Forthcoming:
Shortall, S. (2013) Sociologia Ruralis Vol 52 No. 3 2013
Using evidence in policy: The importance of mediating beliefs and
practices
Abstract
This article argues that to understand the use of evidence in policy, we need to
examine how meanings and practices in the civil service shape what is accepted as
knowledge, and how differences between the beliefs and values of the academy and
the polity can impede the flow and transfer of knowledge. It considers the importance
of social context and shared meanings in legitimating knowledge. Who counts as
legitimate knowledge providers has expanded and here the role of stakeholder groups
and experiential knowledge is of particular interest. How hierarchy, anonymity, and
generalist knowledge within the civil service mediate the use of evidence in policy is
examined. The difference in values and ideology of the civil service and the academy
has implications for how academic research is interpreted and used to formulate policy
and for its position in knowledge power struggles. There are particular issues about
the social science nature of evidence to inform rural policy being mediated in a
government department more used to dealing with natural science knowledge. This
article is based on participant observation carried out in a UK Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development.
Introduction
‘A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by
the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and
who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the
illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have
asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was
asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a
work of Shakespeare’s?’
1
C.P. Snow (1959)
The study of the civil service and its role in creating social order is a well-established
research topic for social scientists. It is central to political studies, social policy, the
study of public administration, the study of bureaucracy (Weber, 1947), and power
struggles between technocracy and ideology (Habermas, 1970). This research has
largely focused on hierarchy, bureaucracy, how public policy is formulated and
relationships between civil servants and politicians. With the recent emphasis on
evidence-based policy, and the need for academics to demonstrate the use value of
their research, there is now a research imperative to reflect on how the beliefs, values
and ideology of the civil service mediate what is constructed as knowledge to inform
policy.
Academics are increasingly funded by research bodies to work in government, the
private sector and the third sector to provide evidence to inform particular policy
questions and problems. As a result of this an increasingly sophisticated academic
body of knowledge has developed reflecting on the complexities of evidence-based
policy. This has developed from the various ways academics are now engaged in the
policy process, for example; as policy advisers (Stevens 2011; 2007; Wilkinson, 2011;
2010), through systemic reviews of policy documents (Monaghan 2009; 2010),
through reviews of Independent Commissions (McLaughlin and Neal, 2007), and by
comparative analysis of the ways evidence and policy interact across Nation States
(Denzin, 2009; Denzin and Giardina, 2008). While evidence-based policy sounds
intuitively to be a good thing (Hammersley, 2005), this recent body of knowledge
demonstrates the difficulties and complexities of the idea. Surprisingly, these recent
debates make little direct reference to the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK),
despite the fact that this body of research directly questions the social construction of
knowledge, the importance of context, and the mediating role of values, beliefs and
ideology (Collins, 1983; Yearley 2009).
The ESRC in particular has recently funded a number of Knowledge Transfer
Research Fellowships, placing academics in the civil service, industry and the third
sector, to foster the transfer of academic knowledge into these environments. This has
contributed to the nuanced understanding of how evidence is used in policy detailed
above. As a result of this some very rich ethnographic studies of the behaviour of civil
2
servants in particular contexts, how practice of policy formation differs from the
rhetoric, and how hierarchies are established through practices and behaviours have
emerged (Stevens, 2011; Wilkinson, 2010; 2011). While related to but not part of the
more recent tradition, the work of Rhodes (2011) and Bevir and Rhodes (2003) has
followed an ethnographic approach which they term ‘interpretivism’. Rhodes (2011)
specifically makes an argument for the importance of observation as an important tool
for social science research (p.6). To date, the study of the different meanings, values
and beliefs of the civil service and the academy in how social knowledge is constructed
has not been considered. This is the subject of this article.
The article focuses on rural policy. There is some confusion across the UK government
about what rural policy is, and this was also the case in the Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development in Northern Ireland (DARD). Often it is unclear whether rural
policy applies to all rural areas, or is targeted at disadvantaged rural areas. Nor is it
clear whether the policy goal is to embed rural into all policies, or to develop specific
rural policies. Part of the difficulty arises because a government department is given
responsibility for an area where it does not have the policy instruments to deliver the
relevant policies (for example, rural schools, rural roads, rural employment). Academic
research has also debated what rural policy might be (see for example, Gray, 2000;
Marsden, 1998; Shucksmith, 2010). A House of Commons Report (2008) chastised
the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for a lack of clarity
on whether its focus was rural or disadvantage in rural areas; a lack of a clear rationale
for why its focus is rural; ‘woolly’ objectives for what it was trying to achieve in rural
areas; a rural proofing process that was not rigorous or systematic or clearly identified
policies that should be rural proofed; and that failed, through its blanket rural approach,
to acknowledge the diversity between and within rural areas.
An added difficulty is the different nature of the ‘Two Cultures’ which C.P. Snow
described in his Rede lecture and later published as a book (1959). While Snow was
more concerned that the humanities have been over-rewarded at the expense of the
natural sciences, my experience is that social science to inform rural policy is often
seen as woolly, interpretative and always open to debate. Rural policy tends to be
housed in departments of agriculture and here there is less of a tradition of dealing
with social scientific knowledge to inform policy, and more of a tradition of dealing with
3
the natural sciences. This has implications for the legitimacy assigned to different
social science knowledge providers, and how to integrate knowledge into policy.
This article begins with an overview of the recent literature on the use of evidence in
policy, and some of the key elements of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge i that
explore how the construction of knowledge is related to the social circumstances of its
production. Next an overview of the UK civil service is presented, paying particular
attention to the peculiarities of the Northern Ireland civil service, where this case study
takes place. Next the methodology, participant observation, is reflected on. The case
study and findings are presented. Rural policy continues to create some confusion in
a government department that is more used to dealing with primary industries and the
natural sciences. The rural policy making context is confused and how to use evidence
within the rural policy sphere is unclear to civil servants. It is concluded that we need
further reflection on how the different meanings, values and beliefs of the civil service
and the academy shape how they interact with each other and determine how social
knowledge is constructed in a policy process.
Evidence and knowledge: an overview of the literature
There is nothing new about the idea that policy and practice should be informed by
the best available evidence. Nonetheless, the current high profile emphasis on using
evidence-based policies in the UK can initially be traced back to outside the academy
in the first instance to the Blair administrations of 1997 and 2001. Reforming and
modernising the machinery of government was a central part of their agenda and this
emphasised a commitment to evidence-based policy (Davies, 2004; Nutley et al,
2002). The Modernising Government White Paper (Cabinet Office, 1999) stated that
government policy must be evidence-based, properly evaluated and based on best
practice. The academy subsequently embraced the idea, with the ESRC establishing
the Evidence Based Policy Unit, and Burawoy’s (2004) call for a public sociology which
has generated enormous sociological debate. However, early research on evidencebased policy found the concept to be deeply problematic and to display a lack of
understanding of how the policy making process occurs (Nutley, 2003; Nutley et al,
2003; Pawson, 2006). The literature on evidence and policy is enormous, with a
4
specifically dedicated journal to the topic. Only a number of aspects of this literature
are highlighted here (for a more thorough review, see Author, 2012).
Much research has highlighted that there is not the logical process of absorption of
evidence into policy that textbook analyses suggest (Monaghan, 2009; Wilkinson et
al, 2010). Evidence is used selectively, to support a preferred argument (Tittle, 2004;
Stevens, 2011). The policy context can impact on how evidence is judged or absorbed;
in ‘adversarial’ policy areas such as drug policy, the tensions between normative
beliefs and evidence are magnified (Monaghan, 2010), or in times of crises, such as
disease outbreak, scientific evidence is valued differently and more rapidly absorbed
(Wilkinson, 2011). The power struggle between normative and empirical knowledge
has also been explored, and how each establishes the legitimacy of their truth claims
(Shortall, 2012). Research has considered whether it is the power of the idea (Stevens,
2007) or the power of the supporter (McLaughlin and Neal, 2007) that matters. There
can be little doubt that what matters is who has the power to decide what counts as
evidence.
The idea of who counts as legitimate knowledge providers has expanded enormously.
Savage and Burrows (2007) speak of the coming crisis for empirical sociology brought
on by the huge number of providers of sophisticated quantitative evidence that now
reside outside of the academy. Similarly qualitative sociology no longer provides the
only source of case study material or in-depth interviews. These are techniques also
used by journalists, lobby groups and stakeholder groups and the legitimacy of
‘experiential’ evidence has developed since the public disputes between conflicting
forms of scientific evidence (Collins and Evans, 2003). Science is disputed, most
noticeably around global warming and genetically modified foods. Generating more
evidence around these questions does not lead to a conclusive decision; it generates
more debate (Oreszczyn, 2008). Including stakeholder experience in these instances,
broadens the sources of knowledge and evidence relating to such policy questions,
and gives greater legitimacy to policy and political decisions (Porter and Shortall, 2009;
Shortall, 2012).
While many of the tenets of SSK are evident in the evidence and policy literature, they
are not as overtly or as sociologically discussed as they might be. SSK shows the link
between the social and what we accept as knowledge. What we ‘know’ we do so within
5
an existing body of knowledge given to us by our society, and our organisations. Ideas
are generated within our social structures and come from our collective habits (Mills,
1939; Shapin, 1995). What is viewed as knowledge depends on trust, judgement and
our values (Yearley, 2009). As Shapin puts it ‘knowledge that corresponds, or coheres
...is deemed the right stuff’ (1999, p. 1).
Beliefs come from our backgrounds, but not only our social backgrounds; what we
accept as knowledge depends too on the profession in which we were socialised
(Bevir and Rhodes, 2005; Shapin, 2012). Sociologists try to establish the origins of
beliefs and how knowledge is accepted, and part of this will involve examining the
background and professional socialisation of people offering types of knowledge.
Comparative research also sheds light on this question of professional socialisation
(Shortall and Warner, 2012). What is accepted as truth depends on conventional rules.
To paraphrase Mills (1939; p. 674) to say something is illogical is similar to saying
something is immoral; they are both deviations from the norm.
Until the late 1980s, Northern Ireland, like many parts of Europe did not have a specific
rural policy. In 1988, the European Commission published a document titled Future of
Rural Society. This document heralded a significant policy shift to begin reforming the
Common Agricultural Policy and alter the sectoral policy of only funding agriculture to
instead also funding area-based rural development. Governance was devolved, and
the Department of Agriculture was given responsibility for the rural development
programme. This government department was not ‘socialised’ for this new
responsibility. There were no conventional rules to help civil servants establish the
truth about the direction of rural policy.
Reason and experience are vital parts of the story of knowledge (Bloor, 1998). It is
argued that the making of knowledge is a mundane affair, established in face to face
interactions, the acceptance of truths, and in the familiar (Shapin, 2009; Mills, 1939;
Rhodes, 2011). Knowledge is constructed and accepted within a given social
structure. This article will shortly turn to the use of participant observation to examine
the way in which meanings and practices in the civil service shape what is accepted
as knowledge, and how differences in beliefs and values of the academy and the polity
can impede the flow and transfer of knowledge. But first, the social structure of the UK
civil service is considered.
6
The UK civil service
Bureaucracies are historically constituted and differ from place to place (Dahlstrom et
al, 2010; Barzelay and Gallego 2010; Painter and Peters 2010). The model of the UK
or Whitehall civil service is also predominantly the model of most British ex-colonies
(Hardiman, 2010). For almost two hundred years, the need for an English civil service
that is efficient, permanent, and apolitical has been accepted (Vandenabeele et al,
2006). It provides stability to parliamentary governments that change. While
governments with different ideologies and values come and go, the civil service
remains intact, and ideally impartial. It is a permanent bureaucracy separate to
government that provides the main policy advice to government members and it is
responsible for implementing policy (Vanderabeele et al, 2006).
The UK civil service is quintessentially Weberian (Chapman and O’Toole, 2009). Many
of the founding principles remain. It is very rule-based and very hierarchical in structure
(Wilkinson, 2011). The civil service is a ‘command and control’ hierarchy, where those
in authority control the work load of junior colleagues (Bordua and Reiss, 1966; Behn,
1995). Authority is ritually reinforced through formal and informal practices (Wilkinson,
2011; Rhodes, 2011). Those in authority appraise junior staff. Officials are esteemed
because of the hierarchy, authority and power of their office (Weber, 1947). They
pursue careers that bring them higher up in the hierarchy of their bureaucracies.
Throughout this article, I refer to the ‘ethos’, ‘structure’ and ‘culture’ of the civil service.
When I do so, I draw on Weber (1979) and Bourdieu (1990). While Weber did not
specifically refer to ethos, he described values peculiar to a specific people, culture or
movement, and a collective self-representation that is characteristic of a group of
people. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus refers to the values and ways of interaction of
particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of
everyday life. Habitus is dependent on history and human memory. The civil service
imbues civil servants with a particular way of knowing and self-representation. This is
acquired through every day practices as will be described later in the article.
Some government departments have civil servants who are technical advisers,
scientists, specialists or ‘experts’. Policy making civil servants on the other hand are
not specialists, rather their expertise is competency based and they are experts on the
workings of the civil service. Wilkinson (2010) notes that the hierarchy between
7
experts and policy makers is clearly defined and rigidly maintained; policy has higher
status (p. 1). In the Northern Ireland Civil Service, technical experts can only advance
up the hierarchy so far, and to progress beyond that point, they must become
generalist policy makers. As Stevens (2011) notes, civil servants move between policy
areas in which they not specialists. Developing competencies was a key element of
New Public Management Reforms (Horton, 2010) and civil servants are promoted to
and make sideways moves to different policy areas. Sideways moves are often
undertaken to develop the generic competences needed to progress to the next grade
in the civil service. They are promoted on the basis of their competence in
understanding how the civil service functions and their competence to solve problems
within it and design policy, rather than on the basis of specialist knowledge of a
particular area. Hardiman (2010) has identified the process of sideway promotions as
problematic, arguing that while it was intended to widen the talent pool, it has the
unintended consequence of dissipating the skills base because the specialist policy
understanding built up in one departmental area does not necessarily translate to
another area.
The civil service is organised to protect the civil servant. Initially this was developed to
protect civil servants from political interference or punishment and it is achieved by
protecting their anonymity, having a strong career structure, appointments on merit
and the possession of general competences, and secure career status (Bevir and
Rhodes, 2005; Dahlstrom et al, 2010). Kernaghan (2003) argues cogently that for the
successful operation of the civil service, it is necessary that civil servants are protected
in this way. In order for public servants to speak openly to politicians, their anonymity
must be protected. Because they execute policy decisions loyally regardless of their
personal opinions or whether they agree with the philosophy of the government in
power, they enjoy security of tenure (Kernaghan, 2003, p.11).
Trustworthiness and integrity are values understood to underpin the civil service
(Chapman and O’Toole, 2009).Public servants do not express publicly their personal
views on government policies or administration. Central to their job is to minimise
uncertainty (Stevens, 2011; Monaghan, 2009). Civil servants must assess policy
contexts, try to ensure stability, and aim to develop and execute policies that are
favourable with the public and key interest groups (Hall, 2009; Stevens, 2011). What
are favourable policies become embedded and reinforced over the history of the
8
institution. This is not to overstress a structural interpretation, but rather to argue that
current subjective meanings and interpretations of public policy are shaped by
historical normative understandings and well-established alliances and networks with
groups who share these normative assumptions (Shortall, 2012). Wilkinson et al
(2010) argue that policy framing is heavily influenced by existing alliances, networks
and normative understandings of social issues, and further argue that ‘once policy is
embedded, it can be shored up by specific forms of expertise’ (p. 345). Again, this is
not to present a static view of the policy environment. Change does occur, and this
can be both dramatic and incremental. However, change will be shaped by the legacy
of previous policy choices and normative assumptions. With devolution within the UK,
Rhodes (1997) noted that the UK has metamorphosed into a different polity. It is to the
particular case of Northern Ireland that we now turn.
The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS)
The social context: Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Civil Service
The Labour Government’s Modernising Government Report (1999), not only
established the need for an evidence base to inform policy, it also called for increased
innovation and leadership in the civil service, and a move away from the risk-averse
culture inherent in government (Chapman and O’Toole, 2009). While The Labour
Government was speaking more immediately about the British Civil Service, these
issues were even more pronounced in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). The
structure of the civil service is tied up with the sectarian and political legacy of Northern
Ireland. Ministries must be divided between all the political parties, so there is no
collective cabinet, but rather a collection of ‘fiefdoms’ (Carmichael and Osborne, 2003).
For many years the NICS ‘washed their hands’ of responsibility for policy formation, and
instead argued they simply implemented Westminster and European policies
(McLaughlin and Quirk, 1996). Similarly policy guides developed post devolution spoke
of the need for the civil service to develop policy specifically for the region rather than
primarily adapting policies developed in Whitehall, as was often the approach under
direct rule (OFMDFM, 2003; p. 2).
The lack of policy capacity, policy skills and policy capability of senior civil servants
received much comment after devolution (Carmichael, 2002; Greer, 2004; Birrell, 2009).
It is argued that Northern Ireland has managed to evade the wider UK attempts to
9
improve governance and modernise (Knox, 2009). The Northern Ireland civil service
has always been separate. Unlike the rest of the UK, throughout Direct Rule there were
no scrutiny committees for Northern Ireland government departments (Carmichael and
Osborne, 2003). While civil service commissioners dealt directly with Scottish and
Welsh ministers on senior appointments, this was not the case for Northern Ireland
(Parry, 2008). While devolved government should make civil servants more
accountable, the rocky nature of the stability of the devolved administration has meant
this has been slow to bed down (Knox and Carmichael, 2008). During Direct Rule,
British Ministers took a hands-off approach, and this allowed senior civil servants to
have a strong and largely unaccountable role (Carmichael and Osborne, 2003). Since
devolution there is sometimes a relationship of mistrust between Ministers and senior
civil servants, leading to appointment of special advisers who may not have any
expertise beyond being a member of the same political party as the Minister. The
political context is one where there is still a certain nervousness and reluctance to
assume responsibility for designing and executing policy. There is little tradition of
engaging with expertise beyond the civil service. While attempts were made to engage
researchers in providing background papers for the review of public administration,
Knox (2008) has written a scathing article about the process which includes the phrase
‘ignoring the evidence’ in its title.
The social context: Participatory democracy and the civil service
The other issue of note about the political context of Northern Ireland is that it has led to
a very vibrant community and voluntary sector. The UK has supported many NGOs and
the sector provides considerable employment in the region. During the thirty years of
Direct Rule, the voluntary and community sector participated in the governance of the
region to a degree that is unusual, if not unknown, elsewhere (McCall and Williamson,
2001; p. 364).Very close relationships between the sector and senior civil servants
developed, particularly since the early 1990s (McCall and Williamson, 2001).
Consultation with stakeholder groups is deeply embedded in the political culture as it
was seen as a way around the democratic deficit in the region (Hasenfeld and Gidron,
2005; Knox, 1996). More recently, the development of Northern Ireland’s equality
mainstreaming approach requires by statute, consultation with stakeholder and civic
groups in the policy development process. The practical implications of this are that
designated public authorities are required to establish relationships with civic actors
10
and groups, who are then treated as equality ‘experts’ to be consulted on policy
developments (Donaghy, 2004). This means that in Northern Ireland there is a formal
and interactive relationship between civic society and government. The political context
is favourable to stakeholder engagement in policy formation, and experiential expertise
of the impact of policy is seen as a key form of evidence informing the development of
policy (Shortall, 2012).
The case study; rural policy in Northern Ireland
In the late 1980s the European Commission undertook a major rethink of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) which was to have policy implications for all Member States.
More important was the reform of the Structural Funds in 1988, which followed from
the Southern Enlargement. It was through the reform of the structural funds that
LEADER and the Structural Fund Objectives 1 and 5b came, and LEADER and the
regional programmes were the means by which the wider rural population was to be
addressed. The idea was to develop a more general Rural Development Programme
for the benefit of rural areas beyond agriculture. The European Commission was also
keen that partners would be ‘bought in’ – that is that Member States and regional areas
would be co-financing partners. This was significant because it led to devolved
governance of policy, and in Northern Ireland it meant the Rural Development
Programme (RDP) would be devolved to the region rather than managed from
Westminster. This also meant that a policy apparatus had to exist to manage the new
RDP. It was decided in 1991 that the Department of Agriculture would assume
responsibility for rural development. In 1999 it was renamed the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and has now assumed responsibility for
rural policy more generally.
There was, and continues to be, some confusion within the Department about what
rural development means. It seemed a very nebulous policy concept to a department
used to dealing with the science of primary industries such as fisheries, agriculture and
forestry. One colleague I spoke to said that they were not really a Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development, but just the Department of Agriculture that was
given responsibility for rural development but was not too sure what to do with it. Until
2006, the policy and delivery of the Rural Development Programme rested in one
11
Division. In 2006, policy and delivery were separated, and a Rural Policy Division was
established.
The newly formed Rural Policy Divisionii in 2006 designed a rural policy programme of
work that went beyond the Rural Development Programme. While it did also provide
policy for the RDP, this was seen as quite separate to rural policy more generally. Rural
policy is a messy concept that is contested and vague. It is generally understood to
mean the economic and social sustainability of rural areas, but exactly how that is to be
achieved is never clear (House of Commons Report, 2008). There are also difficulties
with giving one department responsibility for a policy area for which it does not have
the policy instruments to deliver relevant policies (for example, DARD is not responsible
for rural schools, or rural health care, or rural roads). Similar to Wilkinson et al’s (2010)
comments about the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and the outbreak
of Foot and Mouth Disease, the Division had no precedents. There were no previous
rural policy units to learn from, no parallel procedures or rules to guide activities.
Nonetheless, the credibility of the Rural Policy Division demanded that rural policy be
designed and implemented.
This research is based on one year spent as an ESRC Knowledge Transfer Fellow in
the Rural Policy Division of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
(DARD) in Northern Ireland. There were three tasks to the Fellowship; to examine the
existing rural evidence base of economic and social studies used to underpin rural
policymaking in Northern Ireland and identify evidence/ research gaps; to identify the
priority themes and indicators for future research to address these gaps in the
evidence base; and to develop models for the most efficient and effective methods of
collecting, using and disseminating rural evidence and research. The Rural Policy
Division consisted of ten people, with a range of civil service grades from
Administrative Officer to Grade 5. They were all generalist policy makers, and unlike
Wilkinson’s study (2010), and unlike other parts of the Department, there was no
history of engagement with expert or scientific advisers. Rural policy was sometimes
referred to as more ‘folksy’ with an implication that it was less about science and more
about advocating policies popular with rural communities.
Given the limited engagement between the Northern Ireland civil service and
academics, it was a significant step for the Division to consider how to use evidence
12
to inform their policies. Ostensibly, it was a straight-forward transaction of knowledge
provision to develop evidence-based policy. This was how I approached the task.
However as time went on, I became interested in the power struggles between
different forms of knowledge, how they assert their legitimacy and which types of
knowledge get used in designing and reifying policy (Shortall, 2012). I also became
interested in the differences between the beliefs and practices of the civil service and
the university.
Participant Observation
For eight consecutive monthsiii I was based in the civil service. During this time I had
office space in the Rural Policy Division. Having been trained as a qualitative
researcher, I recognised that this placement afforded me an unusual opportunity to
conduct participant observation. Generally it is too expensive and time consuming for
academics to be placed in an environment to conduct lengthy participant observation
(Gans, 1999). The fellowship provided a unique opportunity for participant observation
as I was working with colleagues in their work place on a daily basis (Atkinson and
Hammersley, 1994), and I could observe how people behaved in their ordinary
environment (Becker, 1958). My ‘dilemma’ was that I could not see how conducting
participant research, and observing what people do as opposed to what they say they
do, would inform my research question. Nonetheless, I decided to conduct participant
observation, and to record my observations about civil service culture. Ironically, this
represents what Becker (1958) considered to be the highest form of participant
observation; where evidence is gathered in an ‘unthinking’ fashion, when the observer
records items that are not related to what they are working on, for there is less chance
of bias if the observations are not linked to any wish to substantiate a particular idea
(Becker, 1958; p. 659). Participant observation was not undertaken to ‘prove’ a
hypothesis. Indeed I did not enter the civil service with a hypothesis, but rather to
provide evidence. As Gans (1999) rightly notes, any instance of participant
observation expresses different combinations of participation and observation. Both a
combination of participant observation and observation were undertaken; participant
observation at events in which I actively participated, and observation at events
attended. I had an outsider status, not being a civil servant and being there for a
particular period of time. Nor had I a clear position in the civil service hierarchy, I was
not ‘line managed’ by anyone; rather I had autonomy to address the three tasks of the
13
Fellowship as I wished. I discussed and asked for clarification of my observations with
colleagues. They were interested to discuss the nature of civil service culture and also
how it differed from academic culture. They explained the nature of hierarchy and
protocol, and there was a strong awareness of these aspects of the civil service.
Mostly I was interested in the verbal and physical expressions of status and hierarchy
of roles. This became apparent on my first day when I was having my photograph
taken for my identity badge which was necessary to enter and move around the
building. Each badge states the grade of the civil servant. Not being able to state my
status on my identity badge caused considerable discussion and debate. It was only
after some weeks that I realised the social status attached to grade and how it shaped
social interaction. Knowledge and understanding was attached to the grade and the
role, not to the individual. Nor did I fully appreciate the control and command ethos of
the civil service at that time. Etiquette suggested that I should speak to somebody’s
superior before speaking to them.
Although all of the people in the Rural Policy Unit spoke about struggling with what
rural policy meant, and how it related to wider government policy, they had an air of
being busy and efficient. Any request for information from the public was responded
to at length. My requests for information were dealt with very promptly. There was a
resort to paperwork as the symbol of being busy, or being a bureaucrat (Wilkinson,
2010). There was over-attendance at public consultations,
conferences and
stakeholder events.
Bureaucratic rituals are used to reinforce hierarchy (Rhodes, 2005; Wilkinson, 2010),
and this was evident in the Division. Most colleagues shared offices, except Grade
Sevens and above, who had their own office. Initially I shared offices, and I was
basically moved to whatever space was available. Some of my colleagues were
embarrassed about this. It became clear over my time there that while I did not have
a position in the civil service hierarchy, the team viewed my academic credentials as
giving me status, and this was why they were embarrassed by the moves. I eventually
ended up in the Grade Seven office as the Grade Seven was promoted to a Grade
Five and a larger office on a different floor. I had my own office for seven months of
my time there. The symbolic reinforcement of hierarchy was visible in the furniture in
this office; Grade Seven civil servants are entitled to more expensive office equipment
14
and a different type of office chair. Informally at Christmas, the hierarchy was also
reinforced through gift giving. Senior staff give gifts to those people in their team who
work for them. One of the civil servants explained this ritual to me and how it is not a
reciprocal process; people do not buy their line manager a gift. At weekly meetings
and in general interaction, the hierarchy of status positions were constantly reinforced.
Authority was not challenged. Authority over junior colleagues was publicly displayed
with public requests for tasks to be completed, requests for reports, and the return of
reports with requests for corrections.
For the most part I understood my observations to be detailing classic characteristics
of a Weberian bureaucracy. I observed the myriad ways in which the authority
structure of the civil service was reinforced. Offices were very hierarchically organised
and supervised. Skill and knowledge were attached to the grade of the individual rather
than the individual. As I tried to hunt down people who had worked on rural policy
initiatives I had some involvement with ten years previously, I realised that people had
been promoted out of the department or to completely different areas in the
department. This was evidence of promotion on generalist knowledge rather than a
specialism. It also highlighted an institutional loss of memory; while there are records
of previous policies there is no accumulated learning for the individuals involved of
what worked well the last time round or the obstacles encountered.
I did not initially believe my observations related to my evidence-based policy position.
However as I re-read through my notes, and observed interaction with other evidence
providers, it became clearer that the ethos and structure of the civil service shapes
how knowledge is constructed. Differences between the organisational cultures of the
civil service and the academy can cause tensions in interactions and this shapes ways
of knowing. The article now turns to provide a critical sociological reflection on the
relationship between the organisational cultures of stakeholders, the academy and
government, and how it impacts on the use of evidence in policy.
Rural poverty as a policy priority: how knowledge is constructed
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has had responsibility
for the EU Rural Development Programme since its inception in the early 1990s.
Following a review of rural policy, the Department decided to adopt a broader
approach to rural policy across government. The Rural Policy Branch was established
15
in 2006 and it became the Rural Policy Division (RPD) in 2009. The Division has
responsibility for developing policies which contribute to the Department’s strategic
goal of strengthening the social and economic infrastructure of rural areas, through
developing policies to guide the Rural Development Programme and ensuring policies
on rural issues are an integral and important part of the Executive Government’s
policies and programmes. This represents a significant shift in the Department’s role
in rural development. While previously it had been confined to the Rural Development
Programme, it has now assumed responsibility for rural policies, even though the
Department does not hold responsibility for the policy instruments to implement rural
policy. This raises difficult questions about its ability to implement rural change and
the strategies available to follow this course of action. Nonetheless, civil servants must
design and implement policies. The specific policies that it has developed continue to
be imbued with a presumption of rural poverty and disadvantage, and very close
consultation with their two key stakeholder groups, both of whom are lobby groups for
rural poverty and disadvantage.
The Rural Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Programme is one of the Division’s key
policy developments. It developed a range of policies to target initiatives to address
poverty in rural areas. This Programme runs alongside an anti-poverty programme for
the region, which also addresses poverty in rural areas and which the Division rural
proofs. A recent report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation cites DARD’s Rural AntiPoverty and Social Inclusion Programme, running alongside the regional programme
as a clear example of a fractured process of policy delivery (Adamson, 2010). When I
examined available sources of evidence (statistics, public attitude surveys, other
departmental policies) (see Shortall, 2010), I could find little justification for the additional
emphasis on rural poverty and social exclusion beyond the regional programme. There
is considerable affluence in rural areas, people who are happiest with where they live
are those in rural areas, and population projections for the region show that populations
in accessible and non-accessible rural areas will increase because of in-migration
(Shortall, 2010). In other words, the evidence suggests people choose to live in rural
areas. While this is not to say that there is no poverty in rural areas, there is no evidence
to suggest that all rural areas are poor. There is little justification for a specific tailored
rural policy. The evidence base the Policy Division used was their stakeholder groups.
16
Unlike other Divisions, there was no clear group of experts or scientists to whom the
Policy Division could turn to for advice on rural policy priorities. One of the strategies the
Rural Policy Division used to come around this problem was to rely heavily on
consultation with their two key stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are funded
by the Department to address poverty and disadvantage in rural areas, and therefore
there is an incentive on their part to highlight poverty. This is a key feature of the political
culture of Northern Ireland. Consultation with stakeholder groups is viewed as good
practice and stakeholders are seen as legitimate voices to comment on and contribute
to the formation of policy.
Over the past number of years, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) has
shown that science is as much a socio-cultural activity as a technical enterprise. The
idea of the neutral, disinterested and objective expert has been dispelled through an
impressive array of empirical studies of scientific controversies that illustrate the way
in which scientific knowledge is not only based on objective rules of experimental
procedure, but also the interpretations, actions and practices of scientists (Martins and
Richards, 1995). Values are deeply embedded in the practices of sciences that
address complex, real world problems, and this has implications for how the scientific
ideal of objectivity is construed (Alroe and Noe, 2010). While these arguments abound
in the academic literature, it remains the case that the ‘idea of science’ confers
authority (Shapin, 2007). This is particularly the case in DARD, a government
department used to dealing with natural scientists providing evidence to inform
fisheries, agriculture and other policies. With rural policy the legitimacy of the source
of knowledge becomes more difficult to establish. Who are the right evidence providers
to inform policies to ensure the sustainability of rural society? The Policy Division
provide legitimacy for their poverty policies by presenting their stakeholder groups as
‘experts’. The two stakeholder groups exert the legitimacy of their evidence by claiming
that they represent ‘the common good’, and they represent people living in rural areas
who are ‘rural experts’ (Shortall, 2012).
Through observing the relationship between the Rural Policy Division and the
stakeholder groups, it is possible to shed light on how social interaction and social
context shape the construction of knowledge, reinforcing rural poverty as a policy
priority for the region. Rhodes (1997) notes that government reforms are shaped by
cultural traditions. In Northern Ireland, engaging with stakeholder groups is well
17
established, and support from stakeholders is actively sought by civil servants. The
Rural Policy Division and the stakeholder groups have a close-knit relationship and
share understandings of the need for poverty to be a policy priority.
At meetings with other Divisions within the Department, the scientific and expert advice
that had been consulted and that underpinned policies and new policy directions was
spelt out. The Rural Policy Division spelt out its close relationship with its two
stakeholder groups. They were presented as providing experiential evidence from the
coal-face of poverty in rural areas. Within the Department, this gave legitimacy and
authority to the policies the Rural Policy Division pursued. Similarly, I attended a
number of community workshops and events organised by the stakeholder groups
looking at isolation and poverty in rural areas. There was always a heavy attendance
by staff from the Policy Division. This gave validity and strength to the activities of the
stakeholder groups; the civil servants were sufficiently concerned about the issue to
attend these events in large numbers. The civil servants who attended these meetings
were always presented as being engaged with the ‘real’ issues. The production of
knowledge that supports the idea of rural poverty as a key policy priority gives meaning
to the Rural Policy Division; it justifies their existence. It also provides the rationale for
the stakeholder groups.
Knowledge and status
As part of the Fellowship, I established an advisory group which included a mixture of
grades of civil servants, farming unions, rural stakeholder groups and academics. This
group met six times over the course of the Fellowship. In addition, a ‘think tank’ was
organised which brought together academics who had been involved in providing
evidence to policy makers in a variety of capacities from across the British Isles, to
establish what worked well and what did not work well in terms of effectively advising
government on rural policy. Interestingly, each case reported difficulties in relationships
between civil servants and academics, and in some cases relationships were very
fraught.
At various presentations to these groups, I stated that the Rural Policy Division relied
too heavily on its stakeholder groups for evidence and it needed to broaden its sources
of evidence in order to have better informed policy. Presenting findings in this way is a
standard form of academic presentation. Academics dispute, argue, build upon the
18
works of others, and interpret the world differently (Denzin, 2009). The authority of one’s
argument depends on the robustness of the case presented; theory, methodology and
analysis. However the authority of senior civil servants depends on their grade. Their
authority is not questioned, it is assumed. While I had been asked to examine and
comment on the evidence base used to create rural policy, the process of doing so
publicly contravened the norms of civil service – I questioned authority and judgement.
Public servants do not express publicly their views on government policies or
administration. The authority of academic knowledge comes from making an argument
publicly, either at conferences or through publication, and having peers review and
assess the value of our work. This is very different to the civil service where the authority
of knowledge comes from the position of the civil servant in the hierarchy and that
knowledge is not questioned publicly.
At stakeholder events on the other hand, the knowledge and authority of civil servants
is acknowledged. There is an unequal power relationship; the Department funds the
stakeholder groups. The different status of the groups is visible through dress codes.
Department officials are in suits and formal clothes, while other participants are in casual
clothes. Their views and opinions are invited. This social context is one that allows for
the mutual reinforcement of a way of knowing, and reinforces the accepted hierarchy.
It reaffirms the correctness of established policy priorities, and by doing so it reinforces
civil servant position and authority by suggesting senior civil servants have designed
the best policy for rural areas.
Knowledge, anonymity and accessibility
The Westminster model or tradition of government affords civil servants a level of
anonymity (Bevir and Rhodes, 2005; p. 11). While this has and is changing with
scrutiny committees, it remains accepted practice. Within the civil service, reports and
policy documents do not have an author. It can sometimes take some time to identify
who worked on a policy document, and frequently it is a number of people. On the
other hand, academics own their written work, and careers are established on the
basis of published work. Intellectual property rights prevent any academic passing off
the work of another as their own.
In the past when the Department has used their stakeholder groups to provide
evidence, this can be absorbed anonymously into policy documents. Stakeholder
19
groups do not care about acknowledgement for use of their material. They are trying
to shape policy so if their evidence is used to support and develop the policy position
they want, then they have been successful.
To date, there has been less of an engagement with academic providers of knowledge,
or consideration of how that knowledge could or should be absorbed. When a large
part of my report appeared in a policy document, I asked for a footnote
acknowledgement. I helped negotiate the commissioning of another piece of academic
research during my time, and similarly these academics asked for recognition of the
use of their research in a policy document. In one culture knowledge is property, in the
other, it is produced anonymously
Much has been written about the need to provide evidence or knowledge to civil
servants and user groups that is accessible (Oreszczyn, 2008; Monaghan, 2009;
Young et al, 2002). Academics need to dispel notions of being removed in an ivory
tower. Wilkinson (2011) notes that even scientists within government want to avoid the
stereotype of being too ‘academic’ and not understanding the ‘real world’ in which
policy making civil servants live (p.6). To the Rural Policy Division experiential
evidence was more accessible. Stakeholder groups produce knowledge through ‘case
studies’ or life stories. They recount the life situation through selecting a few rural
people and presenting their ‘story’ of their experience of poverty and the subsequent
difficulties they experience based on their location. This knowledge is easily accessible
to the generalist civil servant; it makes sense, and more importantly, it reaffirms their
policy world view.
Conclusion
The recent drive towards evidence-based policy has much to learn from the Sociology
of Scientific Knowledge. SSK dispelled the myth of the idea of the objective neutral
scientist producing scientific knowledge on the basis of rules of experimental procedure.
Instead SSK highlighted the importance of the interpretations, actions and practices of
scientists (Martins and Richards, 1995). The same focus needs to turn to the
relationship between the providers of evidence and policy maker, and consider how the
production of knowledge to inform policy is mediated by interpretations, actions and
values. The values and beliefs of key players in the Northern Ireland rural policy
infrastructure established in the early 1990s all shared and reinforced a particular
20
understanding of social reality; rural poverty and disadvantage is a policy priority for
the region.
Rural policy is a contested and vague concept and one that a government department
that previously only dealt with primary industries now has to make sense of. The Rural
Policy Division has to design rural policy. The usual scientific knowledge providers
cannot help with the design of rural policy. Legitimacy is derived from engaging with
their stakeholder groups, a process that demonstrates engaged participatory
democracy, and the stakeholders contribute experiential knowledge and legitimate a
moral cause for the Department. There is considerable moral weight attached to
policies that address poverty (Cao et al, 2009). It gives meaning to the Rural Policy
Division. It is also gives meaning to their two key stakeholder groups.
The civil service and government more generally are keen to advance evidence-based
policy. Both the academy and policy are keen to engage with each other. However,
participant observation allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the values,
practices and beliefs of the civil service and how they differ from those of the academy.
Through an examination of everyday practices it is possible to observe how knowledge
is created and accepted.
While the civil servant is esteemed for generalist knowledge, the academic’s authority
comes from specialist knowledge. The source of the civil servant’s status is their office,
and position in the hierarchy. There is a tendency for knowledge to be produced which
reinforces this status. Knowledge is produced in a particular way mediated by status
and authority. Knowledge critical of current policy also criticises the senior civil
servants responsible for this policy area. Evidence, such as that provided by
stakeholder groups, which reinforces the validity of policy choices will be more
attractive than knowledge that questions the legitimacy of existing policy.
Academics present their research publicly and invite debate and comment. Other
academics will argue with research findings and use and build upon research.
Academics will find it difficult to have work published that is not original and
contributing to our existing body of knowledge. On the other hand, one of the key tasks
of the civil servant is to ensure social stability and minimise uncertainty. This demands
a conservative, risk-adverse approach to the absorption of critical perspectives. How
evidence is used to design policy will be shaped by these priorities for the civil service.
21
The importance of social context is apparent. Because of the political legacy of
Northern Ireland, stakeholder groups hold a particular status in the policy making
process. In a different social context, the knowledge produced by stakeholders might
not hold the same amount of sway. With a more confident established Rural Policy
Division, the dynamic and knowledge created and accepted might have been different.
It might also have been different if it had been placed in a less agriculture/ science
orientated government department. In a natural science context, there is less scope
to discuss the social scientific question of what rural policy might be, and there is more
of an urge to demonstrate ‘we know what we are doing’. The central argument is this;
knowledge to inform policy is shaped by social factors and interpersonal relationships
and goals.
This is not to suggest that knowledge does not change. It does, and it can be
incremental or dramatic. But perhaps knowledge more usually changes in the way that
Mills (1939) predicts; not because of the thoughts of a dozen great thinkers, but by the
minute changes effected by hundreds of thinkers (p. 671). What this means for an
academy trying to establish the use-value of its research is unclear.
As sociologists we are well aware that the values and social norms of an organisation
shape how it functions and the type of social relations that develop in that organisation.
A critical reflection of the structure, ethos and beliefs of the civil service demonstrates
how it mediates between evidence provided from different providers, and the social
construction of knowledge to inform policy. The production of knowledge is valueladen.
22
References
Adamson, D. (2010) The Impact of Devolution – Area-based regeneration policies in
the UK and their impact on poverty. Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Alroe, H. And E. Noe (2010) The non-trivial problem of cross-disciplinary science and
the structure of scientific perspectives. Scientific Manuscript. Research Centre
Foulum, Department of Agroecology and Environment, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). "Ethnography and participant observation."
In NK Denzin and YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248261). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Barzelay, Michael and Gallego, Raquel (2010)The comparative historical analysis of
public management policy cycles in France, Italy, and Spain: symposium conclusion
Governance, 23 (2). pp. 297-307. ISSN 0952-1895
Behn, R. (1995) The big questions of public management Public Administration
Review Vol. 55 No. 4 pp. 313-324
Bevir, M., and R.A.W. Rhodes (2005) Interpretation and its others Australian Journal
of Political Science p.1-38
Bevir, M., R.A.W. Rhodes, and P. Weller (2003) Traditions of governance:
interpreting the changing role of the public sector in comparative and historical
perspective Public Administration Vol. 81 pp. 1-17
Birrell, D. (2009) Public sector reform in Northern Ireland and a comparison with
England, Scotland and Wales; Policy Transfer, a distinctive model of public sector
modernisation or different values? Paper presented at Public Administration
Committee (PAC) Conference, University of Glamorgan, September 2009.
Bordua, D., and A. Reiss (1966) Command, Control and Charisma: Reflections on
Police Bureaucracy American Journal of Sociology Vol. 72 No. 1 pp.68-76
Boswell, C. (2004) Knowledge Transfer and Migration Policy Making. Lecture on
Migration. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva
Bloor, D. (1998) Sociology of Knowledge. In Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
Routledge, London and New York
23
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Polity Press, Oxford.
Burawoy, M. (2005) 2004 Presidential Address: For Public Sociology. American
Sociological Review 70 4-28;
Cao, S., Zhong, B., Yue, H.,Zeng, H. and J. Zeng (2009) Development and Testing of
a Sustainable Environmental Restoration Policy on Eradicating the Poverty Trap in
China’s Changting County. PNAS, 106 (26):10712-6.
Carmichael, P. (2002), The Northern Ireland Civil Service: Characteristics and Trends
Since 1970. Public Administration, 80, 1, pp. 23-49.
Carmichael, P. and R. Osborne (2003) The Northern Ireland civil service under direct
rule and devolution. International Review of Administrative Sciences Vol. 69 pp. 205217
Chapman, R. and B. O’Toole (2009) Leadership in the British civil service: an
interpretation. Public Policy and Administration Vol. 24 No. 4 pp. 1-24
Collins, H. (1983) The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary
Science Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 9 pp. 265-285
Collins, H.M. and R. Evans (2003) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of
Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science Vol. 32 No. 2 pp. 235-296
Dahlstrom, C., Lapuente, V., and J. Teorell (2010) Dimensions of Bureaucracy: A
cross-national dataset on the structure and behaviour of public administration. QoG
Working Paper Series 2010: 13 University of Gothenburg.
Davies, P. (2004) Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? Lecture presented at
the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington, D.C. February 19th;
Denzin, N and M. Giardina (2008) Introduction. Pp. 9-52 in Denzin, N and M. Giardina
(Eds.) Qualitative Inquiry and the Politics of Evidence Left Coast Press, California.
Denzin, N. (2009) The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about
the politics of evidence Qualitative Research Vol. 9 No. 2 pp. 139-160
Donaghy, T. (2004) Mainstreaming: Northern Ireland’s participative-democratic
approach. Policy and Politics Vol. 32 No. 1 pp. 49-62
24
Gans, H. (1999) Participant Observation in the era of ‘ethnography’ Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography Vol. 28 No. 5 pp. 540-548
Gray, J. (2000) The Common Agricultural Policy and the Re-inventing of the Rural in
the European Community Sociologia Ruralis Vol. 40 No. 1 pp. 30-52
Greer, S.L. (2004), Territorial Policies and Health Policy (Manchester University Press,
Manchester).
Habermas, Jurgen. 1970. 'Technology and Science as "Ideology"', in Toward a
Rational Society, trans. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, P. A. (2009) Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective.
Pp. 204-225 in Mahoney, J and K. Thelen, Eds. Explaining Institutional Change:
Ambiguity, Agency, Power New York, Cambridge University Press.
Hammersley, M. (2005) Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good
than harm? Reflections on Iain Chalmers’ case for research-based policy making and
practice Evidence & Policy Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 85-100
Hardiman, N. (2010) Institutional design and Irish political reform. Journal of the
Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland Vol. XXXIX pp. 53-69
Hasenfeld, Y. And B. Gidron (2005) Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary
organisations: the contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and nonprofit organisations. Journal of Civil Society Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 97-112
Horton, S. (2010) Competency Management in the British Central Government. Public
Management Institute, University of Leuven.
House of Commons (2008) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The
Potential of England’s Rural Economy. Eleventh Report of Session 2007-2008.
Kernaghan, K. (2003) The future role of a professional, non-partisan public service in
Ontario. Research Paper 13, Political Science and Management, Brock University,
Canada.
Knox, C. (2009) The Politics of Local Government Reform in Northern Ireland. Local
Government Studies Vol. 35 No. 4 pp. 435-455
Knox, C. (2008) Policy making in Northern Ireland: ignoring the evidence Policy &
Politics Vol. 36 No. 3 pp. 343-359
25
Knox, C. and P. Carmichael (2006) Bureau Shuffling? The Review of Public
Administration in Northern Ireland Public Administration Vol. 84 No. 4 p. 941-965
Knox, C. (1996) The Democratic Deficit: A partnership approach in Northern Ireland.
School of Public Policy, Economics and Law, University of Ulster.
Marsden, T. (1998) New Rural Territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces.
Journal of Rural Studies Vol. 14. No. 1.
Martins, B. And E. Richards (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public
decision-making. Pp. 506-526 in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, C., and T. Pinch
(eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Mills, C. W. (1939) Language, Logic and Culture American Sociological Review Vol.
4 No. 5 pp. 670-680
McCall, C. and A. Williamson (2001) Governance and democracy in Northern Ireland:
The role of the Voluntary and Community Sector after the Agreement Governance: An
International Journal of Policy and Administration Vol. 14 No. 3 pp. 363-383
McLaughlin, E. And S. Neal (2007) Who can speak to race and nation? Cultural
Studies 21: 6 pp. 910-930
McLaughlin, E. and P. Quirk (1996), Eds. Policy Aspects of Employment Equality in
Northern Ireland The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, Belfast
Monaghan, M. (2010) Adversarial policies and evidence utilization: modelling the
changing evidence and policy connection. German Policy Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 pp. 1752
Monaghan, M. (2009) The complexity of evidence: reflections on research utilisation
in a heavily politicised policy area Social Policy & Society 9:1 pp. 1-12
Nutley, S. (2003). ‘Bridging the policy/research divide: reflections and lessons from
the UK.’ Keynote paper presented at ‘Facing the future: engaging stakeholders and
citizens in developing public policy’, National Institute of Governance Conference,
Canberra, 23 April;
26
Nutley, S., Davies, H., and I. Walter (2002) Evidence Based Policy and Practice:
Cross Sector Lessons From the UK. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy
and Practice: Working Paper 9
Nutley, S.M., Percy-Smith, J. and Solesbury, W. (2003). Models of Research Impact:
a Cross-Sector Review of Literature and Practice. London: Learning and Skills
Development Agency
Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-Based Policy: A Realist Perspective. London: Sage.
Porter, S. and S. Shortall (2009) Stakeholders and perspectivism in qualitative policy
research. A realist reflection. Public Administration Vol. 86 Issue 4.
OFMDFM (2003) A Practical Guide to Policy Making in Northern Ireland Office of the
First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Oreszczyn, S. (2008) GM crops in the United Kingdom: precaution as process Science
and Public Policy Vol. 32 No. 4 pp. 317-324
Oreszczyn, S. And S. Carr (2008) Improving the link between policy research and
practice: using a scenario workshop as a qualitative research tool in the case of
genetically modified crops Qualitative Research Vol. 8 No. 4 pp. 473-497
Parry, R. (2008) Changing UK Governance under Devolution Public Policy and
Administration Vol. 23 No. 1 pp. 114-120
Painter, M. and B. Peters (2010) Tradition and Public Administration Palgrave
Macmillan
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997) Understanding Governance Buckingham: Open University
Press
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2005) Everyday life in a Ministry: Public Administration as
Anthropology American Review of Public Administration 35 (3) pp. 3-25
Rhodes, R.A.W. (2011) Everyday Life in British Government Oxford University
Press, Oxford
27
Cabinet Office (1999), Modernising Government, Cm. 4310, London, The Stationery
Office
Rubio, J., and N. Tshipamba
(2010) Elements of the Public Policy of Science,
Technology and Innovation Canadian Social Science Vol. 6 No. 6 pp. 61-80
Savage and Burrows (2007) The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology. Sociology 41
(5) 885-899;
Shapin, S. (1995) Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge Annual
Review of Sociology Vol. 21 pp. 289-321
Shapin, S. (1999) Rarely pure and never simple: Talking about truth Configurations
Vol. 7 pp. 1-14
Shapin, S. (2012) The sciences of subjectivity Social Studies of Science 42 (2)
pp.170-184
Shortall, S. (2010) An Evidence Base to Inform Rural Policy. Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development Northern Ireland. Funded by ESRC Knowledge Research
Fellowship Programme.
Shortall, S. (2012) The Role of Subjectivity and Knowledge Power Struggles in the
Formation of Public Policy Sociology. First published online before print, December
12, 2012 doi: 10.1177/0038038512454950
Shortall, S. And M. Warner (2012) Rural Transformations: Conceptual and Policy
Issues. In Shucksmith, M., Brown, D., Shortall, S. and M. Warner, Eds. (2012) Rural
Transformations and Rural Polices in the UK and US. London, Routledge
Shucksmith, M. (2010) Disintegrated Rural Development? Neo-endogenous Rural
Development, Planning and Place-Shaping in Diffused Power Contexts. Sociologia
Ruralis Vol. 50 No. 1 pp. 1-14
Snow, C.P. (1959) The Two Cultures London, Cambridge University Press
Stevens, A. (2011) Telling Policy Stories: An Ethnographic Study of the Use of
Evidence in Policy-making in the UK Journal of Social Policy Vol. 40 No. 2 pp. 237255
28
Stevens, A. (2007) Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of
evidence in policy Social Policy and Society Vol. 6 No. 1 pp. 25-35
Tittle, C. (2004) The Arrogance of Public Sociology. Social Forces 82 (4) 1639-1643;
Vandenabeele, W., Scheepers, S., and A. Hondeghem (2006) Public Service
Motivation in an International Comparative Perspective: The UK and Germany. Public
Policy and Administration Vol. 21 No. 13 pp. 13-31
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (Translated with
an Introduction by Talcott Parsons), New York, The Free Press
Weber, M. (1979) Economy and Society. Edited by Roth, G. and C. Wittich. University
of California Press.
Wilkinson, K., Lowe. P. and A. Donaldson (2010) Beyond Policy Networks: Policy
Framing and the Politics of Experience in the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease Crisis
Public Administration 88 pp. 331-345
Wilkinson, K. (2010) The view from the other side: scientists in government and the
performance of expertise
Wilkinson, K. (2011) Organised Chaos: An interpretive approach to evidence-based
policy making in Defra Political Studies Vol. 59 pp. 959-977
Yearley, S. (2006) How Many "Ends" of Nature: Making Sociological and
Phenomenological Sense of the End of Nature. Nature and Culture Vol. 1 No. 1 pp.
10-21
Yearley, S. (2009) Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto: What roles for social
science in understanding climate change? Current Sociology Vol. 57 pp. 389-405
i
A full review of SSK is not undertaken here, for reasons of space. The whole question of relativism is left aside
for this article. Interested readers should see Yearley (2005).
ii
A Rural Policy Branch was formed in 2006, which became a Rural Policy Division in 2009.
29
iii
My Fellowship was for one year, but after eight months I broke my shoulder and was off work for four
months. Following return to the university, I finished my Fellowship half-time over the following eight months.
30