Book Review: Gypsies and Travellers: Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society

A Response to the LSE Review from an Editor/some contributors to ‘Gypsies and Travellers: Empowerment and Inclusion in British Society’. Joanna Richardson and Andrew Ryder eds.(2012). Policy Press.

As academic researchers we recognise the validity of critique and constructive comment through the process of peer review and have thus not responded to the above commentary in the spirit of stifling this much valued academic practice. However, we do feel for the sake of accuracy the need to stress a number of points in response to the recent review by Philip Brown of our collected volume/individual contributions.
We are pleased that the reviewer considers that this book (published in the autumn of 2012) is a useful foundational study, as our primary audience are students, practitioners and researchers new to the field but also Gypsy Roma Traveller readers who are often unfamiliar with what is written about them. We would argue that this grouping presents a large and indeed important audience for this text.
Over and above the criticism that this text is ‘insular’ – which we strongly refute and would suggest that merely examining the bibliography for each chapter in the collection provides abundant evidence that contributors have included a broad range of relevant texts – we are concerned that the review contains a number of potentially misleading inaccuracies and wish to ‘set the record straight’.
In particular, two chapters were singled out for criticism: the reviewer claims that the chapter by Greenfields and Ryder on participatory action research (PAR) focuses overwhelmingly on their own research (which would appear to be self-evident given that two key studies – recognised as innovative and valuable by both the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Equality and Human Rights Commission by virtue of their involvement of community researchers from Gypsy/Traveller communities, and in the case of the economic inclusion project noted as being the first UK based study to explore this area of research -are explicitly included and referenced as providing case study examples of the authors’ approach to PAR). Similarly, the reviewer proposes that the authors of this chapter do not critique the PAR approach. Unfortunately he must have overlooked the fact that the chapter does in fact respond to criticisms of the methodology and counsels against the dangers of a loss of objectivity, whilst providing guidance on how common problems can be overcome.
In addition the chapter on economic inclusion by Greenfields, Ryder and Smith is criticised as lacking content but no detail is provided as to why it is perceived to be of poor quality aside from making reference to the Big Society which we in fact propose represents a potential danger to community support in essence indicating the need to deconstruct this model as we and other co-authors, have in reports which are referred to in this chapter and elsewhere in the volume. This particular chapter is moreover the first on this topic in a UK volume although as Brown fairly points out elements of it have been written up as journal articles and commissioned research reports, given it combines findings from two distinct studies. The chapter is based in part on ’Roads to Success’ (2010) authored by Ryder and Greenfields, as well as containing data expanded upon in Smith and Greenfields (2013) book on housed Gypsies/Travellers. The ‘Road to Success’ report was utilised to a significant degree in the UK Government Progress report by the Ministerial Working Group on tackling inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers, a review which prompted a number of policy responses linked to economic and financial inclusion, including action by the Department for Work and Pensions. Aside from extensive use of participatory action research ‘Roads to Success’ was innovative as it was project managed throughout by an Irish Traveller community organisation, building upon lessons learnt from the innovative Cambridge GTAA (the first such project to utilise community interviewers in the UK) and used as a lobbying tool by Gypsy, Travellers and Roma community groups. In addition the initial research was noted (personal communication to the authors) by the Director of the EC Equality Directorate as being ’informative’ and ’potentially inspiring’ for new European approaches to research and economic inclusion projects. We would add here that whilst PAR has indeed (as the reviewer notes) been used with other excluded groups, the fact that that Gypsy/Traveller/Roma populations who are accepted as even more marginalised than many other minority ethnic groups have not previously engaged with such methods is in itself ‘innovative’ and worthy of note.
The authors make reference in these two chapters to theoretical modelling of economic and social inclusion by Polanyi and Gramsci. Elsewhere in the volume, practice is linked to the work of Cohen, Hall, Freire, Foucault and Bourdieu amongst others. Contrary to the assertion of the reviewer, we would venture to argue that the volume does offer something to the more ’experienced reader’ and that the text is innovative not just for including community members as authors but also because it charts the changing and dynamic nature of forms of Gypsy and Traveller identity. In addition, it explores the dangers of scapegoating and an accelerated neoliberal political agenda which will serve to further weaken the significance and meaning of inclusion and the social contract for these communities, as was so vividly demonstrated in the eviction at Dale Farm. Whilst in the field of ‘Gypsy Studies’ new papers are appearing at an extraordinary rate as the subject becomes both fashionable and lucrative with increasing access to EU monies, we suggest that at the time of writing (2011-early 2012) publications and policies which were up-to-date and relevant were included appropriately and reviewed for relevance during the pre-publication process. As with all texts, in a rapidly changing policy world, it is impossible to entirely foresee when legislation or guidance will be repealed or superceded.
The volume brings together a number of researchers who are well known for their activism, professional and personal links with the communities amongst whom they work ’with’ and ’for’; as well as for their personal academic standing (evidenced by membership of funding bodies’ advisory panels, EU and Government advisory boards), in contrast perhaps to the approaches undertaken by some more ‘purely’ scientific academics or those who invoke the language of critical research but who may have forgotten the cardinal rule of participatory and empowering approaches, namely: to engage with the struggles of the people they study. The volume under discussion is part of an ongoing project, in the forthcoming second volume ’Hearing the Voice of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ the authors/editors (again activist scholars, community members and practitioners) explore notions of empowerment and injustice at a more theoretical level building upon the foundations and readership established through the first volume.
We would agree that many contributors to the reviewed volume are well-known researchers working in this field who have a wealth of translational research experience (in a number of cases spanning over 25 years) and that as such, very few academic authors are ‘new’ to ‘Roma studies’, with the obvious and welcome addition of Dan Allen who attained his PhD in 2012. However, as is common in most fields of academic research, editors approach those individuals whose work they know, and who are known to commissioning editors in publishing houses, when preparing an outline of a book. Indeed the suggestion of over-citation by particular authors may be a reflection of the fact that many of the contributors are responsible for much of the body of research in Gypsy/Roma studies published in the UK. We do agree however that there are a number of other academics who are now quite rightly coming to greater prominence, and contributors have drawn upon their publications where relevant, albeit perhaps not always providing them with the prominence they may deserve. Indeed, to refer to those proposed by Brown, we warmly commend the work of Ryan Powell who is producing extremely interesting and valuable theoretical papers (most recently with reference to Wacquant, a theorist who is also cited in one of the chapters commented upon negatively by the reviewer). Powell has recently contributed powerfully to a 2013 ESRC series with many of the contributors to this text, is cited in publications by the authors produced since this text was published and it is to be hoped that future collaborations may come to fruition . We are further, very grateful for having (re)drawn to our attention to some good quality publications by Vanderbeck, whose work has made reference to Gypsies-Travellers with regard to youth and social welfare and who has been cited in previous publications by some of the chapter authors, e.g. Cemlyn’s 2008 human rights paper and the 2009 EHRC review (Cemlyn, Greenfields, et. al), but whose contributions are, whilst interesting, located predominantly in a field which did not appear relevant to the chapters under discussion. In future publications the authors of this rebuttal will actively seek to consider where these authors (as well as Brown’s own co-authored paper on research with Gypsy/Traveller communities) can be appropriately included in articles and chapters.