Recognising the value of qualitative research in the policy making world

by Francesca Morosi

Recognising the value of qualitative research in the policy making world - a learning log from the 2nd European conference on Qualitative Research for Policy Making held on the 26 & 27 May 2011 in Belfast, U.K.

Not so long ago, quantitative research was the only language policy-makers wanted to hear: social and economic indicators and table of statistics were seen as the only valid and scientific form of data for describing social problems and the only source of guidance they would turn to. Qualitative research was seen as not scientific enough, difficult to validate, not reliable, probably full of bias, difficult to understand and certainly too long to read (indeed, many reasons to get depressed for anybody engaging in qualitative research endeavour!)

This conference brought some optimism though: judging from many of the presentations I’ve heard in these two days, there is apparently more reason to smile today, as this attitude is slowly shifting. Increasingly, policy-makers are realising that a mixed approach towards methodologies is often more appropriate and therefore preferred (Giuseppe Veltri, JRC of European Commission talked insistently about a combination of “Quant & Qual”), since it’s capable to provide valuable information about the context, avoiding the pitfalls of “perverted” social indicators (particularly dangerous when they are read out of context: think about EU, where you have several countries which such a different political history and socio-economic background). At last, we start to see policy-makers asking for narrative accounts of the real world and truthful insights into people life and problems, they are asking  more “why” and “how” regarding the dynamics of specific social problems (questions dearest to qualitative research efforts) and I could sense a cautious but distinct optimism among many of the speakers (as well as many delegates and research colleagues, qualitative and quantitative researchers alike, as an increasing number of them recognize the benefit of overcoming the “quant/qual” dichotomy mindset).

Of course, this optimism is easily contagious and I ask myself whether this is the beginning of an exciting time for qualitative research adepts, for the power of “people stories”, the all-too-often forgotten “real voices”, to finally make a proud entrance into the policy-making arena?

What I learned from these two days is that this is undoubtedly a time of big opportunities for qualitative research, we have- as researchers, practitioners or coordinators- finally the potential to make a real impact in addressing social problems, BUT many critical aspects have been discussed and many thought-provoking questions been raised regarding the ability of researchers to interact effectively with the political dimension so typical of government agencies and decision-makers .  In order for research results to be translated into fruitful and usable guidance for government’s action and policies, researchers need to understand the policy-making world much better than now (quoting Timothy Nelson (Harvard University) from his presentation: “the policy process is often a sort of a mystery for researchers”), linking with them through organisations and agencies, learning to talk their language, addressing their concerns and motivations (in other words, overcoming a “black box” approach, as said by Giuseppe Veltri (JRC, European Commission) during our interview).

These are arguably difficult issues to be addressed and we were discussing how researchers need to be conscious from the starting point of their research of various strategic aspects which are unfortunately too often overlooked: for instance the importance of networking with the right organisations, making the right connections early on to try to get a feeling of what the political agenda is, using the media wisely by retaining some sort of “control” (see interviews with Timothy Nelson (Harvard University, US) and Lea Caragata (Wilfrid Lauriel University, Canada) which expand on this point), and how crucial is the issue of being timely with your results (policy-makers have their own priorities and they won’t listen unless is the right moment to push your argument – on this regard particularly illuminating among others were the presentations by Fran Bennett (University of Oxford, UK) & Sirin Sung (Queen’s University, Belfast), Grainne Kelly (INCORE, University of Ulster) and Susan J. Popkin (The Urban Institute, US). Admittedly, at several points during this conference I’ve reflected on my own naivety and feel tempted to shout “all naïve idealists academics in this room please stand up! A little reality check here…!”

The most enriching aspect of the conference (for me personally, but I am sure my opinion is shared by other delegates) has definitely been the wide range of perspectives provided: had it not been for such a diverse speakers’ background – different countries, different disciplines, different areas of work - I would not have learned so much and my perspective would perhaps have remained quite limited. Rather, it has been a rich and insightful tour into a variety of disparate (but somewhat convergent in many aspects) views.

As we had the opportunity to hear and share the experience of researchers working in very different environments (academia, charity and community organisations, government agencies, research institutions, EU Commission, to name but a few) we had the chance to see things from different angles, avoiding the danger of a monolithic view on the topic. It is clear from this exchange that the challenges ahead are complex and can vary greatly depending on our own specific role as a researcher (for instance, commissioned or non-commissioned research present different issues), the country we operate in (its political climate, social tension, racial issues, etc…), the particular position we may occupy, the organisational environment and many other factors. Overall there were no easy answers, but several useful reflections on how to engage more actively with policy makers and reduce the gap between the two worlds.

Some particularly touching presentations emphasised the empowerment of respondents which is possible through research and how to effectively use the “power of people’s stories” in qualitative research (or “power of voice” as Lea Caragata said, describing her PAR-participatory action research project with lone mothers in Canada); the necessity to leverage this aspect in order to produce real results in terms of social impact (Susan J. Popkin from The Urban Institute (US) provided a clear example of what can be achieved with this power: I quote her “we must create sympathy, we are humans, we like stories, right?”), without forgetting the huge advantage provided by the use of social media such as websites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and the likes (I prompt you to visit the online project Healthtalkonline.org which Sue Ziebland presented during our first day).

Other tricky - and sadly less exciting - aspects were discussed such as the danger for research results to be manipulated by political actors and the difficulty to control the final outcome once the results are out there: Grainne Kelly (Policy/Practice Coordinator INCORE, Northen Ireland) presented a poignant example of this problem; during her presentation we heard about the necessity of going to the heart of government, the issue of flexibility (should we shift our research questions to follow the political agenda?) and the need to “jump” to “a completely different level of self-awareness” while interacting with policy-makers.

So, what’s coming out of two days of relentless presentations? 
Quoting Giuseppe Veltri,  “there are no magic recipes”, but with perseverance, acumen, knowledge of the political game and use of appropriate language we can learn to approach this very different and often mysterious world with the right frame of mind.

p.s. I want to personally thanks all the delegates for their contributions, I have learned much more than expected (I only wish I had more time to grab speakers away from their coffee break!)

For more information about this conference, please visit the QRPM2011 past event website below:
http://www.merlien.org/past-events/qrpm2011.html

To contact the Blogger responsible for this story: Francesa Morosi in UK at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Francesca is Merlien Institute's Policy Affairs Blogger and a PhD Candidate at Nottingham Trent University. Her main research interests lie in the areas of Marketing Ethics and Consumer Behaviour, with particular reference to media, advertising and children. Her PhD aims to explore how pre-adolescent girls respond and interact with representations of femininity in current advertising messages, through an in-depth, qualitative and phenomenological approach.