|
|
ESRC-funded Seminar Series, 2003–2004
Seminar 2 The Impact of Methodological Approaches to the Study of Welfare on the Policy Relevance of Findings
Adapting Methods: the role of social capital in the social economy Mel EVANS The recently completed European Framework 5 CONSCISE project was an examination of the role of social capital in the development of social economy in eight different European locations. Straddling research and development organisations drawn from a common European network, the choice of methodological tools was influenced by techniques for social economy development and management currently popular in the third sector in the UK. Local community profiling and social audit methods were employed with the rationale that, by adapting them to incorporate a focus upon an agreed notion of social capital, a comparative analysis could be derived. Two further reasons justified this choice. Firstly, it was likely that members of the research team and the research subjects alike would have some understanding of and/or empathy with the techniques. Secondly, it was thought that adapting the techniques to incorporate a focus on social capital might embed the concerns of the research project regarding the role of social capital within the development field in each European location. In research practice, besides the problems of reaching agreement about working notions of social capital and social economy, the project team soon became aware of the variance in understanding of and experience with profiling and social audit techniques. However, the ‘fluidity’ of both methods and their capacity for adaptation to context enabled the project to take account of and survive such variance. The European ‘added value’ of such an approach, it is argued, lies not in the production of a set of policy recommendations per se, but in the potential for user involvement. In the CONSCISE project, this was achieved not by the induction of users and research subjects into the barrage of methods available to social science, but by the selection of an approach and techniques that, if not uniformly familiar across Europe, were at least rooted in the common problematic encountered in the development field. Mel EVANS is a Senior Research Fellow at the Social Policy Research Centre, Middlesex University. His field of interest is community-based regeneration policy and the social economy. He co-ordinated a three-year European Commission Framework Programme 5 project in four member states examining ‘Social Capital, Social Economy and Social Enterprise’. With Vicky Cattell and Susanne MacGregor, he worked on a Joseph Rowntree Foundation research project on ‘Neighbourhood Images and Area Regeneration’ and has carried out research on ‘Community Enterprise and Regeneration in Four North London Boroughs’. His recent publications include: Neighbourhood Images in East London: social capital and social networks on two East London housing estates (with Vicky Cattell, York Publishing Services); ‘Communities or neighbourhoods? Place images, social cohesion and area regeneration in East London’, Rising East, 4 (1) (with Vicky Cattell); Researching Social Enterprise (with David Smallbone, report for Small Business Service). Contact address: Historical Methods for Comparing Pension Policies Noël WHITESIDE Pension security is currently a major problem for all EU economies. Most attention is drawn to the future financial viability of earnings-related systems, raising a number of key questions. Do funded private pensions, derived from an Anglo-Saxon model and exemplified by the UK, offer a better solution? What typologies of public-private partnership are at work in this field, how well do they function over the long run and what governing conventions sustain them? The methods adopted in the research are archival: an examination of key policy documents held in the PRO (London), the CARAN (Paris) and Archives contemporaines (Fontainebleu). The advantages of an historical approach are several. First, it exposes policy dynamics. More traditional comparative methods, relying on policy models, evaluate policy in accordance with pre-ordained ends (more social equality, more income redistribution). They stress policy continuities and disregard how policy is modified by changes adapted from elsewhere. They also tend to ignore the multiple objectives of social policy. ‘Pensions’ represent, inter alia, deferred salary (socialised or individualised), a tool of manpower management, a necessary investment in industrial restructuring, a source of venture capital, as well as protection against destitute old age. Second, government records can reveal the why and the how of policy development. Following Pierson, historical research demonstrates why (and how) conventions of governance allow old solutions under new names to re-emerge as ‘new’ initiatives. Third, comparing policy documents between different countries reveals the differing premises on which policy is founded and the different power bases of governing institutions. This allows an analysis of varied policy logics, of conventions of governance and of the different implicit inferences underpinning the identification of social policy issues. However, this does not mean that these sources offer revealed truth. Government archives are preserved as an official record. There are gaps and omissions: for example, ministerial papers are difficult to trace. Comparative research based on archival sources requires extensive knowledge of administrative structures and archival procedures. Finally, interest in the analysis of historical trajectories among policy makers is limited. The research suggests that EU-based precedents point to the importance of negotiation and representation to the creation of trust in new conventions of governance, offering possible lessons for UK governments. Noël WHITESIDE is Professor of Comparative Public Policy in the Department of Sociology at Warwick University and Zurich Fellow. Her current comparative research interests cover the development of social security in major EU member states and the dynamics of local labour market organisation since 1880. She has conducted a number of comparative research projects, including labour markets and their governance in Britain and France (CNRS and ESRC); trade unionism in 20th century Europe (CNRS) and the comparative development of pensions in major EU economies (ESRC Future of Governance Programme and Zurich Financial Services). She is currently working on a French-led programme ‘Towards a European politics of capabilities’ (Framework Programme 5) and on interwar developments in comparative social security (Caisse des dépôts et consignations). Her recent publications on these topics include: Governance, Industry and Labour Markets in Britain and France (co-edited with Robert Salais, Routledge, 1998); Pension Security in the 21st Century (co-edited with Gordon Clark, OUP, forthcoming 2003); ‘Une comparaison des systèmes de protection sociale en Allemagne, en France et en Grande Bretagne’, Histoires et Sociétés, no 6, 2003; ‘In search of security: earnings-related pensions in Britain and Europe’, History and Policy, 2003: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/main/policy-paper-11.html Contact address: Comparative Multi-methods Approaches to the Care of Older People Ingrid EYERS The research undertaken aimed to establish the skills needed to care for older people living in a care home and then to identify how these skills are acquired and developed throughout the life course. The comparative study between England and Germany was chosen to highlight issues surrounding the provision of institutional long-term care and occupational training systems in England and Germany. Multi-methods were used to collect the data, including vignettes, which formed the hub of the data and were key to the analysis. Data were collected in four care homes in southeast England and four care homes in northern Germany. Structured interview data were collected from all eight care home managers to establish a profile of the older people living in the care home and the staff employed to provide their care. Self-completion questionnaires were distributed to all care staff in the sample homes to establish a profile of how the respondents formally and informally developed and gained skills to work in a care home. This was followed by interviews conducted with an average of three members of qualified staff and three care assistants in each of the sample homes. The resulting 50 interviews focused on establishing a picture of the daily routine in the care home and then led to the introduction of care-related vignettes, which facilitated the collection of standardised qualitative data enabling comparison of the ‘hands-on’ provision of care by qualified staff and care assistants in the two countries. The interviews were concluded by the collection of detailed life-course data in grid form. The German interview data were translated into English using both lexical and conceptual equivalents and were analysed with the assistance of WinMAX.98. The analysis of the data provided an insight into the interface between care staff and the older people they are caring for, indicating the importance of time and occupational training in the provision of care. The data were then related to the policy framework in which institutional care in England and Germany is provided. Comparing the data contributed to identifying the impact of contrasting policy frameworks in England and Germany on care staff, thereby relating practice to policy. The findings exemplify how, for different reasons, the policy framework in both countries instigates a task-orientated production of care, which disempowers older people. Ingrid EYERS previously held an ESRC postgraduate research studentship at the Centre for Research on Ageing and Gender (CRAG), in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey, where she is an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow. Her research interests are in cross-national research into the impact of social and healthcare policies on older peoples’ lives and the occupational training and career paths available in the care industry. Her publications include: ‘Die Verwendung von Vignetten in qualitativer, kulturvergleichender Alternsforschung’ (‘Use of vignettes in the qualitative cross-cultural study of ageing’, in A. Motel-Klingebiel and U. Kelle (eds), Perspektiven der empirischen Alternssoziologie, Leske und Budrich, 2002); ‘Education and training: do they really, really want it? A comparative study of care home staff in England and Germany’, Education and ageing, 15 (2), 2000; ‘Care assistants overlooked: a cross national study of care home staff in England and Germany’, Quality in Ageing, 1 (1), 2000. Contact address:
Judith PHILLIPS and Mo RAY The paper examines the mixed methods used in the Old Age and Autonomy: the role of service systems and intergenerational solidarity (OASIS) study: a quantitative survey of 6,000 older people in five countries, followed by qualitative interviews with 50 parent and adult children dyads, where the parents were aged over 75 and defined as ‘at risk of dependency’. The paper focuses on the qualitative phase the study to explore the challenges faced by older people in maintaining independence. The analysis illustrates how older people and their families in five countries (Norway, Germany, England, Spain and Israel) managed and negotiated change associated with the onset of illness or disability in old age. The methods are evaluated for their ability to produce policy-relevant findings. The questions to be addressed include: Is cross-cultural and cross-national analysis sensitive to the relevance of micro policy in each country? What difficulties exist in transferring methods and applying different methodological orientations and disciplines between countries? To what extent are methods integrated and how are different methods managed between teams? Does computer aided software enhance cross-national research? How do we assess whether policy findings and interpretation are grounded in the data? What are the mechanisms for bridging the gap between cross-national research and policy? Judith PHILLIPS is Professor of Social Gerontology in the School of Social Relations at Keele University, UK. Her main research interests are in intergenerational relations, caregiving and employment, health and social care, and social work with older people. Her publications include: The Family and Community Life of Older People: social networks and social support in three urban areas (with C. Phillipson, M. Bernard and J. Ogg, Routledge, 2000); ‘Conflict and ambivalence within intergenerational relations’, in S. Daatland and K. Herlofson (eds), Ageing, Intergenerational Relations, Care Systems and Quality of Life: an introduction to the OASIS project (with P. Kingston and M. Ray, NOVA, Norway, Rapport 14/01, 2001); ‘Ambivalence and conflict in ageing families: European Perspectives’, Retraite et Société, no 38, 2003 (with M. Ray and J. Ogg); ‘Intergenerational solidarity, conflict and ambivalence: a cross-national perspective’, in Bengston et al. (eds), Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research (with A. Lowenstein and S. Daatland, Sage, 2005). Contact address: Mo RAY is a research fellow (ESRC Award Number: ) in the School of Social Relations at Keele University, UK. Her main research interests are in long-term marriage and gerontological social work research: for example the impact of formal services on quality of life and, the interface between formal and informal care. She has co-authored papers on critical issues in gerontological social work and the experience of ambivalence and conflict in intergenerational relations with Judith Phillips.
Contact address:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
