European Cross-National Research and Policy Forum

ABSTRACT AND PROFILES

Policy Learning from Cross-National Comparisons of European Social Policies

Linda HANTRAIS

This paper draws on examples from presentations in the current seminar series and from projects carried out under the European Commission’s framework programmes to examine how cross-national comparative research in the social sciences can contribute to policy development at EU and national level. It asks what we have learnt from the seminars about the research–policy interface, what policy actors can learn from cross-national comparative research on European social policies, and how such research can inform policy and contribute to policy development. In seeking to answer these questions, the paper begins by analysing the relationship between research and policy with reference to four theories about the utilisation of social science research by policy makers and practitioners. It explores the differing nature of research and policy making; the limitations of social science knowledge; the capacity of research governance to integrate research and policy; and attempts to bridge the communications gap. The paper goes on to look at some of the ways in which the EU Directorates-General are stimulating the development of the research–policy interface in their efforts to promote best practice and policy learning, before providing a summary of the many ways in which research can be relevant to policy, including its contribution to the knowledge base, refinement of concepts and indicators, awareness-raising among policy actors of how the policy process operates in different socio-cultural and political contexts, policy evaluation, transfer and efficacy. In conclusion, the paper comments on the contribution of the seminars to synergy between researchers and policy actors.

Linda HANTRAIS is Professor of European Social Policy and Director of the European Research Centre in the Department of Politics, International Relations and European Studies at Loughborough University. Her main research interests are in cross-national comparative research theory, methodology and practice, with particular reference to public policy and institutional structures in the European Union, and the relationship between socio-demographic trends and social policy. Relevant publications include: Cross-National Research Methods in the Social Sciences (co-edited with S. Mangen, Pinter, 1996); Gendered Policies in Europe: reconciling employment and family life (ed., Palgrave, 2000); Social Policy in the European Union (Palgrave, 2nd edn, 2000); and Family Policy Matters: responding to family change in Europe (Policy Press, 2004).

Contact details:

Improving the Dialogue between Social Science Research and Social Policy

Susanne MacGREGOR

Many social science researchers do the kind of work they do because they wish to make an impact on policy. In addition, many research institutes, departments, centres and professional associations state as their mission the desire to link research, policy and practice. While it is always possible to argue for improvement in any sphere, to raise the issue of how to improve the dialogue between social science research and social policy in the European cross-national context is to assume that there is a problem. It also assumes that such dialogue is a good thing. This paper will begin by considering these two assumptions and the various terms and concepts contained within them. Based on a review of the papers presented to the seminar series and developing some of the themes which have emerged, it will delineate how the problem is perceived, present examples of difficulties, consider where dialogue appears to work best and give an account of some suggestions for improvement. The discussion is set within the context of the desire to develop a knowledge-based economy in Europe, together with the ambition to develop a European Research Area and appropriate networks. We are familiar with ideas of a European social model and the parallel emergence of policy communities gathered around specific social issues. These communities have an interest in policy learning, especially through examples of good practice and development of measures of excellence. The seminar series has explored some common concerns of European countries, for example how to increase employment rates and improve the quality of employment and how to effect a better work–life balance. Other shared interests are issues of gender and racial equality, and topics that cross boundaries, such as migration, organised crime, or drug trafficking. Research may be asked to provide answers to these preset questions. It may also want to offer new ways of looking at issues or get neglected issues, such as those which concern children, on to policy agendas. The question of improving dialogue can be approached from a relatively narrow or a wider perspective. These perspectives link to discussions about the appropriate role of the researcher on a continuum from tame technician to radical critic. The narrower view, operating within an orthodox paradigm, lists practical measures to improve communication. A wider view considers the various forms and orientations of social science research – ‘professional’, ‘policy’ and ‘public’ – raising the questions: What networks are researchers involved in? What are their values? Who are their key partners and audiences? What constraints, pressures and opportunities derive from these locations?

Susanne MacGREGOR is Professor of Social Policy in the Department of Public Health and Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Programme Coordinator for the Department of Health (Policy Research Programme) Drugs Misuse Research Initiative. Her main research interests are issues relating to politics and social policy, poverty and social exclusion, community development, health promotion, and substance misuse. Recent publications include ‘The welfare state and neoliberalism’, in A. Saad-Filho and D. Johnston (eds), Neoliberalism: a critical reader (Pluto Press, 2005); ‘Social exclusion’, in N. Ellison and C. Pierson (eds), Developments in British Social Policy 2 (Palgrave 2003); ‘Shifting images of poverty and inequality in Britain 1942–90’, in J-P. Revauger (ed.), Pauvreté et inégalités en Grande-Bretagne (Editions du Temps, 2001).

Contact address:

Transforming Social Policy Agendas

Steen MANGEN

The common concern running through the series of seminars has been the transformation of what has been – varyingly – the conventional role of the ‘guarantor state’. What has been emphasised is the need for new forms of regulation, not a surrender of state responsibility: the rapidly evolving range of pressing welfare issues means that the state has no option but to be the key overseer of what is increasingly less a system, more a ‘complex’. As a stimulus for initial discussion, the presentation draws on some of the recent work of Gunnar Schuppert. For him, an urgent research task is how to investigate the means of creating efficient organisational structures for the ‘cooperative state’, appropriate for what is a radically transformed phase of pluralism, certainly one rendering traditional corporatist responses redundant. For Schupper, this reform process essentially contains both cognitive and emotional elements, which need intimate integration into an analytical whole: for this, he borrows the term ‘cogmotion’. Concerns such as these were well represented in many of the earlier papers of the series, for example those reporting on public–private partnerships, and others on the role of social capital and the social economy. Equally, the papers concentrating on user-centred research (some innovatively taking the child as the respondent) made important contributions. This sort of investigative approach to delimiting the overall problematic was also varyingly addressed in several papers in terms of convergence and the role of ‘Europeanising’ processes like the open method of co-ordination. It is important to bear in mind a question addressed by Ana Guillén that convergence is not the same as a qualitative ‘Europeanisation’, described as ‘cognitive Europeanisation’. Although in quantitative terms, some member states may not be displaying strong converging trends in terms of welfare expenditures, a growing shared ‘Europeanising’ perception of common social problems is developing and, more importantly, of attitudes to their resolution. Clearly, if this substantial degree of ‘cognitive Europeanisation’ were not available, procedures like OMC would not have a chance, notwithstanding its mixed outcomes so far. In one way or another, several of the papers in the series raise concern about the related question of functional equivalence in professional and administrative cultures in different national contexts. These factors have relevance, not only for ‘collegiality’ as well as ‘cultural hegemony’ in the research act – alluded to with varying degrees of diplomacy by many contributors – but also for understanding different motivations in new forms of governance, not least inter-professional relations and professional–client relations. Finally, the crucial wider issue of the governance of the research enterprise was a special feature of much of the discussion in Seminar 5 and seems to be fundamental in what appears in so much cross-national research as the tightening grip of an evermore powerful oligarchy capable of imposing its agenda on comparative investigation of social policy.

Steen MANGEN is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Policy and Administration at the London School of Economics. His main research interests lie in the contemporary Spanish and German welfare states, qualitative methods in cross-national settings, and urban regeneration policies in Western Europe. His recent publications include Cross-National Research Methods in the Social Sciences (co-edited with L. Hantrais, Pinter, 1996); (with L. Hantrais), special issue on cross-national research, International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 2 (2), 1999; Spanish Society after Franco: regime transition and the welfare state (Palgrave, 2001); and Social Exclusion and Inner City Europe: regulating urban regeneration (Palgrave, 2004)

Contact address:

Towards the Europeanisation of Social Policy?
Electrifying or Europeanising social policy? Some research challenges

Ana GUILLÉN with Judith CLIFTON

This paper examines the challenges posed for the future of comparative social policy analysis in the context of the reformulation of EU welfare states. It draws on issues and questions that emerged during the seminar series. In particular, the paper takes the new concept of ‘Services of General Interest’ (SGI) as a case starting point to analyse the Europeanisation of social policy. SGI have been used as an ideational tool in EU policy-making circles from the mid-1990s and can be understood as a ‘soft’ decision-making tool at supranational level. They thus constitute an important part of the emergence of a New Governance alongside the OMC. This paper focuses on some of the most significant theoretical and methodological aspects that have arisen from the series with a view to setting the research agenda. The first significant problem encountered concerns disciplinary traditions: definitions of social policy tend to focus on the welfare state and pay less attention to overlapping sectors such as public services. However, the SGI paradigm cuts through the boundaries (artificially) separating public services from social services, since it aims to regulate both using the same framework. Moreover, the SGI regulatory framework, which incorporated public services from the mid-1990s and social services from 2000, is biased towards former. Thus, researchers working on both public services and social services must pool their resources and agree on a methodological strategy to understand new changes. A second challenge is theoretical, and involves the complex task of separating out the different forces of globalisation, European convergence and Europeanisation. Once the origins of change are clarified, one possible hypothesis would be to test that, when public policy is perceived to originate in Europe, it is received more positively than if it is perceived to be caused by globalisation. At the same time, the debate on the definition of Europeanisation remains open, so researchers are working with different and possibly changing concepts. The paper comments on definitions of Europeanisation and raises questions about the impact of grass-roots organisations on policy change, and how it can be measured. Thirdly, the case of the SGI paradigm reflects the long-standing conflict between social and economic policy at EU level. Analysis of key concepts in policy documents shows these tensions are unresolved. Less visible, but equally important, however, is that the tradition of consensus via formal channels of dialogue, such as the social partners and associated interest groups, have mobilised around the issues in an uneven manner (by country, region, sector). The hypothesis here is that the ways in which power is distributed have serious consequences upon the policy process and outcomes.

Ana GUILLÉN is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oviedo. Her main research interests are in welfare state development, health policy and comparative social policy. She works as a consultat for the European Commission and the International Labour Organization. In 1998–99, she was a Jean Monnet Fellow and participant in the European University Institute’s European Forum: ‘Recasting the European Welfare State’. Her recent publications include: La construcción politica del sistemna sanitario español: de la postguerra a la democracia (Ex Libris, 2000); co-author, ‘Reforming pharmaceutical policies in the European Union: a “penguin effect?”’, International Journal of Health Services, 33 (1), 2003; co-editor, ‘EU Enlargement, Europeanization and social policy’, special issue of Journal of European Social Policy, 14 (3), 2004.

Contact details:

Bridging the Communications Gap between Research and Policy in an Enlarged Europe

Dagmar KUTSAR

In the transition countries, due to the legacy of Soviet rule, the relationship between research and policy has a different meaning from that applied in West European member states. For the Central and East European countries, membership of the European Union has involved adopting a large body of social acquis and joining a European Research Area that it had no hand in shaping. Many of its social scientists were trained to work within a research culture where sociological research was subordinated to the ideology of the state, and where they were discouraged from developing independent lines of inquiry or publishing findings in internationally refereed journals. Compared with former times, social scientists today can see that the door is more open than ever it was for academic researchers to influence the policy agenda. Several new research units and think tanks have been established to work closely with government. However, communication channels between researchers and policy makers remain poor, not only because the two communities are speaking different ‘languages’, but also because both sides face their own dilemmas that they need to solve before embarking on the bridging process. For academic researchers, the conflict is between the pursuit of excellence and practical outputs; theoretical approaches and the application of findings to social reality; and the intrinsic interest of research and practical needs. The dilemmas faced by policy makers are between policy frameworks and changing reality; the immediate and longer-term effects of policy; the demands of supranational agencies and national objectives and action plans; objective truth and the potential for strengthening political ideas; and the logic of common sense and the consequences of political decisions. Drawing on the materials from the seminar series, the paper highlights the issues that both parties need to address and explores some of the ways in which bridging might be promoted.

Dagmar Kutsar is a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Policy, and head of the Family Studies Unit, University of Tartu, Estonia. Her main research interests are in family policy, social welfare and poverty, social change, living conditions, social exclusion, social cohesion, family relationships and cross-national comparisons of social indicators. She has directed research projects on issues of societal change and living conditions in Estonia and the Baltic and Nordic countries, sponsored by the Estonian Science Foundation, United Nations Development Programme and Nordic Council of Ministers. The findings from these projects have been published in the Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare and several edited collections. She is co-author of Poverty Reduction in Estonia (Tartu University Press, 1999) and editor of Living Conditions in Estonia Five Years Later (Norbalt II, University of Tartu/Fafo Institute for Applied Social Research, 2002).

Contact details:

Widening Perspectives in Comparative Research and Policy

Leena ALANEN

An important aim of the seminar series has been to contribute to a better understanding of the cross-national comparative research process, while encouraging the transfer of knowledge between researchers and policy actors. This paper addresses issues raised in several of the presentations, and more especially in the fourth seminar, about the different perspectives that researchers can bring to policy development, as illustrated by Childhood Studies. Children and childhood have largely been neglected both in academic research on welfare and in the welfare policy domain. When the focus is on children, it tends to be on single childhood issues, such as poverty, child labour, or on a specific child welfare benefit or service, such as child benefits or day care. Children are typically treated in an instrumental fashion, assuming that being a child essentially means being in a preparatory stage for adulthood. What matters is the end product: the worker, taxpayer or citizen. In the social policy domain, these assumptions are used to justify policies in which children are treated as suitable objects for economic, social and cultural investment that will, in due course, produce societal gains, as exemplified by policies to alleviate child poverty, family benefit packages, or day-care services. The social scientific study of childhood starts from a broader, non-adultist discourse on children and childhood. Children are viewed not only as ‘becomings’, but emphatically as social and cultural ‘beings’, and as actors with a definite, socially constructed and historically varying childhood status, as well as separate interests. Using this kind of approach, the task in the child welfare field is, firstly, to improve the understanding of how children’s welfare is actually constructed and the material, social and cultural processes generating their well-being (or ill-being) and, secondly, to use this knowledge to rethink child welfare policy. Cross-national research and policy discussions can speed up the process in a number of ways: by making explicit the diverse (and mostly unquestioned) cultural knowledge of childhood that permeates welfare research and policy; by rethinking, critically and comparatively, the existing policy frameworks, as in the European social model and welfare state regime typologies, from the standpoint of the specific social status of children and their interests; and by making explicit the powerful ways in which social and political structures as well as policies in a number of fields, actually constitute ‘hidden’ childhood policies in the European region.

Leena ALANEN is Professor of Childhood Studies in the Department of Early Childhood Education, at Jyväskylä University, Finland. Her main research interests are in the sociological study of childhood, generational relations and children’s welfare, using chiefly qualitative and discourse analytical methods. Her recent publications include: ‘Visions of a social theory of childhood’, Childhood. A Global Journal of Child Research, 7 (4), 2000; Conceptualizing Child–Adult Relations (co-edited with B. Mayall, Routledge Falmer, 2001); ‘Childhoods: the generational ordering of social relations’, in B. Mayall and H. Zeiher (eds), Childhood in Generational Perspective (University of London, Institute of Education, 2003).

Contact details:

From Research Methods to Policy Practice

Rossana TRIFÍLETTI

Policy makers have generally relied heavily on quantitative data to provide evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of specific policy measures. A number of the papers presented in the present series illustrate the contribution that qualitative methods can make to the understanding of issues that are of interest to policy makers. This paper examines the value of qualitative research, firstly, in defining social problems in ways with which policy makers were previously not often familiar and, secondly, in assessing policy effects on the daily lives of respondents. Inevitably, the paper raises questions about the extent to which the practice of qualitative comparative research can produce and disseminate acceptable ‘knowledge’. Several of the projects presented in the seminar series suggest that the ‘correct’ way to handle this kind of ‘data’ cannot be inferred from the experience of treating quantitative evidence. The main problem is not so much how to avoid selectivity and bias but, rather, whether we can trust the spontaneous relevance of our subjects and allow it enough space to emerge. This involves a much more subtle ability to evaluate the freedom and ‘activity’ of respondents and to capture the subtext of the terms employed, and it moves the ethical implications of the whole research process centre stage.

Rossana TRIFÍLETTI is Associate professor in Sociology of the Family and Social Policies in the Department of Political Science and Sociology at the University of Florence. Her main research interests are in sociology of the family, social policy, gender studies, welfare regimes, women’s work, qualitative methodology and the history of sociological thought. Her recent publications include: ‘The imperfect fit between feminist methodology and qualitative research on the family’, in Research frameworks and methodologies (co-edited with in Trudie Knijn, TSER Periodic Progress Report, no 3, 1999); and ‘Care arrangements in double front carer families: comparative report’ (with Simonetta Simoni and Alessandro Pratesi, FP5 SocCare Project report, 2003).

Contact details: