An End to Evidence Based Housing Policy?

LOOSE CONNECTIONS, LOOSE CANNONSDuncan Maclennan

DirectorCentre for Housing Research

University of St Andrews

MAJOR FLUCTATION IN NEW RESEARCH, CRISIS OR CREATIVE DESTRUCTION?

NOT AN END TO EVIDENCE BASE ROLE, POLICY STEMS FROM BETTER CHOREOGRAPHY OF KNOWLEDGE STOCK AS WELL AS NEW DISCOVERY

THERE IS LITTLE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH AND ITS IMPACT IN POLICY

NEED TO DEVELOP A COHERENT UNDERSTANDING OF HOUSING POLICY INFLUENCING AND INNOVATION IN UK

RESEARCH CENTRES AND HSA NEED A NEW COLLABORATIVE PARADIGM THAT BUILDS NATIONAL FROM BELOW

MAIN PROPOSITIONS

1. EVIDENCE BASED POLICY BEFORE AND DURING 1995-2008 RESEARCH BOOM

2. THE BUST, SO FAR3. CHANGING EMPHASES, A MODEL OF

POLICY INFLUENCING AND INNOVATION4. WHAT WE DO NOW

STAGES IN ARGUMENT

Developments in housing policy and practice have been marked by strong ideological stances and a persistent unwillingness to clarify ends and means, so that key policy questions remain unresolved. Evidence can, and does, impact on policy, but only under certain conditions; for example, if it relates to a specific policy question, is restricted to the interests of a single government department and, especially, if it implies reductions in public spending. Moreover, housing’s complexity and relationship with a range of policy areas requires a linked perspective, at a local scale. A predominance of sector-specific, cross-sectional and qualitative research, allied to inadequate data impede the production of evidence to meet this challenge. Public Management and Money ( Special ISSUE on Evidence Based Policy)

Maclennan and More 1996.

Maclennan and More (1996) stressed re housing to 90’s Ideological swings, inconstancy in policy Concern with means rather than ends Data and models unmatched to key questions Emphasis on ‘social’ needs measures Absence of cost-benefit, effectiveness, evaluation Growing plurality of ‘demands’ different levels of

government, organisations Complex outcomes unmeasured, lost in cross sectoral

debates ( health /housing, housing / economy)OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IMPROVEMENT

1.1 BEFORE THE BOOM….

Through the 1990’s Universities reappoint staff cuts early

1980’s Whitehall loosens up, DOE, social exclusion Quangos (HC, SH, TC, NIHE) all fund JRF and new roles, styles ESRC DRC

After 1997 What works as policy mantra

◦ EBP as ideology too! Scientism

1.2 AS BOOM UNFOLDS…

Doherty (2001) critiques Maclennan and More Long run influence of data (me- but on ends) CORE, SCORE etc all matter (me-yes, in practice) Is ‘scientism’, implies a rational answer. Respond;

◦ position is Humean, passion and reason◦ some split these two functions, see Stigler◦ obligation to ‘reason’ with any democratically elected

government?

USEFUL REMINDER NO SINGLE APPROACH SHOULD DOMINATE, ALL FREE TO CHOOSE TO COLLABORATE

OR NOT, DON’T ALL EXPECT TO SUCCEED

1.3…AND STRENGTHENS

An ERA of EBP, 1996-2008 (say) Open government, what works Treasury EBPolicy Fund ( no housing bids?) Rising Department External Research Budgets Quadrupling of policy analysts in government Advisory Panels (SEU 36), Policy Research Nets Burgeoning of local, organisational research Rising University posts, RAE relevance ESRC, new demands, fewer resources: JRF

UNARGUABLY A BOOM

1.4 ….AND REFLECTED IN

Aspiration about policy ends drives research agendas ( neighbourhoods, home ownership, homelessness), big research follows rather than leads policy, but also

Rise of evaluation studies: weak on technique, cf health Failure to answer big questions; space, time multi-sector

complexity of housing, unwilling to do key spadework Qualitative research has less impact on central agencies Continuing weak position in big policies; economy, wealth

etc; neighbourhood effects; benefits of community housing; changing housing choices to greener outcomes

Policy making still inconstant ( stock transfer: 3 views in 2001) BUT from 1988 to 2010 less so; long continuitiesAND CLEARLY NO END TO IDEOLOGICAL SHIFTS

1.5 …DOES EARLIER CRITIQUE HOLD?

To date less than 20pc of planned 2015 cuts DCLG, HCA, and devolved admins cuts JRF resources Research Staff losses, Centre Closures Market sources reduced, organisations down

But Relatively Fixed Academic Capital, so far ESRC, UKRC…but how many housing grants? University Posts Emphasis on KE

2.1 THE BUST, SO FAR

New Questions Market collapse, credit rationing, new tenure patterns The resurgence of Market Failures Central to ageing, environment, economy debates

New Patterns of Interest and Production Withdrawal of Central Government, But Localism Academia and KE/T, mobilisation and co-production REF, impact yes but does it make us More Selfish,

Less cooperative Resources for KE but not fundamental research EU constrained, housing always strained

WHAT SHOULD STILL SECURE STAFF DO?

2.2 NEW CONTEXT MEANS

Evidence-based policy and practice, Winter 2012

The best argument for emphasising evidence in educational policy and practice is what happens when evidence plays no role: practice and policy swing like a pendulum from one enthusiasm to the opposite, and then back again, but no progress is made. The solution to the pendulum problem is to have a wide array of research going on at all times to create and evaluate promising solutions to longstanding problems, including teaching methods as well as policy options. 

PERHAPS…

We focus on Research as ‘idea inventions’, we need to think more widely.1. At Time t, There is a Stock Of Knowledge,

Kt.2. That stock may be held in the Academy, or

the policy Sector, or by the public and others3. Kt held by different sectors may be

specialised, and have little overlap4. Role of KE, KTRANS is to raise the overlap

3.1 PROCESSES OF POLICY INFLUENCING, INNOVATION

Research at any time adds Rt to Kt, a FLOW New Research at time t may

◦ Be added to Academic Stock, Ka◦ Or the Policy stock, KpOften only added with a lag

New research may simply add to Ka, not Kp Policy action may follow from reworked Kap Policy action may flow from an ‘IDEA’POLICY CAN FLOW FROM NEW CHOREOGRAPHY AND CREATIVE IDEAS , APPLIED RESEARCH WILL

NOT AWAYS IMPACT. SO LOOSE CONNECTION RESEARCH AND POLICY INFLUENCE

3.2 PROCESS MODEL CONTINUED

What Model of Policy Innovation? What channels to choose

◦ Direct or via policy transfer agent (JRF, Carnegie)◦ Aimed at bureaucrat controlled channels

Spending Ministry, Central Agency, Parliament◦ Aimed at politics

Parties, Special Advisers, Ministers Know channel characteristics, costs,

benefits Consider fit with policy

OUTCOMES, IMPACTS THEN RELY ON…

3.3 IMPACT IDEAS, CHOREOGRAPHY

On the researcher, Supply Side Skill in messaging, willingness to align Scanning for opportunities Persistence Proximity and networks ( spatial or not) Facilities Luck

BUT ALSO DEPENDS ON DEMAND SIDE BEHAVIOUR…

3.3 SHAPING IMPACTS, SUPPLY

WHAT INFLUENCES DEMAND? Timing in Parliamentary cycle, year Willingness to trust suppliers Perceived match of policy interest and

information package offeredSO, NO CLEAR CORRESPONDECE BETWEEN THE EXCELLENCE OF RESEARCH OR EVEN

THE TRANSFER EFFORT AND POLICY IMPACT. REF AND ESRC GUIDELINES ARE NAÏVE

ECONOMICS AND POOR POLITICAL SCIENCE ( OR BAD RESEARCH WITH A BIG IMPACT!)

3.4 SHAPING IMPACTS, DEMAND

A Strategic approach is needed to cope with the research funding cycle with a different output mix, emphasising ‘ideas’ and K exchange and Co-production, not new Ra. HSA should lead! Be clear on producer and preacher roles Recognise the different kinds of knowledge

we have◦ Blue skies, think pieces◦ Better quality reviews (see recent Kearns piece)◦ Qualitative better supported, database mining

(ESRC)

4.1 WHAT NEXT FOR US?

Be a forum for devolved policy divergence ( an annual policy summit)

Use localism, integrate upwards to national, Regional Network of Centres?

Use co=production with housing providers Use near unique capacity to link to

international Make research more international, EU, BRICS Always show why Housing Outcomes matterLETS GET UK HOUSING RESEARCH MOVING AGAIN.

4.2 CALL TO ARMS, NOT TO PRAYER?