Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:15:21.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generalisation and Phronesis: Rethinking the Methodology of Social Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2010

PAUL SPICKER
PAUL SPICKER*
Affiliation:
Centre for Public Policy and Management, Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social policy research often depends on the application of generalisations from social science. Questions like ‘what works?’ assume that general principles can be translated from specific examples into other contexts. Pawson and Tilley argue that effective policy research has to depend on the idea of a ‘generative mechanism’, or relationships of cause and effect. Explaining issues in terms of causes, however, is problematic. Social phenomena tend to be multifaceted, and even relatively simple phenomena are likely to be influenced by a range of different factors; causal analyses have to be developed by interpretation, and the analyses are frequently wrong. Causal explanations often claim to do more than they can deliver: even if there is a convincing causal explanation, it does not necessarily imply any prescription for policy. There are ways of generalising, however, that do not depend on causal analysis. Phronesis develops principles experientially, setting them against empirical evidence, and it does not need to consider underlying mechanisms to be effective. Phronesis provides the basis for a critique of technocratic approaches, a rationale for action and a focus for the development of alternative methods and approaches. A dependence on phronesis cannot avoid all of the pitfalls associated with generalisation, but it is more flexible, and less presumptuous, than a causal approach.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Adam Smith Institute n.d., The NHS: a dysfunctional insurer, http://www.adamsmith.org/cissues/health/fairerfunding.htm, accessed 21 January 2009.Google Scholar
Alcock, P., Beatty, C., Fothergill, S., Macmillan, R. and Yeandle, S. (2003), Work to Welfare, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle (c. 350 BCE), Ethics, reprinted in Thomson, J. (ed.) (1953), Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. and Mogensen, G. (1993), Welfare and Work Incentives, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Babbie, E. (2001), The Practice of Social Research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Barr, N. (2004), The Economics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1789), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (ed. Harrison, W.), Oxford: Blackwell (1960).Google Scholar
Birrell, W. D., Hillyard, P., Murie, A. and Roche, D. (eds.) (1971), Social Administration, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Borkman, T. (1976), ‘Experiential knowledge’, Social Service Review, 50: 3, 445–56.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1953), Child Care and the Growth of Love, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Box, S. (1987), Recession, Crime and Punishment, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brown, M. and Madge, N. (1982), Despite the Welfare State, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Burke, E. (1790), Reflections on the Revolution in France, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston (1959 edition).Google Scholar
Carlson, E. (2001), The Unfit, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Castles, F. (2004), The Future of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Castles, F. (2005), ‘Social expenditure in the 1990s’, Policy and Politics, 33: 3, 411–30.Google Scholar
Christianson, S. (2003), ‘Bad seed or bad science’, New York Times, 8 February, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D6153BF93BA35751C0A9659C8B63, accessed 21 January 2009.Google Scholar
Clapham, D. and Kintrea, K. (1986), ‘Rationing, choice and constraint’, Journal of Social Policy, 1: 1, 51–68.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (ed.) (1999), Comparative Social Policy: Concepts, Theories and Methods, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coffield, F. and Sarsby, J. (1980), A Cycle of Deprivation?, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Coleman, A. (1985), Utopia on Trial, London: Shipman.Google Scholar
Craig, P. (1991), ‘Costs and benefits’, Journal of Social Policy, 20: 4, 537–65.Google Scholar
Crook, J. (2001), ‘How do expert mental health nurses make on the spot decisions?’, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 8: 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
Doyal, L. and Harris, R. (1986), Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dunne, J. (1993), Back to the Rough Ground: ‘Phronesis’ and ‘Techne’ in Modern Philosophy and in Aristotle, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Durning, D. (2004), ‘Teaching policy analysis in a complex world’, in Jabes, J. (ed.), The Role of Public Administration in Alleviating Poverty and Improving Governance, Kuala Lumpur: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Estabrooks, C., Rutakumwa, W., O'Leary, K., McGrath, J., Milner, M., Levers, M. and Findlay, S. (2005), ‘Sources of practice knowledge among nurses’, Qualitative Health Research, 15: 4, 460–76.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1977), ‘Mixed scanning: a third approach to decision making’, in Gilbert, N. and Specht, H. (eds.), Planning for Social Welfare, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 87–97.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (1998), ‘Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective’, Policy Studies Journal, 26: 1, 129–46.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freud, D. (2007), Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Gans, H. (1975), ‘Social science for social policy’, in Horowitz, I. (ed.), The Use and Abuse of Social Science, New Bruswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2008), Researching Social Life, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Harthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Groff, S. (2004), Critical Realism, Post-positivism and the Possibility of Knowledge, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hantrais, L. and Mangen, S. (eds.) (1996), Cross-national Research Methods in the Social Sciences, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Heron, J. and Reason, P. (1997), ‘A participatory inquiry paradigm’, Qualitative Inquiry, 3: 3, 274–94.Google Scholar
Human Intelligence n.d, ‘The Cyril Burt Affair’, http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/burtaffair.shtml, accessed 22 January 2009.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1739), A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. (1888), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. and Maynard-Moody, S. (1993), ‘Policy analysis in the post-positivist era’, Public Administration Review, 53: 2, 135–42.Google Scholar
Kolvin, I., Miller, F., Scott, D., Gatzanis, S. and Fleeting, M. (1990), Continuities of Deprivation?, Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Laitin, D. (2003), ‘The perestroika challenge to social science’, Politics and Society, 31: 1, 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. (1965), The Intelligence of Democracy, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Loney, M. (1983), Community against Government, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. and Randers, J. (1992), Beyond the Limits, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (1984), Losing Ground, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Noel, J. (1999), ‘On the varieties of phronesis’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31: 3, 273–89.Google Scholar
Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. (2006), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Patton, M. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. (1989), A Measure for Measures, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pick, D. (1989), Faces of Degeneration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooney, D. and McKenna, B. (2006), ‘Wisdom in public administration’, Public Administration Review, 68: 4, 709–21.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912), Problems of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, reprinted 1959.Google Scholar
Ruzek, S. and Hill, J. (1986), ‘Promoting women's health’, Health Promotion, 1: 3, 301–9.Google Scholar
Rycroft Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A. and McCormack, B. (2004), ‘What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47: 1, 81–90.Google Scholar
Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schram, S. (2003), ‘Return to politics: perestroika and postparadigmatic political science’, Political Theory, 31: 835–51.Google Scholar
Schram, S. (2004), ‘Beyond paradigm: resisting the assimilation of phronetic social science’, Politics and Society, 32: 3, 417–33.Google Scholar
Schwandt, T. (2003), ‘Back to the rough ground!: Beyond theory to practice in evaluation’, Evaluation, 9: 3, 353–64.Google Scholar
Social Disadvantage Research Centre (2003), Scottish Indices of Deprivation 2003, Oxford: Social Disadvantage Research Centre.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1853), ‘Over-legislation’, http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Spencer/spnMvS7.html#Essay:Over-Legislation, accessed 4 April 2010.Google Scholar
Spicker, P. (1987), ‘Poverty and depressed estates: a critique of Utopia on Trial’, Housing Studies, 2: 4, 283–92.Google Scholar
Spicker, P. (2006), Policy Analysis for Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Spicker, P. (2008), Social Policy: Themes and Approaches, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1950), Problems of Social Policy, London: HMSO/Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1955), ‘War and social policy’, in Essays on the Welfare State, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1968), Commitment to Welfare, London: Allen & Unwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todaro, M. and Smith, S. (2006), Economic Development, Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. (1993), The International Analysis of Poverty, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Tudor Hart, J. (1971), ‘The inverse care law’, reprinted in Smith, G., Dorling, D. and Shaw, M. (eds.) (2001), Poverty, Inequality and Health in Britain 1800–2000, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
UK National Action Plan on Social Inclusion (2001), London: TSO, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/159184/0043307.pdf, accessed 30 January 2009.Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1994), Poverty Dynamics, Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
Waring, D. (2000), ‘Why the practice of medicine is not a phronetic activity’, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 21: 2, 139–151.Google Scholar
World Bank Poverty Group, (1999), Consultations with the poor, obtained at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1124115102975/1555199-1124138742310/method.pdf.Google Scholar