This research explores what makes it possible for older members to live in intergenerational intentional communities in the South of England. These are uncommon entities within the UK; they are purposefully communally organised living arrangements adopting philosophies of mutual support. There is growing interest in intentional communities as potentially positive housing choices for later life, but no research has been undertaken exploring ageing in them. I used a Bourdesian theoretical framework, exploring the economic, social and cultural capital that individuals commonly drew on in order to become members of their community (habitus) and to live day-to-day. I enhanced this approach by incorporating theorising from the fields of housing, cultural gerontology and care ethics, contributing to debates about the use of Bourdesian methods. I used qualitative research methods: a telephone survey of 22 communities and 23 interviews with members aged over 50, within 9 communities. I found that half the communities had members aged over 60; all were intergenerational. I identified key economic differences between communities: individual-ownership models, which required individual financial investment upon entry (CoHousing) and social-ownership models, which did not (Housing Co-operatives and a squat); two were hybrid models. The social-ownership intentional communities were more open to diverse potential new members. The cost of living was often very low, though this depended on the age of the community (generational capital) and the extent of sharing by members (collaboration). Long-standing housing Co-operatives had accumulated affordability capital and represented more radical transgression of the orthodoxies of UK housing and household formation under neo-liberal capitalist conditions (practical utopias). The cost of living in the CoHousing communities was individualised and similar to conventional homeownership. The CoHousing communities were more aligned with dominant property systems, gaining symbolic power through this. Whilst participants from both types of communities shared certain dispositions and affinities (habitus), there was there was diversity based on traditional distinctions such as social or occupational class, or housing pathways. Bourdesian-type social and cultural capital were important, but in the form of alternative capital - constituted by critical thinking about conventional choices in life (reflexivity) and adoption of alternative, resistant hierarchies of cultural and social values. This enabled interviewees' agency and provided currency within the communities. It was sometimes linked to individual experiences of 1970s counter culture movements. Living in an intentional community at one point in life did not necessarily equate to a lifetime's commitment to this lifestyle - individual affiliation to a community could also be fleeting and ambivalent. Emotional work made living in all communities possible, including tolerance and adaptability. Compromise was structured into all communities decision-making to varying degrees (consensus decision-making). Interviewees considered contributing to community life, friendships, commitment and consideration of the needs of others (informal ethics of reciprocal care) important. Ageing and reciprocal relations of care were delicate matters, not spoken of explicitly in any community. Some interviewees were sure about staying in their community into older age. Most felt ambivalent. There were normative feelings about ageing, such as fears of dependency and determination to remain active (dominant discourses of successful ageing). Whilst intergenerational living was considered positive by all, some tensions were revealed. The ageing of established communities seemed to be challenging their informal and implicit value and mutual support systems. I argued intentional communities might benefit from greater acknowledgement and consideration of issues raised by ageing, to effectively support those moving into later life. By shining a light on these unnoticed, often transgressive experiments in community living, I have shed light onto taken-for-granted housing choices in the UK and to show how limited those choices have become, particularly in older age.

The notion of superdiversity demands a move beyond an ethno-focal analysis of migration related diversity and calls to analytically incorporate other aspects of diversification, including differential migration, legal status and labour market trajectories. Taking London and Toronto as field locations, this thesis investigates how a superdiversity lens can be operationalised and utilised to discuss migrant socialities in urban contexts. It methodologically explores one particular avenue for doing this - personal social network analysis - to better understand the theoretical and empirical implications of adopting a superdiversity approach. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis strategies are used and particular emphasis is on visualising complex patterns and exploring how starting with complexity as an assumption facilitates the multidimensional analysis a superdiversity lens calls for. Focusing on networks of migrants who in statistical terms are commonly categorised as 'other' - who have relatively few co-migrants in terms of place of origin but who are differentiated in terms of other superdiversity aspects - the thesis questions if and what impact small group size has on patterns of sociality. With this focus it is established that a) the numerical size of the origin group impacts on social activities differently depending on whether one small group is explicitly liked to other pan-ethnic groups or not; b) that sociality patterns of migrants emerge from the complex interplay of general socialising opportunities but are also linked to individual trajectories of migration and settlement; c) that with a superdiversity lens it is indeed possible to move beyond the ethnic network notion. To support this latter point the thesis explores four alternative ways of describing migrant networks in terms of city-cohort, long-term resident, superdiverse and migrant-peer networks. The analysis contributes to theoretical debates by proposing a rational understanding of diversity rather than one based on the enumeration of categories be they ethnic or otherwise.

Community energy has drawn interest from the general public, policy makers and researchers in the UK over the last few years. Community energy projects, such as energy saving measures and renewable energy projects, are usually organised by civil society groups rather than commercial businesses. This DPhil research approaches community energy as local grassroots innovation and compares its development in two different countries, Finland and the UK. Key research question is: Why and how do community energy projects develop and how do they contribute to niche development? The thesis uses Sustainability Transitions studies literature, especially literature on Strategic Niche Management (SNM), as a theoretical framing, and empirical in-depth analysis of four community energy projects, two in the UK and two in Finland. The research examines how community energy projects develop in ‘niches'. Research findings highlight that motivations for projects include monetary savings, energy savings and climate change. Projects are developed by pre-existing community groups or groups that have come together to develop an energy project. Local embedding of community energy projects to each project's individual circumstances helps successful project delivery. Pre-existing skills and tacit knowledge such as the ability to seek information and fill in funding applications can aid success. Engagement with key stakeholders further shapes projects' aims and objectives. Community energy projects benefit from a clear leader who works with a supportive team. There is evidence of projects networking at the local and national level in the UK, while in Finland networking remains limited to the local area and projects often develop in isolation. Furthermore, there is a clear lack of active intermediary organisations in the Finnish context. Policy discourse at the government level can aid the attractiveness of community energy, while continued funding support encourages more people to get involved in projects in their local areas.

No description available.