Editorial

Abstract

In this editorial, we reflect on reasons why community studies are rarely undertaken nowadays and outline why re-engaging with this approach might help researchers develop insights into rural health and wellbeing. By 'community studies' we mean investigations which take as their starting point the idea that, 'Communities can be understood as on-going systems of interaction, usually within a locality, that have some degree of permanence' (Bell & Newby, 1971, p. 55). Such studies typically utilise ethnographic methods to document the day-to-day lives of local residents and how their social interactions and opportuni- ties are mediated by class, status and power struc- tures (see Bell & Newby, 1971; Wild, 1981).We begin by providing an overview explaining why, in Newby's (2008, p. 95) words, interest in community studies has 'fizzled out.' We critique the individualist approach adopted in much rural health research and discuss how community stud- ies might help address the limitations associated with this approach. This discussion sets the context for the seven papers included in this special edition which demonstrate the myriad ways rural commu- nity wellbeing can be conceptualised and studied.WHY RURAL COMMUNITY STUDIES ARE NOW DIFFICULT TO UNDERTAKEWe advance two main explanations why schol- arly interest in community studies has declined in recent decades. These include issues associ- ated with changes in academic governance as well as changing trends in rural social research (see Courvisanos & Martin, 2005; Luloff & Krannich, 2002; Newby, 2008) and theoretical approaches to 'community' (see Barrett, 2010; Blackshaw, 2010; Crow & Allan, 1994). It should be noted that these developments are by no means the only ones behind the decline in community studies (see Allan & Phillipson, 2008; Brint, 2001; Coleman, 1986; Crow & Allan, 1994; Putt, 2013).Academic demandsChanges in academic governance over the past two to three decades have discouraged academic investment in community studies. This includes the increasing imperative to publish consistently in leading Journals and to 'provide or perish' by win- ning competitive grants (Polster, 2007, p. 601). Such imperatives point to the growing ' audit cul- ture' in universities (see Lincoln, 2011), a culture epitomised by schemes such as Britain's Research Assessment Exercise (Broadbent, 2010) and met- rics associated with citation counts, university rankings, and teaching quality assessments (see Burrows, 2012; Lewis, 2013). The administrative workload required to comply with the audit regime has been acknowledged as having cut into academic research and ' think time' (Lincoln, 2011; p. 369). Furthermore, the rise in short-term contract work in academia (see Kimber, 2003; May, Peetz, & Strachan, 2013) arguably makes it hard for many academics, particularly those in junior positions, to plan and carry out long-term research projects of the type demanded by community studies.Declining interest in community studies has also been attributed to ethical issues associated with ethnography and participant observation, including concerns around the establishment of informed consent and the safety of researchers (Putt, 2013; p. 481). Research ethics commit- tees now want data collection methods spelt-out in detail prior to entering the field and restrict the collection and use of data obtained without formal written consent. The ability to collect data through observation, participation or spontane- ous conversation, quintessential methods in com- munity studies (see Wild, 1981), then becomes problematic. Most researchers and research ethics committees would understandably want to avoid the controversy stirred by Vidich and Bensman's (1968) critical insights into 'Springdale' that the local population rejected. Such concerns led Wild's (1981, p. 148; see also Moore, 2008, p. 123) publisher to request several changes to the original Bradstow (Wild, 1974) manuscript. …