Under the same roof: The everyday relational practices of contemporary communal living in the UK

This research aims to compare and contrast a range of contemporary forms of communal living in the UK, focusing on the factors which either contribute to or hinder the attainment of 'successful' communal living. The term 'communal living' is commonly associated with intentional communities, such as ideologically-motivated communes: living arrangements which, although involving relatively few individuals, have tended to eclipse other forms of co-residence which are both rather more 'ordinary' and, in some cases, much more widespread. Our own focus is on four such forms: housing cooperatives, cohousing projects (resident-controlled developments combining private dwellings with shared facilities located in a 'common house'), shared households, and private lodgings. Although certain features are shared across these different contexts, they are each distinctive in their specific orientations to the following key facets of experience: whether and how co-residents share financial and material resources of various kinds (the economic facet); how private and shared space is allocated and used (the spatial facet); orientations towards, and the use of, time (the temporal facet); and the degree to which such arrangements are underpinned by ideological motivations (the ideological facet).

Our research will involve three phases. Phase 1 will bring together existing knowledge on the scale and nature of communal living in the UK, by drawing on existing statistical and survey data and through exploring key themes in literature produced by proponents of communal living. Phase 2 will consist of qualitative interviews with up to 80 individuals living in communal contexts, 20 in each of our four types. These will explore participants' housing histories and their views on their current living arrangements, and we will also collect data on the allocation and use of physical space through the use of a spatial mapping exercise with all participants. Phase 3 will utilise three further methods - object inventories, time-use diaries, and network mapping - with targeted sub-samples of participants (15-20 per method), in order to explore in more detail (i) negotiations surrounding the use of 'communal' v 'private' material resources, (ii) the use of shared time in communal contexts, and (iii) the impact of living communally on broader networks of friends and family, respectively.

Our proposed research is set against a backdrop of important and ongoing shifts in housing provision and patterns of living arrangements. Some politicians and policymakers are currently seeking imaginative solutions to the restricted housing options of many groups within society through exploring the potential of different models of ownership and control, at the same time as there is likely to be an increase in the incidence of shared households and private lodgings due to recent Coalition Government housing reforms. There is also increasing concern about issues of social, environmental and financial sustainability in relation to housing. Exponents of communal living argue that variants of this living arrangement can contribute to finding solutions for many or all of these challenges, yet the capacity of communal living arrangements to meet these challenges arguably stands or falls on the nature of the relationships which exist within its various forms. For these reasons our research is timely and relevant to a range of contemporary policy concerns, whilst it will also build on and contribute to three areas of academic research: research on different forms of communal living, research on forms of intimacy involving non-kin, and research on the role of housing at different points across the lifecourse.

We anticipate that our research will be of interest to a diverse range of non-academic end-users:

- Organisations representing, and advocating for, cohousing and housing co-ops, eg Radical Routes, Cooperatives UK, The Confederation of Co-operative Housing, the UK Cohousing Network, and Diggers and Dreamers;
- Commercial organisations promoting shared households and private lodgings, eg national companies such as SpareRoom.co.uk and its affiliates, and local companies, eg Manchester-based 'Ideal House Share';
- Organisations representing the interests of landlords, eg the National Landlords Association and the Residential Landlords Association;
- Central and local government bodies, eg the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Homes and Communities Agency;
- Third sector organisations, eg the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, AGE UK, and the National Housing Federation (which represents English Housing Associations);
- Professional bodies, eg the Chartered Institute of Housing;
- The general public and popular media.

The potential benefits of the research will vary for each of these groups, but are likely to include:

- Increased awareness of different forms of communal living in the UK, especially in relation to the lesser-known options of housing co-ops and cohousing;
- Better knowledge of the possibilities and limits of different forms of communal living, and how economic, temporal, spatial and ideological factors combine together to make co-residence more or less successful in different contexts (thus highlighting practical steps that could be taken to make communal living more tolerable in contexts where it is less successful);
- Better knowledge of the pros and cons of existing regulation affecting different forms of communal living, eg the advantages and disadvantages of Lodger Agreements;
- Insights into the possibilities and limits of communal living arrangements at different stages of the lifecourse, including in mid-life and older age (organisations such as Age UK may have a particular interest in this latter point, eg the potential for older people to remain living in their own homes through taking in lodgers (including to provide assistance of various kinds), or the potential of cohousing to similarly prolong residential independence);
- Insights into the everyday realities of sharing and lodging: these living arrangements have become more common as a consequence, at least in part, of government housing reforms, yet on the basis of little knowledge of how such arrangements operate and why people adopt such arrangements. The insights of those who share/lodge primarily as a consequence of constraint will be particularly valuable, including to housing associations and third sector organisations who provide group homes/shared accommodation to (especially vulnerable) client groups.