instead they will provide the first paradigm through
which I will seek to make sense of our experience in Heathcote.

5.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, this review describes the complex trajectory of communities
recovering post disaster, and demonstrates how the Christchurch response is
very consistent with this. It demonstrates the richness of responses many
people have to a post disaster environment finding latent outpourings of
generosity, altruism, bravery and desire for connectedness, and in turn, how
important the intuitive, ground up response of local communities that come
from these outpourings are to the wellbeing of individuals and the progress of
recovery of a city. Of particular relevance to the proposed project, is the
challenge as to how communities move forward; to bottle the richness
experienced post disaster in order to see this become part of normal life; and to
see communities move to a more sustainable position beyond just disaster
response.
Within Heathcote community and the Heathcote Village Project, we have
experienced much of this post disaster richness described, as well as the
beneficial aspects of coming together as a community, alongside our many
difficulties. And so it is our challenge, to make sense of what has happened, to
find ways to more forward and to see this richness become part of our
normality, an experience that enriches our lives and community for years to
come. Heathcote Village Project evolved out of the challenging context we found
ourselves in, and was informed by the many backgrounds, perspectives, and
experience we all brought to its development. It is only now that we have the
opportunity to reflect back on what has happened to make sense and discover
how to move forward, and to contribute to the record of learning from the
Christchurch experience and the body of work exploring how this community
led activity occurs

12

13

6. Project Design
In this section I have provided an overview of my project design in visual form.
This is then described in greater detail in the following methodology section.

6.1Methodology
6.11Phase1. Practice: To record what has happened in post-quake
Heathcote with a specific focus on the Heathcote Village Project, and
the many creative and proactive initiatives.
Descriptive Case Study
This first phase will draw on descriptive case study as a methodology for its use
in describing an intervention or phenomenon and the real life context in which
it occurred (Baxter and Jack, 2008, p. 548). A range of data will be drawn on
for this phase including minutes and documentation from meetings,
photographic evidence, newspaper articles, and the researcher's own
experience. Data for the first output of this phase will be organised according to
chronological themes that assist with providing the story of Heathcote and the
Heathcote Village Project. Data will also be organised according to the themes of
values and chronological development. Data for the second output for this
phase will be organised according to each individual initiative with written data
14

organised under a series of brief question headings that will be chosen for their
ability to communicate to the reader how individuals in our community were
enabled to carry out their idea. This format is modelled off the book
Christchurch: The Transitional City (2011), and is being used with the
permission of author, Barnaby Bennett. The outputs from this phase will be
reviewed by two others involved in the Heathcote Village Project to assist with
accuracy of the documents produced.
6.12 Phase 2: Paradigm Exploration: To explore theories and practice
that help us understand what we have done and why it has worked. To
identify ideas and directions for the future.
Framework Analysis
I will compile a manageable list of paradigms (many of which have already be
explored in my proposal) and these will be explored further through literature
reviewing. Some informal discussions with experienced practitioners in some of
these paradigms will assist in deciding on the most beneficial paradigms to
explore. However the final selection process will be a subjective process based
on my involvement in the HVP and my professional back ground as an
Occupational Therapist.
Once a manageable list of paradigms has been identified I will use Framework
Analysis as a research methodology. Framework Analysis was first used in social
policy in the early 1980s (Gale et al. (2013), and allows in depth anaylsis of
themes across data sources, while still keeping the context of data. I will use
the matrix formed as part of this methodology, to anaylise the HVP story looking
for answers to the two questions What specific aspects of this paradigm help to
make sense of how HVP has developed and functions? What specific aspects
of this paradigm give indication for development and future direction of HVP?
Additional to answering these two questions themes may develop such as; how
people are empowered; organisational structure and the impact on ground up
responses; Occupational Therapy contributions to empowering communities,
developing direction for my personal journey.
6.13 Phase 3: Putting Paradigm and Practice Together
The main work in this phase involves facilitating a Participatory Action Research
(PARS) Process with regular attendees of Heathcote Village Project meetings.
The goal of the PARS process will be to further develop and action the future of
Heathcote Village Project within the Heathcote Community.
Participatory Action Research draws on Critical Theory (Baum, MacDougall,
Smith; 2006) the central premise of which is that knowledge is not universal and
absolute (Lubosky & Lysack In Keilhofner; 2006). Critical theory acknowledges
the presence of current knowledge about a field or study but supports the
process of examining and critiquing this knowledge through the realities of
human experience and context.
15

Baum et al.(2006) aptly sum up Participatory Action Research stating that at

its heart (it) is collective , self- reflective inquiry that researchers and
participants undertake, so they can understand and improve upon the practices
in which they participate and situations in which they find themselves (p. 854).
The core principles include; participants are partners in the whole process,
participants and researchers are equals, the goal is community and social
change using an action-reflection cycle. PARS principles fit well with the current
values of HVP in particular the three values; we own our solutions, positive
action, everyone is valued (see appendix 3 for the goals and values of HVP).
Participants are partners in the whole process
PARS supports all people regardless of status and position to have a voice. It
also acknowledges the wealth of assets that community members bring to the
process of knowing and creating knowledge and acting on that knowledge to
bring about change (Minkler; 2000; p.192). This principle is particularly
consistent with HVP values of every one is valued.
Participants and Researchers are equals
There is an intentional blurring of lines between the researcher and participant
(Minkler, 2000; Baum et. al. 2006) so that the researcher becomes a part of the
process as an equal or as a facilitator. This is in fact one of the critiques of this
methodology as there is debate as to how well the researcher can remain in this
position and the challenges of shared power (Taylor, Suarez-Balucazar, Forsyth
& Kielhofner In. Keilhofner, 2006; Desai and Potter, 2006). While this is a
consideration for this project, I am already at an advantage in that I was a
member of the community first a participant in the HVP next and only then a
researcher, and that we in the HVP have had 3 years of working together
toward collaborative solutions for our community. I am aware however that
there has been an over-reliance on me at times, and I will need to be aware of
this throughout the PARS process.
The goal is community and social change using an action-reflection cycle.
Some writers in the field describe this process as one of emerging knowledge
perhaps more consistent with Grounded theory, whereby the emphasis is on the
knowledge found within the individuals involved and the actions they are a part
of (n.d., Wikipedia; McNiff, 2013) . I prefer the more broad approach to
knowledge generation and action consistent with critical theory. This approach
values a systematic view of current understandings of the field that becomes a
resource for participants to draw on as they travel a cycle of action, reflection,
modification, action. The participants decide on problems to address, draw on
knowledge and skills that may inform them, decide on a course of action, take
action, review their action, modify action, draw on knowledge and skills as
required, plan action etc.
Other critiques of this approach include concerns around participant burnout
and inappropriate raising of community expectations (Desai and Potter, 2006).
The values implicit in the way the HVP operate in particular the value of owning
our own solutions addresses the second critique as we have always steered
16

away from creating wish-lists but instead to draw on our own resource and
ability. The first critique mentioned is always a concern that we attempt to
temper by annual planning, and accepting that actions within our community
take time, and can always stop or slow for personal reasons.
There are many ways a PARS process can be conducted while remaining true to
its principles. In this study the PARS process will follow a structure of a series of
4 meetings that run alongside the current HVP meetings. All regular attendees
of HVP meetings will be involved in the process to some extent, however a small
group of people particularly interested in exploring paradigm and practice will
meet more regularly taking outcomes back to the rest of the group at the
monthly HVP meetings. A by-product of this PARS process will also be capacity
building of the various community members involved in HVP which will aid in
succession planning and sustainability of the forum.
6.2 Reflexivity Journaling
Reflexivity journals are described as an important part of managing bias and
deepening ones personal learning (Lysck, & Luborsky, In Kielhofner 2006).
Throughout the three phases I will record thoughts, feelings and attitudes as a
valuable part of identifying my own learning and contribution to the process of
sense making and future developments.
6.3 Ethical Considerations
Ethics approval will be required from the Polytechnic Ethics Committee before
commencement of this project. See the attached Ethics Approval form for detail
of considerations.

17

7. Relationships
Sponsor: As we are a forum made up of entirely volunteers, we do not have any
clear structure, however the project has been discussed with a core group of 6
who are in support of this project and the potential benefits it will have to the
development and ongoing function of Heathcote Village Project.
Facilitator/Academic mentor: I would like to have regular contact with both my
academic mentor and my facilitator throughout this project. Once a month,
skype contact with my academic mentor would be useful, with planned dates for
sending in work in between these times.
Professional Body: I believe my professional body will be interested in this
project as the Occupational therapy profession is always exploring new and
diverse ways to work. I would like to organise a minimum of 3 sessions with
one the Polytechnic Occupational Therapy staff to support my integration of the
Occupational Therapy theory.
Others involved: I would like to develop a relationship with one of the other WBL
masters students if they are interested, to share our progress to learn from and
stimulate ideas of how to work within my own project. This would be especially
useful as I have only studied in more traditional study environments before this.
Work Colleagues: One of HVP core values is that relationships are at the core.
As such we have worked hard to deal with conflicts and work in a respectful way
with one another. So I dont predict this project will influence these
relationships significantly.

18

8. Reflection Process
Benefits:
Personally: As a natural leader in many environments, it will be an interesting
experience working within a process that requires me to contribute only a little,
but largely observe the process.
Professionally: I am hopeful that the outcome of this process for me will be
more clarity about directions I could head in my paid and voluntary work as my
children get older and I have more time for this part of my life.
Academically: Already the process has been useful in regaining skills in working
with literature in an efficient and useful way.
Risks:
The main risk that I see, is that there is not sufficient time left to complete what
I consider to be the most vital part of the project, the PARS process.
Tracking my learning:
I will use journaling to track much of my learning. I find journaling useful
however I am a visual learner so want to utilise more mindmaps as part of my
journaling. I may also have an A3 or A2 mindmap on my wall to assist with
synthesising the different theories explored in phase 2. The IT program called
Prezi is what I intend to use for presenting the phase 2 learning so I will begin
to conceptualise through this program as I move deeper in to the process.

19

References
Aked, J., Marks, N., Cordon, G., & Thompson, S. (2009). Five Ways to Wellbeing:

The Evidence. Retrieved October 2013, from

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/five-ways-to-well-being-theevidence
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory Action Research.
Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 60(10), 854 - 857.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design
and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 73(4), 544 559.
Beazley, H., & Ennew, J. (2006). Participatory Methods and Approaches: tackling
the two tyrannies. In V. Desai, & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development
Research (1st ed., pp. 189 - 199). London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Bennett, B., Boidi, E., & Boles, I. (Ed.). (2012). Christchurch the Transitional City
Part IV. Christchurch, New Zealand: Freerange Press.
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). (2012). The CERA Wellbeing
Survey 2012 Report. Retrieved October 2013, from www.cera.govt.nz/wellbeingsurvey
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). (2013). Community in Mind:
Greater Christchurch Strategic Psychosocial Plan (Draft). Unpublished.
Christchurch City Council (CCC). (2011). Hagley Ferrymead Community Profile
Heathcote Poster. Retrieved 2013, from
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/statsfacts/communityprofiles/index.aspx#hagl
eyferrymeadcommunityprofile
Community Recovery Committees (CRC). (2011). Lessons Learned by
Community Recovery Committees of the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Advice we
offer to communities impacted by disaster. Retrieved 2013, from
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/1300-lessonslearned-from-victorias-bushfires-go-global.html
Gordon, R. (2004). The social system as a site of disaster impact and resource
for recovery. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 19(4), 16 22.
Gale, N., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Rewood, S. (2013). Using the Framework
Method for the Analysis of Qualitative Data in Multidisciplinary Research. MBC
Medical Research Methodology 13 (117). http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712288/13/117

20

Gordon, R. (2011). The Course for recovery after Disaster. Retrieved October
2013, from http://www.cima.org.au/resources
Ivory, V., Witten, K., Slamond, C., Lin, E., You, R. Q., & Blackely, T. (2012). The
New Zealand Index of Neighbourhood Social Fragmentation: Integrating Theory
and Data. Environment and Planning , 44, 972 - 988.
James, E. A., Slater, T., & Bucknam, A. (n.d.). Action Research. Retrieved October
2013, from http://www.ar4everything.com/
Lubosky, M., & Lysack, C. (2006). Overview of Qualitative Research. In G.
Keilhofner (Ed.), Research in Occupational Therapy: Methods of Inquiry for
Enhancing Practices (pp. 326 - 340). USA: F. A. Davis Company.
Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, & Griffin. (2003). The Appreciative Inquiry Summit: A
Practitioners guide for leading large-group change. C.A.: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers Inc.
Minkler, M. (2000). Using Participatory Action Reserach to Build Healthy
Communities.
Public Heatlh Reports, 115, 191 - 197.
McIntosh, P. (2010). Action Research and Reflective Practice. New York, USA:
Routledge.
McNiff, J. (2013). Sharing and creating new knowledge. Retrieved November
2013, from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/
Oxford University Press (2013). Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved December 2013,
from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/paradigm?
q=paradigm
Schile, Jerome, H. (1995). Afrocentricity: An emerging paradigm in social work
practice. Social Work, 41 (3), 284 294.
Silove, D., Steel, Z., & Pschol, M. (2006). Understanding Psychological Needs
after Disasters: Implications for Mental Health Services. Australian School of
Psychiatry Symposium, 52(2), 121 125
Solnit, R. (2009). A Paradise Built in Hell: The extraordinary Communities that
arise in Disaster. USA: Viking Penguin.
Taylor, R., Suarez-Balucazar, Y., Forsyth, K., & Kielhofner, G. (2006). Participatory
Research in Occupational Therapy. In G. Keilhofner (Ed.), Research in
Occupational Therapy: Methods of Inquiry for Enhancing Practices (pp. 620 631). USA: F. A. Davis Company.
The Tangata Whenua Community and Voluntary Sector Research Centre
(October 2013). 'Learning from Christchurch" - Research Collection Coming
21

Soon. Retrieved October 2013, from

http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/news/learning-from-christchurchresearch-soon/
Thornley, L., Ball, J., Signal, L., K Lawson- Te Aho, & Rawson, E. (2013). Building
Community Resilience: Learning from the Christchurch Earthquakes. Final
Report fot Health Research Council and Canterbury Medical Research
Foundation, Retrieved 2013, from
http://www.healthychristchurch.org.nz/news/resources-andinformation/2013/4/building-community-resilience-learning-from-the-canterburyearthquakes.aspx.
Torstonson, S., Whitacker, M. (2011). Supporting Community Resilience in PostQuake Christchurch. Retrieved 2013 from http://ccoss.org.nz/?p=178
Trentham, B., & Cockburn, L. (2005). Participatory Action Reserach: creating new
knowledge and opportunities for occupational engagement. In F. Kronenberg, S.
S. Algado, & N. Pollard (Eds.), Occupational Therapy without borders: Learning
from the Spirit of Survivors (1st ed., pp. 440 - 454). Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier
Limited.
Action Research. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research
Christchurch Earthquake 2011. (n. d.). In Wikipedia . Retrieved 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Christchurch_earthquake

22

Bibliography
Cammock, P., Jansen, C., & Pidsley, T. (2013). Otautahi-Canterbury Leadership
Lab: Community Leadership Development Programme , Concept for Discussion
(Unpublished).
Meth, P., & Williams, G. (2006). Literature Reviews and Bibliographic Searches.
In V. Desai, & R. B. Potter (Eds.), Doing Development Research (1st ed., pp. 209 221). London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Practitioner Research. (n. d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practitioner_research
Srivastava, A. & Thomson, S. B. (2009).Framework Analysis: A Qualitative
Methodology for Applied Policy Research. JOAAG, Vol. 4. No. 2

23

Appendix 1
Defining the term paradigm
At this juncture, a brief defining of the term paradigm is required. An exploration
of the literature demonstrates that the word paradigm is used in a range of
different ways. The Oxford University Dictionary describes paradigm as 'a
typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or a model' (2013). A social
work article (Schile& Jerome, 1995) discussing afrocentricity, states that the
new concept of afrocentricity is "a social science paradigm on which social work
practice can be conceived and built (p.284)'. Other reading suggests it is used
as models or theories, values, or systems of thought. I am using the term
paradigm as it seems to me to be a term that can encompass theories, practice
based values and approaches, as well as professional back grounds; the whole
range of influences on our practice. There is no singular professional body of
knowledge, or best practice, that can inform the practice of Heathcote Village
Project, but instead a cluster of paradigms will provide a rich and valuable
backdrop to make sense and inform our future practice. To illustrate this, in this
project there will be value in drawing on theory such as Appreciative Inquiry
(Ludema, Whitney, Mohr, Griffin, 2003), alongside the values and principles of
best practice examples such as Project Lyttleton (who in turn will have based
their practice on a range of theory, personal values, and professional
backgrounds).

24

Appendix 2
Heathcote Community Profile

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/statsfacts/communityprofiles/hagleyferrymea
d.aspx

25

Appendix 3
Heathcote Village Project Vision and Values
What are we aiming for:
To see Heathcote Valley as a community where people feel a sense of belonging,
safety and hope, we have many connections with one another, and we have
shared identity connected to the history and physical environment that makes
this area unique.
To provide a melting pot of ideas and connections that enables many different
people throughout our community to have the confidence, support and
relationships to do something about the challenges and ideals they have for
where they live.
Our Values
Everyone is valued
We own our solutions
Hopeful action
Shared Power
Relationships are at the core (empathy, helping others, shared concerns)
How we have been working to achieve this
Providing a forum to discuss needs in our local community and to seek
solutions Regular open community meetings focused on building
connections, discussing needs and seeking solutions.
Inspiring locals to be part of the solution to rebuilding our community.
Looking together to the future at what our community could become
Forming sub-groups addressing specific areas such as environmental issues,
civil defence, and future of Heathcote
Addressing communication needs in the valley through email, newsletters,
notice boards, utilisation of the web.
Status as an organisation
In August 2012 the Heathcote Village Project forum formally became affiliated
with the Heathcote Valley Community Association (HVCA). The HVP remains an
unincorporated group sitting under the incorporated HVCA. The association
remains a formal forum focussed on wider issues in the community in particular
infrastructure issues, while the project is a more informal dynamic forum that
26

support creativity and generally focusses more on the social fabric of the
community.

27