EMA U8449257

MSc (Development Management) Programme
TU874 Project
Social Inclusion and the ‘Social Fund’ within
the Rural Transport Programme. In what ways
might the ‘Social Fund’ be a positive tool for
Social Inclusion and how could it be used to
rebuild trust among key stakeholders?
Pádraig Ó Ruairc
U8449257
April 2016

Pádraig Ó Ruairc U8449257
2
Executive Summary
The Rural Transport Programme (RTP) had since its inception in 2006 been
considered a good example of a community led, bottom up social programme. Its
remit called for diversity and innovation and resulted in the creation of 36 community
owned companies.
The economic downturn in 2007 necessitated the review of all government spending
and the RTP was no exception, a ‘Value for Money and Policy Review’ was
undertaken and its findings published in 2011. The National Transport Authority
(NTA) was delegated with the managing and restructuring of the programme.
The restructuring has been fraught with disagreements and loss of trust between the
NTA and the RTP community companies who implement the programme.
Differences in culture, worldviews and style of management led to friction
One area of contention was the funding of what was called ‘Once-off’ transport
needs. After the initial transfer of management NTA did not fund these types of
services. These services were considered by RTP as a core element in their social
inclusion remit.
The NTA subsequently acknowledge the need for this type of ‘Once-off’ funding and
issued a draft policy called the Social Fund. This occurred near the end of this
research and is reflected in the findings.
This research considers how the development of the social Fund might help rebuild
trust through identifying common understandings of the meaning of social inclusion
and the Social Funds potential to impact on it.
The report will show that the issues around lack of trust between the two key
stakeholders are deeper than the development of a Social Fund could hope to repair.
However it is possible through learning that trust can be improved and that the Social
Fund could be the first building block in that process.

3
The findings show that the Social Fund can be a positive tool for social inclusion at
the micro level (community) and can help to rebuild trust only as part of a wider effort
by both stakeholders. The report recommends actions that by virtue of the roles of
key stakeholders must be led by the NTA. These actions necessitate a rethink of the
future of the programme and how key stakeholders relate to each other in a systemic
way using independent facilitation.

4
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2
Contents..................................................................................................................... 4
1 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... 5
2 Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................... 6
3 Abbreviations / Acronyms ................................................................................... 8
4 Introduction and background............................................................................. 10
5 Nature of the problem ....................................................................................... 13
6 Research Methodology and Design .................................................................. 21
7 Analysis and Findings ....................................................................................... 30
8 Conclusions, implications and recommendations.............................................. 39
9 References........................................................................................................ 43
10 Appendices..................................................................................................... 45

5
1 Acknowledgments
This MSc in Development Management has been part of the researchers’ life since
2002. There have been times when it felt beyond me; but always at my side and
encouraging me to persevere was my wife Seble Berhe. Without whose support and
patience I would not have gotten this far. Seble thank you for being you.
I want to acknowledge my two sons, Tiernán and Cathal who seemed to understand
when my excuse for not playing ‘light sabres’ was, I need to study today lads. I
promise we have a lot of playing ‘Star Wars’ to catch up on and I promise no
excuses.
To my colleagues in the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) especially the staff past
and present at Pobal, the RTP managers and staff, and my colleagues in the
National Transport Authority for their support, encouragement and the learning I
have gained from you all.
Special thanks to the individuals who gave their time to be interviewed or write up
answers/comments to my questions. I hope this document is a fair refection of your
fears and hopes for the programme going forward.
Finally to the passengers the RTP has and continues to serve, thank you for this
great journey of learning and growing over the last eight years. I have gained more
from this programme than I could ever have given.
The opinions expressed in this research study are those of the author and in no way
reflect the opinions of Pobal or the National Transport Authority.

6
2 Aims and Objectives
2.1 Aims
The aim of this project is to investigate the gap between the rhetoric and practice of
the social inclusion agenda between the National Transport Authority (the Authority)
and the Rural Transport Programme (RTPs) companies to investigate the
institutional and capacity and constraints for a meaningful implementation of a
‘Social Fund’ and the rebuilding of trust among key stakeholders.
2.2 Objectives
2.2.1 Personal
The researchers’ personal objectives can be summarised as follows;
 To produce a research study report which may help all key stakeholders
understand the different issues which could be blocking progress to an agreed
position on how social inclusion should be defined.
 This may be the researchers last significant input to the policy of the Rural
Transport Programme (RTP) as with time the author’s role in the handover to
from Pobal to the Authority is reducing.
 To learn more about Social Inclusion and most importantly differing
understandings of this concept in modern Ireland at a time when politicians
use it without qualification to justify their decisions.
 To test the authors ability to remain impartial and to ensure protection for
informants who will continue to be part of the programme following the
authors exit.
2.2.2 Stakeholder
The boundary which will define our system of interest (Ison 2010) is shown in Figure
1. In setting this boundary, we are also identifying key stakeholders and informants.
The boundary shown in red is the system of interest problem area (Ison 2010) where
the definition of Social Inclusion is contested. Stakeholder related objectives include;

7
 To highlight that the institutional differences can also be used to build a
programme and that diversity is good.
 To show how institutional footprints (Roche, 2007) can blinker the
organisations and their staff into seeing each other’s reasons for acting the
way they do.
 To build trust through respect. This can only be achieved where dialogue
includes respect and clear knowledge of each others roles.
2.2.3 Development management
 To help stakeholders to see themselves as development managers
intervening in social process to influence change in multi-stakeholder
environments characterised by value-based conflict (Thomas 1996).
 To have a reference point for a list of actions that might help improve trust and
build on the mutual shared responsibilities to those excluded in Irish society
by reducing the impact of lack of transport as a reason for exclusion.
 To remind stakeholders of the mutual need to manage tasks from a
developmental perspective based on understanding of their differing histories
and cultures of development.
 That show that “public action” that is the RTP, is a “collective purposive action
... for public ends” (Mackintosh 1992 p5) and that the learning histories of both
key stakeholders is equally relevant.

8
3 Abbreviations / Acronyms
DRT Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) is an intermediate form of
public transport, somewhere between a conventional service routes
that uses low floor buses and special transport services that typically
use a shared taxi mode. DRT services are offered to customers
according to their individual needs, generally only stopping where
passengers request pick-up or drop-off. DRT route model are defined
according to level of flexibility, the type of stopping points and the
degree of linearity or area coverage offered by the service.
(Ambrosino et. al. 2004)
CDC Community Development Companies (CDC) are voluntary groups etc.
that respond to local needs e.g. Residents Associations, Sports clubs,
Age Action groups etc.
LDC Local Development Companies (LDC) are organisations set up at
county level to coordinate and liaise with the Local Authorities to
identify and respond to development needs within their catchment
areas they fund, support and train CDC.
LocalLink The new trade name of the Rural Transport Programme adopted by
the NTA.
NTA The National Transport Authority referred in this document as ‘the
Authority’ was set up by the Dublin and National Transports Acts 2008
and 2009. The Authority is responsible for all public transport policy,
regulation and licensing in the Republic of Ireland.
OAQ Over Arching Questions (OAQ) the basis of the project design.
RTI Rural Transport Initiative (RTI) precursor to the RTP. Started in 2002

9
and completed 2006. It was an action research Initiative.
RTN The Rural Transport Network is a representative body of all the RTPs.
Since the restructuring its membership has dwindled from 35 to
approximately 21/22 companies who still have a stake in the new
programme.
RTP Rural Transport Programme and or the companies (RTPs) which
comprised it. Under Pobal Management 35 groups/companies, under
NTA 18 TCU’s
TCU’s Transport Coordination Units, the new name given to RTPs following
restructuring of the programme under the NTA.
The
Authority
Abbreviated name for the National Transport Authority (NTA)
VfM The Value for Money and Policy Review of the Rural Transport
Programme 2011.

10
4 Introduction and background
4.1 Historical and developmental background of Rural
Transport Programme and LocalLink.
The Rural Transport Initiative (RTI) was established in 2002 to explore community
lead solutions to the dearth in public transport provision in rural Ireland. The intuitive
was completed in 2006 and the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) was established
from 2006 becoming an integral part of the Department of Transports annual budget.
The RTP was managed by Pobal. Pobal is an intermediary not-for-profit company
registered as a charity which manages various social programmes and grant
management schemes on behalf of various Irish Government Departments, the
European Union and other philanthropic stakeholders.
In time the RTP grew to 36 community groups (RTPs) covering the whole Irish state.
At its height in the mid 2000’s the programme was been funded by up to €15 million.
This is still in stark contrast to over €170 million allocated to predominantly urban
public transport in Ireland.
The programme mission was ‘to provide a quality nationwide community based
public transport system in rural Ireland which responds to local needs’ (Pobal, 2016).
The Rural Transport Programme Aims & Objectives (Pobal, 2016) included;
• To provide, enhance and sustain a nationwide community-based public transport
system in rural areas.
• To maximise existing transport assets and to utilise new technology where
necessary in the co-ordination and development of transport.
• To act as a catalyst in providing models of partnership at all levels where key
sectors actively engage in transport provision.

11
• To ensure equality of access for all, including older people as well as people with
mobility, sensory and cognitive impairments.
• To maintain, promote and develop models of good practice.
• To continue to contribute to rural public transport policy.
Following the international downturn in 2007 the affect on Irish economy forced the
government to review many programmes and consider their value in a resource
constrained environment. A Department of Finance Value for Money and Policy
Review (VfM) was commenced in 2009 and published in 2011. This review
acknowledged that there was anecdotal evidence of a positive social impact of the
programme but that the administrative costs need to be addressed (particular
concern was around the need for 35 RTP groups and the Pobal management fee). It
was also decided that RTP would best be placed under the auspices of the National
Transport Authority (NTA/the Authority) who had responsibility for all conventional
public land based transport in the state.
Management of the RTP was transferred from Pobal to NTA in 2013. The NTA was
tasked with developing a new roadmap for the programme. Prior to the transfer
Pobal had already outlined a vision for the programme based on the ‘Total Transport’
concept (PTEG, June 2011) at local level and the Authority adopted this vision.
The revised NTA plan included the reduction from 35 to 18 groups and rebranding
the programme as ‘LocalLink’ (NTA, 2015). The RTP groups became ‘Transport
Coordination Units’ (TCU). Under the new structures local government will have a
role in planning and proposing new, revised or cancelled services within their county
boundaries. This troika is stark contrast with the previous structure where the RTP
group made all the decisions based on the principle that their voluntary boards
comprised of representatives of the communities; and were seen as providing local
solutions to locally identified needs (subsidiarity).

12
4.2 The Social Fund
During the period RTP was under the management of Pobal, RTP groups were free
to use funding in two broad ways;
A. To establish ongoing regular Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) services,
B. Provide ‘Once Off’ transport that was time bound and not repetitive to
individuals or groups deemed in need of short term support under the general
principle of Social Inclusion.
All RTPs adopted a combination of both models. However the VfM review of the
programme in 2009 (DPER 2011) recommended that model ‘B’ should be restricted
to 5% of the total grant allocation to any one RTP group.
When the management of the programme was transferred to the Authority, the
Authority decided that they needed to separate out the 5% of the total grant for
RTP/LocalLink and rename it ‘The Social Fund’.
The NTA wishes to manage and control the fund differently from the previous
practice which left total decision making at local (RTP) level. This has raised many
questions related to cultural and institutional differences between RTP groups and
the Authority. Questions around the new purpose of the fund and the criteria for
eligibility to be applied. And most importantly who will manage the fund post
allocation in terms of decisions relating to spend and eligibility. The estimated total
value of the fund is €650,000.
For ease of reading in this document we shall use the term ‘the Authority’ to
refer to the National Transport Authority and RTPs to refer to the Rural
Transport Programme companies or groups who implement it. We shall limit
the terms TCUs and LocalLink to avoid confusion.

13
5 Nature of the problem
The transfer of management of the Rural Transport Programme from Pobal to the
National Transport Authority (the Authority) in 2013 was the beginning of a long and
as yet incomplete change process by the Authority of the Rural Transport
Programme and the groups (RTPs) who implemented the programme. The problems
faced by all stakeholders are numerous and touch to the heart of their raison d’être
of their respective roles and missions.
The Social Fund is intended to replace the previous funding ‘Once-Off’ practice in
the RTP of allocating a percentage of their programme grant in each RTP to ‘Once-
Off’ services. This was a totally discretionary decision by the RTPs. The Authorities
intention is that this fund will put controls the previous practices by RTPs. These
controls signal a significant cultural change for RTPs and for many it is seen as
centralising and against the local management ethos of the programme. This has
created tensions, expectations and confusion for the RTPs and the time it is taking
by the Authority to present the policy adds to the frustration. These issues are on top
of existing tensions related to the systemic change (Ison 2010) that has taken place
in the programme.
In this research study the two core issues revolve around;
 Trust between key stakeholders.
 Potential for the Social Inclusion fund to help rebuild trust trough identification
of shared meanings of social inclusion.
5.1 Trust between key stakeholders
The RTP is based on the assumption that the solutions to the dearth in public
transport provision in rural Ireland should be local solutions to locally identified
needs. This idea on the surface does not seem at odds with the Authorities’ statutory
objectives which is to provide and efficient and effective nationwide public transport
service (NTA Acts 2009/10). However some understanding of the nature of the
‘ideas’ of trust, from a theoretical perspective of the key stakeholders, helps us to
interpret the manifestations of conflict that have arisen under the new arrangements

14
especially for the RTPs. Zaheer et al cited in Stephenson (2005) talks about “no
single ‘correct’ view on trust” but does propose a difference between dispositional
and relational trust. Stephenson also refers to four types of trust one of which
‘Competence’ (Stephenson, p.345, 2995) seems to reflect the findings of the
research in terms of how the Authority wishes to relate to the RTPs.
Robinson et al, discuses “ideal types” (Robinson, D. et al, 2000) of inter-
organisational relationships. Like Robinson et al the author understand ideal not to
mean ‘what is most desirable’ (Robinson, D. et al, 2000). They consider three ideal
types, Competition, Cooperation and Coordination (the 3C’s). There are as Robinson
et al remind us [sic] ‘considerable overlaps between what we might consider the
3C’s. This framework for analysing helps us understand the thinking, power and trust
issues that may arise in the relationships between RTPs and the Authority. It helps
explain why people (organisations) “do what they do when they do what they do”
(Ison, p5 2010). This concept used by Ison (2010) to help us understand and learn
from the type of change that is systemic allows us to appreciate how actions can be
learned from my taking a step back and seeing our actions form a third person
perpective.
The NTA holds a statutory monopolistic position and fits in the ideal type of
‘Coordination’ of public transport in Ireland but also enters the sphere of Competition
with other state agencies for funding annually from national government. It works
primarily on hierarchies, rules and control systems.
For the RTPs they could be seen as fitting within the framework generally of
‘Cooperation’ (Harriss, 2000) as they are not for profit community lead companies,
this framework was well established during the management of the programme by
Pobal. While Pobal owned a coordinating role the culture was more towards
cooperation (with the RTPs and other agencies under their aegis) and conflict arose
primarily when funding guidelines were breached or were expectations, worldviews
and boundaries (Blackmore, 2010) clashed. Pobals role may also have been likened
to ‘network agents’ “that connect policy and service planning and development by
facilitating communications between the macro (government generally) and the

15
micro (community groups or individuals)” (Inskip cited by Hewitt et al in Johnson and
Wilson (2009).
Pobals role between the Department of Transport and RTPs is now vacated and we
have a macro (NTA) to Micro (RTP) interface without this crucial network agent role.
The facilitative role of Pobal included a “mechanism for mutual learning” Johnson &
Wilson (2009) may have been more significant that stakeholders had assumed prior
to the change process.
For the RTPs prior to the change in management their overlap (with each other as
RTPs) was limited and generally confined to competition for additional business
outside of the funding from Pobal, not all RTPs entered this sphere. Pobal as a ‘not
for profit’ is focused on encouraging cooperation and partnership, while maintaining
strong levels of financial accountability. The institutional framework of RTPs is civil
society; they had shared goals and values. They previously worked on the basis of
trust and mutual respect. Trust was of the type Stephenson (p. 345, 2005) called
‘Companion’ that is based on judgments of goodwill and friendship. But even here as
Robinson et al points out the ‘Animal Farm’ notion that all “animals are equal but
some are more equal than others” was at play.
Long (2004) talks about the need “through the notion of discourse, a way of
contextualising better the inter-connections between ideas, beliefs and actions” but
evidence from this study will show that the existence of such a discourse was limited
and contested. The failure of the Authority to understand the culture and mores of
the RTP is a contributing factor in the loss of trust between these two stakeholders.
Similarly the desire by the RTPs to move from management by Pobal to the NTA
without consider of the institutional framework differences and how they may relate
to each other adds to the friction on various operational and governance levels in
which both reside.
The institutional contexts in which both RTPs and NTA are primarily situated are
aligned with Robinsons’ (2000) framework and we can broadly place them as
‘Cooperation’ and ‘Coordination’ respectively. These broad categorisations however

16
should not mask the reality that all stakeholders can find themselves in any
categorisation depending on their purpose or actions at any given time (Robinson,
2000). However as Johnson and Wilson (2009) point out these can provide a
heuristic handling for analysing the dynamics between these stakeholder
organisations.
By understanding these contextual settings in which the key actors are grounded we
can also better understand their thinking and logic. Again we can apply the warning
of Long (2004 p91) that if only one voice is been heard then there is a risk of a loss
of “innovativeness and adaptability to change both of which depend on the diversity
and fluidity of knowledge rather than on integration and systematisation”. It is this
reality that has caused conflict in terms of understanding the use and implementation
of a Social Fund. The RTPs feel a sense of disempowerment and that their
knowledge and experience is being disregarded as is evidenced from the research
interviews as shown later. It should be noted this same sense existed, or claimed to
exist in the relationship with Pobal (McCaul 2010). This underlining sense may have
similar substance to what Robinson (TU872 p150) referred to the idea that “NGO’s
are gap-fillers”, for RTPs the feeling is that now the Authority is on the scene the
RTPs role is becoming redundant as is shown in our research findings.
This conceptual framework also helps to explain what the research shows as
possible bias that exists within the Authority towards so called “lay or non-expert
actors” (Long 2004) which at times seems to prevail in terms of actions and policy by
the Authority towards RTPs such as in ‘Health & Safety’ and ‘Fleet Management’.
This bias is additionally galling for RTPs when one considers that prior to 2009 the
NTA did not exist whereas RTPs or community transport companies have existed
back into the mid 1990’s. This situation could be creating a “sphere of ignorance”
(Long citing van der Ploeg, 2004 p92) in that RTPs managers may be losing
motivation and creativity that was seen as a positive element of the RTP when
community lead, for example finding funding solutions where gaps existed. Using
Longs (2004) concept and based on the researchers experience we can say that the
Authority may see RTPs as “invisible men” while they the Authority’s as “experts”.

17
There is echo’s of Robert Chambers question “whose knowledge counts” (The Open
University, 2006) and the sense by RTPs that theirs doesn’t!
The 3C is also a help us understand the effect of power relations on the
development of the Social Fund, understanding and defining of social inclusion and
finally trust. Mayoux and Johnson (2007) talk about empowerment and participatory
methods and the influence of power relations on such methods. The coordinating
nature of Pobal which would have used the language of empowerment and
coordination would have attempted to work on the basis of ‘power with’ the RTPs;
resorting to ‘power over’ only where funding or use may be in question. Mayoux et al
(2007) remind us that “empowerment by its definition is concerned with power
relations”. This research is concerned with those relations between RTPs and the
Authority. It is how those relations work that affects trust. The research shows that
the focus of power for the RTPs has switched from Pobals ‘power with’ and ‘power
to’, to the Authority’s ‘power over’ Mayoux et al (2007).
From a developmental perspective Longs (2004 p93) comparison of Andean farmers
as “objects of development instead of co-participants”, has similar echoes for the
RTPs in the transition of change from Pobals management of the programme to the
Authorities management of it. Long highlights several points he says are crucial for
analysing policy ideas but two have important relevance to the situation here; [sic]
“The importance of the existence of multiple, but overlapping, discourses on
development and the significance of the interplay of ‘expert’ and ‘lay knowledge and
the social relations that underpin them” Long (2004 p96).
Hirschman’s concepts of Exit, Voice and Loyalty may aid our understanding of the
present state of thinking within the RTPs. The Authority is like the supplier (in this
case of funding) and the RTPs likened to customers (providing service in return for
funding). Forced to compete against each other in a tender type competition (NTA
2013) 35 RTPs for 18 restructured positions, in 2014, this posed a significant cultural
dilemma for the RTPs. Some RTPs opted for ‘Exit’ before or immediately after the
competition. The research findings will show that ‘Loyalty’ does not exist voluntarily
and is the product of dependence. The ‘Exit’ option for the remaining RTP’s spells

18
potential extinction for the group because unlike consumers (who can stop buying or
switch brands) the RTPs depend heavily on the grant from the Authority.
What remains for the RTPs is ‘Voice’ which Hirschman’s (1970 p43) suggests is
“essentially an art constantly evolving in new directions”. Bainfield (cited by
Hirschman p39) in his study of political influence says that the “effort an interested
party makes to put its case before a decision maker will be proportionate to the
advantage to be gained from a favourable outcome”. In an atmosphere of distrust
and fear for survival the RTPs may resort to political lobbying and tactics of ‘them
and us’, which in the current political environment to the RTPs may prove more
advantageous than dialogue with them as our research seems to show.
As our research will show the current state of dialogue between the Authority and
RTPs is as Thomas Harris in his book I’m Ok-Your OK (Harris, 1973) on
transactional analysis would refer to Parent to Child. Harris (1973) proposed the
ideal or optimal communicative position is Adult – Adult. However the coordination
role of the Authority traditionally has favoured the Parent – Child model (which fits
with the conceptual framework that state agencies fall into).
So how will trust be regained? Ison (2010) in a footnote relating to the loss of trust on
financial institutions argues “that trust is an emergent property of the process of
relationship building and maintaining”. Might this help to guide the actions and
attitudes of stakeholders, assuming they are interested?
5.2 Potential for the Social Inclusion fund to help rebuild
trust trough identification of shared meanings of Social
Inclusion.
Looking at these institutional differences and contested meanings of social inclusion
we find that both organisations have particular emphasises in their meaning of Social
Inclusion.

19
For the RTPs:
“Combating social exclusion and meeting the needs of communities and
individuals that do not have access to public or private transport” (Pobal, 2015)
The Authorities who defined social inclusion as;
“Social inclusion embraces the notion that priority should be given to benefits
that accrue to those suffering from social deprivation, geographic isolation
and mobility and sensory deprivation.” (National Transport Authority, 2010).
On the surface of it these look like different ways of describing the same thing,
transport as an enabler of social inclusion. However a subtle difference is that the
Authority thinks in terms of larger groups/communities that have transport
deprivation while the Pobal (RTPs) programme looked at the individuals needs. It is
this different worldview which Lars Engberg-Pedersen refers as to the "symbolic
aspects of institutions” (Engberg-Pedersen 1997) and the unintended consequences
that can arise where agendas are imposed that do not "fit" with the political/cultural
context of the organisations involved.
The old structure of the programme, under Pobal management, empowered the
RTPs to find solutions to transport needs in their areas. Solutions included
community action. Volunteer boards, drivers and assistances constituted a
significant part of the programme which was acknowledged in the VfM.
Empowerment was central to the programme; it created ownership even by
operators and drivers of the service. The research suggests that the sense amongst
the RTPs that this is been discarded by the Authority is strong. Maxwell (2003)
reminds us that the development goals and targets call for state agencies to ensure
“empowerment as a major theme, not just participation in the narrow sense”. Here
again the cultures clash. In addition Maxwell (2003 pg 199) argues about practicing
subsidiarity. Feedback from this research suggests that the Authority is seen as
centralising and bureaucratic which again challenges the ‘local’ ethos of the RTPs.
The Value for Money & Policy Review (2011 p7) confirms this localisation principle

20
“In general the rural and community development Programmes, particularly under a
social inclusion objective involve community development from the bottom-up.”
In conclusion the two areas of focus for this study are but a part of wider issues that
need to be addressed in the change process. Johnson and Wilson (2009, p. 6)
reminds us that the actors here are “stakeholders who have different social histories,
identities and values”. The Social Fund is but one instrument to help reconcile the
trust gap between key stakeholders. Defining how it can best be used to address
inequality and social injustice in filling transport needs if managed correctly may
overcome the fears of what Johnson and Wilson (2009) define as a “challenge to
existing orders (or lead to challenges, whether intended or unintended), no matter in
how small a way”.
As a result of this examination of the problem and through several iterations the
research has developed four over arching questions for which the research will seek
to investigate.
1. In what ways do stakeholder agencies define social inclusion in relation to
Rural Transport Programme? What kinds of meanings do they attach to the
term and how do these conflict?
2. How do stakeholder agencies envisage the Social Fund being used to support
social inclusion?
3. In what ways might conflicting stakeholder understandings of social inclusion
influence the ways in which the Social Fund may be used to support activities
to support social inclusion within Rural Transport Programme.
4. What kinds of institutional and capacity issues might influence the decision
making process with respect to allocation of the Social Fund?
These over-arching questions were further explored in the research design and
Appendix 1 Over-Arching Questions and Interview Questions

21
6 Research Methodology and Design
6.1 Identifying Principle Stakeholders
In early iterations of the problem definition, the author considered key stakeholders
in the implementation of the Rural Transport Programme/LocalLink. A stakeholder
analysis allowed us to assess the influences of decision making and was based on
Roches (2007) matrix.
In Figure 1 Boundaries and Systems of Interest we can see our primary system of
interest boundary and our community’s of practice (Ison, 2010) (red dashed circle)
with the key stakeholders the Authority & RTPs. Both the Authority and RTPs will
also be influenced in differing ways by stakeholders outside of this system of interest
in the wider environment.
Ideally here stakeholders should be led to the formation of “communities of practice”
(Snyder, W. and Wenger, E., 2010). However, each will also have an agenda and
attempt to put their own ‘institutional footprint’ (The Open University, 2009, p.132,).
Finding a middle ground will be vital to ensure ‘buy-in’ from all key stakeholders.
After several iterations of the problem and the need to focus the issue for research,
the author decided to focus on the relationship between the Authority and RTPs, in
order to explore the constraints on effective implementation of the Social Fund to
promote social inclusion. Pobal role as a secondary stakeholder is used to present
and highlight the institutional and cultural differences brought about through the
change process.

22
Figure 1 Boundaries and Systems of Interest
6.2 Underlining Principles
Four principles of an investigation are set out by the Open University (The Open
University, 2009 p. 92) and have been used to inform the research design for this
study.
1. Look for a moral dimension;
2. Look for relationships;
3. Learn about yourself as you learn the problem;
4. Regards development as a shared responsibility;
RTP Company’s
National
Transport
Authority
Department
of Transport
Pobal
Passengers
Other Social
Inclusion
Organisations

23
6.2.1 Look for a moral dimension
The need to understand the conceptual frameworks in which the various
stakeholders work and the inter-organisational relationships between them is
explored in terms of the concepts of Coordination, Cooperation and to a lesser
extent Competition. Conflicts in values and norms have arisen when the Authority
and RTPs have interacted in the decision-making process with regard to usage of
the Social Fund. The obligations placed on all stakeholders to help reduce social
exclusion is the moral imperative of all. It is the contested understanding of how best
to achieve this within limited mandates (transport provision) and funding (annual
budget allocations/grants).
6.2.2 Look for relationships
The decision of the Minister of Transport to follow through on the Value for Money
and Policy Review (2011) recommendations and transfer the management of RTP
from Pobal to the Authority is the catalysis for the deteriorating relations between the
stakeholder agencies. The intention is to analyse inter-organisational relationships in
terms of the 3Cs analytical framework. This research will in effect explore the
different moral compasses both organisations use in relating to practice and making
decisions going forward.
6.2.3 Learn about yourself as you learn the problem
While mindful before commencing this research of personal bias. The author has
found that such consciousness has not reduced the need for constant vigilance
during the research process, for both the author and informants. The bias of the
informants from both key and secondary stakeholders was also very prevalent.
The researchers’ long history in RTP/LocalLink inevitably influences values,
preconceptions and interests (Open University 2009, p 140). Most notably the
researcher is committed to community focus for the RTP and has a strong
preference towards the ‘Cooperative’ conceptual framework model for the
programme.

24
6.2.4 Regards development as a shared responsibility
Central to the project is the assumption that all stakeholders have a common desire
and shared responsibility to improve social inclusion for people living in rural Ireland.
However it is in the defining of social inclusion and the methods of addressing it for
which cultural and institutional differences exist. In addition the recent restructuring
have created issues around trust.
6.3 Approaches to sampling
It was considered appropriate to obtain the perspectives of a broad variety of
informants across the various stakeholders. A purposive sampling approach was
therefore taken (Woodhouse p165 2007). Key informants were selected based on
“their knowledge or distinctive viewpoint” (Woodhouse 2007).
Within the Authority different sectorial perspectives were sought i.e. planning and
research. The RTPs presented a more complex sample selection due to the various
operational models used for example fleet and non fleet owing groups, LCDs, CDCs
in addition to Local Authorities etc. the final selection was based on knowledge of the
informants history within the programme and an attempt to get a fair sample from
RTPs, and the Authority.
Finally a third category of ‘Other’ composed of Pobal staff, other relevant experts and
finally informal chats with passengers to support triangulation to test the rigor of our
investigation and “test the working hypothesis that originated in earlier interviews”
(Woodhouse p169 2007).
6.4 Choice of tools
Two tools of research are used;
 Semi-structured interviews (Face to face and telephone) supplemented by
Written statements and or answers to set questions of OAQ’s.
 Literature Review

25
The overarching/research questions defining what were needed to be known can be
seen in Appendix 1.
These questions developed from several iterations and modified as interviews
progress. In addition they are sorted based on the informants of the Authority, RTP
and Other. Woodhouse (2007) gives us a list of the comparisons between semi-
structures interviews and structured surveys (Woodhouse p171 2007). For our
research, being mindful that the population sample is small and that the situation is
currently complex and presents as a wicked problem (Ison 2010). Informants may be
unwilling to write their views and a more thorough feedback may be available in
semi-structured environment. The ability to adopt design based on feedback during
interviews is also an advantage (Woodhouse 2007).
At the heart of our objective is to find “shared meanings between participants, while
being aware of multiple perspectives held” (The Open University, 2009 p) we do this
while mindful of conflicting viewpoints and findings contrary to our assumptions or
expectations.
Where semi-structured interviews were not possible informants were asked to submit
written responses to questions. For example two RTP managers could not be met in
person and we discussed by phone the questions which were also sent by email.
Table 1 Core (Primary) and Secondary Informant List
Organisation Informant Comment
Fitzpatricks Consultants Agreed to meet but felt that reports
sufficiently covered answers.
Former Department of Transport Interviewed 09/03/15
Passengers User of Kildare RTP service
X 2
For Triangulation.
18th
March 2016 (Informal casual
discussion)
Pobal Informant Completed interview 01/03/16
RTP Informant 1 Completed Interview 10/03/16

26
RTP Informant 2 Completed Interview
01/03/16
RTP Informant 3 Completed Interview
05/02/15
RTP Informant 4 Questions Sent 07/03/15.
RTP Informant 5 07/03/16 written responses to OAQ’s and
Interview Questions
RTP Informant 6 Interview by phone various dates
RTP Informant 7 14/03/16 and discussions by phone
The Authority Informant 1 Interviewed 16/03/16
The Authority Informant 2 Informal discussions
TU874 Collaborator This has not proven to be a significant
contribution.
6.4.1 Approaches to Data Collection and analysis
The vast majority of data collection will be via semi structured interviews. Some
informants were unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments but
provided written answers to a collection of OAQ’s and specific interview questions.
The objective in this regard is to ensure “rigour of investigation where people are a
source of information” (Woodhouse, 2007).
On completion of the semi-structured interviews any ambiguities where discussed
via email/telephone. All Data kept in electronic file and the use of a hardcopy project
notebook. Interview notes were recorded into the notebook following permission of
informants and collated by OAQ and source. Later these notes were typed up for soft
copy saving and ambiguities or clarifications sought. Notes also referenced
questions where possible.
6.5 Consideration of Bias
Significant concern is the area of bias by the author and both the Authority and RTPs
informants. The author has spent 8 years in the RTP as an employee of both Pobal

27
of which 2 have been on secondment to the Authority. Having been instrumental in
developing the future strategy of the programme the risk of bias is significant. To
avoid this risk the researcher has attempted to avoid giving opinion during any
interviews extra effort was made to avoid leading questions during interviews.
Bias was observed in stakeholders. This is primarily manifested in responses to
questions about trust but also in the attitude towards the possibly for rebuilding trust
with the Social Inclusion Fund.
6.6 Triangulation
For triangulation I have opted to informally discuss with passengers their perceptions
of the programme since the changes under the Authority and their ideas about ‘Once
Off’ (Aka Social Funding). This was done during informal meeting at a community
bingo event.
6.7 Literature Review
A literature review has undertaken at a high level in terms of skimming and deciding
what will be read in more detail. It is structured around three elements;
 Web review using search words like ‘Transport and Social inclusion.’ This
produced a wealth of documents.
 Own Library books, information on issues like Social Inclusion, Power, Trust
etc.
 Grey materials, documents from both Pobal and NTA. This data constitute a
significant source of data pertaining to the development of RTP and its
transition to LocalLink. The use of the term Social Inclusion is seen to be
significant in all documents.
6.8 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Research design
The design allows for a wide variety of informants with varying influence and stake in
the programme. The weakness lies in bias and time constraints to expand the total
number of informants.

28
It has also been difficult to keep interviews focused and prevent ‘wandering’ into
other areas of work. A conscious effort was made to ensure the set questions were
covered through agreement with informants being mindful of time constraints during
the interview. The time, duration and location of interviews was made to
accommodate interviewees needs.
The current situation in terms of the RTPs and the relations with the Authority
presents itself as Ison (p118 2010) describes as a wicked problem [sic] a problem
“that goes beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand... [where]
there is disagreement about the causes of the problem”. The strain between the key
stakeholders has presented itself as strong emotional feedback that tended to
present as a ‘them and us’ finding common ground as is shown in our research was
difficult and necessitated looking beyond the language used.
The overarching research questions defined what the researcher needed to know
and the semi-structured interviews were design to explore the dimensions and
implications of each (see Appendix 1) These were used and adopted based on the
context of the interview and the role of the interviewee.
The researcher has considered the power relations between concerned stakeholders
as well as the ways in which their values, operational norms and worldviews. These
aspects have all influenced the issue of inter-organisational trust and exposed the
cultural conflicts that exists (Ison, 2010). With this information we attempted to find
synergies or areas of commonality and conflict within the evidence base pertinent to
each over-arching question as the basis for recommendations as to look at how the
partners in the programme might reconcile their understandings of social inclusion
for the implementation of the Social Fund so as to acheive more coherent and
potentially effective approach to engaging with marginalised/excluded members of
local communities with respect to their transport needs.
All informants were sent draft copies of the report for feedback. However as the
situation is not conducive all drafts had infomants names anonymised and all quotes

29
to findings are likewise anonymised This strategy was addopted as several
informants experesed concern with their imput being made known to other
stakeholders.

30
7 Analysis and Findings
Analysis and findings are from two primary sources. Firstly background information
in the form of a literature review and primary sources being semi-structured
interviews supported by some written responses and follow up communications for
clarification.
7.1 Data from Interviews
The development of four over-arching questions (OAQ) and by specific interview
questions as shown in Appendix 1. In this section we shall address the findings using
the OAQ as headings.
The decision to use a purposive sample (Woodhouse, 2007, p.165) was based on
the small total population size of the RTP groups and relevant staff in the Authority.
Telephone interviews were used when it became obvious that time would not allow
for face to face interviews. In advance of the telephone interview the list of questions
were sent allowing informants to consider answers in advance of the call. This was
decided as the questions were open ended and informants might be more
comfortable knowing the questions in advance. Some informants also sent back the
list of questions with written answers.
The researcher was particularly mindful of biases on his part and also how questions
are put to informants. Ison citing Postman (Ison, p8 2010) gives a good analogy of
the question dilemma in a story where [sic] “two priests who being unsure if it is
permissible to eat and pray, ask advice from the Pope, one priest sent a letter
asking, ‘Is it permissible to eat while praying?’ for which he is advised it is not, since
prayer should be the focus of one’s attention; the other priest asks, is it ‘permissible
to pray while eating?’ for which he receives permission, because it is always
appropriate to pray!

31
With this in mind the researcher attempted to ensure all interviews followed the same
sequence of questions.
7.2 Data Reliability.
At the time of writing the RTP/LocalLink is still in a transition. The change process
has been challenging for all. There is a lot of tension, anger and animosity around
the changes. This anger has been felt during interviews. The RTPs particularly feel
aggrieved. Data gleaned from interviews was therefore at times presented in terms
of ‘them or us’.
The literature review proved less problematic and there was sufficient evidence that
the work of the RTPs and the Authority is replicated in other jurisdictions.
7.3 Reflection on the Process
The process was on one level an adventure and another it was a difficult task trying
to remain focused and preventing biases from all stakeholders and the researcher
from taking over.
Over optimistic planning in the early stages of the project design where soon
tempered by the reality of time constraints and availability of informants.
The project was undertaken at a time of significant change and conflict between
stakeholders and this has affected the potential impact and findings of the project. It
was vital as a researcher that no expectations were raised in arranging the meetings
especially with the RTPs. The risk arose given the researchers’ role within the
Authority.

32
7.4 Analysis by OAQ’s
7.4.1 In what ways do stakeholder agencies define social inclusion
in relation to Rural Transport Programme? What kinds of
meanings do they attach to the term and how do these
conflict?
There are two distinct definitions and understandings of social inclusion. Both are
valid definitions for social inclusion. The literature review gave the following identified
definitions;
For the RTPs:
“Combating social exclusion and meeting the needs of communities and
individuals that do not have access to public or private transport” (Pobal, 2015)
The Authorities defined as;
“Social inclusion embraces the notion that priority should be given to benefits
that accrue to those suffering from social deprivation, geographic isolation
and mobility and sensory deprivation.” (National Transport Authority, 2010).
With RTP informants they confirmed that the RTP definition was a correct reflection
of their “personalised service”, this term was used in various discussions and usually
in the context of persons with either or both physical and cognitive disabilities. The
Pobal informant and the former Department official also concurred with this definition
The Authority informants stated that the definition quoted for the NTA had not been
institutionalised and the sample used was from one document and was written for
that document. They felt that a different definition could apply to RTP. The Authority
informants pointed to other areas where it is promoting inclusion beyond the RTP. It
was also noted the Authority have inserted a clause in a recent prequalification for
tendering for RTPs services which promotes accessible bus fleet upgrading across
the RTP services.

33
The Authority has also set about developing a policy for the Social Fund. The author
of this research study was in fact the main author of that policy. It is based on
institutionalising the original funding that had been part of the so called “Once-Off”
category of funding under RTP/Pobal. It was acknowledged by the RTP informants
that the ‘Once-Off’ was lacking structure and that it was been interpreted loosely by
the groups. This at times resulted in diverse and opaque application in terms of
social inclusion benefits. For some informants the Social Fund should exclude some
‘old habits’ of the RTP. The Pobal and one RTP informants both felt that the use of
the fund to support medical appointments was [sic] “letting the health department off
its responsibility”.
The issue for the RTP informants was that the time taken to get a policy was
inordinate. The communications from the Authority was misleading and created
expectations. The early request for budgets was “met with silence” and in some
cases some RTPs seem to be getting the go ahead to spend while others were not.
This created a sense of unfairness and also that the Authority “had favourites”.
The Authority and RTPs have a differing understanding of their respective mandates
in terms of social inclusion. The Authority has a high level public transport remit while
the RTPs is about individual needs and prioritizing those needs. Neither perspective
is challenged but both necessitate differing uses of resources and response. The
Authority as policy developer and funder skews the power relations and this means
there would need to be a compromise by the Authority to facilitate the RTPs modus
and interpretation and that ultimately a “sub definition might be more nuanced” than
a corporate Authority definition.
For RTPs there was an acknowledgement that the programme needed reform as the
administrative cost for a large number of companies was high. However they felt the
VfM review was a vindication of their work in terms of social inclusion as it had called
on an evaluation of the anecdotal evidence. Terms like they are “butchering” the
programme and they “don’t care” were voiced in relation to the Authorities work on
restructuring.

34
Both the Authority and RTPs informants believed the DRT model of meeting social
inclusion had worked but that integration with other national services was weak. The
Authority felt it was best placed to integrate the services while RTP informants felt
local solutions and management was the best option. The Authority informants did
not see any change in methods and referred to the fact that “most regular services
had been maintained during the transition”. The RTPs said that the community
elements of the programme would be “killed off” and replaced by a direct
management in the public sector thorough Local Authorities. Other informants seem
to concur with the RTPs interpretation.
One RTP informant did feel the Authority was doing a better job “they know what
they are doing” however the same informant felt the Authority was expecting too
much from the limited resources that the RTPs had.
Passenger feedback seems to prefer to work with the RTPs, but didn’t really care as
long as “our services are not affected and we keep our drivers”.
Findings
 Two definitions of social inclusion have developed as a result of legacy and
historical constructs. One looks to the individuals’ needs and the other to the
wider community needs.
 The Authority it would seem is willing to accommodate the RTPs definition
within an overarching corporate definition.
7.4.2 How do stakeholder agencies envisage the Social Fund being
used to support social inclusion?
There was general agreement by all informants as to the role of the Social Fund as a
“lynchpin” for social inclusion. The ability of RTPs to react to needs was seen as vital
to ensure individuals and or groups were not socially excluded by virtue of the
absence of transport. Many examples were sighted by RTPs of such situations.
When examples were given to the Authority informants they also acknowledged this
as a positive additional social inclusion tool. For the Authority informants it was not

35
the methodology but the method of implementation (Ison, p165 2010) that was
important and “the need to be accountable” for all spending was their key concern.
At the time of writing this report the Authority had drafted a proposed policy and
process for the development of the Social Fund. RTPs informants expressed
tentative acceptance of the draft policy but feared it would not be put into practice
and felt it was a distraction from other issues related to “such as the role of volunteer
boards, the controls on local management decision making”. Additionally the RTPs
felt they should have been given some input to the various ‘headings’ in the policy.
Findings:
 The proposed policy would seem to be substantially in line with the findings of
our research and reflects in a more regulatory manner of controls needed by
the Authority (Ison, p7, 2010).
 The Authority might consider opening up a dialogue with the RTPs to
accommodate their input in areas that are of concern to them.
7.4.3 In what ways might conflicting stakeholder understandings of
social inclusion influence the ways in which the Social Fund
may be used to support activities to support social inclusion
within RTP.
For most RTPs informants this question was one that exposed the issue of trust.
There was a strong sense of lack of trust. “They don’t trust us” and “I wouldn’t trust
them” were common refrains. The sense was that the Authority wished to get rid of
them (the RTPs). Claims that plans were afoot to move all RTPs into the Local
Authorities were also made. Statements like “using the volunteer boards” they are
making the “volunteer boards break the law” recurred.
The RTPs feedback suggested that the old programmes (under Pobal) way of
addressing social inclusion was coming to an end. When the two definitions were
discussed the strong sense was that the Authorities interpretation would prevail and
that no compromise with the Authority was possible. The Social Fund would allow

36
some RTPs control at the local level but at the time of interviewing this was not clear
to informants. They felt they had already lost control and that they are not being
communicated with anymore.
The Authority informants were less clear as to how the fund would work. This was
found to be because they were not familiar with the concept of a social fund. There
was therefore less opinions gleaned. When explained there was a general
acceptance that such a fund would make sense. Interestingly the Authority
informants expressed the desire to find a suitable compromise on the issue of
defining social inclusion and how this fit with the modalities of conventional and non
conventional (DRT) transport integration.
Findings
 Ison (p. 160, 2010) talks about the “propensity to pursue purposive behaviour
that assumes both purpose and measures of performance, rather than
engaging stakeholders in a dialogue in which purpose is jointly negotiated.
This can lead to unfortunate consequences”. In this sense the conceptual
frameworks that the Authority and RTPs find themselves in generally leads to
preferences for method and methodology respectively. Finding a balance
between both can aid understanding and fulfil respective institutional needs.
There currently is no discernible balance.
 Trust is at an all-time low and again we look to Ison (p. 189, 2010) where he
proposed that trust is “an emergent property of the process of relationship
building”. In this regard the Authority needs to lead rebuilding trust and
consider the type of trust (Stephenson, 2005) for which the programme can
best be managed.
7.4.4 What kinds of institutional and capacity issues might
influence the decision making process with respect to
allocation of the Social Fund?
As explained above at the time of writing this report a Social Fund policy and
procedure had been drafted and circulated to RTPs. This reflected the feedback

37
of the RTPs in this research process and more general feedback from the
Authority informants.
For most RTP informants the question was self evident! RTPs had been working
in community transport for more than 10 years they had more than sufficient
capacity in that regards.
The institutional footprint that Pobal has left on the RTPs was a recurrent theme.
The nature of the relationship between the RTP’s and Pobal was one of
cooperation and consultation (Harriss, 2000). Cooperative arrangements and
partnerships was the language of the relationship. It was however an unequal
relationship as Pobal held control of funding and funding decisions. There was a
strong element of trust, albeit this was not felt across all the 35 RTPs that existed
then. The trust was as Harriss (2000) suggests based on a social relationship
and this relationship [sic] “lowered transaction costs and created a willingness to
expose themselves (RTPs) to the risk of opportunistic action by another”. In this
environment there was no competition between RTPs. This situation changed
when groups competed for the 18 places that had been designated to replace the
35. The tender competition was referred to by several informants as
“unnecessary”, “a living hell” and “unfair and unjust”.
In addition the RTPs experienced a shifting of power relations. Pobals attempts
(not always deemed successful) at “power with” the RTP’s had, it is felt compared
to the Authorities position of “power over” while simultaneously removing or
limiting “power too” on the part of the RTPs (Mayoux et al., 2007). The feedback
suggests that the social capital that had been built up by the RTPs was being
“unpicked” or “negated” or “not appreciated”. The feedback from the Authority
suggested they felt that social capital was the reason for maintaining the
community led companies to implement the programme. This suggests a definite
breakdown in communications and like Harris (1970) transactional analysis
reflected a Parent-Child dialogue.

38
When asked about how inter-organisational trust might be rebuilt RTP
respondents suggested they had no options but to “accept defeat” or as one
respondent said “we need to get away from them (NTA)”. There seemed to be no
inclination to use ‘Voice’ that is attempt to change rather than escape from an
objectionable state of affairs” (Hirschman, 1970). This situation could be
attributed to the still as yet unfinished systemic change (Ison, 2010) that is taking
place.
Findings
 Legacy and institutional footprints (from Pobal etc) still hold firm in the
programme. The change process was not participatory and has resulted in
the breakdown of trust.
 Social capital is being lost and or ignored. Such loss will ultimately cost the
Irish taxpayer as previous volunteerism etc needs to be resourced.
 There is a strong sense from RTPs that they feel disempowered. This is
leading to disillusion and anger.

39
8 Conclusions, implications and
recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
The core aims and objectives listed in Section 2 seemed attainable during research
design. However as the investigation continued there was a deterioration in relations
and trust between the Authority and the RTPs. Increased recourse by the RTPs to
‘Voice’ (Hirschman, 1970) through political channels has added to the tensions.
Some informants, especially among RTPs having given interviews subsequently
requested anonymity and confidence. This changed the nature of the investigation in
terms of copying informants’ drafts and deciphering bias etc.
There are five broad conclusions that emerge from this research;
 The Social Fund is one area where both the Authority and RTPs have found a
common area of agreement. The recent policy draft circulated to RTPs has
not presented significant objections. Finding how to build on this is a task of
the management of the Authority.
 While the understanding of social inclusion by key stakeholders are slightly
different. The common objective remains the same. Additional work needs to
be done to find a definition that will accommodate the diverse objectives of the
key stakeholders. A nuanced approach to defining social inclusion may be the
best approach available.
 This project has highlighted the need for more research into how the RTPs
and the Authority collaborate to maximise social inclusion benefits in all parts
of Ireland.
 The conceptual framework like the 3C’s highlights the cultural, institutional
and policy objective differences between the two primary stakeholders, the
Authority and the RTPs. It exposes the different thinking, culture and
expectations of the stakeholders. This gap needs to be bridged.

40
 The Authority needs to ask what it wishes to retain of the old Rural Transport
Programme. This calls for a strategic analysis with the key stakeholders which
is beyond the scope of this work.
The aims of the project are set out in detail in Chapter 2 above. Here using the
general headings we will outline if these where achieved.
8.1.1 Personal
This report will it is hoped help the stakeholders to appreciate that they are now
‘stuck’. The continued breakdown in relations will not be reversed and the trust not
re-established until all stakeholders are willing to openly and honestly address the
issues.
Social inclusion is a contested concept. It’s usually defined by its opposite social
exclusion. However it is clear that there can be many and varied understandings of
how best to address social inclusion. What is clear from the research and experience
is that a partnership approach is preferable.
Generally the aims under this heading have been achieved.
8.1.2 Stakeholder
The boundaries set by this investigation were appropriate for the scale and time
available.
The investigation has served to highlight the gulf in cultures and worldviews between
the Authority and the RTPs. The conceptual framework of the 3C’s helps us to place
and understand the two key stakeholders as Coordination and Co-operational
respectively (Harriss, 2000). The various characteristics assigned to these two ideal
types’ shows the classical conflict areas in thinking and being. Reconciling these
differences will be a significant undertaking and needs systemic thinking (Ison 2010).
Loss of trust continues unabated and the language of informants is bedded in the
“them and us” mentality. The language suggests someone must win; there is no win-

41
win. And this is obvious from both sides. The issues suggest that on its own the
Social Fund cannot rebuild trust between the Authority and RTPs.
Not all aims have been achieved under this heading but sufficient learning has been
got to suggest actions as given below.
8.1.3 Development management
Does either stakeholder consider themselves as development managers? Yes, both
see their role as participating in ‘public actions’ to provide public ends (Mackintosh,
1996).
However in an atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty neither side is working to
maximise creativity, innovation and change. Participatory methods are minimal and
lacking in areas where such methods could prove most productive.
Harley et al (p.39, 2002) draws our attention to “sense-making” and tell us it’s the
process of “searching for meanings, through interaction, discussion and refection”,
they go on to advise that it’s a particularly important where uncertainty and change
prevails. As Development managers both the Authority and RTPs need to make
sense of what’s happening around them. There has been little room for sense
making during the initial change process. Now is the time to make such space.
8.2 Implications
If trust is not build stakeholders all are working below par. The innovative solutions,
social capital and creativity developed by RTPs in the past will no longer materialise
and the integration and resources of the Authority will be distracted to ‘fixing
problems’ and ‘fire fighting’.
8.3 Recommendations
 The Authority should undertake a review of the changes to the programme to
date. It should then instigate a strategic review with key stakeholders to
assess where they seek to take the programme over the next five years and

42
visualise how it will look, work and function. This should clearly set out their
objectives in terms of the role of community groups.
 There is an urgent need for independent facilitation of a dialogue between the
two primary stakeholders. This could facilitate a ‘meeting of minds’ and
development of a shared vision and plan for the future. This facilitation should
aid “sense-making” (Harley et al, p. 38) so as to sensitize RTPs to the
changes and reforms taking place. These changes are happening currently in
a communications vacuum leading to speculation and fear. The facilitation
should also discuss and bring forth an understanding of power relations as
they were and as they will be.
 The NTA should consider its culture and be open to exploring other ways of
engaging with stakeholders. Participatory methods and organisational theory
and change (Harley et al, 2002) in other jurisdictions may make for possible
new thinking. The UK’s 3rd
way is one case in point “intended to capture a
fusion: neo-liberal economic policies combined with social inclusion and
citizen participation in governance” (Harley et al, 2002, p. 30).
 The Authority and the RTPs should seek to find agreeable “leverage points”
where “a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything” (Ison
citing Meadows, 2010, p. 62), Likewise it should as Meadows also advises in
the same article establish and maintain “feedback loops”. The draft Social
policy could be one such leverage point and also a place to commence an
appropriate “negative feedback loop” (Ison citing Meadows, 2010, p.66).
 As recommended in the VfM document a research project should be
commissioned to look at the social impact of the programme in terms of both
quality and quantity of impact.

43
9 References
Ambrosino, G, Nelson, J.D. & Romanazzo M. (2004) Demand Responsive Transport
Services: Towards the Flexible Mobility Agency, ENEA, Itialian National Agency for
New Technologies, Rome, Itally.
Engberg-Pedersen, L. (1997), ‘Institutional contradictions in rural development’ in
TU872, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Harley, J., Butler, M.J.R., and Benington, J. (2002), Local Government
Modernization: UK and comparative analysis from an organisational perpective.
Harris, T. A., (1973) I’m Ok – You’re OK, London, Pan Books Ltd.
Harriss, J. (2000) Working together: The Principle and Practice of Co-Operation and
Partnership, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Hirschman, A. (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Reponses to Decline in Firms,
Organisations and States, Harvard University, U.S.A.
Ison, R. (2010) ‘Traditions of Understanding: Language, Dialogue and Experience’ in
Blackmore, C. (eds). (2010) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice,
London, Springer & The Open University.
Ison, R. (2010) Systems Practice: How to act in a Climate-Change World, London,
Springer & The Open University.
Johnson and Wilson (2009) ‘Contestation and learning between multiple
stakeholders’ in TU872, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Long, N. (2004), ‘Contesting Policy Ideas from Below in TU872, Milton Keynes, The
Open University.
Mackintosh, M (1992) ‘Development Policy and Public Action: Introduction’ in
Maxwell, Simon (1997), ‘Heaven or hubris: reflections on the new ‘New Poverty
Agenda’ in TU872, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Mayoux, L. & Johnson, H (2007) Research Skills for Policy and Development, Milton
Keynes, The Open University & Sage Publications.
McCaul, T. (2010) Sustainable Rural Transport, Rural Transport Programme
Strategy 2011 – 2016, Proposed by the Rural Transport Network.
National Transport Authority (2010), Appraisal Framework Report, Draft Transport

44
Strategy 2030 vision [Online]. Available at
www.nationaltransport.ie/downloads/GDA_Draft_Transport_Strategy_2011-2030.pdf
(accessed November 2015).
Pobal (2015) Funding Programmes, Rural Transport Programme [Online] Available
at www.pobal.ie/FundingProgrammes/RuralTransportProgramme (Accessed
November 2015).
Robinson, D., Hewitt, T. And Harriss, J. (2000) Why Inter-Organisational
Relationships Matter, Managing Development, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Snyder, W. and Wenger, E., (2010) ‘Our World as a Learning System: A Community
of Practice Approach’ in Blackmore, C. (2010) Social Learning Systems and
Communities of Practice, London, Springer & The Open University.
Stephenson, M. Jr. (2005) Making humanitarian relief networks more effective:
operational coordination, trust and sense making, Institute for Governance and
Accountabilities, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, U.S.A
Strengthening the Connections in Rural Ireland, Plans for Restructuring the Rural
Transport Programme, National Transport Authority, 2013.
The Open University (2009) TU874 The Development Manager Project, Milton
Keynes, The Open University.
The Open University (2009) TU874 The Development Management Project: Blocks
1-4, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Thomas, A. (1996) ‘What is development management? in TU870, Milton Keynes,
The Open University.
Value for Money and Policy Review of the Rural Transport Programme, Department
of Transport, Tourism and Sport, 2011.
Woodhouse, P. (2007) Research Skills for Policy and Development, Milton Keynes,
The Open University & Sage Publications.
Woodhouse, P. (2007) People as informants, in Thomas, A. And Mohan, G. (eds)
Research Skills for Policy and Development.
Roche, C (2007) Organisational assessment and institutional footprints in Thomas,
A. And Mohan, G. (eds) Research Skills for Policy and Development, Milton Keynes,
The Open University & Sage Publications.

45
10 Appendices

Appendix 1 Over-Arching Questions and Interview Questions
Question RTP NTA Other
In what ways do stakeholder agencies define social inclusion in relation to LocalLink? What kinds of meanings do they
attach to the term and how do these conflict?
How have you understood the place and meaning of Social Inclusion within the RTP?   
How effective have efforts to promote social inclusion within the system been in the past? What has worked
well and what hasn't?
  
Has this changed since the transition to LocalLink?  
If yes, in what ways?  
If yes, how has it changed? 
If not, what kinds of problems and constraints will work against this? i.e. what kinds of on-going conflicts in
understandings of SI remain (at the intra and inter-organisational levels?)?
 
If not, do you think it will change in the future? If so, in what ways. If not, why not?  

47
How has this affected the design and implementation of interventions to support social inclusion?   
How do stakeholder agencies envisage the Social Fund being used to support social inclusion?
What do you understand to be the purpose of the Social Fund as it is discussed by the NTA?   
Will the Social Fund be a positive tool for Social Inclusion as you understand it? If so, in what ways? If no,
what kinds of barriers and constraints work against this?
  
How might it be managed to ensure the implementation of a coherent strategy and shared vision?  
What kinds of mechanisms are needed to ensure the implementation of a shared vision between
organisations with respect to social inclusion?
 
Under RTP there was a concept called ‘Once Off’ funding. How do you understand this? How did it work?
How did it work to support social inclusion? Examples? Do try to draw out lots of examples and instances to
support the given responses.
  
In what ways might conflicting stakeholder understandings of social inclusion influence the ways in which the SF may be
used to support activities to support social inclusion within LocalLink.

48
What are the values that you can see are at conflict between the old RTP programme under Pobal and the
new programme under NTA. How might the legacy of the old programme influence the new and what needs
to change in value terms to ensure a common understanding can be put into practice?
  
How might inter-organisational trust be improved to support implementation of a shared strategy?   
What kinds of institutional and capacity issues might influence the decision making process with respect to allocation of
the Social Fund?
How would you manage the Social Fund to maximise its effectiveness in promoting social inclusion in this
sector? What are the on-going problems and constraints?
 
What have been the cultural and institutional effects on your group since the transition to LocalLink? 
How would you rank the level of trust between the stakeholders in LocalLink? NTA, RTP groups, Local
Authorities etc. What kinds of factors are working against inter-organisational trust? How might this be
improved?
  
What kinds of capacities are needed to support effective inter-organisational working?   

49
How might these be built and maintained?   
How would you define the relationship between NTA and RTPs? Define in what sense - good, bad,
cooperative, competitive, and adversarial??
  

EMA U8449257

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to EMA U8449257

Similar to EMA U8449257 (20)

EMA U8449257