The British Journal of Sociology 2004 Volume 55 Issue 3

Sociology and policy science: just in time?

Philip Davies

Lauder, Brown and Halsey’s (LBH) article ‘Sociology and Political Arith-
metic: Some Principles of a New Policy Science’ is most welcome by social
researchers who work in government. The synergy between LBH’s vision of
a new policy science and the work of government analysts to improve the
quality of evidence underlying government policy and strategic development,
is considerable. The central argument of LBH’s article, that sociology needs
to be more policy-oriented whilst at the same time challenging government
policies and holding them to account, articulates well the important role that
independent social science (not just sociology) should play in contemporary
democratic societies. LBH also make the case that in order to play this role
effectively sociology must combine theoretical insight with rigorous empirical
investigation so that the analysis it offers is explanatory rather than just
descriptive and observational. This is also most welcome to government
researchers. The recognition by LBH that sociology must also be more inter-
disciplinary with other social sciences, and with the natural sciences, and that
it must encompass quantitative as well as qualitative research methods, is also
music to the ears of social researchers and other analysts working inside
government.

What policy analysis requires

Why do I say that LBH’s article is so welcome to government social

researchers? Mainly because it comes close to what policy analysis currently
requires. Policy research and analysis requires researchers with multi-method
capabilities including knowledge, skills and competence in quantitative and
qualitative methods, experimental and quasi-experimental designs, and the
ability to work on data gathered in naturalistic and controlled settings. The
fact that public policy is developed and implemented with finite resources

Davies (Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit) (Corresponding author email: phil.davies@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk)

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004 ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA on behalf of the LSE. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00030.x
448 Philip Davies

means that policy analysts should also be able to use the analytical concepts
of economic evaluation such as cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analy-
sis, opportunity costs and how to discount the value of future benefits in real-
price terms. Given that public policy seeks to affect human and social
behaviour, policy analysts should also understand the concepts and
approaches of social psychology, cognitive science, and social anthropology. In
light of the IT revolution and the easy availability of many types of informa-
tion, often of variable quality, policy analysts should have well developed
knowledge-management skills, including effective and efficient searching abil-
ities, critical appraisal skills, and the ability to synthesize and summarize social
science research in ways that make it clear and accessible to non-specialists.
They must also have the ability to go beyond being just technical analysts and
be able to offer explanations of why, how, and under what conditions policies
are likely to work or not work. The ability to challenge what constitutes
‘working’ and ‘not working’, and to identify the theories of change underlying
policies, is also a pre-requisite for contemporary policy analysts. In addition,
because government social researchers commission and manage large
amounts of social research they must also have well developed abilities in
project and budget management.

Can sociologists provide this?

Is it realistic to expect sociologists, or any other social scientists, to be such

multi-talented polymaths? Clearly, not all of them can have full expertise in
all of these areas. There will always be some people with well-developed skills
in some areas and less developed in others. The need for collaborative, inter-
disciplinary team working is clear. However, what is presented above is almost
certainly the range of skills and abilities that are needed by sociologists in
order to contribute effectively to the ‘new policy science’ that LBH propose.
How do today’s sociologists and other social researchers compare in terms of
this ‘ideal’ job specification?
The government social research service (GSR) is fortunate in being able to
recruit the very best graduates from universities in the UK and other coun-
tries. GSR recruits graduates with at least an upper-second class undergradu-
ate degree and, in many cases, a Masters qualification in sociology or some
other social science discipline. GSR has some of the best social researchers in
the UK. Notwithstanding the high quality of government social researchers,
there are frequently self-reported skills’ deficits in quantitative methods,
experimental and quasi-experimental designs, and in systematic reviews and
meta-analysis. Other areas in which there is a constant need for professional
development include applied economic analysis, qualitative research synthe-
sis, behavioural understanding, and how to undertake analysis for policy. These
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
 Sociology and policy science 449

areas form the foundations of the expertise that LBH see as a central
contribution to policy analysis. The capacity of external contractors to provide
these analytical skills is also often limited, especially in the UK. Not all weak-
nesses in these areas can be laid at the door of academic sociology, though to
some extent they may reflect a vision of sociology that does not support the
political arithmetic or policy science programme proposed by LBH.
A further problem with some sociologists is that they often communicate
with each other in a language that is opaque, impenetrable, and inaccessible
to policy makers and policy analysts. Sociology seems to have become inward
looking, tribal and inaccessible. The so-called scientific value of sociology often
appears to have an inverse relationship to its utility. Many research projects
undertaken by sociologists ask questions that are of interest to nobody other
than fellow sociologists, or that have no interest in addressing public policy
issues. This is not to say that sociological inquiry should always have a policy
focus, nor that theoretical development is unworthy. Indeed, LBH’s point
about the importance of theories in explaining empirical findings is highly per-
tinent and well taken. The question remains, however, whether the theoreti-
cal developments we make in academic sociology can contribute to the policy
science that LBH are proposing. Do they, or can they, help to develop policy
making, policy implementation, and policy evaluation? In my view the answer
is ‘not very often’. Moreover many sociologists, in common with other disci-
plines and professions, lack the communication skills to reach those who are
struggling to find solutions to pressing problems of policy and strategic devel-
opment. This means that government social researchers often have to spend
considerable time identifying and communicating to policy makers the essen-
tial findings of social research projects, including those that receive RAE five-
star ratings. The debates that take place in many sociological journals are of
little or no relevance to analysts and policy makers who occupy the primary
space in the ‘new policy science’. Indeed, they often have little or no relevance
to anyone other than professional sociologists.

Just in time?

Lauder, Brown and Halsey’s article, therefore, is welcome and well presented.
It is long overdue, and probably too late to help to establish a sound evidence
base for the reform and delivery agenda of the present Government. Such a
response might seem churlish given Lauder’s, Brown’s and Halsey’s own dis-
tinguished records of applied sociology and their excellent analytical work in
the areas of education, welfare, and social inequalities. It is also unfair to those
social researchers who do provide the service to policy science (and to gov-
ernment) that is envisaged by LBH. More generally, however, in the past
three decades or so sociology seems to have moved away from equipping
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
450 Philip Davies

sociologists to undertake rigorous policy analysis, or to make the insights of

the discipline accessible to policy makers and social welfare practitioners. This
may be a more general problem of the gap between academic discourse and
praxis. It may be that being relevant and useful is not what contemporary soci-
ology is all about. Being detached, conceptual, taxonomic, and theoretically
abstract may be the contemporary modus operandi of academic sociology. In
which case, LBH’s vision of sociology playing such a central role in policy
science is misplaced. For those who share LBH’s vision, however, the message
is clear: much of academic sociology is behind the game of ‘new policy science’.
If it does not catch up quickly it will lose out to other sources of analysis the
opportunities to contribute to policy science that LBH have identified so well.
(Date accepted: June 2004)

Biographical Note

Philip Davies has spent most of the past three decades as an academic
sociologist in both research and teaching. Most recently, he was Director of
Social and Political Science in the Department for Continuing Education at
the University of Oxford. He joined the Cabinet Office on secondment in
2000, and has become a permanent civil servant and Deputy Director of the
Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, which is part of the Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office or the Prime Min-
ister’s Strategy Unit.

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004