Introduction

Researchers have played a prominent part in the history of debates and discussions about a supposed ‘underclass’ and John Macnicol (1987: 316), a social policy academic who has done much to chart the history of the ‘underclass’ thesis, has noted that a ‘recurring feature’ of these debates is the need for more research to be carried out. It was Charles Booth, an early social researcher, who was one of the most influential individuals involved in the ‘discovery’ of the residuum’ in Victorian times and it was US academics from different disciplinary backgrounds whose work was influential in propagating the concepts of a ‘culture of poverty’ and an ‘underclass’. Keith Joseph, the Secretary of State for Social Services who advanced the idea of ‘transmitted deprivation’, argued that the phenomenon required further examination, and established a large research study spanning eight years.

This chapter examines some of this research involvement in previous iterations of the underclass before turning to the relationship between the concept of ‘troubled families’ and research. The misrepresentation of the research behind the original figure of 120,000 ‘troubled families’ is explored in detail, before the attention turns to other uses and misuses of research in the ‘troubled families’ agenda. Louise Casey's engagement with research is highlighted, including her own writing for academic journals, her Listening to Troubled Families report and critiques of it, and the case of a survey that she used in conference speeches to make the case for ‘radical reform’ that turned out not to exist.