Government Social Research
The challenges facing GSR - a 'virtual dialogue' between external researchers and Sue Duncan, Government Chief Social Researcher
Members of the GSR Communications Committee recently interviewed a small sample of senior representatives of external research organisations to explore their views on important issues facing GSR.
The interviews provided a lot of thought-provoking and often very challenging material. This article presents 4 of the key comments made by the external stakeholders about things that could be done better (in bold) and provides an opportunity for Sue Duncan, Government Chief Social Researcher, to respond to each, as well as make an assessment of the key priorities now for GSR.
What our Stakeholders said:
'...government is reasonably good at research of interest within Departments but less good at issues that span government or where no Department has overall responsibility. This leads to missed opportunities.'
'... (some Departments) are better than others at thinking ahead of policy debates, and funding some longer-term work that helps set the agenda for policy development, rather than simply reacting to it.'
SD : I do agree that, across government, we need to be more strategic. This is also one of the priorities for the civil service more widely. One of my objectives, and that of my team, is to encourage Departments to develop better strategic research planning - not to be so 'Departmental' in focus. Research planning should be more closely linked to wider Departmental planning processes; we need to be clearer how it links to the Spending Review process. It also needs to look at the big picture and ensure research is addressing government priorities more broadly. Of course, some research is conducted across Departmental boundaries, but we need to be more systematic. We can't just 'stick the bits together' and hope we don't leave any gaps. We also need to work more effectively with other funders of social policy research. We've already built links to improve strategic funding of research across the board through a 'Funders Forum'.
We need to be better at 'thinking ahead' as well. The traditional approach which tied research closely to current policy concerns tended to work against preparing for future information needs; we need to put more emphasis on this.
The quality of government research varies - 'some is good, some useful, some poor, some useless'.
'There are too many inexperienced members of GSR being asked to do the job of a more experienced researcher without proper support.'.
SD : Harsh words, but ones we need to think about carefully. As head of the Government Social Research service, I am proud of our research staff and of the research being carried out within government. Much of our research is high quality and cutting edge, but people should be able to look to us for a consistently high standard. If policy is going to be informed by research evidence, that evidence has to be good. We need to take a hard look at the areas where we are falling down and be sure that everyone in GSR has the knowledge and skills to do their jobs properly.
This is no easy task. GSR has grown rapidly and this means that we have many staff who are new to the civil service, inexperienced as researchers or both. I do want to emphasise that the growth in numbers is a very positive development. Often it means that social researchers are working in areas where there did not used to be a social research presence, and real opportunities are being opened up. But we must ensure that expansion does not happen at the expense of standards. This is a challenge for all of us, but particularly for HoPs and GCSRO.
My team is doing a number of things to support GSR researchers across government. These include developing standards, guidelines and protocols on issues like procurement, publication and ethical standards. We've also produced written guidance on research and evaluation techniques - the Magenta Book ( www.policyhub.gov.uk ) and we provide a consultancy service for Departments facing tricky methodological issues.
I place a strong emphasis on training and career development. We need to do more in this area and my office is working closely with the GSR Training Committee to take this forward. For example, we run seminars and workshops to promote standards, new techniques and knowledge sharing. We also run a whole suite of courses to help government researchers to develop their skills.
'There are simply not enough good researchers, skilled at both understanding the policy issues and carrying out rigorous research.'
'... (Training, pay and conditions in the academic sector) is a good example of where the needs of government research can only really be addressed by looking at other larger issues. That's another reason of course why the appointment of a Chief Social Researcher is to be welcomed, as this sort of issue does need to be raised in a more co-ordinated fashion.'
SD : These comments hint at GSR's role as part of the wider community of social researchers and this is very much how I see us. I do believe we have something to contribute. That is why GCSRO has conducted methodological work, drawing on the experience of Departments - the quality of qualitative evaluation and our work on pilots are good examples, and I know work has gone on elsewhere as well.
But I also agree that expansion of demand for social research has led to a shortfall in good contractors in some areas. We need to have more flexible methods of contracting, need to extend the contractor base, or look for new ways to draw on expertise in the research community. I know from a recent ESRC/SRA seminar that increased demand is placing pressures on our contractors and we aren't always getting the best out of them. I also know that some Departments have tried new models of contracting and new ways to develop interest in government research. Some have worked. Some haven't. But we really ought to learn from each other.
There are a number of methodological and professional challenges facing social research in Britain today. We need better inter-disciplinary working, including linking of the physical and social sciences, more systematic reviews, better methodological training.
SD: Following on from the 'Integrating Analysis' conference, attended by many GSR members, I have been working with the central HoPs of GES, GSS and GORS on a number of things intended to develop integrated working across social scientists in government. All the key conferences for government social scientists (including GSR's main and 'new recruits' conferences) have had sessions to address the closer working issue. We are also looking at possibilities for joint training. We all need to consider how we can develop more effective working across social science specialisms and we can all learn from some of the successful models around Departments. In some Departments physical and social scientists are co-located and work closely together, but I'm sure there is scope for further development here too. Both I and Paul Wiles from Home Office (both social scientists) sit on the Chief Scientists Advisory Committee and so can make links at the strategic level.
I firmly agree that GSR members should have thorough training in the methods of social research and analysis, including systematic review techniques. We also need to keep our knowledge up to date (training isn't just for ROs and SROs!).
It is however important that we don't see ourselves only as good social researchers; we have a crucial role in ensuring that policy and delivery are informed by the best thinking from the social sciences.
And finally ...
I know criticism is hard to take, but we do need to listen to our stakeholders. I firmly believe we should be proud of our achievements, but we need to accept that there are some areas in which we need to raise our game.