Advertisement

British Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 312–331 | Cite as

The higher education impact agenda, scientific realism and policy change: the case of electoral integrity in Britain

  • Toby S. James
Original Article

Abstract

Pressures have increasingly been put upon social scientists to prove their economic, cultural and social value through ‘impact agendas’ in higher education. There has been little conceptual and empirical discussion of the challenges involved in achieving impact and the dangers of evaluating it, however. This article argues that a realist approach to social science can help to identify some of these key challenges and the institutional incompatibilities between impact regimes and university research in free societies. These incompatibilities are brought out through an autobiographical ‘insider account’ of trying to achieve impact in the field of electoral integrity in Britain. The article argues that there is a more complex relationship between research and the real world which means that the nature of knowledge might change as it becomes known by reflexive agents. Secondly, the researchers are joined into social relations with a variety of actors, including those who might be the object of study in their research. Researchers are often weakly positioned in these relations. Some forms of impact, such as achieving policy change, are therefore exceptionally difficult as they are dependent on other actors. Strategies for trying to achieve impact are drawn out such as collaborating with civil society groups and parliamentarians to lobby for policy change.

Keywords

Scientific realism Policy change Electoral integrity Electoral registration Electoral studies Impact Higher education 

References

  1. Archer, Margaret. 1995. Realist Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, Margaret. 1998. Introduction: Realism in the Social Sciences. In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, ed. M.S. Archer, 189–205. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Research Council. 2017. EI Framework: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, Roy. 1989. Reclaiming Reality. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Bhaskar, Roy. 2008. A Realist Theory of Science. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Cabinet Office. 2015a. Re: Electoral Fraud Seminar, Email from Cabinet Office Official, 15 December 2015.Google Scholar
  7. Cabinet Office. 2015b. Sir Eric Pickles to Examine Electoral Fraud. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-eric-pickles-to-examine-electoral-fraud. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.
  8. Cabinet Office. 2016. Minister Launches Electoral Canvass Pilot in Bid to Save up to £20 Million. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/minister-launches-electoral-canvass-pilot-in-bid-to-save-up-to-20-million. Accessed 7 March 2018.
  9. Carey, John, Simon Hix, Shaheen Mozaffar, and Andrew Reynolds. 2013. Report from the Field: Two Surveys of Political Scientists. In Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance, ed. Mala Htun and G. Bingham Jr. Powell. Washington D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, Alistair, and Toby S. James. 2016. An Evaluation of Electoral Administration at the EU Referendum. London: Electoral Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, Alistair, and Toby S. James. 2017. Poll Workers. In Election Watchdogs, ed. Pippa Norris, and Alessandro Nai. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Collier, Andrew. 1994. Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Conservative Party. 2015a. Strong Leadership, A Clear Economic Plan, A Brighter, More Future. London: The Conservative Party.Google Scholar
  14. Deputy Prime Minister. 2011. Individual Electoral Registration. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  15. Electoral Commission. 2016. The December 2015 electoral registers in Great Britain: Accuracy and completeness of the registers in Great Britain and the Transition to Individual Electoral Registration. London: Electoral Commission.Google Scholar
  16. Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hansard. 2016a. Debate Pack Number CDP-00131: Automatic Registration: UK Elections. London: Houses of Parliament.Google Scholar
  18. Hansard. 2016b. Electoral Register: Written Question38458.Google Scholar
  19. Hansard. 2016c. Electoral Register: Written question—38458. Asked on: 25 May 2016. London: Houses of Parliament.Google Scholar
  20. Hansard. 2016d. European Union Referendum: Young Voters, Questions for Short Debate, 26 May 2016. London: Houses of Parliament.Google Scholar
  21. Hansard. 2017. Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017. 30 March 2017, Volume 782.Google Scholar
  22. Hay, Colin. 2002. Political Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. HEFCE. 2015. Research Excellence Framework 2014: Overview Report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 16 to 26.Google Scholar
  24. HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW, and DELNI. 2011. Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  25. HM Government. 2017. Every Voice Matters: Building a Democracy That Works for Everyone. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  26. Htun, Mala, and G. Bingham Powell. 2013. Between Science and Engineering: Reflections on the APSA Presidential Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance. Perspectives on Politics 11 (03): 808–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Htun, Mala, and G. Bingham Powell Jr. 2013b. Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance. Washington D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  28. James, Toby S. 2010. Electoral Modernisation or Elite Statecraft? Electoral Administration in the U.K. 1997–2007. British Politics 5 (2): 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. James, Toby S. 2011a. Fewer ‘Costs’, More Votes? UK Innovations in Electoral Administration 2000–2007 and Their Effect on Voter Turnout. Election Law Journal 10 (1): 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. James, Toby S. 2011b. The Impact of Individual Electoral Registration on British Elections—Evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  31. James, Toby S. 2011c. Only in America? Executive Partisan Interest and the Politics of Election Administration in Ireland, the UK and USA. Contemporary Politics 17 (3): 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. James, Toby S. 2011d. UK Electoral Registration Levels are Already Low by International Standards, But New Plans to Change Registration May Make Things Even Worse: 11th December 2011. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/uk-electoral-registration/.
  33. James, Toby S. 2012a. Elite Statecraft and Election Administration: Bending the Rules of the Game. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. James, Toby S. 2012b. Voter Registration: Lessons from the US: 21st May 2012. http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/looking-to-america-trying-to-get-voter-registration-right.
  35. James, Toby S. 2013. Fixing Failures of U.K. Electoral Management. Electoral Studies 32 (4): 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. James, Toby S. 2014a. Electoral Management in Britain. In Advancing Electoral Integrity, ed. Pippa Norris, Richard Frank and Ferran Matinez I Coma, 135-164. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. James, Toby S. 2014b. The Spill-Over and Displacement Effects of Implementing Election Administration Reforms: Introducing Individual Electoral Registration in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 67 (2): 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. James, Toby S. 2014c. Voter Engagement in the UK: Evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  39. James, Toby S. 2015. Assessing the Independence of Electoral Management Boards: A Policy Network Approach. In Working Paper Submitted to the American Political Science Association Conference, September 2015.Google Scholar
  40. James, Toby S. 2017. The Effects of Centralising Electoral Management Board Design. Policy Studies 38 (2): 130–148.Google Scholar
  41. James, Toby S. forthcoming. Comparative Electoral Management: Performance, Networks and Instruments. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. James, Toby S., Bite the Ballot, and ClearView Research. 2016. Getting the Missing Millions Back on the Electoral Register: A Vision for Voter Registration Reform in the UK. London: All Parliamentary Party Group on Democratic Participation.Google Scholar
  43. James, Toby S., Chris Rennard, and Josh Dell. 2017. Too Late for GE2017—But Now Universities will have to Play a Role in Registering Students To Vote. Democratic Audit: 2 May 2017.Google Scholar
  44. Jessop, Bob. 2001. Institutional Re(turns) and the Strategic—Relational Approach. Environment and Planning A 33: 1213–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kirkland, Christopher, and Matthew Wood. 2017. Legitimacy and Legitimization in Low Turnout Ballots. Government and Opposition 52 (3): 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Labour Party. 2015b. Labour Party Manifesto 2015: Britain Can Be Better. London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
  48. Marsh, D., M.J. Smith, and D. Richards. 2003. Unequal Plurality: Towards an Asymmetric Power Model of British Politics. Government and Opposition 38 (3): 306–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McAnulla, Stuart. 2006. Challenging the New Interpretivist Approach: Towards a Critical Realist Alternative. British Politics 1: 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pack, Mark. 2016. Electoral Register Reaches Record Size, Refuting Individual Registration Scaremongering. http://www.markpack.org.uk/141581/european-referendum-electoral-register/.
  52. Parliament. 2016. The Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) Order 2016.Google Scholar
  53. Pawson, Ray. 2006. Evidence-Based Policy. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Matthew A. Painter. 2010. Growth in Women’s Political Representation: A Longitudinal Exploration of Democracy, Electoral System and Gender Quotas. European Journal of Political Research 49 (1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Penrose, John. 2015. Vision for Electoral Registration: Speech by John Penrose. Policy Exchange: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  56. Pickles, Eric. 2016. Securing the Ballot: Report of Sir Eric Pickles’ Review into Electoral Fraud. London.Google Scholar
  57. Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. 1988. Why Americans Don`t Vote. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  58. Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. 2011. Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  59. Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  60. Putnam, Hilary, and James Conant. 1990. Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Renwick, Alan, Chris Hanretty, and David Hine. 2009. Partisan Self-interest and Electoral Reform: The New Italian Electoral Law of 2005. Electoral Studies 28 (3): 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sayer, A. 2010. Method in Social Sciences. Revised Second Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Scottish Government. 2017. Consultation Paper on Electoral Reform. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  65. Sjoberg, Fredrik M. 2014. Autocratic Adaptation: The Strategic Use of Transparency and the Persistence of Election Fraud. Electoral Studies 33: 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sturgis, Patrick, Nick Baker, Mario Callegaro, Stephen Fisher, Jane Green, Will Jennings, Jouni Kuha, Ben Lauderdale, and Pattern Smith. 2016. Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Poll. London: Market Research Society and British Polling Council.Google Scholar
  67. Truman, David Bicknell. 1951. The Implications of Political Behavior Research, Items: Social Science Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  68. Welsh Government. 2017. Electoral Reform in Local Government in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Government.Google Scholar
  69. Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Zeglovits, Eva, and Julian Aichholzer. 2014. Are People More Inclined to Vote at 16 than at 18? Evidence for the First-Time Voting Boost Among 16- to 25-Year-Olds in Austria. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 24 (3): 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations