Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T23:10:58.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualitative Longitudinal Analysis for Policy: Incapacity Benefits Recipients Taking Part in Pathways to Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Anne Corden  and
Katharine Nice
Anne Corden
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, Social Policy Research UnitUniversity of York E-mail: pac2@york.ac.uk
Katharine Nice
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York E-mail: kn5@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article draws on the authors' experience in conducting a recent qualitative longitudinal study in the evaluation of the Pathways to Work Pilot for incapacity benefits recipients. Findings from the qualitative longitudinal research highlighted issues that might not otherwise have been apparent. This approach to policy-related research provides new perspectives and opportunities for substantive findings. It also presents a number of challenges. Issues arise about how to engage with policy makers when exploring changes over time. Policy makers are often keen to have ‘emerging findings’ from panel data, but an initial cross-sectional analysis to meet such requirements contains views and experiences of people who subsequently drop out of the panel. The full longitudinal perspective then comes from a smaller group, and there may be some surprises in comparison with the ‘emerging findings’. At the same time, the focus of policy interests may shift during the lifetime of the panel, especially during a pilot or trial in a rapidly developing policy area. Researchers may be asked to introduce new topics or abandon some lines of enquiry, and may face ethical issues in deciding how to make best use of the data.

Type
Qualitative Longitudinal Research for Social Policy
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 557 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Blyth, B. (2006), Incapacity Benefit reforms – Pathways to Work Pilots Performance and Analysis, Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper No. 26, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Corden, A. and Nice, K. (2006a), Incapacity Benefit Reforms Pilot: Findings from the Second Cohort in a Longitudinal Panel of Clients, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 345, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Corden, A. and Nice, K. (2006b), Pathways to Work: Findings from the Final Cohort in a Qualitative Longitudinal Panel of Incapacity Benefits Recipients, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 398, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Corden, A., Nice, K. and Sainsbury, R. (2005), Incapacity Benefit Reforms Pilot: Findings from a Longitudinal Panel of Clients, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 259, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Cotter, R., Burke, J., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. and Loeber, R. (2005), ‘Contacting participants for follow-up: how much effort is required to retain participants in longitudinal studies?’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DSS (1998), New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare, Department of Social Security, Cm 3805, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. and Harrop, A. (2006), ‘A user perspective on research quality’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 2, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DWP (2002), Pathways to Work: Helping People into Employment, Department for Work and Pensions, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
DWP (2006), A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work, Department for Work and Pensions, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Farrell, C., Nice, K., Lewis, J. and Sainsbury, R. (2006), Experiences of the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 339, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Knight, T., Dickens, S., Mitchell, M. and Woodfield, K. (2005), Incapacity Benefit Reforms – the Personal Adviser Role and Practices: Stage Two, Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 278, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Molloy, D. and Woodfield, K., with Bacon, J. (2002), Longitudinal Qualitative Research Approaches in Evaluation Studies, Department for Work and Pensions Working Paper No. 7, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Nice, K. and Sainsbury, R. (2004), ‘Incapacity Benefit Reforms – Early Findings from the Longitudinal Panel of Incapacity Benefit Claimants’, interim report to Department for Work and Pensions (unpublished).Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A.M. (1995), ‘Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice’, in Huber, G.P. and Van de Ven, A.H. (eds), Longitudinal Field Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 91–125.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L. and O'Connor, W. (2003), ‘Carrying out qualitative analysis’, in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (eds), Qualitative Research Practice, London: Sage, pp. 219–262.Google Scholar
Ruspini, E. (1999), ‘Longitudinal research and the analysis of social change’, Quality and Quantity, 33, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldana, J. (2003), Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analysing Change Through Time, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, R., Bell, R., Holland, J., Henderson, S., McGrellis, S. and Sharpe, S. (2002), ‘Critical moments: choice, chance and opportunity in young people's narratives of transition’, Sociology, 36, 2, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. and Holland, J. (2003), ‘Hindsight, foresight and insight: the challenges of longitudinal qualitative research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 3, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. (2000), ‘Work for those who can, security for those who cannot? Welfare reform and disabled people’, in Dean, H., Sykes, R. and Woods, R. (eds), Social Policy Review 12, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 112–132.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Leisering, L. (1998), ‘New tools: towards a dynamic science of modern society’, in Leisering, L. and Walker, R. (eds), The Dynamics of Modern Society, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 17–33.Google Scholar