Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T02:51:37.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survey Research and the Production of Evidence for Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2013

Marine Boehm ,
Dina Bowman  and
Jens O. Zinn
Marine Boehm
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne E-mail: marine.boehm@gmail.com
Dina Bowman
Affiliation:
Research and Policy Centre, Brotherhood of St Laurence E-mail: dbowman@bsl.org.au
Jens O. Zinn
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne E-mail: jzinn@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Large representative surveys have become a valuable resource to inform public policy in an increasingly complex modern world. They provide authority to policy since they are considered objective, neutral and scientific. In contrast, this article conceives the production of knowledge as an interactive process. We argue that the conduct of large social surveys tends to reinforce existing world views, power relations and a narrow construction of social issues. To illustrate this, we draw on a small exploratory study which examined the experience of responding to selected survey questions of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia study (HILDA). We suggest that while more open approaches are required to capture the complexities of everyday life, these are unlikely to be implemented given the dominance of particular forms of knowledge.

Keywords

Social policyknowledge generationsurvey researchsocial inequality
Type
Themed Section on Risk, Social Inclusion and the Life Course
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 309 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

Amin, A. (2005) ‘Local community on trial’, Economy and Society, 34, 4, 612–33.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P. and Delamont, S. (2006) ‘In the roiling smoke: qualitative inquiry and contested fields’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 6, 747–55.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Boehm, M. (2012) ‘Qualitative exploration of the perception and behaviours of the HILDA survey participants’, University of Melbourne (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
Booth, C. (1895, 1897) Life and Labour of the People in London, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1982) Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques, Paris: Éditions Fayard.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1999) ‘Scattered remarks’, European Journal for Social Theory, 2, 3, 334–40.Google Scholar
Bowman, D., Bodsworth, E. and Zinn, J. (2012) ‘Inequalities and risk during the “rush hour” of life, social policy and society’, available on CJO2012 doi: 10.1017/S1474746412000553.Google Scholar
David, M. E. (2002) ‘Introduction: themed section on evidence-based policy as a concept for modernising governance and social science research’, Social Policy and Society, 1, 3, 213–14.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2005) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K. (2009) ‘The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence’, Qualitative research, 9, 2, 139–60.Google Scholar
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2011) Governance Models for Location Based Initiatives, Australian Social Inclusion Board, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra Press.Google Scholar
Desrosieres, A. (1988) ‘La Partie pour le Tout: Comment Généraliser. La Préhistoire de la Contrainte de Représentativité’, in Mairesse, J. (ed.), Estimations et Sondages: Cinq Contribution a l'Histoire de la Statistique, Paris: Economica, pp. 97–116.Google Scholar
Desrosieres, A. (2008) L'argument Statistique, Volumes 1 and 2, Paris: Presse de l'Ecole des Mines.Google Scholar
Desrosieres, A. (2010) La Politique des Grands Nombres, Histoire de la Raison Statistique, Paris: Editions de la Decouverte.Google Scholar
Faulds, J. (2002) Broadmeadows, Two Decades of Community Change, 1981–2001, North Coburg: Emen Printing.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978) ‘Governmentality’, Ideology and Consciousness, 6, 5–12.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2000) Runaway World, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gittins, R (2008) ‘Rudd's vision for the bureaucrats’, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 May, http://www.smh.com.au/business/rudds-vision-for-the-bureaucrats-20080504-2au6.html#ixzz2BJxkpNay [accessed 05.11.2012].Google Scholar
Hacker, J. S. (2008) The Great Risk Shift, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1990) The Taming of Chance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hess, M. and Adams, D. (2002) ‘Knowing and skilling in contemporary public administration’, The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61, 4, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HILDA (2011) Living in Australia, http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/doc/NewsletterW11.pdf [accessed 01.11.2012].Google Scholar
Hood, C. (2001) ‘New public management’, in Smelser, N. J., Wright, J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 12553–6.Google Scholar
Horn, M., Scutella, R. and Wilkins, R. (2011) Social Exclusion Monitor Bulletin, September, Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and Brotherhood of St Laurence.Google Scholar
Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Zeisel, H. (1971) Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Judd, B. and Randolph, B. (2008) ‘Quality and quantity? The role of qualitative research in evaluating urban renewal programmes’, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 10, 79–103.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, P. and Le Gales, P. (eds.) (2004) Gouverner par les Instruments, Paris: Les Presses de la Fondation Nationales des Sciences Politiques.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2009) ‘Seeing like a survey’, Cultural Sociology, 3, 2, 239–56.Google Scholar
Lemon, A. (1982) Broadmeadows: A Forgotten History, West Melbourne: City of Broadmeadows in Conjunction with Hargreen.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2007) ‘(Mis)recognition, social inequality and social justice: a critical social policy perspective’, in Lovell, T. (ed.), (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu, Hoboken: Routledge, pp. 157–76.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems, Chicago: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marston, G. and Watts, R. (2003) ‘Tampering with the evidence: a critical appraisal of evidence-based policy making’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3, 3, 143–63.Google Scholar
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (2010) HILDA Living in Australia, Wave 10 Survey, Melbourne: University of Melbourne, http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Questionnaires/SelfCompletionQuestionnaireW10.pdf.Google Scholar
Moran, M. (2007) The British Regulatory State: High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peillon, M. (1998) ‘Bourdieu's field and the sociology of welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 27, 2, 213–29.Google Scholar
Porter, T. (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2012) http://www.pc.gov.au/ [accessed 19.10.2012].Google Scholar
Ranzijn, R., Carson, E. and Winefield, A. (2004) ‘Barriers to mature aged re-employment: perceptions about desirable work-related attributes held by job-seekers and employers’, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 8, 7, 559–70.Google Scholar
Rowntree, B. S. (1902) Poverty a Study of Town Life, London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.Google Scholar
Rudman, D. L. (2006) ‘Shaping the active, autonomous and responsible modern retiree: an analysis of discursive technologies and their links with neo-liberal political rationality’, Ageing and Society, 26, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, P. (2005) The Poverty Wars, Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
St Pierre, E. A. and Roulston, K. (2006) ‘The state of qualitative inquiry: a contested science’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 6, 673–84.Google Scholar
Stevens, A. (2011) ‘Telling policy stories: an ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy making in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 40, 2, 237–56.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009) Reframing Social Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thévenot, L. (2011) ‘Conventions for measuring and questioning policies: the case of 50 years policy evaluation through a statistical survey’, Historical Social Research, 36, 4, 192–217.Google Scholar
Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (eds.) (2000) Evidence-Based Practice: A Critical Appraisal, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A. and Grayson, L. (2002) ‘Social science and the evidence-based policy movement’, Social Policy and Society, 1, 3, 215–24.Google Scholar