The ICPP (Grenoble) symbolised
both the best and worst aspects of scholarship. The best bits include:
·
The unexpected levels of attendance (900) –
which showed many of us (perhaps used to the limited focus on policymaking at
general conferences) that we had many international colleagues engaged in
similar research.
·
The ability to see beyond your specialism and
listen to plenary discussions and panels on topics you may not consider in your
day-to-day research.
·
The opportunities to meet people, exchange ideas
and make research plans.
But, being a tired, dour Scot, I
was struck mostly by the problems symbolised by the conference:
1.Are we talking *to* or *past*
each other?
The plenary on the so called
‘tribes’ of policymaking (IAD, new institutionalism, ACF, etc.) involved a
brief discussion, by each representative of a ‘tribe’, of the first principles
of each approach – without giving much information about how they relate to
each other. This is characteristic of much of the literature which involves
specialisation. Such specialisation is often valuable and necessary - it is perhaps
only when we immerse ourselves in, and fully understand, an approach that we
can assess its merits and relate it to other approaches. However, it also seems
parochial if there is a limited level of self-awareness and a tendency to
ignore other approaches. Watching the event, you would struggle to identify a
sense of *general purpose*. For me, the idea behind specialisation is that we are
boundedly rational – we cannot produce all research ourselves. So, we produce
some work and rely on others to produce the rest. Then we try to compare our
experiences and: (a) explore or ability to generalise from those combined
experiences; and (b) explore our ability to accumulate knowledge from a range
of studies. This exchange of ideas and information will not be effective if we
are all talking a different language; if we don’t know how to communicate our
findings (and their significance) to each other in a meaningful way. Maybe the
plenary served that purpose by reminding us of the wider world out there, but
you would have to be a super-positive person to come to that conclusion.
2.Are we even talking about the
same thing?
I was often struck by the
relative lack of cohesion of many panels even when they came under a common
banner. So, they were not only
describing very different case studies but also very different ways to
understand them. Again, this can produce a degree of innovative thinking when
we consider new possibilities. However, it can also make you wonder if you can
slip out of the room when no-one is watching.
3. Self-contradictory case study
approaches.
The papers were either
mainly-theoretical or contained a theoretical and case-study-based empirical
section. What follows is a caricature of some presentations to make a broad
point:
·
First, they say that existing theories cannot
fully explain their case study.
·
So, they propose a ‘new’ theory which it
explains it better.
·
Then, they might imply that this new theory has
a more general application.
The overall effect can appear to
be contradictory: no theory can explain my case because it is (a) more
complicated than theory suggests; and/ or (b) the case has some unusual
elements that are difficult to explain. If so, such papers perpetuate the
problem – we are forever seeking novel and parsimonious theories to explain
many cases, only to be faced with complexity and a significant level of
non-comparability when we try to apply them in different cases.
In that light, my preference is
for a problem-focused approach to presentation:
·
Talk about a real research problem – what do you
want to explain?
·
Talk about the insights that one or more
theories can give you when you seek explanation.
·
Accept that theories are simplifications to aid
general explanation; don’t express mock surprise when they fail to explain
everything. This is just not possible.
·
If a key tenet of public policy studies is that
politics and policymaking vary from issue to issue (and country), we should not
be surprised that a theory based on some issues and countries does not map
directly onto others. The same can be said for the case study – don’t just
assume that the usefulness of a new or old theory in one case applies to
another. Instead, reflect on the ways in which your case compares to the cases
described by other studies.
We might then want to talk about
the research outcomes. Such conversations require a common language – a requirement
that is not served well by the constant pursuit of new theories and a rejection
of the old. If we are constantly claiming to be reinterpreting the fundamental
nature of policymaking, how can we communicate our findings to each other?
Instead, we can pursue a common
language by focusing on what Peter John describes as the five ‘core causal
processes’ in public policy. We may say that policymakers operate within the
following context:
1.
Institutional – they are influenced by the
(written and unwritten; formal/ statutory and informal) rules and norms within
systems and organisations.
2.
Agenda-setting – policymakers are ‘boundedly
rational’, prompting them to (a) pay more attention to some issues and
solutions at the expense of most others; (b) understand issues in a biased way.
So, the way in which they act follows from the way in which they understand,
interpret, define or frame their problems and actions.
3.
Networks/ Subsystem – policy is devolved from
elected policymakers to bureaucrats who consult with groups to gather
information and advice. This low level of government may be where most policy
work is processed. Some groups are more powerful than others; they are
considered more worthy of attention than others. Relationships develop between
some groups and civil servants and these networks often represent the main arena
in which information is exchanged, then given to elected policymakers (or,
choices are made on their behalf by civil servants operating in these networks).
4.
Socio-economic – for example, some problems may
appear more pressing than others, and some solutions may be more or less
attractive, because they are linked closely to the economic environment. Or,
demographic change presents new problems. Or, a policymaker’s understanding of
social attitudes may underpin their policy strategy. In each case, policymakers
interpret a range of policy conditions, or operate in policy environments, that
appear to present obstacles to, or opportunities for, action.
5.
The role of ideas – policymaking is underpinned
by the beliefs present within political systems, such as the world views of
policymakers or the actors most influential in that system. We talk of ‘core
beliefs’, ‘paradigms’ and ‘policy monopolies’ to describe the fundamental importance
of a common understanding of the world that may be so dominant that it is taken
for granted. We also talk about ideas as new ways of thinking about problems,
and solutions, which challenge such fundamental beliefs (often following a
period of ‘learning’ from the past, other issues or other political systems)..
We may have different interpretations
of these concepts and they all overlap (the links between 2 and 5 may seem most
obvious; we may also say that institutions are shared beliefs; that close
networks are based on common understandings; that people interpret
socioeconomic conditions and new ideas; and so on). Of course they do – these
are analytical simplifications not present in the ‘real world’. Further, we may
say that some issues transcend these factors – such as the role of gender
inequalities which may be present in institutions, shape the way that people
understand problems, influence the consultation process, and underpin belief
systems.
However, at least they give us
the chance for a common starting point for discussion and explanation. We might
even say that our reference to these factors represents the product of our
accumulation of knowledge in the field (or not).
4. What is a satisfactory
explanation? Can we ever agree?
In a broader sense, we are talking
about our ability to agree about what constitutes a satisfactory explanation. In
my opinion, a convincing explanation comes from a detailed account of
policymaking (stability and instability; policy continuity and change) with reference
to all five of these causal factors. We discuss their individual importance –
as an analytical device to aid the simplification of complex issues – and
discuss the extent which outcomes are caused by the interplay between all five.
So, for example, institutions alone do not explain behaviour (unless we use a
ridiculously broad definition of an institution) and neither does the
socioeconomic context (however pressing), the ideational context, or the strong
relationships between some groups and government - but a combination of such
factors may help explain why policymakers act in certain ways (and perhaps why
their actions are more or less acceptable or successful).
The alternative is to specialise;
to focus on certain aspects of this process to gain a better understanding of
them. This is good too, but not if it comes at the expense of the bigger
picture (or, if we simply try to quantify the relative effect of one factor in
a naïve way – which, in many cases, misses the point of complex explanation). It
would be good for presenters on particular topics to reflect, however briefly,
on how these topics relate to the concerns of others – to recognise that they
know a lot about the foot but that the heart might be important too.
5. Are we really talking to each
other? How do we exchange information in a meaningful way?
I attended every possible session
in the ICPP and so I received a concentrated dose of the tendency of presenters
to give out information in an unsatisfactory way. My pet peeve is slides of
very small numbers which are presented for a few seconds without explanation;
without the presenter taking the time to give them meaning. For me, this tops
the presenter-reads-every-word-on-the-powerpoint approach (because at least, in
that case, you can close your eyes to listen). This is not good.
It is perhaps a symptom if the
wider tendency to cram a ridiculous amount of presentations into short slots –
either the 4 papers/ 2 discussant approach (90 minutes) of APSA or the 5 papers
(2 hours) at the ICPP. Who can possibly sit through all of those presentations
without daydreaming or nodding off? It
is also a symptom of the lack of awareness of the needs of an audience. If we
are there to talk to each other (and not simply represent an awake audience), we
need the time to discuss papers rather than just listen to them. Only then will
we know if the information we present is useful, or if the round of applause is
really just a symbol of audience relief.
6. Last but not least – too many
men.
