An interview with our Guest Contributor, Ruth Lightbody

In 2018 I had my first daughter and my second in 2021. This was a fairly challenging time for me following pregnancy related illness, distressing births and subsequent trouble with feeding and sleeping.  I became quite isolated due to experiencing high levels of anxiety and intrusive thoughts. I started attending playgroups and the women that attend and run them became my solace at this very difficult time.

Here was a safe place for parents to come together to share their experiences, combine their knowledge, lighten each other’s load with a sympathetic ear and cup of tea. I myself, found an increasing confidence in my ability to cope as a parent as we exchanged stories, reflected each other’s struggles, supported each other, while sharing in the joy of our beautiful children and all the laughter and frustration that comes with them!

The connection with my own work, which explores participation and deliberative theory, was compelling. I was excited to find these informal social supports in my own community and in doing so, recognise this invisible work being undertaken, mostly by women, which was going unnoticed by policy makers.

As a senior lecturer in Politics at Glasgow Caledonian University, you’ve made significant contributions to research. Could you highlight one of your most impactful research findings? 

In 2017 I conducted research looking at examples of community engagement and participatory processes in order to determine the inequalities in community engagement and how these might be overcome. Community engagement is when citizens and groups are actively involved in the future of their communities. I highlighted that groups which have been known in the past as ‘hard to reach’ are now more appropriately recognised as ‘easy to ignore’. 

Those facing inequalities, sometimes multiple inequalities, are often easy to ignore due to the complexity of their situation, the difficulty of forming a solution and a lack of understanding from governments, organisations and programmes. 

While this work was impactful, and the report went on to inform how many organisations and policy actors speak about inclusion and accessibility, the biggest impact for me was how these findings have come to underpin all my work since.

As someone involved in research on experts and evidence giving, what advice would you share with policymakers and practitioners in ensuring decision-making is evidence-based, especially in areas concerning child welfare and domestic abuse prevention?

Much of my research has surrounded deliberative democracy.

Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that focuses on how decisions are made, through informed discussions and reasoned exchange of views. In deliberative democracy, participants are supported to become informed on important societal and political issues, and they are supported to discuss their ideas and perspectives in a setting which is inclusive and accessible.

Often the process will ask participants to reflect on how policies and laws affect them, how they can be improved, what the realities are for the everyday person and their families. For evidence-based policy making, it is vital that the voices and experiences of families affected by those policies are heard and that they are part of the conversation. Deliberative democracy facilitates this. A really important study recently undertaken by my colleagues Professor Nancy Lombard and Dr Katy Proctor is a key example of how survivors and families affected by domestic violence can inform important legislation. They heard from people about their experiences of the criminal justice system and this powerful video helps tell the women’s stories.

A key point to consider is how lived experience experts are supported while taking part in these processes. Providing testimonies, giving evidence, sharing experiences can be triggering, upsetting and exhausting. Their input must be valued and respected. Participation should, where appropriate, include a monetary recognition of the person’s labour. Further supports include signposting or directly providing counselling, mental health support or ensuring that the person taking part is not endangered in any way from participating.  This may include engaging people at community level, in a space which feels comfortable and safe for them.

Considering your research in playgroups, how do you see early childhood interventions contributing to the broader goals of promoting healthy family dynamics and preventing domestic abuse?

While my work can’t speak to interventions which prevent abuse, what I have found from researching playgroups is the warmth, companionship and solidarity their members feel from being part of the group. A big part of this is having somewhere safe to go – even if it is just for an hour, once a week – developing friendships and connections for them and their children, being able to turn to those social networks/friends when crisis hits in their private lives, and that stability for children to return to a familiar space every week which is engaging and non-threatening. Those taking part in our research had experience of crisis: fleeing war, family breakdowns, Covid lockdown, sleep deprivation, birth trauma, and they felt that playgroups had been a key part of surviving that period of their life.

Looking ahead, what are your hopes for future policy directions or initiatives aimed at supporting families, particularly in light of the challenges highlighted by your research?

The future of these groups is uncertain due to a decrease in volunteers. With the cost of living crisis, parents returning to work from parental leave earlier, often two parents working full time, and sole parent families, people are short on time. In the short-term, solutions would include more resources to support volunteers – training, incentives and community funding initiatives which will enhance their role and encourage volunteers to stay in their role for longer. But the decrease of volunteers is more fundamental than this.

Long term strategies are needed if governments wish to rely on a robust community sector and develop resilient communities including encouraging businesses and industries to seriously consider the wealth of research that shows flexible working, job shares and 4-day weeks are beneficial for the economy, productivity and wellbeing. Decisions being made at a local level and proper funding for communities would give volunteers more control and equip them to think long term.

Finally, it is worth considering the introduction of a Universal Basic Income, such as the participation income model, which could potentially support people to take on community and voluntary roles without it affecting benefits and instil a wider sense of wellbeing amongst the population.