Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:21:31.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Will Policy Makers Hear My Disability Experience? How Participatory Research Contributes to Managing Interest Conflict in Policy Implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Karen R. Fisher  and
Sally Robinson
Karen R. Fisher
Affiliation:
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, SydneyNSW 2052, Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Sally Robinson
Affiliation:
Disability Studies and Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Participatory evaluation gives primacy to the experience of people affected by the policy. How realistic is it for researchers to persuade government of its benefits, given the gap between participatory policy theory and government evaluation practice? We apply this question to the Resident Support Program evaluation. The program coordinates support for people living in boarding houses and hostels in Queensland, Australia. We found that a participatory, longitudinal, formative evaluation process facilitated service user contribution to research outcomes, service experiences and policy implementation. In addition, the values position of participatory research can contribute to managing interest conflict in policy implementation.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 207 - 220
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

Abelló, D., Fisher, K. R., Robinson, S. and Chenoweth, L. (2004), ‘Resident Support Evaluation Plan’, report prepared for Disability Services Queensland, January 2004, Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) Report Series 10/04, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/FinalEvaluationPlan.pdf [7 December 2009].Google Scholar
AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2006), Disability and Disability Services in Australia, Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
Allen, C. (2005), ‘On the social relations of contract research production: power, positionality and epistemology in housing and urban research’, Housing Studies, 20, 6, 989–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badham, B. (2004), ‘Participation – for a change: disabled young people lead the way’, Children and Society 18, 2, 143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcazar, F. E., Keys, C. B., Kaplan, D. L. and Suarez-Balcazar, Y. (1998), ‘Participatory action research and people with disabilities: principles and challenges’, Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12, 105–12.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. (1996), ‘Disability and the myth of the independent researcher’, Disability and Society, 11, 107–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, C., Oliver, M. and Barton, L. (eds) (2002), Disability Studies Today, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. (2002), ‘User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation?’, Social Policy and Society, 1, 2, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, L. and Kelly, P. (2007), Organisational Planning Project Evaluation Report, Brisbane: National Disability Services Queensland and Griffith Abilities Research Program.Google Scholar
Clear, M. (2000), Promises, Promises: Disability and Terms of Inclusion, Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
Cockburn, T. (2005), ‘Children's participation in social policy: inclusion, chimera or authenticity?’, Social Policy and Society, 4, 2, 109–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocks, E. and Cockram, J. (1997), ‘Empowerment and the limitations of formal human services and legislation’, in Ramcharan, P., Roberts, G., Grant, G. and Borland, J. (eds.), Empowerment in Everyday Life: Learning Disability, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Colebatch, H. (2002), Policy, 2nd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Considine, M. (2005), Making Public Policy: Institutions, Actors, Strategies, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Davis, J. M. (2000), ‘Disability studies as ethnographic research and text: research strategies and roles for promoting social change?’, Disability and Society, 15, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Finance and Administration, Australia (DOFA) (2003), The Outcomes and Outputs Framework Guidance Document, Canberra: DoFA.Google Scholar
Drake, R. F. (2002), ‘Disabled people, voluntary organizations and participation in policy making’, Policy and Politics, 30, 3, 373–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, B. and Hearn, J. (2004), ‘Researching others: epistemology, experience and participation’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7, 3, 201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. (2003), Reframing Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, K. R. (2009), Whose Values Shape Social Policy? Policy Process Limits to Economic Rationalism, Saabrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr Muller.Google Scholar
Fisher, K. R., Abelló, D., Robinson, S., Siminski, P. and Chenoweth, L. (2005), ‘Resident support evaluation: final report’, report prepared for Disability Services Queensland, SPRC Report Series 2/05, http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/RSPFinalReport.pdf [7 December 2009].Google Scholar
Gilbert, T., Cochrane, A. and Greenwell, S. (2005), ‘Citizenship: locating people with learning difficulties’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury (2007), ‘Magenta book, guidenotes on policy evaluation’, policyhub.gov.uk/magenta_book/ [14 November 2007].Google Scholar
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2000), ‘Participatory action research’, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kitchin, R. (2001), ‘Using participatory action research approaches in geographical studies of disability: some reflections’, Disability Studies Quarterly, 21, 4, 61–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (2004), ‘The roots of fourth generation evaluation, theoretical and methodological origins’, in Alkin, M. C. (ed.), Evaluation Roots, Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Priestley, M. (2000), ‘Adults only: disability, social policy and the life course’, Journal of Social Policy, 29, 3, 421–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997), Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. (2002), ‘Involving people in analysis: listening, reflecting, discounting nothing’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 1, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S. and Dyke, J. (2004), Bringing Life to Legislation: Building a Strong Legislative Framework for and with People with Disability, Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. (2004), Walking the Talk: A Framework for Effective Engagement with People with Disability, Families and People who Support Them, Brisbane: Queensland Goverment.Google Scholar
Sample, P. (1996), ‘Beginnings: participatory action research and adults with developmental disabilities’, Disability and Society, 11, 3, 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Hill, M. (2002), ‘Policy, politics and the silencing of “voice”’, Policy and Politics, 30, 1, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, G. (ed.) (1998), The Citizenship Debates: A Reader, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. (2005), ‘Governing through evidence: participation and power in policy evaluation’, Journal of Social Policy, 34, 4, 601–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tregaskis, C. and Goodley, D. A. (2006), ‘Disability research with non-disabled people: towards a relational methodology of research production’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 5, 363–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titchkosky, T. (2003), ‘Governing embodiment: technologies of constituting citizens with disabilities’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 4, 517–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twigg, J. (2002), ‘The body in social policy: mapping a territory’, Journal of Social Policy, 31, 3, 421–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (2006), un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml [14 November 2007].Google Scholar
Woodhams, C. and Corby, S. (2003), ‘Defining disability in theory and practice: a critique of the British Disability Discrimination Act 1995’, Journal of Social Policy, 32, 2, 159–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, D. (2000), Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar