A helping hand or a servant discipline?

In the UK, a diverse network of actors has emerged around the delivery of government-sponsored processes of public participation in science and technology. Although this network includes social scientists, the relationship between social science and participatory policy-making remains an ambiguous one. My objective in this paper is to reflect in an exploratory manner on non-academic perspectives of the roles of social science in public participation. In particular, I draw attention to the contrasting conceptions of the policy relevant roles of social science that appear to prevail among academic social scientists (a discipline in which the analysis and critique of modes of thought and action are valued highly) and the non-academic actors (a discipline that is valued for its instrumental, problem-oriented potential). Further, I explore the ways in which the non-academic conception of social science as an instrumental discipline might be interpreted; for example, as merely providing a helping hand or, more pointedly, as a servant discipline to the objectives and interests of others. I conclude with an exploratory discussion of the challenges and opportunities that this contrast presents for social scientists. Further, I make the case that social scientists should clearly advocate the policy relevance and value of analysis and critique

Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers: a Study on Behalf of a Consortium of Uk Public Research Funders

The "Factors affecting public engagement by researchers" project suggests that the embedding of public engagement in institutional cultures is best understood as a 'work in progress'. There are positive indications in the project outputs that public engagement is increasingly part of the landscape of higher education and research institutions, and that participation in and value placed on public engagement has increased in recent years. At the same time, the research suggests that researchers and institutions remain uncertain about systems of rewards for public engagement, within the context of a profession that is driven by research (and teaching). The project suggests that public engagement is more firmly embedded in the context of the arts, humanities and social sciences than it is among researchers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Wide-ranging research over a lengthy period shows that institutional change of this kind is highly challenging and that higher education institutions are known to be relatively slow to change. Within this context, the project indicates that, while recent and current strategies have been helpful, longer term effort -- perhaps targeted in particular domains -- is required

A "work in progress"? Public engagement is now part of the UK research landscape but challenges remain

Funders of UK research have sought to foster a research culture in which public engagement is embedded at all levels. Kevin Burchell, Chloe Sheppard and Jenni Chambers report on research examining the extent of participation in public engagement by UK researchers, how it varies, and why. Large majorities of researchers have participated in public engagement and are broadly positive about it, while institutions are also shown to be supportive. However, a lack of time, opportunities, funding, and reward are cited as constraints. Meanwhile, public engagement appears more firmly embedded in the arts, humanities and social sciences than it is among STEM researchers. The provision of effective, accessible training is found to be an important precursor to participation in public engagement

Rethinking energy consumption feedback in everyday life

The provision of energy consumption feedback to householders has emerged as an important energy consumption reduction strategy, and smart meter roll-outs with in-home displays (IHDs) are planned in a number of countries. The rationale behind this approach is supported by theory in a range of disciplines and the largest meta-review to date suggests that reductions in consumption of 9% are feasible (Ehrhardt-Martinez 2010). However, recent ethnographic work – including our own – focuses on the ways in which everyday life constrains the effectiveness of current forms of consumption feedback. In this paper we build on this work to suggest four ways in which energy consumption feedback might prompt greater reductions in consumption. 1. Since energy per se is often not meaningful or salient to householders, we propose that consumption feedback should be oriented around the practices that are recognisable and meaningful in people’s everyday lives. 2. Current forms of feedback often fail to challenge practices that are treated as normal or immutable; for this reason, we propose that feedback should be designed to disrupt current practices (for instance, by the inclusion of normative messages about waste). 3. Since long-term engagement with IHDs is identified as challenging, we propose that feedback should be accompanied by on-going communications designed to prolong engagement. 4. Engagement with IHDs is often limited to one household member and this can lead to household conflict; to tackle this issue, we suggest that feedback devices are designed to facilitate text and graphic communication to prompt household discussion

Empire Fighting Chance: boxing based mentoring: feasibility and pilot trial report

What does this project involve? Empire Fighting Chance (EFC) aim to use non-contact boxing programmes accompanied with personal development support to reduce anti-social and criminal behaviour amongst at risk young people. Their programmes combine physical activity sessions with one-to-one or group mentoring support, where coaches encourage children to work on personal development points designed to improve behaviour. Why did YEF fund this project? As the YEF’s toolkit explains, sports programmes are associated with a high average impact on reducing serious youth violence and crime. However, there are considerable gaps in the evidence, particularly relating to robust evaluations conducted in an English or Welsh context. YEF, therefore, funded a feasibility and pilot evaluation of EFC’s programmes. The feasibility study examined several EFC’s interventions. It aimed to ascertain whether these programmes achieved their intended outputs for their intended target groups, explore the barriers and facilitators to delivery, detail how much of the interventions young people received, and assess quality, responsiveness, and reach. To explore these questions, programme monitoring data on 831 participants and an online satisfaction survey undertaken by 204 young people were analysed. Interviews were also conducted with 10 project staff, and 6 participants and their parents. 10-14 year olds who were at risk of involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour were targeted by the programmes, and the feasibility study ran from November 2019 to June 2021. The pilot study then evaluated a new, school-based, boxing mentoring programme, which combined elements of EFC programmes examined by the feasibility study. This new programme aimed to deliver a 12-week mentoring intervention in schools, where weekly physical activities (including skipping, circuit training, punch pads and boxing techniques) were delivered by an EFC coach. While leading these sessions, the coach would discuss ‘Personal Development Points’ with children (such as the importance of regulating mood, eating well, and taking responsibility for your actions). The programme targeted pupils in Year 8 and 9, who had demonstrated behavioural difficulties, poor attendance, and an interest in sport. The pilot evaluation aimed to assess how feasible an efficacy randomised controlled trial of the programme may be, inform the design of a future evaluation, and assess whether there is any preliminary evidence of promise. To explore these questions the evaluator analysed quantitative project delivery data, administered questionnaires featuring validated measures (such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Problem Behaviour Frequency Scale (PBFS)), and interviewed 17 pupils, five project staff and six teachers. Of the 91 children in the pilot study, 64% identified as White, 13% as Black, 11% as Mixed Ethnicity and 9% as Asian. The pilot commenced in September 2021 and concluded in June 2022. Both the feasibility and pilot studies took place during the coronavirus pandemic, requiring both the delivery and evaluation teams to adapt to challenging circumstances

Rugby Football League – Inspiring Futures Educate Mentoring Programme: feasibility and pilot trial report

What does this project involve? The Educate Mentoring Programme aims to improve children’s wellbeing, resilience, social relationships and confidence, and lead to a long term reduction in offending. Delivered by the Rugby Football League (RFL) across Leeds, Huddersfield, Warrington, St Helens, Hull, Wigan and Leigh, Educate Mentoring is a 12 week programme targeted at 11-14 year olds. Weekly mentoring sessions are offered, which focus on building core personal skills and improving children’s awareness of risky behaviours and positive choices. Sessions, delivered by RFL professional club foundation coaches, are typically provided in school, last two hours, and comprise a mentoring conversation followed by physical activity. ‘At risk’ young people are selected for Educate Mentoring by schools, who target children with poor behaviour and attendance, and an interest in sport. Why did YEF fund this project? As the YEF’s toolkit explains, both sports programmes and mentoring interventions are associated with a positive average impact on reducing serious youth violence and crime. However, there are considerable gaps in the evidence, particularly relating to robust evaluations conducted in an English or Welsh context. YEF, therefore, funded a feasibility and pilot evaluation of Educate Mentoring. The feasibility study aimed to ascertain whether the programme could achieve its intended outputs for the intended target groups, explore the facilitators and barriers to delivery, detail how many mentoring sessions children received, and assess the quality, responsiveness, and reach of the programme. To explore these questions, the evaluators interviewed 17 pupils, and 14 project staff and partners. Project delivery monitoring data on 218 programme participants was also analysed, alongside an online satisfaction survey with 82 children. The pilot study then aimed to assess the extent to which an efficacy randomised controlled trial of Educate Mentoring might be feasible, acquire detailed information that could inform the design of a future evaluation, and ascertain whether there was any preliminary evidence of promise. To explore these questions, the evaluator analysed demographic data and project delivery data relating to 111 pupils, administered surveys that included validated measures (the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Problem Behaviour Frequency Scale (PBFS)), and conducted interviews and focus groups with 8 project staff, 7 teachers, and 29 pupils. The pilot was delivered as a randomised controlled trial, with 10 schools and 111 pupils; schools recruited to the pilot were allocated to either receive the programme, or to a waitlist control group. 88% of the young people involved identified as White, 5% as Asian, 4% as Black, and 4% as Mixed ethnicity. The evaluation ran from November 2019 to June 2022. Both the feasibility and pilot studies took place during the coronavirus pandemic, requiring both the delivery and evaluation teams to adapt to challenging circumstances