|
|
ESRC-funded Seminar Series, 2003–2004
Seminar 5 The Impact of Social Science Research on Social Policy:
Turbulent Delegation: the governance of European research councils and research policy Chris CASWILL This is an uncertain time for European institutions of research funding. After many years of stability, most national research councils have been recently reviewed, there is strong pressure to create a European Research Council, and European agencies face competition and change. The paper begins with a brief review of national and European research funding institutions’ activities and governance arrangements. It hypothesises that this new state of turbulence in funding systems is very much driven by questions of governance and of delegation from the state to semi-autonomous agencies. The hypothesis is tested by reference to recent debates within the governance literature, and also by drawing on principal-agent analysis. The proposition is then further developed by taking a closer look at three national agencies that have been recently reviewed, and by reference to the debates on the European Research Council and European Research Area (ERA). The evidence is used to raise some questions about the general applicability of network theories of governance, and to suggest some gaps which principal-agent theory helps to explain. In conclusion, the paper identifies some policy implications. It also considers the contributions that social scientific analysis has made to research policy within and across national boundaries and makes some suggestions for improving the two-way flow of knowledge in this field. Chris CASWILL is Visiting Fellow at the James Martin Institute at Oxford University, Visiting Professor at Exeter University, and Senior Research Fellow at University College, London. He is Senior Research Associate at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences in Vienna, Adviser to the Research Council of Norway, and Senior Policy Adviser to the EU-funded NORFACE ERA-NET project. Until the end of 2003, he was Director of Research at the ESRC. His research interests are in science policy, European research policy, the application of principal-agent theory and interactive social science. Recent publications include: ‘Social science policy: challenges, interactions, principals and agents’, Science and Public Policy, 25 (5), 1998; (with E. Shove ‘Introducing interactive social science’, Science and Public Policy, Special Issue, 27 (3), 2000; ‘Principals, agents and contracts’, Science and Public Policy, Special Issue, 30 (5), 2003; ‘Old games, old players – new rules, new results – the ERA as European science policy’, in Changing Governance of Research and Technology Policy: the European Research Area (eds J. Edler, S. Kuhlmann and M. Behrens, Edward Elgar, 2003). Contact:
Rachel HERRING Sport is increasingly seen as a central strategy for large cities to promote their image and global position, undertake regeneration and tackle problems of social exclusion. Mega and major sporting events, in particular, are seen as a key means of city marketing and large-scale regeneration, although the processes and outcomes have proved to be deeply controversial. In seeking to understand how the relationship between cities sport and regeneration has evolved it is evident that the nature of government and governance is crucial. This appears to be particularly the case in London, a global city well placed to bid for and host mega and major sporting events. In fact, it has staged few and has experienced problems realising major sporting and cultural projects. One possible explanation is rooted in the style of network governance that has evolved nationally, and in London and other UK cities. A qualitative case study approach was adopted to explore this proposition, as it enables analysis of processes and allows the linkages between different aspects and levels of governance and the various interested parties to be teased out. Although the focus is London and specifically the abandoned Lee Valley National Athletics Centre project and the loss of the prestigious World Athletics Championships awarded to London for 2005, comparisons have been made with other cities within the UK and Europe, using secondary sources. A number of single city case studies are available, many focusing on specific events, such as the Olympics, whereas others examine urban sports policy, and some involve comparative studies. The paper considers both the value and limitations of case studies in furthering understanding and informing policy. Case studies highlight the importance of contextual and cultural factors in shaping the form and outcome of an event or strategy, and comparison of cases can assist in identifying different approaches to hosting mega and major sporting events. However, methodological and definitional differences complicate and limit the analytical value of comparing single case studies, and comparative case studies are costly and complex to conduct. The paper examines the issues raised by research that compares individual case studies and provides a critique of some of the comparative case studies that have been undertaken. It concludes by looking at the way in which policy actors use the evidence produced by such studies. Rachel HERRING is a postgraduate research student in the School of Health and Social Sciences at Middlesex University. Her current research interests are in the inter-relationships between governance, sport and the city, using a qualitative case study approach. She has also conducted qualitative research on various aspects of alcohol policy and intervention and on social capital and health. Her publications include: (with B. Thom) ‘Resisting the “gaze”?: nurses’ perceptions of the role of accident and emergency departments in responding to alcohol-related attendances’, Critical Public Health, 9 (2), 1999; (with V. Cattell) ‘Social capital, generations and health in East London’, Social capital for health: insights from qualitative research (eds C. Swann and A. Morgan, Health Development Agency, 2002). Contact details:
Janet HARKNESS Health data collected in surveys are an important source of information for policy makers in different fields and at national and international levels. A number of factors often make it difficult to compare the information available at national level across countries. These include differences in data sources, in populations, in the kind, detail and date of information available, in forms of data collection, in what respondents, if this is the basis of data collection, are asked and in what they understand and answer. Cross-national health surveys often aim to avoid issues of comparability by setting out to keep as much the same as possible, for example by asking comparable populations the same questions in the same mode(s) of data collection. However, the great majority of health instruments in use around the world are Western, even Anglo-American, in origin and are based on culturally anchored conceptions of health, illness, and treatment. They reflect the frame(s) of reference of the researchers responsible for the substantive content of the questionnaires and the question formulations and formats. As a result, instruments often fail to accommodate respondents’ frames of reference, threatening the accuracy and appropriateness of assessment. Against the background of an ‘ask the same question’ and ‘keep things the same’ model, the paper outlines core issues of questionnaire design and adaptation for health surveys across different cultures and languages. It demonstrates how ‘culture’ complicates data collection, diagnosis and policy decisions. Differences between findings based on biophysical measurements and those from (self-)reports of health status and ability are also considered. The final sections present a number of measures to improve the cross-national comparability of health data. Janet HARKNESS is Director for Germany of the International Social Survey Programme at the Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Mannheim. She heads the Translation Work Package for the European Social Survey (ESS). Recently, she has also been working on comparative issues in health-related surveys, including an EU-funded pilot survey on health, ageing and retirement (SHARE) and a US-funded international survey on Stigma and Global Mental Health. Her research interests centre on comparative questionnaire design and adaptation issues for cross-cultural implementations. Recent publications on these topics include: Cross-Cultural Survey Methods (chapters and ed. with F.J.R van de Vijver and P.Ph. Mohler, Wiley, 2003); (with B-E. Pennell and A. Schoua-Glusberg), ‘Questionnaire translation and assessment’, in Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires (eds S. Presser et al., Wiley, 2004); ‘Overview of problems in establishing conceptually equivalent health definitions across multiple cultural groups’, in Proceedings from the 8th Conference on Health Survey Research Methods (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). Contact details:
Ron IPHOFEN The paper outlines the RESPECT project (Professional and Ethical Codes for Technology-Related Socio-Economic Research) and discusses some of the difficulties associated with setting cross-national research standards. RESPECT was a European Commission project funded through DG Information Society under Framework Programme 5 and ran for two years from 2002–04 with partners from Austria, Belgium, Germany and the UK. The partner teams included both legal and social science expertise. The project brief was to develop a voluntary code of practice covering research ethics, intellectual property rights, data protection and confidentiality, professional competencies and skills, and professional standards. In the absence of rigorous research governance procedures in the social sciences and due to variations in the quality of research practice throughout Europe, the European Commission was convinced of the need to set standards in anticipation of the European Research Area and the influx of a large number of accession states. A voluntary code was seen as a means of raising ethical awareness throughout the research community and may be adopted, amended and enforced by professional associations lacking such a code of their own. Where associations already operate their own codes or guidelines, RESPECT may be seen as a vehicle for anticipating and managing international variations in practice. The methodology adopted was consultative, seeking key informants across Europe via telephone, e-mail and face-to-face interview to guide the drafting of the codes and to respond in workshops and conferences to the difficulties of meeting cross-national regulations and principles. Initially separate codes were developed on ethics, intellectual property, data protection and professional standards. They were then combined and cross-referenced in a final overall code. The paper addresses some of the issues raised during this process and in preparing a user guide to socio-economic research aimed at those who commission research, evaluate proposals and review the results. Ron Iphofen is Senior Lecturer in Sociology of Health in the Faculty of Health Studies, University of Wales, Bangor. He acts as a research adviser in NHS Trusts in North Wales. He was Vice Chairman of the Social Research Association from 1999 to 2001, led the updating of the SRA’s ethical guidelines and acted as SRA’s representative/scientific consultant on the RESPECT project. He is editor of the journal Quality in Ageing. His interests focus on health research using qualitative methods. He has conducted research on patient satisfaction, emergency admissions, child neglect and professional communication among other topics. His publications include: (with F. Poland), Sociology in Practice for Health Care Professionals (Macmillan, 1998); Ethical Guidelines (Social Research Association, 2002–03); ‘Social and individual factors in public health’, in Public Health and Society (eds J. Costello, J. and M. Haggart, Palgrave, 2003); ‘Ethical decision-making in qualitative research in health’, in Qualitative Research for Health Professionals (ed. I. Holloway, Open University, 2004); ‘A code to keep away judges, juries and MPs’, The Times Higher, 2004.
Contact details:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
