Print This Article
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 | JANUARY 2015 ISSN 1757-9597 Longitudinal and Life Course Studies: International Journal Supplement: SLLS 2014 Conference Abstracts Published by Society for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies International Conference LIVES IN TRANSLATION: Life Course Research and Social Policies University of Lausanne, Amphipole Building, UNIL – Sorge, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 9 - 11 October 2014 ABSTRACT BOOK __________________ #slls2014 Day 1 – Thursday 9th October 2014 KEYNOTE The social investment strategy: Social policies in a life course perspective Giuliano Bonoli, Professor of Social Policy, University of Lausanne, Switzerland European welfare states have to face a large number of serious challenges. These include population aging, the shift to multicultural societies, and the transformation of the labour market and of family structures. Against this background several experts, EU institutions and some individual countries place substantial hopes in social investment as a reform strategy. The notion of social investment refers to interventions that promote labour market participation of disadvantaged groups, by investing in their human capital and by improving the accessibility of the labour market. With instruments such as active labour market policies and subsidised childcare, the social investment strategy promises to deal with social problems and at the same time produce returns for society as a whole, by promoting higher employment rates and productivity. In the presentation, the social investment strategy is assessed on the basis of a range of problems that have been highlighted by life- course researchers. PARALLEL SESSION 1 1A SYMPOSIUM Developing successful relationships with key stakeholder groups in cohort studies A stakeholder can be defined as a person or a group of people who have something to gain or lose through the outcomes of a project. Identification of key stakeholders and the successful management of these groups are critical to the success of cohort studies. A full understanding of the knowledge, interests, positions and alliances, for example, allows leaders of cohort studies to detect and prevent any potential misunderstandings and possible opposition to policy recommendations, making the policy more likely to succeed. A multidisciplinary team from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a birth cohort based in Bristol, UK, will run a symposium on developing successful relationships with key stakeholder groups. The first session will provide an overview of stakeholder analysis and suggest why it is important for cohort studies to identify the needs and concerns of different stakeholders, particularly when these projects aim to influence policy. An interactive screen app will be used to gather ideas from the group about who the key stakeholders are in cohort studies and this information will be used to develop an interest and power grid for the stakeholders the group consider most important. Suggestions will be offered for how to use this information to conduct further analyses and develop a strategy for managing these relationships more effectively. The following three sessions will look in turn at four important stakeholder groups – participants, policy-makers, the public and researchers. These sessions will outline the way ALSPAC has used stakeholder analysis to work more effectively with these important stakeholder groups. Who are our key stakeholders and why are they important? Lynn Molloy, ALSPAC, UK A stakeholder can be defined as person or a group of people who have something to gain or lose through the outcomes of a project. Identification of key stakeholders and the successful management of these groups are critical to the success of cohort studies. Cohort studies are complex organisations, and leaders of cohort studies are required to manage relationships with different groups of stakeholders, who will have different, and at times conflicting, views on how the research is conducted. Stakeholder relations change over time and cohort studies need to understand how these changes are affecting stakeholder groups and put in place strategies to maintain effective relationships. In bridging research and policy, stakeholder analysis can be used to identify the groups engaged in conducting research, those who make/implement policy, and people working between these groups. It can define ways to engage stakeholders so that the impact of research can be maximised. It can also be used when research findings are available to use the evidence to create policy impact. This session will provide an overview of stakeholder analysis and apply it to cohort studies. Using an interactive screen app the group will identify the key stakeholder groups in cohort studies and prioritise these groups in terms of their influence and power. This information will be used to develop a power/interest grid during the session. Stakeholders with high power and interests aligned to the study, the ‘decision-makers’ and ‘opinion leaders’, are those that it is important to engage with and bring on board. At the end of the session suggestions will be offered about a) further analysis which can explore these relationships in more detail and b) the development of a strategy for how best to engage with stakeholders, how to frame messages and how to manage the relationship with them. ÉCOUTER: Supporting participant engagement Madeleine Murtagh, ALSPAC, UK Engaging participant stakeholders in longitudinal studies is axiomatic. The rationales are both ethical and practical. Engagement, done well, is in and of itself a respectful act. By that route, by being respectful, and through regular predictable patterns of study behaviour (eg. participants’ experience of consistency in the study design, practice and expectations of them) trust is built. Trust is the foundation of that other vital marker of engagement, participant retention. Participants who are engaged are, arguably, more likely to maintain their participation in the study. Respect and meeting expectation are the underpinning of maintaining good participant relations over the relatively predictable pattern of a longitudinal study. What happens, though, when an important but unforeseen policy issue arises; e.g., a new technology that allows unforeseen or potentially controversial research questions. Imposition of such technology may not be appropriate; having the potential to breach participant’s trust and thereby threaten retention. In this setting, deliberative mechanisms of engagement, such as citizen’s juries, consensus meetings and deliberative focus groups, can be useful. But these rely on substantive existing knowledge of their participants, which in the case of new technological, legal or methodological approaches within the study design may be outside participant’s routine knowledge or experience. In these cases incorporating additional existing exploration of the issues can help participants draw upon their own knowledge and experience of cognate issues. ÉCOUTER (Employing COnceptual schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research), French for ‘listen’, is one such method. The ÉCOUTER method uses concept mapping and conceptual schemas to collaboratively address a question of interest within a defined stakeholder community. It combines the knowledge, skills and experience of expert stakeholders (e.g. participants) and appropriate evidence, often qualitative, to produce a conceptual framework to describe the phenomenon/issue and upon which to make recommendations for research, governance and practice. Working with policy makers and the public in ALSPAC Dara O’Hare, ALSPAC, UK In this session we will present the work we have been doing to prepare the ground for engaging with policy makers and we will showcase examples of research that we have brought to policy makers’ attention indirectly through the media with significant effect. Starting with the establishment on an in-house policy working group, we will take you on a tour of our partnerships and collaborations with colleagues in higher education who are engaged with policy debates, both at the University of Bristol (UK) – in particular the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute and PolicyBristol – and beyond, notably the Cohort and Longitudinal Studies Enhancement Resources (CLOSER). We will outline how we are working to get closer to key decision makers in the UK Parliament through our work with the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST), the Evidence Information Service (EIS), and the Science Media Centre (SMC) in London. We will also demonstrate how a chance encounter with a commissioner from the Bristol Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is helping us build closer connections with the National Health Service (NHS). (CCGs are NHS organisations that organise the delivery of NHS services in England). We will also talk about how we engage with the public through our media and public-engagement work and how this has been rewarded with an OBE for our founder and the inaugural Bristol Genius Award for being a great project that originated in Bristol but makes a difference worldwide. We’ll also talk about ‘the ALSPAC effect’, whereby national participatory research projects see a higher participation rate in Bristol than anywhere else, which is attributed to the high profile and positive public perception of ALSPAC within the city. Collaborator versus customer: ALSPAC’s changing relationship with researchers Kate Northstone, ALSPAC, UK Researchers are an important stakeholder