Page 1
Standard

The Photographic Project

This post is about the recent photographic project, working with Mick Dubovsky and community photographers, and the Herbert Museum. Its aims are described here. This post is a reflection on the process of undertaking these projects from the point of view of the researcher attached to the project. There are also reflections by community photographers and the professional photographer too elsewhere on this blog.

Researcher’s View

The initial thinking behind the project was to work with the community to reflect how they saw Hillfields. Their lens is part of a suite of lenses, including academic, workers, policy makers (in commissioning imagery) and professional photographers (Hillfields has produced three international photographers).

We approached WATCH Ltd to recruit for this project. WATCH are a well known community project in Hillfields with their centre used for community projects and meetings – they also host the local community radio station, Hillz FM, which is a full time FM station for Hillfields.

Over the course of several months attempts were made to recruit using personal and professional connections and broadcasting on the radio station. A personal connection was usually where someone was already interested and wanted to bring a friend, or knew a friend who might be interested. Professional connections were across agencies working with Hillfields residents. For this WATCH produced a flyer which was distributed via WATCH, the St. Peter’s Centre and the Hope Centre. WATCH staff and project staff also spoke to these centres about promoting involvement through word of mouth to residents who used the centres. We were told by staff at WATCH that in Hillfields the word of a person of trust could be more useful than a flyer. As we were hoping to capture something of the activity of residents their engagement through these centres was part of the story – as such also we sought permission for the community photographers to photograph at the centre if those using it were happy to have their photograph taken.

Recruitment was slow. During June and July WATCH recruited two or three of their own volunteers. In August, the time when the project was supposed to happen because of the light evenings, no more residents were recruited. A final push saw a meeting in early September attended by seven residents, including four from WATCH.

At the same time the Herbert Museum was building up to the Jason Tilley exhibition. Some of Jason’s family hail from Hillfields and he took an interest. In particular he offered to help curate the images – helping tell the story as a group of people rather than showing ten images that were selected on individual not collective reasoning. In fact Jason’s involvement was greater. He helped community photographers get the best from their equipment over four or five sessions, went on a few photographic visits with them and what you see is in part due to his efforts.

The Herbert appointed Mick Dubovksy to be the photographer. Mick was the go-to guy. He took photographers out, suggested angles in the places they visited, brokered agreements for copies to be made available (the Roma boys and the barber wanted copies) and worked to the timescales of the community photographers by being there at different times during the week, the weekend, whenever they needed him. Mick has a lot to cope with – he felt the community organisations were not pulling their weight when it came to recruitment, that they were not selling the idea as might of happened in the past. However, Bob Nolan from the Herbert said that they had found it difficult to recruit to projects recently. They wondered whether it was a shift in how people conceive of community participation, that the relationship between residents and community organisations has changed.

The early September start meant a shift in how the project would work in practice: the original plan was for summer sessions, usually structured as half day or day classes. The recruitment issues meant we now had a small group who explained that because of other pressures they preferred a shorter course of two sessions per week. This meant being limited to photographing at the end of the day or under artificial light indoors if the community photographers wanted to use the digital SLR cameras provided by the Herbert. There was some discussion about using mobile phone cameras but not everybody had a smartphone.

As it was three people dropped off quickly: two sisters due to commitments elsewhere and a family bereavement. The remaining core group were all from WATCH. The tutors were flexible, with Mick meeting outside of the core agreed times (1800-2000 on Monday and Thurs) and sessions covering what the residents wanted to know rather than a pre-arranged programme. I wasn’t involved in the sessions as I had less input to give regarding Hillfields knowledge or photography and a co-production model needs me to stay away from activities unless invited.

I attended about half the sessions to get a flavour of being involved, watching the activities, taking a few photos, talking shop with participants. Mick and Bob would pop off with people to take photographs, check out the local area, talk to people. In the room I spoke with those whom were going through the photographs they had already taken, asking who the people were and where the images were taken. This raised some interesting points about permission and: in one instance, Jason went with Shai and Sharda to a community event. All three took photos but Sharda and Shai raised concerns that the community were suspicious of them, suggesting to Sharda that she wanted to make money from the photographs. Sharda was surprised given the explanation she had provided the community as to the project. She felt this reflected the times – that people were concerned about making money in an age of austerity and that people did not trust community projects – this reflected what Bob had mentioned about how difficult he had found recruiting for his Check other courses and how difficult WATCH had found recruiting for this course.

The photographs were excellent and the exhibition too. It was placed outside of the Jason Tilley exhibition and so would receive high footfall. We did not arrange a way for people to feedback – this is something I have taken from this: even a twitter handle might have elicited some responses. I have yet to speak to the participants about their responses and the responses of those they know who visited the exhibition.

The main query that we found was that a shift was being reported in how people wanted to be involved in their communities. This raised a series of questions among us about whether the difficulties were a symptom of something more:

  • Hillfields has a changing community – did this affect recruitment?
  • Yet the attitude from the people at the event Sharda and Shai attended was dismissive – was this linked?
  • Was there a ‘research’ fatigue element in Hillfields?
  • In times of austerity have attitudes towards ‘community’ changed? If so how and why?
  • Did we ‘frame’ the project correctly  – perhaps we should have been more focused on whom we worked with, the voluntary sector for example.

 

Standard

Action Research

In this post I want to explore what action research meant to the CDP in Hillfields in the 1970s and how this compares with my thinking about action research today and our current project looking at how regeneration has been imagined in Hillfields since the 1970s.

Our project is an historical look at community development in the Hillfields area since the 1970s. In 1969 the Home Office commissioned twelve action research projects called the Community Development Projects that sought to understand why certain areas were deprived. I wondered what the CDP researchers thought action research was and who informed this thinking. This led me to wonder about the action research we are conducting in Hillfields today, and whether there are common elements to our research, or whether some of the methodological assumptions under which we operate are different.

Action research has a developmental path that is worth recounting as its history echoes the increasing need for critical reflection in the research process. Its theoretical history is located in Marxism with Hall (1981) contending that Engels’s involvement in the Poor Law protests in Manchester in 1835 was as an action researcher, using participant observation rather than the detached researcher of conventional research (Selener, 1997: 13). Other early exponents were Kurt Lewin (1948, 1952) and those working with shellshock victims at the Tavistock Institute in the immediate post-World War II years (Given, 2008:2). Both sought to improve participants’ psychological conditions by understanding how behaviour is conditioned by specific social contexts.

Despite criticism throughout the 1960’s for not being objective enough (Given, 2008: 4) action research was resurgent during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1968 the British government started on a series of experimental research projects as part of a poverty programme called the Urban Programme. The Community Development Projects were part of this, set up in 1969, and taking an action research approach chosen on the rationale that ‘there are so far no known and tried solutions to (urban problems) which can be described and offered for general application’ (Home Office, 1970:1 in Benington, 1975: 2). Benington describes an approach that was

(a)   Action research

(b)   Focus on a small area

(c)    Involvement of a range of public agencies

(d)   Self-help and involvement in the community

(ibid)

Such an approach seems to build on the theories of Kurt Lewin (1948, 1952) whose research, whilst principally interested in the psychological, argued that:

The research needed for social practice can best be characterized as research for social management or social engineering. It is a type of action-research, a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action, and research leading to social action. Research that produces nothing but books will not suffice (Lewin 1946, reproduced in Lewin 1948: 202-3)

The collaborative approach of the CDP sought to identify social issues and rectify them. Initially social issues were thought to lie with ‘family inadequacy…deviant behaviour’ and how these problem people interacted with local services. However the project soon found that ‘people disagreed strongly with local agencies about the nature of their needs and aspirations’ and that their ‘powerlessness to influence decisions’ was the major concern of residents (ibid: 3). The action research model shifted the critical analysis of the researchers away from the community and towards those serving the community, namely the local and national government agencies. In particular CDP research suggested that the power national government had to act as the change catalyst for community change, not residents.

Action research was also prevalent at this time in other countries. Selener (1997) recounts Columbian sociologist and priest Camilo Torres who died after joining armed guerillas (Selener, 1997: 14). The most well-known action researchers of this era may be Paolo Freire and Myles Horton. Freire is perhaps best known for the process of ‘conscientization’ in which the oppressed engage in ‘praxis’, a process in which action to tackle oppression follows reflection on how and why a group are oppressed. Horton worked in the early part of the 20th century in the Appalachian mountains of the USA at Highlander Folk School. Working with others he created ‘Citizenship Schools’ in North Carolina in the 1950s in which those who could not read learned to do so by studying their political rights: the vote at that time was available to those who were literate and this could only be proved by reading the state constitution to an officer in the town hall (Horton and Freire, 1991).

Bogdan and Biklen (1992) suggest that one tradition focuses on the practice of a particular community, for example of teachers or a group in a specific area working to improve their practice, whilst a second tradition focuses on community activists as fieldworkers involved in ‘the systematic collection of information that is designed to bring about social change’ (Bogdan and Biklen 1992: 223 in Smith, 2007: n.p). This second tradition is more closely allied with social work and uses fieldworkers to collect data.

Goetschius and Tash (1967) are an example of this style of action research in which researchers were trained in interviewing and observation techniques (as Goetschius and Tash were not directly involved in fieldwork) and a community café and other venues created to attract unattached youths. Goetschius and Tash developed in the researchers the ability to assess and describe what they were observing:

‘our most important work throughout the project was the work with ourselves’ (Goetschius and Tash 1967: 238).

The participant observation method (Becker, 1958) set the researchers as outsiders, able to make detached observations from which they could clarify theory in supervisory sessions with Goetschius and Tash. Any self-reflective element rested with the researchers, not with the community of unattached youths.

This led me to think about some interesting features of our exploration of the activity of the CDP in Hillfields in 1970 and the work we are undertaking today. It seems likely that the CDP sought to use the tradition prevalent at the time, inspired by Lewin and Goetschius and Tash, in which the researcher was an outsider, systematically collecting data ‘to bring about social change’. A participatory element was reflected in the rejection of a positivist approach to fieldwork that reduced society to a series of trends to be examined and the use of ethnographic fieldworkers using a variety of fieldwork methods. This is evident in the CDP: researchers set up an Opinion and Information Centre, worked closely with the Hillfields Community Association, and undertook surveys to seek the opinions of residents. They did not publish with residents and nor were residents on the Project Committee:

The Project Management Committee consists of the Chairmen of relevant local authority committees, plus representatives from the Home Office and major voluntary agencies committing resources to the Project (op cit: 7)

The conclusion in the CDP report, that the change agent for Hillfields needed to be central government who held greater authority to dictate to the local authority than resident associations or committees, suggests a more social work oriented take on action research. The ‘change’ of the research was to be at a meso-political level and not in the community.

How we are then to theorise our action research approach? Is it similar to the CDP approach? This is a difficult question to answer. There are similarities: I am a fieldworker, seeking to work with our voluntary sector partners to critically address the many issues they are facing, and using the research project as a way of addressing them much like the CDP. This is essentially an iterative and dialectical process of experimentation, trying out something, seeing if it works, and moving on if not.

There are differences however. My sense of action research is more informed by a need for community volunteers to address the issues they face through the practice of researching – they are seen as co-workers – bringing in a participatory element to the research process. This is the research process as praxis in which volunteers develop understanding that informs their continued engagement in the research. For me, action research is informed by Freire. I consider:

Change occurs though resident engagement in the issues they face. This means working with researchers to understand what the issues are and how to address them;

Research decisions about what to do, why to do it and how to do it are made by the organisations and their volunteers, based on a rationale developed in step one;

Though less visible, the possibility of change through increased community activism is valued at a grassroots level.

The final point may be a further distinction from the CDP approach. Greater community resilience, generated through improved volunteer capital (that is the context-specific skills and knowledge needed to keep a community organisation functioning through the role of volunteer), might not be valued beyond the streets and grassroots of Hillfields. In times of less and less support for voluntary organisations, the future for such places may be in the hands of volunteers. Throughout our research it will be interesting to see how volunteers imagine the future of Hillfields and what they feel they are able to affect; as we have seen across the UK, attempts to address the effects of austerity through volunteerism, such as food banks, are perhaps nothing more than a sticking plaster.

Standard

Photographic response to Jason Tilley

Hillfields photographer Jason Tilley is exhibiting images from his Beautiful People project at the Herbert Museum. WATCH, in partnership with the Imagine Community project, will be organising a community response to the exhibition. To do this we have been thinking about Jason’s work as well as our own project aims.

Jason’s photography is an exploration of Indian identity and activity, seen through a lens created by his own interests in his family’s past as Anglo-Indians, but also through his grandfather’s past as a photographer for the Times of India.

Jason’s archive includes images of Highfield Road between 1999 and 2002 – he could hear the roars of the crowd from where he lived as a child and he has continued to photograph Coventry more recently.

What strikes me is that Jason is a portrait photographer but even his pictures of buildings reveal his concern with identity – such as the Coventry Innit series which captures issues that the Imagine project is concerned with – how the future of an area has been imagined through what people have done. In Jason’s images we can see hoardings against buildings ready for redevelopment (such as this image from Allesley)

Jason Tilley – Allesley Old Road

 

or the attempts of the local authority to make the Binley Road more attractive:

Jason Tilley – Binley Road flowers

 

The community response will tackle the issue of how community identity is generated but from the position of how the Hillfields community have attempted to make these changes. We have proposed that five residents who moved to live in Hillfields in the 1970s should team up with five new residents who have settled here recently. Bringing these groups together will be a process of exploring how they imagine Hillfields evolved/ evolving in the few years after they moved in.

To do this we will be using an action research photo voice method (Wang, 1999) which will aims to enable participants to find their voice in non-text formats such as images. This will be valuable as we expect the participants to speak different languages but they will also be able to control the process of exploring their environment and the portrayal of their lives. We hope that the images they produce will influence people and policy.

This project will begin in July 2014.

Standard

Organisational learning

An interesting discussion with Isaiah today.

We spoke about keeping Hillz FM going, and how this can happen if volunteers conceive their participation firstly as part of a whole and not for individual reasons. From this the idea that knowledge becomes shared because volunteers are thinking about the benefits for the station of as many people as possible knowing the same things. Isaiah’s concerns stemmed from a problem that I am sure many organisations suffer from. When a person with much of the intimate knowledge of how systems works leaves, replacing that knowledge is difficult. This person should be sharing their knowledge across the volunteer base to ensure they are not missed when they are absent or leave.

How to do this is much harder as it requires more group thinking, more time together, and people are busy. This is why DJ meetings, which happen monthly, are valuable. I also suggested that DJs coming a little earlier for their shows to chat and share knowledge with each other, or changes to the schedule which might force volunteers who might never really meet to chat. New people perhaps might create new opportunities.

Ultimately this might be about keeping the station fresh – fresh thinking and fresh sounding. But to do this everyone must be onboard!

Standard

Hillz FM

Hillz FM is a community radio station in Hilfields in Coventry. It broadcasts on 98.6FM 24/7.

Volunteer broadcasters will be undertaking interviews with people who may have something to say for our project. These people are identified by volunteer broadcasters and local connections as well as through the literature on the area.

These people might include long-term residents, those who have worked in the voluntary sector in Hilfields, musicians and artists working in the area, as well as academics, policy workers and community qworkers active in the area. Included are representatives from communities, including the Afro-Caribbean community, those living on welfare, immigrants, those poorly housed and so on. We may explore the issues these people have experience of at a later date as themes and questions emerge.

The rationale for encouraging broadcasters to conduct interviews is that they know the area and its history. In particular the resident DJs have lived the community’s relationship with the political economy of the Hillfields, Coventry, the West Midlands and UK, posing questions in semi-strucutred and unstructured interviews from this intimate knowledge. The first interview is also discussed here.

Standard

The first interview

Neol Davis of The Selecter has been interviewed by Kate Hills. The forty minute interview gave me a chance to work with Kate on interviewing skills, although I can’t add too much. It also gives me a chance to talk about interviewing as a process for this project.

The team at the station and I have agreed to a two-step process in interviewing. The first interview is unstructured to give us a broad understanding of the field of knowledge the interviewee has. This interview is then analysed for themes relevant to the research to follow up in a second interview. In Neol’s case our initial interest is in his early music years in the early 1970’s, jamming with a variety of musicians in community centres in Coventry, and the role such centres played for incubating the music that Coventry became synonymous with in the late 1970s.

The next stage is to re-interview Neol about these organisations and their role in Hillfields music scene in those days. As Kate and I go through the interview we will spot other things of interest. Perhaps the way Kate used some local knowledge or the route of questions she used in the interview.

From conducting these interviews Kate will support others at the station using thew sanme process.

And of course there is the music. Neol broadcasts on Hillz FM every Monday.

Standard

Update on working with the history group

After visiting Benwell as part of the Durham conference Alice and I came back with a number of publications from the Benwell History Group. They included a very high quality publication called ‘Made on Coal’. This and a few other publications were given to the history group to look at.

Their inspiration led them to think that something might be done for Hillfields, but that ‘Built on Ribbons’ wasn’t the angle to take. Instead the group felt that tackling the poor reputation Hillfields suffers from would be more suitable. Moreover, one of them said that the Imagine project needs some physical outputs. This intrigued me.

Our concentration has been on supporting organisations in what they need, and tailoring what we need to this, so that increased community capacity located wthin the voluntary group leads to better outputs and outcomes for us. For example, digitizing the history group’s images will help them maintain an archive and develop their group, whilst the inclusion of newly-digitized images in the timeline works for our research purposes; improving the interviewing skill of radio presenters through support from me (as an ex-radio producer) produces competent broadcasters to develop the boardcast community at Hillz FM and records interviews for this research is another.

The ephemerality of internet and voice led the history group to want to create the book. Their own physical archive of leaflets and documents represents an earlier age of Hillfields history, and very little else exists, so perhaps their need to produce something physical is to be understood.

To this end we have contacted Culture Coventry to apply for a grant for the publication. The group will apply, with my support, should Culture Coventry give us encouragement. We will see.

Standard

Working with the Hillfields history group

In starting this project we had a small number of partners. this increased by one quite quickly as the local history group, sitting on a treasure trove of old images, leaflets and documents about the area, and some 30gb of offline images, were willing to take part.

The history group have particular interests: certainly the early years of Hillfields as the first garden suburb of Coventry and the years as home to the journeymen ribbon weavers, the top shops and Eli Green’s triangle, steam powered looms, funded by community subscription and short-lived antidote to factory capitalism.

We are of course interested in more recent history – the 1970s onwards in particular. The group, constituted by Hillfields aficionados, understood immediately the historical need to save this data. The gaps in their own particular areas of interest told them that. They were also keen to address the general attitude towards history groups as keepers of sepia toned photos.

So we hatched a way for them to be involved. We would introduce them to WATCH, our main community partner, and with the help of WATCH, digitize their valuable collection. This led to immediate results: to support this WATCH applied, with help from another of our partners, the Herbert Museum, to apply for funding for a creative apprentice – and they got it. The apprentice will support the history group in digitizing their archive.

The project itself gets a great partner, keen to provide intelligence on a number of aspects of our work. They are keen to be interviewed, and to interview others, and have put a number of valuable contacts our way which extends the reach of the project.

Standard

Community Radio Workshop

Community Radio – an introduction

According to research by the Community Media Forum for Europe, an umbrella organisation of community media organisations across Europe, there are 2237 European community radio stations (CMFE, 2012). The UK has been a relative late-comer to community radio, legislated through the Community Radio Order (2004); in comparison, France legislated in 1982, Denmark in 1986, and the Netherlands in 1987 (Buckley, 2009).

The UK now has over 200 licenced community radio stations broadcasting full time on FM or AM (to an area of around 5KM in diameter), with a new station launched on average every 13 days since 2004 (Ofcom, 2012). The appetite for community radio in the UK has been described by the Chief Executive of Ofcom, Ed Richards, as ‘insatiable‘ (Richards, 2009 in Hallett and Wilson, 2010:  10).

Community radio in the UK has been developed through a mixture of government policy and grassroots activism, with this hybridity being in part regulated by the Office for Communications (Ofcom) and legislated for in various acts of parliament, and in part by the pragmatism of grassroots activism seeking greater local community broadcasting. A licence is granted for five years, and is awarded to the organisation not to individuals and so may not be sold for personal profit. The stations themselves must be non-profit distributing but nonetheless may be owned by shareholders and not just members.

The broadcasting remit dictated by Ofcom is for public service (termed ‘social gain’ under New Labour to align with wider government policy).  An application for a licence should outline ‘social gain’ objectives and annual reports to Ofcom set out how a station is achieving this. Community radio in other countries has however been legislated to provide a voice for those not represented in the mainstream, and to offer a forum for local debate. This subtle difference has created tensions over the direction community radio has taken in the UK and may have a significant bearing on how a community radio station chooses to function. One such way is in how to fund the work required to accomplish the social gain objectives agreed under the terms of a radio licence.

Core costs are mainly met commercially through training, advertising sales, sponsorship and service level agreements and through funding grants. In 2011, competitive grant funding accounted for around 37% of income, followed by advertising (21%), local authorities (13%) and other public bodies such as Arts Councils and the national lottery (8%). The community radio fund, set up to support community radio and awarded through competitive application, accounts for 3%. In comparison, a government scheme funds 100% of community radio costs in France and 80% in New Zealand, whilst the Netherlands and Switzerland share the licence fee with community radio ( and which Sweden is also considering to support its 1000 community radio stations). Australia and the USA have broadly similar approaches to the UK .

According to Ofcom, in 2011 a community radio station cost £64,500 to run (median distribution) and the mean average income was around £74,000 (Ofcom, 2011: 14-15). However, the income of the four community radio stations, a total of £1.5 million, was equal to the poorest 74 community radio stations. Exclude these four top earning stations and the mean average income drops to £54,500. This suggests most stations operated at a loss. Staffing accounts for around 50% of the cost to run a community radio station. In 2010 an Ofcom survey found that 42 of 161 stations polled had no paid staff.

Volunteers

The stations therefore would not survive without their volunteers to create the broadcasts. Ofcom (2012) estimates the average station has 68 weekly volunteers giving over 1000 hours per month (op cit: 5). In the UK in 2010, community radio volunteers contribute 45,000 volunteer hours producing 15,000 hours of original radio output per week across the 200 licenced stations (Ofcom, 2011: 5) with arts-based stations reporting twice the average volunteer hours per week (ibid: 36). The appetite from volunteers has not diminished: community radio stations who have been licenced for more than five years reported the highest number of volunteer hours, on average (ibid).

Volunteers occupy positions across the organisation from governance to cleaning to broadcasting, often combining many roles. Whilst they come together as advocates for community radio, most volunteers however are solo or pairs of volunteer broadcasters who, because of the voluntary nature of coming in to broadcast on a schedule, plough their broadcast furrow at the same time each week and many over a number of years.

Working with Hillz FM

Hillz FM, located in Hillfields in Coventry, has just been awarded its second five year licence by Ofcom. The studios are located within WATCH, a charity that works in Hillfields across a range of areas, from learning to activism. Hillz FM is upstairs and uses three rooms; two studios and a small office. There is also a larger general area for training, and this is also used by WATCH. It has two part-time staff members responsible for overseeing the radio station and training the volunteers. Salaries are paid from grant funding for training.

In their initial application Hillz FM stated they will broadcast ‘music produced by local artists and musicians, and music for displaced communities in additional to specific genres…and less than 5% will be current chart’. Speech output will ‘broadcast in community languages addressing local community issues’. The station will broadcast live for 8 hours per day. The broadcasters therefore are most likely to be people from Hillfields broadcasting to and with people from Hillfields, although the transmitter reach goes far beyond the boundaries of Hillfields.

Questions I had:

  • Who are the volunteers – are they local or only using the opportunity to broadcast?
  • How do volunteers currently operate at the station?
  • What is in place that can enable me to join in this current practise, rather than set something up within the station myself?
  • What broadcast skills do the volunteers have and how may I enhance these?
  • What can they contribute to thinking about the project?
  • How does my work contribute to the social gain objectives of the station?

 

I am asking volunteers to alter what they are currently doing to include the objectives of the Imagine project, which means including interviews within their broadcasts. This will involve training in both how to prepare an interview and how to conduct an interview. Moreover, volunteers may want to pursue a particular form of interview: a group interview, or one set across the length of a programme (like Desert Island Discs). They may wish to pre-record the interview rather than live, and edit the interview. Each presents different challenges.

I presented the nature of the Imagine project at several meetings at the radio station. This is re-iterated when helping volunteers develop questions and themes for their interviews, and when discussing how my involvement may develop over the next year.

Working with volunteers requires an approach that starts where they are at, not from where I think they are; a training course would not be appropriate given the diversity amongst the volunteer cohort. Instead I will work with broadcast teams to build a list of potential interviewees and work out how best to perform the interviews. From this base we can determine where skills are needed, what format of interview is appropriate and how time needs allocating. My role will be one of support, asking questions and encouraging volunteers to find the answers for the questions that they have themselves.

To this end I have located myself at Hillz FM for one day a week. This also supports other work with WATCH, including providing support to other aspects of Imagine, including the intergenerational project with ACCOL and the imaging project with the local history group.