Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T16:13:23.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Hiding Place: On the Discomforts of Researching the Contemporary Policy Process*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Christopher Pollitt ,
Stephen Harrison ,
David J. Hunter  and
Gordon Marnoch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has never been easy to conduct research into currently sensitive policy issues, but there is now accumulating evidence to indicate that various forms of resistence to scholarly investigation are on the increase. Such a climate handicaps all social policy research, but may have the greatest impact on ethnographic projects. Yet, it is argued, ethnography is increasingly widely recognised among academics as having a particularly valuable contribution to make to the study of the policy process. Unfortunately, many policy practitioners (and occasionally some academic colleagues) perceive ethnographic research as being of questionable validity and low helpfulness. This behoves policy-oriented ethnographers to demonstrate that they do indeed have procedures for assuring validity, even if their style of investigation is never likely to be popular with government.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 169 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agar, Michael H. (1980), The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Anderson, Charles W. (1987), ‘Political philosophy, practical reason and policy analysis’, in Fischer, Frank and Forester, John (eds), Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Ascher, William (1987), ‘Editorial: policy sciences and the economic approach in a “post positivist” era’, Policy Sciences, 20:1, 04, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Richard (1976), The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Bloor, M. (1979), ‘On the analysis of observational data: a discussion of the worth and uses of inductive techniques and respondent validation’, Sociology, 12, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, Martin (1982), The Uses of Social Research: Social Investigations in Public Policy-Making, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Charles, Susan and Webb, Adrian (1986), The Economic Approach to Social Policy, Wheatsheaf, Brighton.Google Scholar
Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1988), ‘Validity in evaluation research: a critical assessment of current issues’, Policy and Politics, 16:1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cm 555 (1989), Working for Patients, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L.J. (1982), Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Davies, Peter (1988), ‘Throwing the doctor out with the bath water’. Health Service Journal, 5 05, 500.Google Scholar
DHSS (1988), Comparing Health Authorities: Health Service Indicators, 1983–86, DHSS Publications, London.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick and O'Leary, Brendon (1987), Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy, Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Alan (1988), ‘Tory ideology “promoting poverty”’, Guardian, 31 03, 2.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon (1978), Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Exley, Margaret (1987), ‘Organisation and managerial capacity’, in Harrison, Anthony and Gretton, John (eds), Reshaping Central Government, Transaction Books/Policy Journals, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fay, Brian (1976), Social Theory and Political Practice, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank (1987), ‘Policy expertise and the “new class”: a critique of the neo conservative thesis’, in Fischer, Frank and Forester, John (eds), Confronting Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Fry, Geoffrey K. (1988), ‘The Thatcher government, the Financial Management Initiative, and the “new civil service”’. Public Administration, 66:1, Spring, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths Report (1983). NHS Management Enquiry, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
Hanson, Mark (1988), ‘For my next trick’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 06, 14.Google Scholar
Harrison, Stephen (1988), Managing the National Health Service: Shifting the Frontier, Croom Helm, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Stephen, Hunter, David J. and Pollitt, Christopher (1990), Pulling Punches: The Dynamics of Health Policy, Hyman, London.Google Scholar
Healy, Paul (1986), ‘Interpretive policy inquiry: a response to the limitations of the received view’, Policy Sciences, 19:4, 331–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, Hugh and Wildavsky, Aaron (1974). The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Hunter, David J. and Wistow, Gerald (1987), Community Care in Britain: Variations on a Theme, King Edward's Hospital Fund, London.Google Scholar
Illsley, Raymond (1980), Professional or Public Health? Sociology in Health and Medicine, Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Kirk, Jerome and Miller, Marc (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, Sage, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurance, Jeremy (1988), ‘Silencing the NHS’, New Statesmen and Society, 10 06, 14–15.Google Scholar
Meek, V. Lynn (1988). ‘Organizational culture: orgins and weakness’, Organizational Studies, 9:4, 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeganey, N.P. and Bloor, M.J. (1981). ‘On the retrieval of sociological descriptions: respondent validation and the critical case of ethnomethodology’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1:3, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, Gary (1988). ‘Political constaints: military funding and academic freedom’, Science for the People, 20:1, 27–33.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor (1986). ‘A method of institutional analysis’, in Kaufman, F.X., Majone, G. and Ostrom, V. (eds), Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Andrew (1985), The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Phillips, Melanie (1988). ‘Don't publish, and awkward truth be damned’, The Guardian, 8 01, 19.Google Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher (1984), Manipulating the Machine: Changing the Pattern of Ministerial Departments 1960–83, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher, Harrison, Stephen, Hunter, David and Marnoch, Gordon (1988), ‘The reluctant managers: clinicians and budgets in the NHS’, Financial Accountability and Management, 4:3, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher (1990), Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo American Experiences, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane and Elkan, Ruth (1989), Research for Policy and Policy for Research: A Review of Selected DHSS-Funded Nurse Education Research, 1975–86, Study No. 5. Nursing Policy Studies Centre, Warwick.Google Scholar
Strong, Phillip (1988). ‘Minor courtesies and macro structures’, in Drew, Paul and Wotton, Anthony (eds), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Togerson, Douglas (1986), ‘Interpretive policy enquiry: a response to its limitations’, Policy Sciences, 19:4, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, Rosie (1989), ‘Anxiety grows over integrity of statistics’, The Independent, 9 10, 3.Google Scholar
Weiss, C.H. (1977), ‘Research for policy's sake: the enlightenment function of social science research’, Policy Analysis, 531–545.Google Scholar
Young, Ken and Mills, Liz (1980). Public Policy Research: A Review of Qualitative Methods, Social Sciences Research Council, London.Google Scholar