An hour and half of Parliamentary time on the afternoon of Wednesday 18 November was set aside to debate on personal injury fraud. As is the case when the topic arises, there was a good deal of hot air and disagreement over the detail of the statistics quoted in the market. 513 more words
Jay Ulfelder's recent 'skeptical note' on the 'actionability' of political science research makes some essential points about the problematic assumptions underpinning policy recommendations. In Britain, the Blairite manifesto pitch 'what counts is what works' subdues the complexities of research method that might, at best, conclude 'what works here' (with further caveats about target population and other central aspects of the design). I'm not sure, however, that scholars of any discipline should therefore refrain from proposing recommendations or, even more cautiously, withdraw from offering expert advice. One of the important problems Ulfelder identifies is the uncertainties that are involved in the space between research and policy. How can a scholar answer the 'so what?' question that follows from any finding? There are two issues that we can unpack here. The first is the inevitability, indeed, the necessity, of uncertainty. Policy is messy, unstable and contested because it involves human beings and their beliefs, habits, commitments, decisions and relationships - in the exercise of power, the exertion of influence, in policy implementation and debate. Instead of searching for the definitive research design to address all the assumptions about the transferability of findings - or indeed, just leaving it to 'elected officials and bureaucrats' to do the interpretation - we should be bringing together different disciplines with complementary insights. Given the uncertainties of anything involving human beings, the humanities need to be in there too, rather than ignored as irrelevant, if not ornamental. The other issue is the 'so what?' question. I agree it's hard for scholars to come up with policy recommendations, but that's at least in part due to their lack of experience of policymaking in practice. In the UK, there is far less interchange between higher education and government than in the USA and the academic career is still pretty intolerant of periods spent in other settings, something that needs to change. Taking a look over the fence and trying to prescribe policy interventions based on research designed for academic purposes seems foolish at best, if not rather arrogant as well as misguided. Humanities scholars may be largely ignored, but we can often be too concerned to preserve our integrity by not allowing policy concerns to 'sully' our work. This seems a rather self-defeating formula. Policymakers don't get access to an ecosystem of expertise. Scholars remain on the far side of the fence lamenting the intellectual illiteracy of political rhetoric and decision-making. But does it need to be this way? I don't think so. But there's no easy policy prescription for fixing it, as it involves major shifts in perspective among scholars - towards actively looking for cross-disciplinary approaches - and in policy communities that often have limited conceptions of 'relevant' evidence. Being honest in response to a request for expert advice is not just about admitting the limits of one's own expertise but also the limits of one's own discipline. It's the mix that matters, but it's not easy for the expert to admit it.