Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 1

Building Bridges

Towards effective means of linking scientific research and

public policy: Migrants in European cities

An exploratory survey in 10 European countries by Metropolis International (European

Arm) for the European Commission

Malcolm Cross
Roger Henke
Philippe Oberknezev
Katarina Pouliasi

February 2000
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 2

Cross M., Henke R.

Building Bridges.
Towards effective means of linking scientific research and public policy: Migrants in
European cities
(Research Papers/Netherlands School for Social and Economic Policy Research (AWSB),
ISSN 1383-729X; nr. 20), ISBN 90-393-2368-2

© Malcolm Cross & Roger Henke

All rights reserved. For the use of any part of this publication in any form (article 16
Dutch Copyright Act 1912) apply to the Netherlands School for Social and Economic
Policy Research.

Lay-out : René Hendriks, AV media/FSW-UU

Cover : René Hendriks
Logo : BRS Premsela Vonk
Printer : Tessel Offset
Repro : FSW-UU

Netherlands School for Social and Economic Policy Research (AWSB)

Heidelberglaan 2
3584 CS, Utrecht
The Netherlands
tel. 31 (0)30-2539220
fax. 31 (0)30-2532045
e-mail [email protected]
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 3

Contents

Preface 7

Executive summary 11

1. Objectives and context 13

1.1 THE METROPOLIS PROJECT 13
1.2 MIGRANTS, MINORITIES, AND THE URBAN CONTEXT 14
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 15
1.3.1 Short-term objectives 15
Box 1 What is wrong with researchers and policy-makers? 16
1.3.2 Methodology 17
1.3.3 Consequences 18
1.3.4 Long-term objectives 18
1.4 DEFINING ‘GOOD PRACTICE’ 19

2 The research-policy linkage 21

2.1 SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES: KNOWLEDGE UTILISATION 21
Box 2 Carol Weiss on 25 years of research on knowledge utilisation 22
Box 3 What research has to offer policy 23
Box 4 Models to describe the linkage between research and policy 23
2.2 KNOWLEDGE UTILISATION: STATE OF THE ART 23
2.3 FROM KNOWLEDGE UTILISATION TO RELATIONSHIP 25
Box 5 Factors which encourage innovation 25
Box 6 Metaphor: a way of thinking 26
2.4 RELATED ISSUES 27
2.4.1 Interdisciplinarity 27
Box 7 Six types of interdisciplinarity 28
2.4.2 Interorganisational networks 28
Box 8 The growing importance of NGO-networks 29
Box 9 Relevant dimensions of federative networks 30
2.4.3 Integrated rural development 30
Box 10 Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP) 31
2.4.4 Bench-marking 32
2.5 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 32
2.5.1 Weiss extended 32
2.5.2 A different ordering of factors 34
2.5.3 The framework described 34
2.5.4 Caveats 34

3. Comparing European perspectives: context 41

3.1 DIFFERENCES IN THE R&D INPUT BETWEEN COUNTRIES 41
Box 11 Problems with R&D indicators 41
Box 12 Europe compared to other regions 42
Box 13 Differences between national R&D systems 42

3
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 4

Box 14 Differences between the place of university research in national

R&D systems 43
3.2 MAIN LINES OF VARIATION 44
3.2.1 Ideology 44
3.2.1.1 Political Culture 44
Box 15 The corporatist political culture of Austria 45
Box 16 Northern Italy: interwoven public and private sectors 46
3.2.1.2 Academic Culture 47
Box 17 Diversity in intellectual styles 47
Box 18 Sweden: open towards policy-relevance 48
Box 19 Germany: internal focus 49
3.2.1.3 Policy philosophy for the sector concerned 50
Box 20 Immigrants’ participation in political decision-making 51
Box 21 Labelling and political correctness in surveys 53
3.2.1.4 The place accorded to science as a knowledge producer by the political
and administrative Establishment 53
Box 22 Ethnic and migration studies centres in Europe 54
Box 23 The case of Greece 54
3.2.1.5 The political belief in rational planning 56
Box 24 Three phases of science and technology policy 57
Box 25 The old and the new mode of knowledge production 58
3.2.1.6 The different status assigned to different disciplines 60
Box 26 Status of the social sciences: US versus Europe 60
3.2.2 Institutional structures 60
3.2.2.1 The research system in a particular sector 61
Box 27 Being small can be a problem: Flanders, Switzerland and Norway 61
Box 28 The Dutch case 63
3.2.2.2 The institutional structure of the policy sector 63
Box 29 The European union and the social sciences 64
3.2.2.3 Mobility of professionals between sectors and institutional settings 65
Box 30 Commissione per l’integrazione (Italy) 65
Box 31 Advisory councils in the Netherlands 66
3.2.3 History 66
Box 32 Jorg Haider, Austria’s conundrum 68
3.3 CONTEXT FACTORS AND THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 68

4. Comparing European perspectives: content 71

4.1 A DELINEATION OF THE FIELD 71
4.2 THREE ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES 71
Box 33 Migration and integration research: a list of themes 72
4.2.1 Migrants or minorities? 73
4.2.2 Human capital or structures of opportunity? 73
4.2.3 Victims or agents? 74
4.3 PERSPECTIVES AND THEMES 74
4.4 MIGRATION 76
Box 34 A shortlist of topics for research from Greece 76
Box 35 The definitional range of migration studies and information gaps 77

4
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 5

4.5 An immigration perspective 77

Box 36 Western Europe and immigration 78
Box 37 Immigration and integration 79
4.6 Attitudes towards international comparison 79
4.6.1 General trends 80
4.6.2 Dealing with data 81
Box 38 Data archives 81

5. Comparing European perspectives: good linkage arrangements 85

5.1 THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUALS 85
5.1.1 Bench-marking: the field of management 86
Box 39 Team roles 86
Box 40 Thinking in yellow, blue, red, green or white print 87
5.1.2. The facilitator 88
Box 41 Facilitating a product developing team 88
Box 42 Roles and functions of a facilitator 89
5.1.3 The intermediary 90
5.1.3.1 The policy entrepreneur 90
Box 43 Ways of embedding knowledge brokers in a policy setting 90
5.1.3.2 The research entrepreneur 91
Box 44 A research liaison office: RDSO of Warwick university 91
5.1.3.3 Prerequisites and Problems 92
5.2 THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS 93
5.2.1 Combining applied data-gathering and theory-driven research 93
Box 45 Fundamental versus applied research: theory 94
Box 46 Censis, Centre for Social Studies and Policies (Italy) 94
Box 47 The Dutch annual poverty reports 96
5.2.2 Multidisciplinary approach 96
Box 48 Light infrastructure social science laboratories 97
5.2.3 Shared problem definition and project monitoring 98
Box 49 Looking at native language teaching for immigrant children
in Austria 99
Box 50 The Austrian research programme on Xenophobia 100
5.2.4 Flexible arrangements 101
Box 51 Monitors on behalf of the Dutch Home Ministry 101
5.2.5 Long-term commitments 101
Box 52 Cooperation 102
5.2.6 Overlapping experience 103
5.2.7 Self-reflexivity 103
Box 53 To argue an opinion means to risk its credibility 104
Box 54 Incremental policy 105
Box 55 Research fictions and policy fictions 105

6. Conclusions and recommendations 107

6.1 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK REVISITED 107
6.1.1 The framework fleshed out 107
6.1.2 The framework analysed 109

5
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:54 Page 6

6.2 LINKING GOOD ARRANGEMENTS TO KINDS OF RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT 110

6.2.1 Styles of research 110
6.2.2 Styles and arrangements 111
6.2.2.1 Policy research 111
6.2.2.2 Policy relevant research 112
6.2.2.3 Policy-oriented research 113
6.2.3 Institutional design 113
Box 56 Österreichisches Forum für Migrationsstudien 114
6.3 LINKAGE AND RELATIONSHIP 117

7. Select annotated bibliography: A guide to further reading 119

8. Other literature used for this report 129

Notes 133

Appendices
A METROPOLIS 143
B INTERVIEWEES 145
C CONFERENCES ATTENDED 151
D INTERVIEW GUIDELINES 153
E CONTRACT RESEARCH BY COMMERCIAL AGENCIES 157
F UNIVERSITIES ADAPTING TO CHANGES IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT 160
G POLICY PHILOSOPHY 161
H WEISS COMPARATIVE CASE STUDIES 162
I COMPARATIVE MACRO-INDICATORS OF RTD 164
J PHILOSOPHIES GOVERNING EUROPEAN MIGRATION AND MINORITY POLICIES 169
K ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 171
L AUFGABEN UND ORGANISATION DES SCHWEIZERISCHEN FORUMS FÜR
MIGRATIONSSTUDIEN 173

6
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:54 Page 7

Preface

From September 1997 to September 1998, the European Research Centre on Migra-
tion and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER) hosted the European arm of the international
secretariat of Metropolis (for a description, see chapter 1.1 and appendix A), support-
ed by funds from the European Commission. In March of 1998, in consultation with
the Commission, the secretariat agreed to concentrate its activities during the remain-
der of the contract period on mapping European experiences and perceptions of
research-policy linkage in the field of “migrants and cities”. The report you are about
to read is one of the results of that exploration.

Some of this report’s findings have been available for quite some time. The final activi-
ties report of the secretariat (September 1998), contained a paper by Roger Henke,
outlining the objectives, the data collection, and the major results of the study (The
research-policy interface: Metropolis project review of European states; a revised ver-
sion has been published on http://www.unesco.org/most/scspco2.htm). Malcolm
Cross summarised many of our conclusions regarding the institutional prerequisites and
suitable instruments for proper linkage at the third international Metropolis conference
(December 1998, Research within Metropolis: an agenda for action).

What are the reasons, then, for the delay of more than a year in the publication of the
final report of our study? One (admittedly significant) is that all of us moved on to
other jobs. But more importantly, none of us was very eager to devote many evenings
and weekends to write a report that would not add substantially to what was already
available. We felt we had delivered what the Commission wanted us to do; we had
made our empiral results, on effective arrangements for linkaging research and policy,
as well as our recommendations on how to organise them, available to the network of
Metropolis partners in an easy-to-digest form. Simply elaborating on these would not
have produced any new insights and probably would have ended up unread on
shelves and in drawers. At least, the common kind of elaboration for comparative and
explorative surveys like ours, that consists only of best practice examples and/or
(quickly outdated) country summaries. Not a very attractive prospect, indeed.

Unfortunately, new insights cannot be produced on demand. Their gestation is inpre-

dictable. For us, however, the long wait has paid off. We believe that our present
report contains the kind of value added that makes it worthwhile reading, even for
those who are already familiar with our earlier conclusions and recommendations. The
additional value is not found so much in new or additional conclusions or recommen-
dations (although the report contains some), but rather in the change of perspective
on the linkage issue. We propose to stop defining the linkage issue in terms of knowl-
edge utilisation, and look upon it as a relational problem instead.

Looking back upon the emergence of that perspective, it has been staring us in the
face all the time. Nearly all of our September 1998 conclusions were phrased in rela-
tional terms. But - as the present report tries to convey - looking at the linkage issue

7
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:54 Page 8

through the metaphor of relationship really opens up new vistas. By this shift in per-
spective, our study has become even more “exploratory” than it already was. The
intention is to make a case, not to explore all of its consequences and implications.

Because of this, we label the report an interim product; we intend to develop the
argument further, in order to consider consequences and implications more systemati-
cally. Input from readers is very much welcomed. As stated in our long-term objectives
(1.3.4), we look upon this report as a stage-marker in an ongoing process.

Chapter one describes the context of the study (the Metropolis project), its short-term
and long-term objectives, and the methodology. In chapter two, a conceptual frame-
work of the research-policy linkage issue is developed, and the concept of bench-
marking “related issues” (interdisciplinarity, interorganisational networks, and partici-
patory project planning) is introduced. Chapter three compares European countries in
terms of context factors: differences in their research and development appropriations;
in “ideological” factors, such as academic or political culture; in institutional structures;
and in historical particularities. All are related to the conceptual framework. Chapter
four describes information needs expressed by our interviewees, and their attitudes
towards international comparison. In chapter five, we discuss the importance of indi-
viduals in linking research and policy, and we discuss the tendency of particular institu-
tional arrangements (derived from the interviews) to effectively facilitate linkage. In
the concluding (sixth) chapter, we insert the empirical results of chapters three and five
into the conceptual framework, introduce a typology of styles of research to order the
means of effective linkage (identified in chapter five) and discuss the kind of institu-
tional design that would best facilitate those linkage arrangements.

Our presentation contains several peculiarities that might need some explicit justifica-
tion. First, we opted for the inclusion of as many examples or illustrations as possible
of situations that are not directly related to the issue of research-policy linkage. We
hope that others will pick up on our suggestion for bench-marking, and make a
detailed analysis of one or more of these situations or fields. And second, we included
more Dutch examples than befits one country in a comparative study. This is not so
much because Roger Henke, who is the major contributor to the report, is based in
the Netherlands, but because the Netherlands has a long tradition of (internationally
inaccessible) studies on the linkage issue, and, as a country where social science
research and social policy interact very closely, it is home to a very rich cornucopia of
linkage modalities.

We would not have been able to conduct our study without the support and input
from many organisations and individuals. First and foremost, it was the willingness of
our interviewees to contribute time and expertise, that made this study possible. At
the very foundation of this report’s emphasis on relationship, lies the vision of the
Metropolis founders, Demetrios Papademetriou, from the International Migration Poli-
cy Program (Carnegie Endowment for International Piece), and Meyer Burstein, from
the Metropolis project (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), as well as the view on
research-policy linkage of Metropolis’ present European co-chair, Rinus Penninx (Uni-
versity of Amsterdam). Nicole Dewandre, from DG XII (EC), lobbied hard within the

8
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:55 Page 9

Commission’s bureaucracy to secure a start up grant for a European arm of the

Metropolis secretariat; she also suggested the idea of an exploratory survey as a
means of generating effective linkage ideas. The Metropolis partners were very helpful
in arranging meetings on short notice with many knowledgeable individuals. Our edi-
tor, Nancy Schaefer, improved the flow of the manuscript considerably. Ronald
Schouten helped with tables and figures, and René Hendriks contributed a professional
layout.

9
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:55 Page 10

10
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:55 Page 11

Executive summary

This study claims that one of the major reasons for the general feeling that social sci-
ence analysis of research-policy linkage has not delivered much relief is caused by its
fixation on the utilisation of knowledge. Bench-marking the issue of research-policy
linkage shows that the discussion on related issues (such as interdisciplinarity) is primari-
ly in terms of the quality of the relationship between the persons to be linked, and the
effects of the relationship (i.e. i.c. non-use or under-use of academic knowledge) are
considered in derivative terms. This shift in perspective clearly fits well with the tenden-
cies of particular arrangements to be effective means of linkage, as distilled from our
interview material. In terms of new research, arrangements offer good linkage potential
if:
• Problem definitions and project monitoring are shared by the research and the policy
interests;
• And project teams are open to all disciplines, necessary for the study of the problem
as defined;
• Within the context of a long term commitment;
• That is flexible enough to allow mid-term adjustments.

In terms of types or styles of research, policy-oriented research is the prime arena for
implementing the above described means. The two other relevant styles – policy rele-
vant research, and policy research – seem best suited for the linkage instruments of
state of the art reviews, and staff exchanges, respectively.

Individual qualities like overlapping experience, usually institutionalised in terms of the

role of intermediaries, are very important to realise linkage potential. However, bench-
marking suggests that arrangements for conducting new research would benefit sub-
stantially from a wholly new role – that of facilitator or mediator. Moreover, implemen-
tation of this role opens up the possibility of using participatory project planning and
monitoring techniques, such as ZOPP, as well.

Combining the above insights, we produced an organisational outline. Its features are:
• Financial and organisational independency, a limited number of support staff and
research (and policy advice) staff on secondment or temporary (part-time) basis;
• Important in-house (support) skills should cover participatory project planning and
monitoring techniques, and other team facilitation management tools;
• Documentation and data warehousing facilities;
• The institution should be at the heart of a network of research and policy actors. It
has to offer added value in terms of playing a coordinating linkage and brokerage
role. This, again, presupposes that the institution focuses on a certain issue-arena;
• The institution can serve as the secretariat for policy advice councils;

We did not encounter any existing institution possessing all these features. Indeed, all
existing linkage institutions lack in-house (support) skills that include participatory proj-
ect planning and monitoring techniques, and other team facilitation management tools.

11
preface + summary 29/2/00 16:55 Page 12

The study also offers a conceptual framework for analysing concrete cases of (the
absence) of linkage between research and policy. Basically, this framework is a summa-
ry of what 25 years of knowledge utilisation (KU) studies have taught us, considered
from the perspective that emphasises the relationship (instead of utilisation), and elab-
orated in terms of what has received least attention in KU research and reflection, the
context of ideological and institutional influences that go beyond the particular issue
arena at hand. The following context factors are described:
• Differences in the R&D input between countries
• Political Culture
• Academic Culture
• Policy philosophy for the sector concerned
• The place accorded to science as a knowledge producer by the political and adminis-
trative Establishment
• The political belief in rational planning
• The different status assigned to different disciplines
• The research system in a particular sector
• The institutional structure of the policy sector
• Mobility of professionals between sectors and institutional settings
• Historical contingencies

Besides identifying context factors and outlining effective means of linking research
and policy, the study also explores the information needs of researchers and policy
makers within the issue arena of “migrants and cities”, as well as their attitudes
towards international comparison.

In terms of content, our interview partners focused on three kinds of analytical per-
spectives:
• The predominant concern is not with migration processes per se but rather with
their consequences. In this regard, the focus is more on integration.
• With this in mind, some tend to select “supply-side” questions, such as human capi-
tal or resources, while others are concerned with “demand-side” issues such as job
supply or adequate housing.
• In between these two positions are those who worry primarily about the impedi-
ments that inhibit the use of resources in fulfilling ther available opportunities.

We matched these perspectives with the Metropolis list of core themes, “Employment
and the labour market”, “Urban social and spatial structure”, and “Social solidarity
and social cohesion”, and created a matrix of information needs.

The comparison attitudes indicated a need for data harmonisation and for periodic sur-
veys using a common core of measurement instruments.

12
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 13

1. Objectives and context

1.1 The Metropolis project

The International Metropolis Project is a set of coordinated activities conducted by a

membership of research and policy organisations who share a vision of strengthened
immigration policy by means of applied academic research. The Metropolis partner-
ship, now from twenty countries and a number of international research and policy
organisatioations representing a wide range of policy and academic interests, is sus-
tained by the attractions of its core idea. The members of Metropolis work collabora-
tively on issues of immigration and integration, always with the goal of strengthening
policy and thereby allowing societies to better manage the challenges and opportuni-
ties that immigration presents, especially to their cities. Metropolis is expected to yield
not only reliable and relevant information about immigration and integration, but also
to serve as an instructive model for the engagement of the external research commu-
nity in policy-research. The critical element in policy-research and in evidence-based
decision-making is effective communication among researchers, policy-developers, and
decision-makers. For more information on Metropolis see appendix A.

In 1998, The European Commission decided to support the project with an exploratory
survey of the research-policy interface in various European states. The guiding idea
behind this contribution was that an European comparison of experiences with and
perceptions of the use of scientific information in policy development in the area of
migrants and cities would help Metropolis members to identify linkage possibilities
within their own setting of operation.

Although the universe of interview partners was determined by the mission of

Metropolis, the accompanying literature review soon demonstrated the broader utility
of the survey results. The linkage issues in the subject area of migration and integra-
tion are very similar to those in many other areas. Also, the survey could only cover a
limited amount of countries, largely defined by (at that time) the European member-
ship of Metropolis. Again, the dimensions of variation emerging from the particular
countries surveyed seem to be relevant for a much wider scope. If one is interested in
discovering transferable good practice, linkage issues need to be discussed in terms of
actual cases within real-life settings. Comparison of cases is easier when all cases share
a common core, which the Metropolis frame of reference provided. In other words,
although the findings of the survey are not particular to the subject area of migration
and integration issues, without such an issue-arena from which to draw case studies, it
would have been much more problematic to reach conclusions. Before elaborating on
the objectives and methodology of the study, we will first introduce the topic of
migrants and cities.

13
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 14

1.2 Migrants, minorities, and the urban context[1]

Our world is being transformed at the local level by forces that appear to emanate
from somewhere well beyond our shores. It always has, but during the last decades,
the pace has accelerated enormously. The local level is, to a large extent, synonymous
with cities. Urban areas rather than states are the nexus of the movement of people,
ideas, investment, communications and technology[2]. Migration, and its repercussions
is an important element of this globalisation mix. Migration is targeted to cities rather
than countries, which means that ethnic minority groups[3] tend to be concentrated in
particular cities rather that evenly dispersed throughout a country.

The policy questions raised by this trend of migration are regarded as critical to the
future well-being of our societies. We can debate whether migration pressures will rise
or fall; we can discuss the likely balance between settlers and seekers after asylum; we
can consider whether in today’s globalised world migration is manageable; we can
assess the wisdom of one country’s approach to immigration and integration versus
another, yet few would deny the urgency of the issue[4]. The themes identified within
the Metropolis network as being of central importance, spatial segregation, economic
integration and social cohesion are recognised as those in need of an effective policy
response, although the national or local jargon used in policy discussions and develop-
ment might differ.

This is not, of course, the first age of migration. The number migrating to the New
World in the period up to the First World War may have exceeded those moving to
North America now. It is not a question of numbers; it is one of space – in all three
senses of that word. The old migration was of people like us who went somewhere
else. There are no more frontiers out there where our poorer brethren can fight for a
piece of the pie. The new migration is of people unlike us who come to live where we
are. The old migration was motivated by an overwhelming desire to work when jobs
and opportunities were plentiful. That has changed. People still move for the same
reasons but they do so into advanced industrial societies where unemployment (and
underemployment) rates are often high. The spaces or opportunities in the labour
market are no longer there – or at least there are fewer legal vacancies in semi-skilled
or unskilled jobs. Finally, the old migration was largely into societies that were confi-
dent about their separate identities and which were less heterogeneous than today.
The new migration is taking place in an age of crumbling nationalism when cities are
often cultural mosaics, with as many external as internal loyalties. Multiculturalism
may well be the result of migration; it is also one of its prime causes. It is not that peo-
ple today are intrinsically less receptive than they were before, only that they are more
fearful for their own identities and the security which flows from the simple comforts
of familiarity. How else can one explain why the Danes, of all people, have become
amongst the least welcoming in Europe to inward migrants[5]? The new migration
into cities in the advanced world is characterised by a perceived absence of space –
less room to live, to work, or to be when compared with earlier epochs.

The nexus of migrants/minorities and cities is not only characterised by complexity but
is also highly politically sensitive[6]. Consequently, academic input, in terms of empiri-

14
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 15

cal evidence and conceptual analysis to be a much coveted commodity, even in

national settings where academic research is not an important influence as such (albeit
as actual input, or as a legitimising instrument). For a survey of research/policy linkage
experiences, this widely shared perception that research and policy must relate, proved
to be of great advantage. Modalities and possible improvements are much easier dis-
cussed when such a common understanding exists.

1.3 Project objectives and methodology

1.3.1 SHORT-TERM OBJECTIVES

The project consisted of a European comparative survey of experiences with and per-
ceptions of the use of scientific information in policy development in the area of
migrants and cities. The survey was supported by a literature review.

The main objective of the project was:

• to further the discussion about the various ways social science research and policy
interact by providing a common vocabulary across contexts; and
• to identify effective means or arrangements to facilitate linkage between research
and social policy.

Subsidiary objectives were to:

• describe differences and similarities between European countries in the research-poli-
cy interaction environment;
• identify differences and similarities between these countries in their knowledge
needs;
• identify (variation in) attitudes towards international comparison.

The rationale behind these objectives was that:

• the issue of research-policy linkage is much discussed but remains an “unsolved
problem”;
• all the more so when transferred to an international arena (Metropolis);
• the issue as discussed between stakeholders is mostly phrased in terms of mutual
stereotypes (see Box 1);
• case studies seem a way out of this stereotype cul-de-sac;
• case studies also seem the way forward in terms of the social science approach to
this problem;
• a comparative case study approach assumes a common vocabulary;
• case studies are only valuable in so far as they are described within their context;
• the context description is valuable in itself for those discussing the issue of research-
policy linkage within an international setting;
• Case studies cannot be discussed without considering content, and the survey
should therefore allow room for concerns about content. Although this was not the
focus of the survey, the a priori expectation was that shared topics needing further
research and/or international comparison would emerge across countries.

15
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 16

What is wrong with researchers and policy-makers? 1

The rapporteurs of a 1994 OECD seminar on governmental roles in organisinging and promoting
educational R&D listed the stereotypes used during the meeting. Anyone familiar with the knowl-
edge utilisation debate will agree with us that the list is also representative of the kind of allega-
tions in various other issue arenas. It is not exhaustive by any means, but gives agood indication of
the normative barriers hindering sensible communication between the “communities” involved.
They found that:

Policy-makers
• are narrow-minded and ideological
• are ridiculously impatient
• make decisions irrationally
• make decisions affecting the educational R&D system that are based on external societal
considerations
• lack insight
• use research to rationalise what they already decided to do
• refuse to relinquish control
• make faddish funding decisions
• are lawyers who do not understand research
• are excessively rule-oriented
• are short-sighted
• know what they do not like, but cannot say what they could use

Researchers
• are narrow-minded and ideological
• take too much time to do anything
• do not have all the answers
• make authoritative claims in areas outside the range of their expertise
• think they are always right and that there is no need to present the basis for their opinions
• do what they want to do, not what they should do
• always want more money
• engage in faddish research
• lack any common sense
• ignore the complexities of policy decision-making
• accept the existing system as given
• display methodological fetishes
• embrace novel institutions uncritically
• allow themselves to be bought by funding agencies
• use hit-and-run tactics that exploit practitioners
• promise too much
• present recommendations that are practically irrelevant, too limited, and out-of-date
• design research projects to enhance their personal reputations
• do not care about dissemination
• do not communicate or collaborate with each other
• are reluctant to study their own behaviour, either as researchers or as practitioners
• do not understand ordinary classroom teaching’ (p.63-64).

Ivor A. Pritchard “Rapporteurs report”. In OECD, 1995, Educational research and development:
Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Paris.

16
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 17

1.3.2 METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted by the European Secretariat of Metropolis (ES), on behalf
of the European Commission (DG XII), and limited among European countries. More-
over, selection was determined by other variables, including the availability (on short
notice) of relevant interview partners[7]- within both academic and policy circles – as
well as the repertoire of language skills available within the survey team[8].

Work on the survey started in March 1998. All staff of the European Secretariat of
Metropolis participated:
Malcolm Cross, supervisor ES: interviews EC, United Kingdom expertise,
conceptual analysis
Roger Henke, senior coordinator ES: interviews Netherlands, Germany, Norway,
Sweden, Austria, Italy and the Flemish part of
Belgium, conceptual analysis, main author of
the final report
Philippe Oberknezev, coordinator ES: interviews France, Wallone part of Belgium,
and Switzerland
Katarina Pouliasi, webmaster ES: interviews Greece

In sum, 140 interviews have been conducted across 10 countries. Roughly half of the
interviewees were researchers, half were policy-makers at both national and local level
(see Appendix B). Obviously, some respondents were difficult to categorise in these
terms and are best described as knowledge brokers or entrepreneurs. Apart from the
interviews, several conferences were attended, where the issues of research-policy
exchange and collaboration were debated (see Annex C), and literature describing and
analysing the relationship between the academic and the policy worlds (some of it in
general terms, some of it in terms of a particular national or subject area), much of it
grey in nature, was collected. This report includes a guide to further reading.

Two categories of questions were raised. We enquired about experiences with and
opinions about research-policy linkage and we enquired about topics needing further
research and/or international comparison. The interviews were guided by an outline of
the territory to be covered (see Annex D). It soon became evident that interview part-
ners were most interested in discussing their experiences with and perceptions of inter-
actions with the other “community”[9]. Given the open and exploratory character of
the interview format, this meant that the other issues – topics and comparison- were
often not addressed. Modalities of research-policy linkage are therefore the core of
this final report, although knowledge needs receive some attention too (see chapter
4).

The survey focussed on research performed by university-based researchers,

researchers employed by university-affiliated agencies, and non-university public sector
agencies. On the continuum from the university academic, whose research costs are
fully paid for from the public purse on the one hand, to the researcher employed by a
fully commercial research (consultancy) agency, our sample is clearly located at the
university-pole part of the continuum. The reason for this choice is that the linkage
issue, in its usually definition, involves the two “communities” (see note 9). The char-

17
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 18

acteristics of the research community are clearly those of academia. The “contract”
that is the defining characteristic of the other pole of the continuum does, however,
solve some of the linkage problems (but poses new problems too); moreover the uni-
versity system is adapting to its changing environment by incorporating the contract-
relationship as one of its important linkage mediums. Annex E on contract research by
commercial agencies highlights the advantages and risks of this second type as a
medium of linkage. Annex F shows that universities are adjusting to changed environ-
mental circumstances by appropriating contract usage.

1.3.3 CONSEQUENCES
It is important to recognise the value and limitations of a survey of this kind. We
aimed to cast the net of experiences and perceptions as wide as possible. While our
study is admittedly exploratory, yet its unique feature is its aim to identify avenues of
linking scientific research and public policy that can be (made) effective in a wide
range of contexts. Against a backcloth of linkage literature that is based mainly on
experiences in the US, the UK and the Netherlands, the diverse sample of contexts has
been used to identify particular kinds of arrangements that tend to facilitate linkage
better than other kinds of arrangements. Obviously, successful implementation will
have to be context-sensitive. Again, the literature review – in combination with the
diversity offered by our sample – enabled us to construct a framework for international
comparison, that drwas upon a common vocabulary that can be used by those inter-
ested in discovering practical lessons from linkage modalities that seem to have
achieved some success.

The above has two major consequences. First, our survey is not meant to be represen-
tative. We do not claim, either to be able to characterise either the general linkage cli-
mate of any of the countries surveyed, or to draw a comprehensive picture of the
European state of affairs with respect to the desired and/or potential research contri-
bution to policy development concerning migrants and minorities in cities. Indeed, one
would need in-depth studies for each survey country in order to do so (see also 2.1).

And second, it means that the examples of practices that seem to work will not be the
core of this report. This would have made sense only if the examples could have been
described in-depth (see the description of the Weiss proposal in 2.1). Broad coverage
and in-depth description tend to be mutually exclusive, at least, they were for us given
our time and budget constraints. Also within Metropolis[10], experience has shown
that simply listing brief descriptions of findings, on their own, is inadequate. Therefore,
we have focussed on a model for context-analysis and on linkage arrangements that
tend to work. The model is intended as a useful tool for developing implementation
strategies for effectively linking research and policy. In other words, this report offers a
do-it-yourself tool kit of broadly applicable linkage modalities ideas, the so-called
“good arrangements”, and a model for operationalising a particular linkage idea so as
to fit one’s own context.

1.3.4 LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES

The survey and its reported results are conceptualised as part of an interactive process.
The tool kit is offered to all our interview partners, to the members of the Metropolis

18
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 19

network, to the participants of the March 2000 Dutch UNESCO

Commission/UNESCO-MOST conference on social science/social policy linkages, and
to the participants of the fourth and fifth International Metropolis conferences, with
the request for feedback to both our suggested framework, as well as our list of good
arrangements. In line with our good arrangement suggestions, we believe that the
issue of research-policy linkage can best be furthered by combining empirical data
with theoretical analysis, integrating the input from both the research and the policy
perspective, and practicing self-reflexivity and interaction among a group of interested
researchers and policy-makers. This report is just a stage-marker in an ongoing pro-
cess.

1.4 Defining ‘good practice’

The usual definition of “good practice” is tied into the idea of (direct) knowledge utili-
sation: linkage is judged to be successful to the extent that research output is demon-
strably used by a policy interest to which it is linked (see also 2.1). We have chosen a
different definition, for two reasons. The first is conceptual: applying the above criteri-
on leads to an unnecessarily pessimistic perspective on the interaction of research and
policy. One can think of other criteria to define the policy relevance of research results
(defined narrowly as actually making a difference). Taking a longer temporal perspec-
tive and/or including policy interests not directly linked with the research under con-
sideration, may sometimes uncover significance not visible to those looking for
“direct” utilisation. And some will argue that another indirect influence, the influence
on informed public debate, is at least as important a criterion as direct utilisation for
determining “good practice”. The second reason is methodological: we cannot claim
our unit of analysis to consist of in-depth case studies of linkage practices. That is to
say, we gathered information about many different cases with the aim to discover lines
of variation and aspects of similarity; but lack (in most instances) the detailed, objec-
tively validated information that would be necessary to determine if, to what extent,
and in what way, direct use was made of research in problem definition, policy devel-
opment, implementation or evaluation.

That is why we defined “good practice” as practice that is evaluated positively by

informants from both the research and the policy worlds (preferably, although we
were not always able to meet with both) and was judged to serve their own profes-
sional interests. In other words “good practice” was not defined in terms of maximum
use and/or utility of research results, but in terms of the satisfaction reported, whatev-
er its cause. Methodologically this is a viable definition given the data we collected.
But it has a conceptual rationale too; a major determinant of “good practice” is a rela-
tionship of mutual trust between the parties involved. Trust is a relational quality that
develops over time, which needs sustained interaction to flower and often requires
collaboration on more than one project before it is soundly established. Under normal
circumstances, a basic prerequisite for such continuity to develop is that professional
interests are served for both actors involved.

19
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 20

Our suggestions for “good arrangements” are based on “good practice” examples,
analysed within their context, and on changes over time within them. This means that
our conclusions say something about “good” in a longer-term perspective.

One should not confuse the positive evaluation of a linkage experience with its evalu-
ation as being relevant, or making a difference. Although the reported positive/nega-
tive evaluation of linkage experience are taken as givens, we do not necessarily agree
with the relevance attached to it by the informant(s). As pertinence does not refer to
personal interest but to general interest we regard its evaluation as a matter of per-
spective whereby we may disagree with our informants. In fact, such disagreement
may reveal the particular policy philosophy followed, rather than factual disagreement.
We have made our own philosophy of governance explicit in appendix G.

20
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 21

2 The research-policy linkage

2.1 Social science perspectives: knowledge utilisation

In a recently drafted funding proposal Carol Weiss[11] succinctly describes the state of
affairs with regard to social science perspectives on social research/social policy linkage
issues. She identifies the defining problem as “...the frequent disregard of the findings
of sound research and evaluation in the making of social policy”. The label “knowl-
edge utilisation studies” (KU), by which the social science perspective is generally
known, sums it up: utilisation is what social science reflection on the linkage issue is all
about.

There are several theories on utilisation in circulation. The “two worlds” model,
described by Caplan, more than 20 years ago (see note 8) while the most simplistic,
still retains its utility today. The model states that the question of utilisation can be
viewed from two angles, that of the customer (the policy-maker), and that of the sup-
plier (the researcher). Accordingly, problems of under- or non-utilisation are attributed
to non-compatible characteristics of the “worlds”, “communities”, or “systems” of
customer and supplier[12]. The most important areas of friction are:

• Problem definition: policy has to deal with complex real world social problems;
while research develops questions from theoretical frameworks, characterised by a
reduction of complexity;
• Culture: policy thinks in terms of targets, ways and means, is interested in “what”
results, and its discourse uses procedural and legal jargon. Research thinks in terms
of generalisation and explanation, is interested in “how” and “why” results, and its
discourse uses common sense concepts in restricted, sometimes arcanely technical
senses;
• Role and accountability: policy tends towards risk-avoidance, repeating previously
successful actions, or, in epistemological terms, aims at “verification”, ; while
research has a stake in the new and unexpected, and aims at “falsification”;
• Time-frame: policy needs quick solutions, research needs time to comply with its
internal quality criteria;

Obviously, the above summation draws a stark, overly simplistic composite of reality.
The research on knowledge utilisation has focussed on the nuances and produced
many interesting insights into the internal workings of the policy system, the research
system, the different kinds of knowledge needed, and the various ways in which
knowledge use can be conceptualised.

For an overview of how the problem has been conceptualised, and what 25 years of
KU research have taught us, see the quote from the Weiss proposal in Box 2[13]. To
give a flavour of the kinds of conceptualisations generated, Box 3 lists the different
knowledge requirements of policy as described by van Hoessel, and Box 4 lists the dif-
ferent metaphors or “models” that Carol Weiss (1977, see note 1) distinguished for

21
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 22

describing the (perception of the) relationship between research and policy and their
concomitant meanings of “utilisation”.

Carol Weiss on 25 years of research on knowledge utilisation 2

‘Much social research is conducted for the avowed purpose of influencing policy decisions. Govern-
ment agencies, international organisations, foundations, and professional associations sponsor
research that is intended to provide guidance for wiser policies. The research is conducted in univer-
sity departments, university research centers, institutes of science, not-for-profit and for-profit
research organisations, and within operating service organisations. Much of the research (although
by no means all) is thoughtfully done with careful attention to appropriate social science theories
and valid research methods. Yet a sizable fraction of it never influences the audiences for whom it
was meant.

We know a great deal from twenty-five years of research on “knowledge utilisation” (KU), which is
the term by which [the question of which kinds of research, under which conditions, have a better
chance of making a difference in policy councils] is generally known. Many studies have investigat-
ed the characteristics that are associated with greater use of research findings: characteristics of the
studies, of the dissemination mechanisms, of the researchers, or of the users. Scores of studies of
knowledge utilisation (KU) have been published, providing a cafeteria of answers to the question
of what kinds of research are most apt to be used. Unfortunately, the answers have not converged.
For example, some studies find that research quality is important for use; other find that the quality
of the research is unrelated to how much influence it has. Some studies find that policy actors turn
to research findings when they face a crisis situation; other studies find that crisis is not an environ-
ment favorable to research use.

Much of the reason for the discrepancies in research results on KU has to do with differences in def-
inition and in methodology. Regarding definition, researchers have taken different approaches to
the meaning of “utilisation.” What does it mean that a particular study has been “used”? Some
researchers expect that the findings of the research will determine the course of policy, i.e. it will
change a decision from what it would have been in the absence of that research. Other researchers
take a wider frame: they consider “use” as any serious consideration of the findings of research,
whether or not they are actually followed. These latter researchers recognise that many elements
go into the making of policy and that it is naïve to expect that research results will overpower all
other interests, ideological commitments, and previous information in the issue-arena. If research
findings are given a serious hearing, they have a chance of altering policy makers’ understanding of
the issues, their priorities and agendas, and even their subsequent actions further down the road.
On the other hand, if one takes a liberal definition of “use,” how can the KU researcher truly know
whether the research results have received serious consideration?

Regarding differences in methodology of KU studies, a variety of methods have been used. Studies
on KU have been conducted through quantitative surveys, qualitative interviewing, analysis of the
fate of particular research studies by the researchers who conducted them, analysis of documents,
and through prospective, retrospective, and simulated time frames. The studies have dealt with
such varying issue-arenas as housing, energy, mental health, and education. The research on KU has
been conducted at different periods of time, much of it in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with
another upsurge in the last few years. Most of it has been conducted in the U.S., although studies
have also been conducted in Western Europe and occasionally other places as well’ (p.1-2).[14]

22
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 23

What research has to offer policy[15] 3

• deliver factual information
• explore the limits of policy
• signal new social problems
• explicate implicit theories or preconceptions of policy
• evaluation of policy
• improve management processes and organisation
• develop social technology
• legitimate policy decisions
• be a tactical instrument in the policy process
• increase the status of the policy agency

Models to describe the linkage between research and policy[16] 4

• Knowledge driven model: knowledge as such motivates knowledge use;
• Problem solving model: a problem to be solved or a decision to be taken motivates knowledge
use;
• Interactive model: knowledge use is only one of the many factors in a complex policy process
besides personal experience, power relations, political acumen, and other variables. Knowledge
use is mediated by interaction between stakeholders that have different types of communication
channels. Research is only one of the many sources of relevant knowledge;
• Enlightment model: social science concepts “creep” into the policy discourse via all kinds of indi-
rect pathways;
• Political model: research is only used when it supports existing political opinions (legitimisation).
• Tactical model: research plays a tactical role in policy development/implementation strategies, for
example to delay decisions;
• Status model: having a well-stocked portfolio of commissioned research is a status symbol for
policy agencies.

Carol Weiss concludes that ‘... the findings on [knowledge utilisation] do not cohere
into a tidy package of accepted truths”. She ascertains that “we are at a point in the
KU field where further findings of this sort are not likely to contribute substantially to
further knowledge. We now need to take context [original emphasis, RH] into account
and to do so systematically. We also need to use common theoretical frameworks,
common concepts, and common variables in the investigations’ (p.4).

2.2 Knowledge utilisation: state of the art

Because the Weiss proposal can be looked upon as the state of the art in KU studies,
we describe her proposal in more detail. She argues that comparison across cases is
needed to better understand which of the factors identified by the KU research tradi-
tion do indeed advance or thwart the use of research results in the policy arena. As the
way forward, Weiss proposes a series of case studies, each of them employing the

23
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 24

same conceptual framework,. The outline of her framework is visualised in figure 1:

Figure 1

Issue arena (context)

• amenability of policy field to research and evaluation
• degree of political polarisation
• intensity of lobbying from interested parties
• the extent to which research runs counter to the politics of the arena

Research Policy: characteristics of potential

a. characteristics of the research: user groups
• methodological quality • professional training (social
• quantitative versus qualitative sciences versus law)
• meta-analyses/reviews versus single • length of involvement with the
studies issue-arena
b. characteristics of the researchers
• professional standing
• standing of employing institution

Interaction: characteristics of the modes of dissemination or linkage

• publication in professional journal or report
• inclusion of policy makers in research process
• networking/lobbying by researchers themselves
• dissemination by others: mass media, think tanks, research champion or issue

For a more detailed description of the aspects to be studied under the Weiss proposal,
see appendix H. We support the core of Carol Weiss’ arguments:
• Context certainly needs much more attention when we want to progress beyond
the existing inconclusive set of research results;
• Comparative case studies are definitely a productive research strategy;
• A common vocabulary of conceptual framework is a sine-qua-non for that strategy
to be successful;

We also agree with her that much relevant knowledge on research/policy linkage has
been gathered through KU studies.

24
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 25

2.3 From knowledge utilisation to relationship

We would suggest, however, that the general feeling – that social science analysis of
research/policy linkage has not delivered much relief – is also due to its fixation on the
utilisation of knowledge. From the “two worlds” conceptualisation onwards, the link-
age issue has been interpreted as being about the non-use, the under-use or the mis-
use of research knowledge by policy. The Weiss framework is definitely a more refined
model of the linkage situation than its two-worlds predecessor, but the Caplan and
Weiss models share knowledge utilisation as their dependant variable. We would pro-
pose that defining the problem in different terms might be an alternative way forward.
We would also contend that the “new” perspective does not make the KU-models
obsolete; far from it. The Weiss framework – research, policy, their interaction, and
their context – demonstrates what influences the make-up of knowledge exchanged
between the two interaction partners, but it also can indicate what determines the
relationship of the two interaction partners.

Shifts in perspective, in this case from the effects of a faulty relationship to their cause,
do not automatically result in improvements, but they at least open up the field to
new input. Unfortunately, KU studies do not regularly look beyond their own horizon.
Early on, decision making theory was taken on board, providing a conceptual frame-
work for analysing the particular case of the use of scientific information in terms of
general notions of decision making, choice, and information[17]; but not much else
has entered KU, either in terms of theory or in terms of research into related issues.
We would argue that a closely related field, Research and (Technology) Innovation
linkage (RTD), has generated considerable output, but the two seem to constitute
quite seperate citation communities, despite thew fact that KU and RTD share as their
basic problem definition the utilisation of research knowledge. More recently, the
importance of that relationship is increasingly recognised in RTD. A 1998 overview of
the field[18] concludes that, ‘the two partners [supplier and user, RH] must develop
the capabilities which will enable them to benefit from their mutual contact’(p. 155).
See Box 5 for a telling overview of factors that encourage innovation.

Factors which encourage innovation 5

Of the 15 key factors suggested by Dodgson and Besant[19], 5 are directly identifiable as being rela-
tional:
• A network of intermediary organisations interlinking the science base and industry;
• Receptivity towards external know-how within firms;
• Intermediaries between users and suppliers, providing a set of bridging institutions;
• Firms experienced in long-term trust-based linkages with other firms, customers, suppliers and
competitors;
• Employee mobility between and within firms and the science base.

25
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 26

Shifting perspective is very much akin to using a different metaphor for “reading” a
situation. Box 6 gives a presentation of Morgan’s famous treatise on images of organi-
sation. His claim is that, ‘[b]y analyzing organisations through different metaphors, by
realising that all these “readings” are partial, by realising that the different aspects are
intertwined (as opposed to the expectation that one metaphor “fits” the situation
best), a new depth of understanding is possible’.

Metaphor: a way of thinking[20] 6

‘The basic premise .... is that our theories and explanations of organisational life are based on
metaphors that lead us to see and understand organisations in distinctive yet partial ways.
Metaphor is often just regarded as a device for embellishing discourse, but its significance is much
greater than this. For the use of metaphor implies a way of thinking and a way of seeing that per-
vade how we understand our world generally.....

We use metaphor whenever we attempt to understand one element of experience in terms of

another. Thus, metaphor proceeds through implicit or explicit assertions that A is (or is like) B.
When we say “the man is a lion”, we use the image of a lion to draw attention to the lion-like
aspects of the man. The metaphor frames our understanding of the man in a distinctive yet partial
way.....[I]n drawing attention to the lionlike bravery, strenght, or ferocity of the man, the metaphor
glosses the fact that the same person may well also be a chauvinist pig, a devil, a saint, a bore, or a
recluse. Our ability to achieve a comprehensive “reading” of the man depends on an ability to see
how these different aspects of the person may coexist in a complementary or even paradoxical way.

It is easy to see how this kind of thinking has relevance for understanding organisation and man-
agement. For organisations are complex and paradoxical phenomena that can be understood in
many different ways. Many of our taken-for-granted ideas about organisations are metaphorical,
even though we may not recognise them as such. For example, we frequently talk about organisa-
tions as if they were machines designed to achieve predetermined goals and objectives, and which
should operate smoothly and efficiently. And as a result of this kind of thinking we often attempt
to organise and manage them in a mechanistic way, forcing their human qualities into a back-
ground role.’ (p.12-13)

Morgan identifies eight dominant metaphors, viewing organisations as

• machines: when managers think of organisations as machines they tend to manage and design
them as machines made up of interlocking parts that each play a clearly defined role in the func-
tioning of the whole;
• organisms: this metaphor focuses attention on understanding and managing organisational
“needs” and environmental relations;
• brains: it draws attention to the importance of information processes, learning, and intelligence,
and provides a frame of reference for understanding and assessing modern organisations in
these terms; two different metaphors are: brain as a kind of information-processing computer
and brain as a hologram;
• cultures: organisation is seen to reside in the ideas, values, norms, rituals, and beliefs that sustain
organisations as socially constructed realities;
• political systems: organisations are systems of government drawing on various political principles
to legitimise different kinds of rule;
• psychic prisons: organisations are “psychic prisons” where people become trapped by their own
thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, or by preoccupations originating in the unconscious mind;

26
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 27

• flux and transformation: organisations can be understood by understanding the logics of change
shaping social life;
• instruments of domination: the focus is on the potentially exploitative aspect of organisations.

The list by no means exhausts the possibilities:

‘The mode of analysis developed here rests in a way of thinking rather than in the mechanistic
application of a small set of clearly defined analytical frameworks.’(p. 16)

‘Organisations are many things at one!....I believe that some of the most fundamental problems
that we face stem from the fact that the comnplexity and sophistication of our thinking do not
match the complexity and sophistication of the realities with which we have to deal.’ (p.339)

We would suggest that shifting the perspective from utilisation to relationship indeed
opens up a new depth of understanding. Using the relationship perspective also brings
at least three other issues to mind that immediately become “related” problems.

2.4 Related issues

Related issues are interesting as bench-marks, or points of reference to make compar-

isons. In what terms are these issues being discussed? Which arrangements have
proven their worth? We will first propose three bench-marking fields and conclude by
a general statement on the promises of bench-marking.

2.4.1 INTERDISCIPLINARITY
The first issue concerns studies of interdisciplinarity. Although multi- and/or interdisci-
plinarity frequently surfaces in KU studies – it did in our survey – as an important
ingredient of, or even prerequisite for, policy relevant knowledge, the body of litera-
ture on the the problems associated with conducting inter- or even multidisciplinary
research is strangely absent from KU. A ‘two world’ binary divide has long been pres-
ent in Interdisciplinary studies; in 1959 Charles P. Snow coined the label “two cul-
tures” to signal the separation between the arts and the sciences, which has a consid-
erably longer intellectual history. What is immediately striking when one peruses the
interdisciplinarity literature, is the focus on the issue of communication between disci-
plines. This interest is usually not framed by a short term problem-solving motivation
but is aimed at establishing long-term relationships between researchers that aims to
move the development of science forward[21].

27
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 28

Six types of interdisciplinarity[22] 7

Margaret Boden distinguishes six different uses of the word of interdisciplinarity, requiring ’...differ-
ent intellectual attitudes on the part of the researchers involved, and different types of manage-
ment or administration. Three would be better termed multidisciplinarity, rather than interdisci-
plinarity. One is what I would call genuine interdisciplinarity. In order of increasing strength, the six
types of interdisciplinarity are:’ (p.13)
• Encyclopaedic interdisciplinarity: an enterprise covering many, or even all, disciplines within a
wide range, but with no need for communication between them;
• Contextualising interdisciplinarity: an enterprise in which one takes some account of other disci-
plines in teaching and/or setting one’s research-goals, but without active research co-operation
with those disciplines;
• Shared interdisciplinarity: an enterprise in which different aspects of a complex problem are tack-
led by different groups with complementary skills. Results are communicated, and overall
progress monitored. But day-to-day co-operation does not occur;
• Cooperative interdisciplinarity: an enterprise in which several groups with complementary skills
work towards a common goal, actively co-operating on the way;
• Generalising interdisciplinarity: an enterprise in which a single theoretical perspective is applied
to a wide range of previously distinct disciplines;
• Integrated disciplinarity: an enterprise in which some of the concepts and insights of one disci-
pline contribute to the problems and theories of another – preferably in both directions (“both”
or even “all”: there may be more than two disciplines involved).

However, others would argue that the last (two) type(s) ought to be labelled transdisciplinarity. The
debate over the term ‘interdisciplinarity’ is as contested as that of “utilisation”.

2.4.2 INTERORGANISATIONAL NETWORKS

A related field concerns organisation studies that concentrate on networking, another
field with a longer intellectual history[23] and emphasis on the nature of relationships.
Organisational networks can be described as a cluster of interdependent organisations
that have joined forces to reach a specified aim. It is crucial that the network partners
recognise their interdependancy.. Networks are being analysed in terms of their struc-
ture, their development phases, and their dynamics. This field of research is not prima-
rily motivated by a perceived problem, such as under-usage of research knowledge,
but by a social phenomenon, i.e. the growing importance of organisational networks.
For the example of the growing importance of networks of Non Governmental Organ-
isations (NGO’s) see Box 8.[24]

Spurred by a social phenomenon rather than a social problem, the focus of interorgan-
isational network analysis is as much on what makes networks successful as on what
makes them fail. What is remarkable is that network analyses are often strongly cast in
relational terms, see for example, Box 9. The experience of the Metropolis network
supports this conclusion. Obviously, people or organisations develop relationships
through common experience and action. Still, the viability of the network relationship
is clearly the more important factor. This has major implications for the Metropolis net-
work, given its remit to study and implement research-policy linkage: where KU and
networks are brought together in practice, relationship rules. In KU studies we have
yet to encounter exercises to link the field with network studies. However, within the
field of RTD studies the connection to network analysis has been made[26].

28
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 29

The growing importance of NGO-networks 8

The Economist recently published an article on the growing importance of NGO-networks[25].
It argues that NGO’s grow in number very rapidly:
‘It is, by definition, hard to estimate the growth of groups that could theoretically include every-
thing from the tiniest neighbourhood association to huge international relief agencies, such as
CARE, with annual budgets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. One conservative yardstick of
international NGOs (that is, groups with operations in more than one country) is the Yearbook of
International Organisations. This puts the number of international NGOs at more than 26,000
today, up from 6,000 in 1990.’

The Economist argues that NGO-networks are increasingly

successful:
‘As politicians pore over the disarray in Seattle, they might
look to citizens’ groups for advice. The non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) that descended on Seattle were a
model of everything the trade negotiators were not. They
were well organised. They built unusual coalitions (envi-
ronmentalists and labour groups, for instance, bridged old
gulfs to jeer the WTO together). They had a clear agenda
to derail the talks. And they were masterly users of the
media. The battle of Seattle is only the latest and most vis-
ible in a string of recent NGO victories. The watershed was the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in
1992, when the NGOs roused enough public pressure to push through agreements on controlling
greenhouse gases. In 1994, protesters dominated the World Bank’s anniversary meeting with a
“Fifty Years is Enough” campaign, and forced a rethink of the Bank’s goals and methods. In 1998,
an ad hoc coalition of consumer-rights activists and environmentalists helped to sink the Multilater-
al Agreement on Investment (MAI), a draft treaty to harmonise rules on foreign investment under
the aegis of the OECD. In the past couple of years another global coalition of NGOs, Jubilee 2000,
has pushed successfully for a dramatic reduction in the debts of the poorest countries’.

Furthermore, the article refers to the information revolution as a major facilitator of this recent
network growth:

‘When groups could communicate only by telephone, fax or mail, it was prohibitively expensive to
share information or build links between different organisations. Now information can be dispersed
quickly, and to great effect, online. The MAI was already in trouble when a draft of the text, posted
on the Internet by an NGO, allowed hundreds of hostile watchdog groups to mobilise against it.
Similarly, the Seattle trade summit was disrupted by dozens of websites which alerted everyone
(except, it seems, the Seattle police), to the protests that were planned’.

29
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 30

Relevant dimensions of federative networks 9

The federative network is one of the four types of network structures that Warren (see note 23)
described. It is characterised by units with disparate goals, but some formal organisation for inclu-
sive goals (subject to unit ratification), the locus of authority primarily at unit level, autonomously
structured units that may agree to a division of labour that affects their structure, and norms of
moderate commitment to a,leadership subsystem. Of Warren’s four types, the federative type and
the coalitional type (that has no formal organisation of inclusive goals, and thus the locus of
authority exclusively at unit level and no commitment to a shared leadership) appear especially rel-
evant for our discussion about good institutional arrangements between research and policy. The
other two types: the social choice, market structure type, and the unitary structure type seem less
relevant. Mast and Ten Brummeler[17] distinguish five relevant dimension for understanding the
development and dynamic of federative networks of non-profit organisations.

The five dimensions of the federative type are:

• Initiative and continuity: who takes the initiative for the network and how is its continuity safe-
guarded?
• Deep structure: what kind of underlying organisational culture and power relations develop
within the network?
• Bonding intensity: how strong is the mutual bonding between the network partners (horizontal)
and between the members and the formal organisation (vertical)?
• Mutual dependencies and interests: what is the pattern of interdependencies and of interests?
• Costs and benefits: what are the costs and benefits for the different partners and how does that
affect the relationships?

Each of these may be called relational dimensions.

2.4.3 INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The third issue we would propose as an interesting bench-mark would be integrated
rural development. Moreover, two closely related developments in this arena are espe-
cially relevant: the moves towards participatory action research and project planning.
The spectrum of these approaches can be ranked on a bi-polar scale[28]. One pole is
inhabited by action-research with a strong normative underpinning, based on the prin-
ciple that people have a right to participate in the production of knowledge that
directly affects their lives. It is founded on a premise advocating the need to liberate
the poor and recover community[29]. The other pole is inhabited by participatory
planning methods[30] that aim for maximum involvement of all relevant stakeholders,
for example, the Objectives- Oriented Project Planning, developed by the German
Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Box 10 gives more information on this
method.

The continuum of particiatory approaches is usually labelled Participatory Rural

Appraisal (PRD), and can be characterised by a ‘...role reversal between development
worker and community member....the development worker “hands over the
stick”’[32]. In practice, for the larger part of the continuum, the development work-
er/agency is one of the relevant stakeholders and the issue is less one of handing-
over-the-stick as well as of sharing-the-stick. The importance attached to the relation

30
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 31

Objectives-Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP)[31] 10

‘ZOPP, from the German term “Zielorientierte Projektplanung”, translates in English to “Objectives-
Oriented Project Planning.” ZOPP is a project planning and management method that encourages
participatory planning and analysis throughout the project cycle with a series of stakeholder work-
shops. The technique requires stakeholders to come together in a series of workshops to set priori-
ties and plan for implementation and monitoring. The main output of a ZOPP session is a project
planning matrix, which stakeholders build together. The purpose of ZOPP is to undertake participa-
tory, objectives-oriented planning that spans the life of project or policy work to build stakeholder
team commitment and capacity with a series of workshops.

ZOPP is a process that relies heavily on two particular techniques – matrix building and stakeholder
workshops – to encourage participatory planning and management of development work. ZOPP
helps a project team create a project planning matrix (PPM), similar to a Logical Framework or
LogFRAME, to provide indepth analysis of project objectives, outputs, and activities. The PPM results
from stakeholder workshops that are scheduled through the life of a project to encourage brain-
storming, strategising, information gathering, and consensus building among stakeholders.

The PPM is central to ZOPP based project work because the process of building it relies on repeat-
ed, collaborative stakeholder input. In the stakeholder workshops in which the matrix is developed
systematic attention is paid to five important issues:
• Participation analysis. Taking stock of the range of stakeholder identities, interests, biases, expec-
tations, and concerns.
• Problems. Often made visually clear through a “problem tree”, through which key problems the
project is meant to address are identified, grouped, and prioritised, and their causes and effects
brought to light.
• Objectives. In a corresponding objectives tree, the desired solutions are articulated, clustered,
and prioritised.
• Alternatives. A project strategy is created by understanding the range of means for meeting
objectives.
• Assumptions. These conditions are necessary for successful transformation of problems into
secured objectives. Assumptions are systematically examined and arranged in the PPM.

[An example:] Creating a Forum for Stakeholder Communication and Innovation

The Task Manager for an Industrial Efficiency and Pollution Control project for the Philippines took
the initiative to create communication linkages among government, the Bank, industry, and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) to establish a common Bank-borrower team approach to the
project preparation process. Through the local counterpart agency, the Task Manager organised a
series of stakeholder meetings to further refine problem formulations and define the objectives for
a project that had yet to be identified. A ZOPP-based approach was used to bring together stake-
holders who initially felt that their conflicting priorities would prevent them from reaching consen-
sus on project objectives. Not only did stakeholders achieve consensus on objectives and prioritisa-
tion, but the communication linkages begun in the two-day workshop began a dialogue on
systematically focusing on community-level demands to encourage participation and ownership at
the local level’.

ship between stakeholders in PRD is immediately evident when reading through the
World Bank description of ZOPP, the Bank being a prototypical exponent of the plan-
ning pole. So here again, “relationship” has centre-stage.

31
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 32

2.4.4 BENCH-MARKING
This is not the place for a conceptual real bench-marking exercise. To do this properly,
for any of the related fields presented above, would require a detailed literature review
of the field under investigation. Apart from “internal” ways forward, such as that pro-
posed by Carol Weiss, cross-border benchmarking would be a real possibility for the
advancement of the social science perspective on the linkage between research and
policy. We would argue that this would be worthwhile and might not only corroborate
existing KU wisdom, but also generate new ideas about possible means to link
research and policy. To give but one well-known example: the thinking on effective
government organisation has profited greatly from using the private sector as a bench-
mark. All kinds of organisational principles, non-existent in the bureaucracy discourse,
could suddenly be entertained as possibilities for increasing efficiency.[33] The exam-
ples given certainly do not exhaust relevant areas for comparison. What can be
extracted from the select overview presented above, is that “relationship” is pivotal in
each of the fields surveyed: the relationship between different scientific disciplines,
between different organisations, and between stakeholders in a process of social and
economic development. We feel confident, therefore, that our proposal to shift the
perspective from knowledge utilisation to that of relationship is valid.

2.5 A conceptual framework[34]

Here we would like to propose our own conceptual framework; our argument is divid-
ed into two parts. First we show which elements we would want to modify in the
Weiss proposal to make it a better analytical instrument. Then we argue for a different
ordering of the constituting element of the framework.

2.5.1 WEISS EXTENDED

A prerequisite for comparison is some common set or framework of parameters of
interaction. Without such a common framework, comparison cannot become produc-
tive. In essence, what such a framework offers is a common vocabulary across
cases[35].

The territory of research-policy linkages can be carved up in many different ways. The
major notion behind the breakdown chosen for this framework is that :
a) the framework should serve the purpose of increasing our understanding of the
interaction mechanisms linking research and policy; and
b) fruitful discussion of mechanisms is more easily achieved when the terms of the
debate are not normative.
Therefore, the framework, does not contain categories like misuse of knowledge, but
rather those like transformation of knowledge, some forms of which may be evaluated
as misuse, but paramount is a vocabulary that maximises chances of an understanding
of the mechanism(s) involved that appeals to both researchers and policy-makers.

In very general terms our conceptual framework looks very similar to the Weiss pro-
posal described above: within a larger context several interdependent parameters
model the linkage between research and policy. We agree with Carol Weiss that con-

32
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 33

Figure 2

Context
• historical particularities
• status of different social science disciplines
• the policy philosphy of the sector concerned

Research Policy
A. CIVIL SERVANTS INVOLVED
A. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCH • role and the rules it is bounded by
• methodological quality • interests characteristic of the role
• quantitative versus qualitative • (educational) background and per-
• meta-analyses/reviews versus sonality of individuals
single studies B. POLITICIANS INVOLVED
• research versus advice • role and the rules etc.
• purpose of the research C. ISSUE-ARENA
• other actors involved
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESEARCHERS a. interest groups
• role and the rules it is bounded by - role and the rules etc.
• interests characteristic of the role b. other intermediaries
• professional standing - role and the rules etc.
• standing of employing institution c. media
• (educational) background and per- - role and the rules etc.
sonality of individuals • phase in the policy cycle
• amenability of the issue to research
and evaluation
• degree of political polarisation
• intensity of lobbying from interested
parties
• the extent to which research runs
counter to the politics of the arena

Relationship (Interaction)
INSTRUMENTS TO LINK RESEARCH AND POLICY
• when new research is at stake
• when the accessibility of existing knowledge is at stake
• when the researcher is a policy advisor
THE USE MADE OF RESEARCH
• instrumental use
• conceptual use
• transformation use

33
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 34

tinuing to develop new sets of parameters or factors is not the way forward. Looking
at her proposal, we believe it would benefit from the addition of some extra character-
istics. Figure 2 depicts our conceptual framework, using her basic two communities
template.

2.5.2 A DIFFERENT ORDERING OF FACTORS

Before elaborating on our modifications, we will argue for a different way of ordering
the relevant characteristics. The major advantage of keeping the two communities
scheme of ordering is its simplicity, yet the main problem is the relationship between
two actors. The further one moves away from this common sense model, the more
difficult it may become to create a widely understood and accepted basis of shared
understanding about that problem. Its simplicity has two major disadvantages,
however:
• The relationship between policy and research is not an easy matter. It is fraught with
all sorts of complexities that do not fit into the simplistic stereotypes that common-
sense associates with the two communities. The problem is not that the stereotypes
have no basis in reality, but that there is a lot more to the story. However true some
stereotypes may be some of the time, sticking to the two communities template
makes it difficult to prevent those stereotypes from skewing the analysis.
• Without claiming functionalist analysis to be the perfect solution, for subject matters
that are debated in a strongly normative discursive space, a functionalist perspective
can be a useful tool. We would argue that a two communities ordering of factors
impedes usage of a functionalist perspective, since major interdependancies – locat-
ed between characteristics of the same factor – are difficult to take into account.

Obviously, this is all more a matter of opinion than a matter of principle. But we con-
tend that figure 3 offers a better way of ordering relevant factors for the analysis of
the relationship between research and policy.

2.5.3 THE FRAMEWORK DESCRIBED

The following description of the characteristics mentioned above will show why the
ordering of figure 3 fits the interdependencies of the functionalist approach that we
propose. Some of the characteristics in figure 3 are italicised. These are the characteris-
tics that constitute the core of the network of interdependencies that frames the rela-
tionship between research and policy.

The actors
There are three main actors involved in the interaction:
• the researcher(s)
• the politician(s)
• the civil servant(s)

These actors can play various roles. To name only a few that researchers can play:
• the role of the hired producer of policy-relevant knowledge (new research);
• the role of hired summariser of policy-relevant knowledge (state of the art);
• the role of independent critic of policy assumptions;
• the role of expert advisor in policy development;

34
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 35

Figure 3

Context
• historical particularities
• status of different social science disciplines
• the policy philosphy of the sector concerned

Actors Issue-arena
THE RESEARCHER(S) • phase in the policy cycle
• role and the rules it is bounded by • amenability of the issue to
• interests characteristic of the role research and evaluation
• individual personalities • degree of political polarization
• professional standing • intensity of lobbying from
• standing of employing institution interested parties
THE POLITICIAN(S) • the extent to which research
• role and the rules it is bounded by runs counter to the politics of
• interests characteristic of the role the arena
• individual personalities
THE CIVIL SERVANT(S)
• role and the rules it is bounded by Instruments to link research and
• interests characteristic of the role policy
• individual personalities • when new research is at stake
INTEREST GROUPS • when the accessibility of
• role and the rules they are bounded by existing knowledge is at stake
• interests characteristic of the role • when the researcher is a policy
• individual personalities advisor
OTHER INTERMEDIAIRIES
• role and the rules they are bounded by
• interests characteristic of the role The use
• (educational) background and personality • instrumental use
of individuals • conceptual use
THE MEDIA • transformation use
• role and the rules they are bounded by
• interests characteristic of the role
• (educational) background and personality
of individuals

Research
• purpose of the research
• kind of research
• good versus bad methodological quality
• quantitative versus qualitative
• meta-analyses/reviews versus single studies
• research versus advice

35
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 36

These roles are bound by general rules, for example the civil service is subordinate to
politics. These roles are also characterised by general interests, for example. civil ser-
vants need problem definitions and solutions that are politically acceptable.

These rules and interests do not prevent (and sometimes actively induce) tensions
between the actors.

Often the interaction is not limited to these main actors. Other potentially relevant
actors are:
• interest groups
• other intermediaries like think tanks
• the media

Also these roles have rules and interests attached to them.

The issue-arena
The characteristics of the issue-arena can be broken down into three categories:
• Characteristics that influence the extent to which research is a regular source of
knowledge-input for policy: the amenability of the issue to research and evalution
(one might consider this something close to a context factor).
• Characteristics that are interdependent with only one other factor of the framework:
degree of political polarisation, intensity of lobbying from interested parties and the
extent to which research runs counter to the politics of the arena. These are all char-
acteristics that may hinder or promote the use of research and are therefore central
to the conceptualisation that focuses on utilisation; they are more marginal from the
perspective of understanding the relationship.
• Characteristics that are interdependent with many other factors of the framework
and are therefore part of the heart of the network of interdependencies that frames
the relationship between research and policy, called the policy cycle

The Policy cycle can be divided into four phases[36]:

• the phase of problem definition
• the phase of policy formulation
• the phase of policy implementation
• the phase of established policy

Generally speaking, it is the case that the rules followed, the (competing) interests of,
and the negotiating positions of the three main actors mentioned above varies across
policy phases. Moreover, the purposes and uses served by research in the policy pro-
cess differs across these phases. Usually, all of the mentioned phase differences co-
exist; for example, when policy makers look for help in coming to grips with an intan-
gible problem, field researchers are often given carte blanche, the purpose their input
serves is often conceptual, and their work may be very influential in setting the (poli-
cy)agenda. On the other hand, when established policy is to be evaluated, researchers
are usually recruited on the basis of very detailled terms of reference, the assumptions
underlying the policy are not expected to be questioned, and the results of the evalua-
tion do not normally influence policy.

36
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 37

Research
The characteristics of the research parameter can be divided into two categories:
• Characteristics that are interdependent with only one other factor of the framework:
good versus bad methodological quality, quantitative versus qualitative, and meta-
analyses/reviews versus single studies. These are all characteristics that may hinder
or promote the use of research and are therefore central to the conceptualisation
that focuses on utilisation; from the perspective of understanding the relationship
they are more marginal. To a certain extent, quantitative versus qualitative has con-
text factor characteristics too. The meta-analyses/reviews versus single studies has
an internal interdependency link with the characteristic “purpose of research” that is
dealt with below.
• Characteristics that have interdependency links with two other factors: research ver-
sus advice is connected with actor characteristics and with the instruments factor.
• Characteristics that are interdependent with many other factors of the framework
and therefore are part of the heart of the network of interdependencies that frames
the relationship between research and policy: the purpose of research.

Research can serve various purposes in relation to policy:

• it can provide (input for) the basic assumptions and concepts for policy in a particu-
lar field to be regulated or with regard to a particular problem to be solved;
• it can provide (input for) the actual development of policy;
• it can provide (input for) the development and/or choice of instruments for policy
implementation;
• it can provide (input for) the monitoring and evaluation of policy.

Phases of the policy cycle and different purposes of research are linked; basic assump-
tions and concepts are most important in the problem definition phase and least asked
for when a particular field is regulated by an established policy., etc. The interdepen-
dencies attached to the phases of the policy cycle are described above; research pur-
poses are part of what we call the core of the functional network of interdependencies

The use[37]
A last, yet crucial factor in the framework is the use that is made of scientific knowl-
edge and/or concepts.
The traditional dichotomy, common in utilisation research, is:
• instrumental use (“engineering”; direct use, practical solution to practical problems)
• conceptual use (“enlightment”; indirect use, knowledge “creep”)
Both types of “use” presuppose that science plays an active role with policy as the
passive recipient.

However, the recipient, often academically trained, normally does something with or
to the knowledge; it is translated or transformed into knowledge that can be applied
in practice:
• transformation use

Four common transformations are:

• selective use of scientific results or concepts;

37
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 38

• fitting scientific results or concepts into existing organisational practice (re-labelling

of those practices);
• specification of scientific results or concepts to fit ideosyncratic circumstances;
• rewriting of scientific results or concepts.

The essence of this perspective is that (policy) users do not apply scientific knowledge
but actively co-produce it.

Two factors remain to be fleshed out. The first is context. We agree with Carol Weiss
that this aspect has received least attention in KU research and reflection. We would
contend that what she calls context – the characteristics of the issue-arena – is better
conceptualised as part of the relationship model itself[38]. We suggest to reserve the
label “context” for ideological and institutional influences that go beyond the particu-
lar issue at hand. We will return to this subject shortly; our ideas are shaped by the
survey material and discussed in chapter 3.

The second factor concerns instruments to link research and policy. Again, the rele-
vant characteristics of this factor are distilled from the survey material. Consequently,
from the pattern of functional interdependencies, one may, formulate the apriori
expectation that “kind of research involvement” is a useful classification system for
linkage instruments:
• the production of new research;
• the evaluation and dissemination of existing research;
• research as the basis for policy-advice;

The instruments identified are reported upon in chapter 5 and 6

2.5.4 CAVEATS
Before moving from the framework to the empirical examination of relevant context
characteristics and sensible linkage arrangements, two final remarks on the framework
are necessary:
• Although the conceptual framework is developed to model the relationship between
research and policy, it can be used for modelling utilisation also. Utilisation is explic-
itly accounted for, and can therefore frame KU-type hypotheses as well as relation-
ship focused questions.
• One of our major objectives was to further the discussion about the various ways
social science research and policy interact by providing a common vocabulary across
contexts. The conceptual framework as described does not yet fulfil this objective.
With Carol Weiss, we consider context a major and indispensable element of any
common vocabulary. The theoretical exercise described above clarified what should
be interpreted as being part of the functionally interdependent set of factors that
together, constitute a sufficiently elaborated vocabulary for comparing cases of
research policy linkage and relationship. By identifying what should be part of this
set, at the same time, one creates a tool to identify context factors, defined here as
whatever seems to play an important role in particular case studies of linkage, but is
not part of the functional set.
• One very important context factor – the democratic content of the society involved

38
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 39

– cannot be framed in the manner indicated above because it underlies the frame-
work as a whole. The framework represents research-policy interaction in open
democratic contexts in which authorities are constraint by their public accountability
and governance is based upon consensual agreement. This does not imply that the
framework is of little value for discussing research-policy linkages in societies with-
out a democratic culture of public accountability, but that one should be aware of
this underlying assumption when applying it to other settings.

39
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 40

40
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 41

3. Comparing European perspectives

After the theoretical exercise, we now move to the empirical part of the report. In this
chapter context factors, linkage arrangements, and common knowledge needs are
reported. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are devoted to survey findings regarding relevant con-
text factors.

3.1 Differences in the R&D input between countries

In this chapter we report on lines of variation and similarity across countries and sec-
tors. They stem from of our data by analysing:
• the information we gathered on the general nature of the linkage “climate” in par-
ticular countries; and,
• the reasons mentioned for the (lack of) success in particular examples of linkage.

One of the many relevant context variables - differences in the R&D input between
countries - merits separate treatment for two reasons:
• it is the only context variable for which comparative indicators are available;
• it is a macro-variable indicating national differences without, however, offering more
insight into the effect of these differences on the research/policy relationship.

Appendix I gives an indication of the R&D statistics available. However, there are
major problems for anyone using these statistics for comparing countries in terms of
the role played by the social sciences (see Box 11).

Problems with R&D statistics 11

Apart from the usual and well-known problems of macro-indicators - comparability of indicators,
availability of figures for the same year etc. - the following specific issues can be mentioned:
• The statistics are very weak on the social sciences; there is a heavy bias towards statistics relevant
for technology development and innovation. See, for example, the summary in Box 11.
• The only breakdown available is a regional one; breakdowns on subject-matter are absent, at
least for the social sciences. However, one can expect substantial differences in research invest-
ments between subjects.
• Depending on the national context and policy-arena, one can suspect a serious underreporting
of research investment, for example, because the investment is not labelled research (consultancy
assignments, “projects” with research components) or because the investment is done by a poli-
cy level lower than the units the indicators are based upon.

Appendix I substantiates the weakness of the available indicators for interpreting trends for the
social sciences.

At the macro-level, the statistics clearly indicate that Western Europe is behind other
industrialised regions of the world in terms of its R&D investment. This does not nec-

41
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 42

essarily mean that policy is less interested in research in Europe than in the US, Japan,
or Newly Industrialised Countries (NIC’s). It is an indication, however, that in spite of
all rhetoric about the importance of the knowledge system, the status of research in
policy circles is lower than elsewhere. A telling sign is that the economic turn-around
of the last years was immediately translated into substantial budget increases for the
social sciences in the US, while the effect in larger European countries was minor, if
not absent all together [39]. For a summary of this comparison, see Box 12.

Europe compared to other regions 12

Some relevant highlights of the second European report on Science &Technology (S&T) indica-
tors[40] are:
• The EU devotes a lower proportion of its resources to S&T, both as a percentage of GDP and per
capita, compared with the US and Japan;
• Between 1980 and 1994, public investment in education and human capital in the EU rose sightly,
but is still below that of the US;
• The number of university graduates per year is lower in the European Union than in the US;
• The EU has a relatively small number of researchers compared with its competitor countries and
regions;
• Overall the EU’s scientific performance is excellent.

The Second European Report on S&T Indicators (1997) gives an interesting summary of
European diversity, convergence, and cohesion. The most remarkable overall conclu-
sion, in line with the above, is that most EU member states converge on the importance
that budgetary pressures have played during the last 15 years and will continue to play
in the near future: ‘In most EU member states, the percentage of GDP devoted to the
financing of R&D has been decreasing steadily since 1985’ (summary, p. 18-19).

Differences between national R&D systems 13

‘Among the most R&D-intensive member states, France has an R&D system that is largely
government based, the German system is most oriented to applied research and the UK system is
most favourable to the enterprise sector; the Irish R&D system is the fastest growing; R&D in the
small member states is very dependent upon a limited number of multinationals.

Of the group of four EU countries that spend most on R&D, Germany and France (with R&D expen-
diture of 2.3% of their GDP), and the UK (with 2.1%) are well in front of Italy, the lowest of the
four with 1%. It is in Germany that research is the most financed by business enterprises, which
account for 61% of total financing, compared with 48-49% for the three others. Germany and the
UK are the countries with the highest rate of employment of research scientists in the business
enterprise sector. France has the highest level of scientists per thousand employees (12.65 compared
with 12.14 for Germany, 11.85 for the UK and 6.37 for Italy), and also the strongest concentration
of researchers in the public research sector.

The Cohesion-4 countries include Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece. These countries’ R&D systems
are still in a phase of rapid development and catching up. Ireland has a very strong private sector,
however, with 69% of its R&D investment carried out by enterprises, the second highest percentage

42
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 43

in Europe after Sweden. At the same time, the Irish government gives relatively little direct support
to R&D activities. After Greece, Ireland has the lowest level of GBOARD [Total government budget
appropriations or outlays for R&D], at less than 1% of total government expenditure. The Irish R&D
system seems to rely very much on the presence of foreign multinationals.

The R&D systems of most of the smaller EU member states are strongly reliant on the presence of a
few big enterprises, and consequently the private sector plays a very significant
role in their R&D systems. Sweden, for instance, depends on the private sector for 78% of its R&D.
In Belgium over 90% of BERD [Business enterprise expenditure on R&D] is financed by the enterpris-
es themselves; only Finland has a higher percentage. In short, there is a large gap between public
and private sector investment in Belgium, which is also reflected in the very small number of R&D
personnel working in the government or higher education sectors’ (summary, p. 18).

As our interest focuses on the linkage of university based or affiliated research and
policy (see 1.3.2), another interesting way of looking at national differences is through
the lens of university research in national science systems. A 1998 report of the OECD
group on the Science system does precisely that (see also appendix F). Box 14 sum-
marises this perspective.

Differences between the place of university research in national R&D systems 14

• In Anglo-Saxon countries, universities are the major source of basic research, but they co-exist
with public research institutions devoted to sectors of national interest, such as defence, energy,
agriculture, medicine, etc. The latter may undertake basic research where needed, although they
are generally involved in applied and technical research activities.
• In large continental European countries, university research co-exists (and co-operates) with a
large public sector engaged in basic research in its own laboratories [Germany’s Max-Planck Soci-
ety, France’s Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Italy’s Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche (CNR)], which are also involved in technical and applied activities, to provide either R&D
infrastructures (as in Germany) or mission-oriented activities (as in France and Italy).
• In smaller continental European economies, public research tends to be mainly oriented towards
technical and industrial research, while universities perform most basic research. There are, how-
ever, important differences among countries; some have a large public sector (e.g. Norway, Ice-
land and Portugal), while others do not (e.g. Sweden or Switzerland).

In a similar vein, there are important differences in the functioning of university research and the
behaviour of teacher-researchers in the various university systems[41].

• In the Anglo-Saxon world, where academic research is, to some degree, subject to the values that
apply thoughout society and the market principles that regulate the overall economy, it develops
in an extremely competitive environment. Researchers are concerned with publication and con-
stantly vetted by their peers. They are very mobile and move easily from one university to anoth-
er according to the offers they receive. They are constantly in search of contracts with industry,
government agencies, and local authorities in order to finance their research. They often spend
some time in the private sector and even create their own firms.
• This model is very different from others, where researchers are under less pressure, more protect-
ed, less pushed to publish and less mobile. They have also fewer opportunities for diversification
in their research fields and their careers.

43
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 44

The 1999 UNESCO World Social Science Report (WSSR) summarises the information
on the social sciences[42]. The main conclusions are:
• It is difficult to calculate precisely the resources that go into social science research;
• There are considerable disparities in research between countries and sectors of exe-
cution. In the higher education sector, the differences are relatively few, but they are
greater in the government sector, and greatest in the private non-profit sector;
• In the higher education sector the social sciences account for a proportion of intra-
mural expenditure on R&D that ranges from 8 to 21 %;
• The position of the social sciences, measured as a proportion of total expenditure on
R&D, has remained stable over the past decade;
• In OECD countries, 80% or more of social science research in higher education is
financed by public funds;
• Compared with gross domestic expenditure on R&D in social sciences and humani-
ties research (SSH), the total number of R&D personnel in SSH generally accounts
for a higher percentage of personnel in all scientific fields taken as a whole;
• In higher education, the percentage of total R&D personnel in social sciences is
between 7 and 24% of total personnel;
• In the OECD countries, humanities and social sciences courses attract a considerable
proportion, and sometimes even the majority, of students.

3.2 Main lines of variation

This section focuses on the factors that can more directly be linked with the linkage
between research and policy: ideology, institutional structures and history.

3.2.1 IDEOLOGY
For lack of a better term, relevant factors describing the “culture”, “philosophy” or
“climate” are subsumed here under the label “ideology”; this does not imply any
specific position in the never-ending academic debate on the best definition of these
terms. We believe that it makes sense to separate analytically the sphere of ideologies,
the superstructure, the software (or whatever other metaphor one prefers), from that
of institutions, the basis, or the hardware. Obviously, the spheres overlap, mutually
constitute each another (or whatever other process description one prefers), but this
typological distinction is pragmatic since it is immediately comprehensible to both of
the “communities” that comprise our readership.

It is not our intention here to draw general conclusions from the factors described
below. We would need comparative in-depth studies, focusing on a few particular and
inter-related factors, to further our understanding of the mechanisms by which ideolo-
gies shape the linkage between research and policy. Rather, we aim to develop a list of
context factors that is exhaustive enough for those using it to analyse their local con-
text. The factors are described using examples drawn from our survey material.

3.2.1.1 Political Culture

National political cultures vary considerably. They exert a marked influence over the
way research and policy tend to interact with each other. We present two cases here:

44
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 45

the corporatist political culture of Austria (Box 15), and the North Italian governance
culture characterised by patchwork drawn from its public and private sectors (Box 16).

The corporatist political culture of Austria 15

One of our interviewees, Dr August Gächter of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Vienna, sent us
an unpublished paper on his experiences on the role of research in the making of Austrian migra-
tion policy[43]. His collection of anecdotes contains a strong analytical component. A major
explanatory factor for his unnerving conclusion that ‘the state, at least in Austria, is incapable of
benefitting from social science research, even from the research it commissions’ is the polarisation
and consensualism of the Austrian corporatist political system. We quote verbatim from his paper:

“Too much information is risky for civil servants. They work for politicians, and the politicians
belong to political parties. ... The parties themselves are always fraught with internal tensions, and
the only way of keeping them from splintering is to strictly enforce a set of orthodox views on the
key issues. ... the parties are characterised by the issues that are central to them. For the social
democrats the labour market, and therefore immigration, is self-evidently a key issue. As a result
theoretical and political views on labour market and immigration policy are strictly policed within
the party. Every party member, with few exceptions, understands this and makes sure not to devi-
ate. The police, in this instance, are the labour organisations in the party, primarily the trade union
leadership which is deeply entrenched in the ministry of labour.
Civil servants...do not ususlly manage...to keep a distance from party affiliations...In order to gain
any personal influence within the bureaucracy it is necessary to find support from collegues in
other departments, other divisions and other ministries. This can be had most easily, and often only,
by joining a camp. One only remains a member of the camp by respecting its orthodoxies...

Fortunately, most researchers in the key institutes understand...the necessity of catering to the
orthodoxies. They use the same tactics as civil servants to gain personal influence over policy deci-
sions, and know they must be reliable members of a party camp. Most labour market economists in
Austria are social democrats. Their research is “safe” in the sense that it does not question the
tenets held by the trade union leadership, at least not ...publicly.

For Austrian civil servants it always remained advisable to use any funds available for alliance build-
ing inside the wider bureaucracy. Thus reseach budgets are regularly directed to social partner and
party institutions, and, where they do not exist, institutes are created that are no more than exter-
nal attachments to the ministry funding them.’

One may, or may not agree with the negative connotation of the above systemic description. Sys-
tems have their own logic and the partiality depicted may sometimes benefit worthwhile initiatives
as much as it hinders them. For example, the government’s funding for developing an Austrian
Forum for Migration Research (attached to the International Centre for Migration Policy Develop-
ment), along the lines of its highly acclaimed Swiss namesake (see chapter 6). Importantly, the heart
of Dr Gächter’s argument - that party membership is an important mediating variable in the linkage
between between research and policy in Austria - was reaffirmed by many of our Austrian intervie-
wees.

45
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 46

Northern Italy: interwoven public and private sectors 16

Marco Lombardi, research director of the Cariplo Foundation for information and studies on multi-
ethnicity (ISMU) in Milan, characterised the North Italian method of tackling social problems as fol-
lows:

‘The government delegates the solving of social problems to the private sector. That delegation is
done by official regulations and the private sector takes care of the problems with government
funds. In this way the government circumvents the densely regulated public structure within which
it would be impossible to react quickly and adequately to that problem’

The extent to which social services are “outsourced” is dependent upon the local circumstances.
Cities with a history of municipal social involvement like Bologna have more services under direct
control than cities like Milan, but often, even when it is the municipality itself – as opposed to the
trade union (Genova), the church (Rome) or other active bodies who take the initiative – the actual
service is delivered by a private body, for providing housing, language learning facilities, etc. The
private/public “joint venture” model of cooperation is visible down to the staffing of government
offices; for many years, the Foreigners Office of the Milan municipality employs the same in-house
research consultant for its reporting on foreigners.

Another of our interviewees, professor Zincone, sent us the summary of a paper on the role of
experts and civil servants in Italian policy-making. She argues that the Italian example demonstrates
the importance of the role played by “traditional lower strata pressure groups such as voluntary
associations and unions, by civil servants and experts that formed together a quite stable policy net-
work’. These networks:
• ‘Look for a sort of ‘window’ that could connect their virtual ideas to actual policy making’, some-
times guided by high level public administrators and innovative political leaders;
• Introduce practices at the local level that creep up through the system as ‘a flow of innovations
from the periphery to the centre’;
• Introduce ‘local practices [that] are often aimed at “going round” the law, at “honestly cheat-
ing” national legislators. Practices do not just implement and adapt legislation – as any good stu-
dent of Law would tell us – they also act contra legem, against the law, they can erode unwant-
ed provisions and initiate new ones’.

The argument is not that the situation in Italy is unique, nor restricted to immigration matters, but
that, when taken together, these elements add up to a climate where the linkage between research
and policy is often mediated through “policy communities” (in the sense proffered by Kingdon[44])
that includes researchers. Moreover, in this setting, they also liaise with policy in the role of expert
advisors more frequently than elsewhere (for example, in committees delegated to prepare detailed
new legislation).

In terms of the conceptual framework, for both cases described, the context factor
“political culture” influences the rules and interests attached to the roles of the main
actors:
• In Austria, the roles of researcher, civil servant, and politician are often linked by
party membership.
• In northern Italy, civil servants are often less subservient to politicians than is normal
elsewhere, and actively align with research and interest group actors to push for
particular policies.

46
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 47

Another factor identified in the Weiss proposal as being potentially important, is the
extent to which policy circles are staffed by academically educated personnel who are
familiar with (social) science discourse: ‘in Germany and France, many high officials in
state bureaucracies have been educated in the law and relatively few have any back-
ground in the social sciences. There is some evidence from the U.S. and Canada that
policy actors trained in law are less responsive to social research and evaluation than
officials with different kinds of training’. In Germany this factor came up several times
in interviews as an explanation of the non-responsiveness of the bureaucracy to the
wealth of social science research evidence that the German citizenship regime[45] has
very negative social and psychological effects on its non- indegenous population.

3.2.1.2 Academic Culture

Academic cultures also vary considerably, but it is more difficult to come to grips with
than political cultures. Political cultures are a subject of interest to the research world,
academic cultures much less. For whatever reason, the own nest is not easily turned
into a topic for analysis. Comparative work on academic cultures that would further
our thinking on the role this factor may play in the linkage between reserach and poli-
cy in a particular context is nearly absent. Clark’s book mentioned above is one of the
few examples but focuses on the description of incentive structures and shys away
from the more immaterial aspects of culture.

Frans van Waarden, who has worked for extended periods in Canada, the US, Ger-
many, and the Netherlands, wrote about academic cultures combining style and
organisational elements in his analysis[46]. Johan Galtung’s classic essay, published
nearly twenty years ago[47], is still considered useful starting point and is described in
Box 17.

Diversity in intellectual style 17

Johan Galtung characterises four ideal-type intellectual styles according to their profile of differ-
ences along four dimensions:

• The extent to which they engage in paradigm analysis;

• The extent to which their descriptions produce propositions;
• The importance attached to theory formation;
• The extent to which commentary on other intellectuals is an important activity.

The resulting matrix of differences between what he calls the Saxonic, Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponic
styles is not very informative as such, but his pastiche description of each style is
recognisable to those travelling the world academic circuit as valid, albeit close to charicature. Gal-
tung summarises these descriptions by ridicule ‘...putting down in the shortest possible form the
typical question put in the four intellectual styles when somebody is faced with a proposition:’
(p.838)

• Saxonic style: how do you operationalise it? (US version), how do you document it? (UK version)
• Teutonic style: wie können Sie das zurückführen/ableiten? (how can you trace this back/deduce it
from basic principles?)
• Gallic style: peut-on dire cela en bon français? (is it possible to say this in French?)
• Nipponic style: donatano monka desuka? (who is your master?)

47
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 48

Obviously, particular countries, especially the smaller ones of the periphery, are under the influence
of two or even three styles. Also:

‘The Saxonic intellectual style will tend to crop up where the computers penetrate [remember that
this is a 1981 article! RH] .... Even in the heartland of Teutonia and Gallia computers will find their
place and generate myriads of data in search of more interpretation than the theory classes of
these countries would ever be able to produce. As a consequence dataoriented sub-cultures will
emerge,..., giving the entire intellectual system a somewhat schizophrenic character. What comes
out of this in the long term remains to be seen; but it may be a Saxonic Trojan horse.... But all that
is on the surface of the world. Underneath the styles will live on: the teutons will continue to be
irritated when the gauls become too lyrical,..., and the gauls will continue to be bored by teutonic
pedantry... Some of them will learn from the others what they do not master themselves, but by
and large, what is the virtue of the one will continue to be the vice of the other’(p.849).

We would argue that the academic manners written about by Galtung are important
for understanding the relationship between research and policy in a particular national
context. Galtung himself hinted at the importance when arguing that the saxonic style
– rich in documentation and very meagre in theory, rich in formal language and poor
in elegancy – fits the exigencies of political bureaucracies:

‘...there is a need if not for consensus at least for a basis on which gentlemen can
argue. The saxonic intellectual style produces such a basis. At the same time it rein-
forces the distinction between professionals of the [bureaucracy] and the outside con-
sultants on the one hand delivering the raw material for the debate, and the govern-
ing bodies...picking what they want, putting it in their various thought systems with
build-in polarisations...’(p.849).

But given the paucity and anecdotical nature of documentation on differences

between intellectual styles, it is for others to pursue this in more detail.

In terms of national differences, the general tenets of Galtung’s analysis were con-
firmed by our survey material. Many interviewees pointed towards academic culture as
a determinant of the relationship between research and policy. To give but two exam-
ples: the Swedish academic culture with a traditional openness towards policy-rele-
vance and applied research (Box 18) versus the German academic culture with a much
stronger internal, theory-oriented focus (Box 19).

Sweden: open towards policy-relevance[48] 18

Sweden’s research system is strongly connected to and seen as an integral part of the country’s wel-
fare and industrial policy. From the 60s onwards, as part of the development of the social democrat
“Swedish model”, the link between research and practical reform policies was given shape in a sec-
toral policy. ‘Every sector, with its associated government ministry, would use research as a resource
and decide how much money should be spent on it and what work should actually be done.’ The
sectoral model ended the earlier dominance of researchers, and research came to be steered by
other organisations. Research workers became more closely tied to specific sectors than to their
departments. In this model a considerable share of governmental research funds are channeled

48
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 49

through sectoral agencies, and through 6 research councils tied in with particular departments (fore
example, the Swedish Council for Social Research is funded by the Ministry of Health and Social
Affairs). But also the funds going directly into universities and those being channeled through non-
sectoral research councils are to partly thematically earmarked. Particular to the Swedish research
sytem, is the fact that student enrolment numbers are not the determinant of the research compo-
nent of general university funding. “The dimensions of research and education are determined sep-
arately.... That is one reason why we have much more medical research, for example, than student
numbers would justify”.

The research policy steering system is not researcher dominated, but they play an active role in it.
‘Well developed channels exist between the research community and politicians, right up to the
level of Prime Minister.’ The government has an advisory body on research policy that has a strong
academic representation. But also on particular policy issues, researchers are regularly called in for
policy advice. Sweden has a 40 year old tradition of parliamentary committees with paid experts.
Such committees ‘comprise members of parliament and expertise from universities and central and
local public authorities... the final document from a committee is sent out for public criticism....
Government thereafter formulate the proposition to the parliament based on both the commis-
sion’s work and the criticisms’.

One example was the need for a policy response to the rising concern about the issue of residential
segregation, especially ethnic residential segregation that resulted in ‘[s]everal state committees
and commissions [being] set up in 1995-97 to investigate different aspects of these and related
problems... [to] mention just four of these’: (Anderson, p.5-6)
• The committee on immigrant policy;
• The commission on housing policy;
• The commission on metropolitan areas;
• The investigation on the introduction of new immigrants and on a new organisation of integra-
tion policy.

Germany: internal focus 19

Frans van Waarden (see note 6) describes the difference between the Dutch and the German atti-
tude as follows:
‘The link between the social sciences... and policy is much stronger in the Netherlands than in Ger-
many. German social scientists are more theoretically oriented and do not have much interest in
policy-oriented and therefore often theoretically less interesting research. Similarly, the portfolio of
contract research of German ministries is much smaller and when they fund research it is hardly
ever at universities. Both orientations strengthen each other. Ministries do not offer contracts
because they think professors are not interested, or are unable to deliver. And researchers do not
go out of their way to bag contracts. Also because the volume of fundamental research funds –
Forschungsgemeinschaft, Volkswagenstiftung, Thyssenstiftung, etc. – is much larger and less diffi-
cult to tap. As a result, contact opportunities that could lead to an advisory relationship are scarce’
[p. 15, translation RH].

Germany is classified by van Waarden as the country that has the most formidable barriers on the
road to tenured professorships. The status accorded to the position (and its host organisation the
university) befit those difficulties; it is very high. The barriers create a work habitus that is difficult
to reconcile with the practical needs of outsiders:

‘A typical German dissertation contains a summary of more than 100 pages of relevant theoretical

49
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 50

literature... The fear of forgetting an important author or approach is great... this fear is grounded
because the dissertation is going to be judged by promotors and other professors on its exhaustive-
ness. In this way a habitus of perfectionism is confirmed and reproduced in the process of academic
socialisation’ (van Waarden, p.12).

And professors are very much in charge; only they are taken seriously, within their own circles at
least. Academia is a relatively self-referentially closed national domestic discourse.
The difficulty to create linkages with “outsiders” do not limit themselves to policy but also to inter-
national colleagues. That charateristic is shared, by the way, with other “larger-medium-sized”
nations like France and Japan.

An indicator of both the social status and the inward-looking character of the German university
sector is that ‘...something like a consequent evaluation system is still not extant and is still not
applied for Germany’s university research’[49]. In other countries, such as the UK, a tight feedback
linkage between evaluation and funding have been established.

3.2.1.3 Policy philosophy for the sector concerned

Time and again, our interviews turned up the relevance of the philosophy underlying the
particular policy field of migrants and integration issues. Both the academic and the poli-
cy debate on integration explicitly refer to basic normative assumptions concerning how
society should be organised, or what kinds of rights individuals were entitled to, the
legitimacy of group-based claims, what rights should be regarded as universal human
ones, and what should be attached to political citizenship. A classic comparison is the
French versus the German perspective on citizenship.

Both in France and in Germany, the national perspective was mentioned in every single
interview. The German perspective is symbolised by the fact that the migration and inte-
gration discourse is labelled die Ausländerfrage – the Foreigners issue. The French per-
spective is symbolised by the political incorrectness of labels like ethnic minority. One of
the conferences we attended in Germany was the Bundeskonferenz der Ausländerbeauf-
tragten des Bundes (May 1998), an annual gathering of the local ombudsmen for immi-
grants, called by their national level coordination office[50]. The discussions during this
two-day meeting were totally dominated by the citizenship issue; the general consensus
was that any serious progress on the integration issue was deemed impossible without
changing the ius sanguinis basis of nationalisation legislation.

Box 20 provides a broader overview of modalities of immigrants’ participation in political

decision-making that goes beyond the citizenship issue alone.[51] All three models
described below are ideal types. Understandably, reality is much more complex, and no
country offers a perfect example of any of these three. Be aware, therefore, that classifi-
cations, such as the one below, may enlighten as much as they obscure. Other classifica-
tions are possible (see Appendix F for an alternative), but given the importance of the
citizenship issue, these three models are useful tools that help to account for substantial
differences in the practice of immigrant participation. These differences relate to the
legitimation, the set-up, the practices, and also to the effects, of immigrant consultation.
It is important to note that the choice for a specific model of immigrant participation
seems to be determined largely by national traditions, what we would call the policy phi

50
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 51

Immigrants’ participation in political decision-making 20

‘There is a potential tension between the requirement [for a Western style democracy] of a mini-
mum of shared values in a political community on the one hand, and the requirement of respect
for cultural difference and individual and group identities on the other. In the course of history,
most European nation-states have come to terms with this tension, although in a variety of man-
ners.... The recent large scale immigration of people with a national and cultural background that
differs from the mainstream values in the countries of settlement, has reactivated the debate on
the potential tension.... European countries tend to differ in their perspectives in these matters as
well as in their definitions of the actual situation....

Citizenship is the most common entitlement for an individual in a democracy to exert full member-
ship rights and to take part in the political process. Many immigrants are not citizens of the country
of settlement, and therefore may not be entitled to political participation....
A major distinction that matters here is the one between the ius soli and the ius sanguinis principle.
Under the ius soli system, anyone born in a country is entitled to that country’s passport; under the
ius sanguinis system, the passport of the parents is decisive for the passport of their child. In the lat-
ter case, foreign citizenship may be perpetuated into the second and subsequent generations.
Under ius soli, by contrast, children of immigrants automatically obtain the passport of the country
where their parents reside. In Europe, Germany is the most outspoken example of the ius sanguinis
system, and the United Kingdom of the ius soli system. Under the ius sanguinis system the political
and the cultural community are seen as relatively similar; under the ius soli system it is territory, not
ancestry, that is decisive for the attribution of political rights. Most countries now have a mixture of
the two, with relatively easy access to their citizenship for second generation immigrants’.

[In terms of a perspective on political participation that is broader than naturalisation and voting
rights, the differences between approaches can be described in terms of three ideal-typical modali-
ties of immigrant participation, RH]

‘Modalities of immigrant participation[52]

The first model is the individual rights model. In this model immigrants, like all other residents, are
seen as individuals who directly interact with the state. Public policy aims at giving individual
migrants equal standing with other residents vis-à-vis the state, which means a formal assurance of
access to the country’s institutions, of which the labour market and education tend to be empha-
sised. There is little room for intermediate structures such as immigrant associations or consultative
councils outside the state bureaucracy in this model.... In this model the granting of individual
rights to immigrants is seen as the major instrument for inclusion; this may often imply a relatively
generous naturalisation policy. Whether the immigrants are actually in a position to exercise their
rights, is largely their own responsibility... In Europe, France offers the classical example of this indi-
vidual rights model. Portugal and Italy also have certain elements of this approach in their policies.

The second model we have labelled the multi-cultural model. Here too, the individual immigrant,
rather than the migrant group, is seen as the primary target of incorporation. In contrast to the
individual rights model, however, it is acknowledged that immigration has also led to the develop-
ment of new communities in society, that may distinguish themselves in cultural terms from those
that already existed. The authorities consider these communities as relevant entities in society, but
in a rather loose way, without, for instance, precisely defining their membership. In this model, the
state sees it as a primary responsibility to make sure that all members of society are treated on an
equal footing, irrespective of the community of which they are part... It is less likely that such rela-
tively loose arrangements will develop into formalised consultation structures with a specific man-
date. In view of this, it is understandable that, at the local level, there may be important differ-

51
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 52

ences in the actual arrangements for political participation of immigrant or cultural communities.
The classical example of this model is offered by the United Kingdom. Among the more recent
immigration countries Norway also tends towards this multi-cultural model.

The third model is the corporatist model. In this model membership is organised around corporate
groups and their functions. Corporate groups may be defined by a specific identity, such as occupa-
tional, ethnic, religious, linguistic or gender belongingness, and are then emphasised as the source
of action and authority. Individuals are members of one or more corporate groups (they are often
born into it), and through those groups they particpate in the different spheres of society. In a lib-
eral democracy the state should see to it that all groups have equal access to the common good,
without seeing themselves obliged to abandon their specific cultural characteristics. In the corpo-
ratist model, immigrants are defined in terms of group membership, rather than as individuals.
Immigrant groups are often referred to as ethnic communities or ethnic minorities. Their member-
ship is well defined, and they may be subject to specific rights and policy measures, developed to
improve their social situation or to preserve some of their cultural characteristics... In the corporatist
model formal avenues exist that enable the immigrant communities to participate in decision mak-
ing mechanisms and to pursue their interests, both at the national and at the regional and local
levels. Like the individual rights approach, the corporatist approach is top-down, in contrast to the
multi-cultural model, which is bottom-up. The Netherlands comes closest to the classical example of
the corporatist model in immigrant policy, although it has lost some of its rigidities in recent years.
Sweden used to be another example, but significant changes have taken place there as well.’

losophy, and experience of the country concerned, rather than by the nature of its immi-
gration.

The 10th anniversary issue of the Dutch journal Migrantenstudies (1995), includes two
analyses of the influence of policy philosophy on actual policy. Bukow and Llaryora
compare Dutch and German policy, and Mahnig compares French and Dutch poli-
cy[53]. In both analyses basic normative assumptions are a prominent explanatory
variable for the understanding of differences. The explanatory power is especially
strong for the Dutch-German comparison, because the problems that policy is con-
fronted with – kinds of immigrant groups, development of their presence, etc. – are
quite similar.

However, the meeting of the Ausländerbeuftragten also vindicated another important

universal; local level differences in integration practices between Länder and cities are
considerable. In terms of particular immigrant facilities and administrative practices,
Nordrhein-Westfalen and Baiern, in Frankfurt, Berlin, or Hamburg, differ sometimes
more than those between a German city and a French city[54]. The influence of this
factor therefore is difficult to pin down in general terms. In Box 21, a discussion on
labelling and political correctness (in surveys) is presented which warns against too
much fatalism concerning the deterministic character of engrained policy principles.

52
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 53

Labelling and political correctness in surveys[55] 21

‘It is almost a truism to observe... that the French disinclination to recognise “minorities” contrasts
sharply with the Dutch acceptance of cultural difference, Scandinavian and British pragmatism and
German exclusionary concepts of societal membership... Perhaps the most extreme divergence of
view on how issues of migration and integration should be approached is that between the ‘Anglo-
Saxon’ model and that derived from the principles of citoyennetÈ enshrined in the French Republi-
can model. This is not the place to explore the underlying philosophies that inform these perspec-
tives; suffice it to say that whereas the former has found it possible to use social constructions such
as ‘race’ in census returns, the latter has always eschewed such labels on the grounds that they are
potentially divisive.

In fact, close inspection shows that as far as Europe is concerned, actual practices are more tempo-
ral than fundamental. For example, in the UK census of 1981 a question was included on birthplace
and parental birthplace. Ethnic descent was then inferred from this proxy variable. Later, after heat-
ed and often acrimonious debate, a so-called “ethnic question” was included in the census of 1991
and will be repeated in 2001 (with some minor amendments). In France, it is now not uncommon
for surveys to include similar questions to those included in British censuses and surveys during the
early years of migrant settlement (Silberman and Fournier, 1998).[56] For example, the Formation
Qualification Professionelle survey of 1985 (and repeated on a smaller scale in 1993) contains data
on naturalisations, thereby enabling foreign-born populations to be identified. Later surveys (such
as the EVA survey in 1993 carried out by the Centre de Recherche et d’Etudes sur les Qualifications)
contain data on immigrants according to their date of arrival and on children of immigrant parents.
Studies in the UK showed that data derived from questions on parental birthplace were well within
acceptable error levels when compared with self-assessed ethnic origin data. In other words, the
differences between nations may well turn out to be less fundamental than earlier feared. I am cer-
tain, for example, that French survey practice will generate data that are comparable with those in
other European counties.’

In terms of the conceptual framework this factor directly influences the issue-arena.

3.2.1.4 The place accorded to science as a knowledge producer by the political and
administrative establishment
On a general level, the indicative importance of national differences in RTD expendi-
ture, and the share of the social sciences in the total RTD expenditure, has already
been outlined in 3.1. In 3.1. it has also been suggested that the share particular sub-
ject matters receive within the social sciences, e.g. the share of research on “Metropo-
lis” issues, varies between countries. At this level of specificity, the relevance of this
factor can be evaluated more easily. A first indication of the prominence of this issue
can be gleaned from The Ethnic studies in Europe: a survey of research centres and
resources compiled by the Cemes in partnership with the Consiglio Italiano per le
Scienze Sociali (1999, online available at www.cemes.org), see Box 22.

53
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 54

Ethnic and migration studies centres in Europe[57] 22

‘.. there is no shortage of institutes, organisations and information sources in our field. [The] direc-
tory of institutes and research centres in Europe.... lists 357 institutes, centres or research groupings
(including documentation centres) in 37 European countries. Of these 250 (70 per cent) are in sev-
enteen Western European states.... Twenty-seven per cent fell into the category of “law and human
rights” institutes but the largest single category was unsurprisingly ‘Ethnic Studies’ which included
joint ethnic and migration studies centres (41 per cent). Fig 1 shows that there is a considerable
variation by country with human rights research activities most likely in Scandinavian countries,
France, and the Netherlands. Migration studies alone were relatively weak everywhere accept
France, which is probably a reflection of non-acceptance of ‘ethnic minority’ categories as a legiti-
mate designation. In Germany, Italy and the UK “ethnic studies” centres are strongly represented.

[V]ery few of these centres are international and comparative and, as far as I am aware, none seek
to embrace North America and Europe.... [M]ost of these centres are ‘purely’ academic. Those that
are not are often linked with a particular political party, trade union or NGO. Few, if any, are
founded upon the principle of the link between the [research and policy].’

40
Other
35
Pol/IR
30
Research centres

25 Law/H

20 Migr
15 Ethnic
10
5
0
As Be Fr De Gr It NL P Sc Es Sw UK

At the level of a particular country the (development of the) importance of research in

a particular field can be specified in more concrete terms. Box 23 contains an extract
from the country report written by Katarina Pouliasi and presents the case of Greece, a
country slowly adjusting to its new status of being a country of immigration.

The case of Greece 23

The rather low number of immigrants in Greece up to very recent years is the major reason for the
near absence of an official policy. The existing Law 1975/91 on “Police control of frontier passages,
entrance, stay, work and deportations of foreigners and procedures of refugees’ recognition” is a
strict, but insufficient in dealing with today’s multi-faceted migration and integration issues.
Three kinds of recent immigrants in Greece can be distinguished on the basis of their origin and the
state’s attitude towards them:

54
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 55

• The so-called traditional immigrant groups, seeking employment and very often trying to get
permanent residence. They come from Egypt, the Philippines, Africa and Asia. Larger groups are
Iraqis, Armenians (from Iraq, Iran, Syria or Libanon), Eritreans, Palestinians, Latin Americans, and
Vietnamese, mostly employed illegally in cheap rural labour and domestic services. Seasonal
immigrant workers find employment in the agricultural sector (usually from Poland), in touristic
services or in fisheries. Whether or not this labour force meets an existing demand in the Greek
economy, or causes an increased demand for cheap illegal labour and contributes to the spread
of black economy, is a matter of constant dispute. The unofficial procedures through which these
immigrants enter Greece, contribute to the infringement of their workers’ rights and hinder their
potential social integration
• Greek re-migrants from the CAS countries. The most significant remigrant groups are Pontian
Greeks and Greek Albanians. Pontian Greeks emigrated to the South-eastern part of Asia Minor
(Pontian Peninsula) between the 9th and 17th century. According to estimates of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, 10,000 to 15,000 Greek Pontians are re-patriated every year. A well-defined inte-
gration programme for the remigrants has been developed and has been implemented by the
‘General Secretariat for Geeks Abroad’ of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The programme con-
cerns both initial reception and long-term integration, including language courses, vocational
training, housing policy, and psychological counselling. An extensive network of official state and
municipal organisations and remigrant associations and communities are involved in the imple-
mentation of this policy.
• Albanians. The political instability and the chaotic social and economic situation in Albania have
resulted in large scale out migration. The illegal entrance of large numbers of Albanians into
Greece over the last 3 to 4 years resulted in a new and largely uncontrolled social phenomenon
in Greece. These refugees, living with the stigma of illegality, are facing extremely serious prob-
lems of survival. Only a very small percentage of these can find work in the black market or
affordable housing. At the same time, the native population feels threatened, manifested in
xenophobic attitudes. For example, the rapid increase of criminality is widely attributed to the
massive influx of the Albanians.

With respect to two of these three cases, research has slowly started to make an impact:
• Academic research has been important to the development of repatriation policies. Probably the
best example of a study that was directly influental is Greek refugees from the former Soviet
Union conducted by Prof. Koula Kasimati of the Centre for Social Morphology and Social policy
(KEKMOKOP). The perceived usefulness and successive impact of this study has upgraded the very
marginal status of research results as information resources for policy.
• In case of the Albanian influx, the Ministry of Labour has taken the initiative in developing legis-
lation that would allow government and society to face the situation in its real dimensions. Its
goal was to define the problem based on quantitative measures. The massive illegal influx from
neighbouring Albania has thus lead to the perceived need for more systematic study of migra-
tion phenomena. Two presidential decrees, 358/98 and 359/97 introduced transparency into the
procedure of legalising immigrants. Ms Marily Galaora, Special Consultant on migration policy to
the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, stated that the contribution of experts and members
of the Labour Union to the development of the above mentioned presidential decrees has been
recognised as valuable and will be taken into consideration more often in future legislative
arrangements.

To summarise, the general picture that emerged from the interviews revealed that research is only
now being recognised as a potentially relevant source of policy information. Greece has a history of
stakeholder involvement in policy development ( e.g. trade unions) but the recognition of (academ-
ic) research data, concepts, and expertise as relevant is very recent, and clearly motivated by that
country’s sudden shift from being a country of emigration towards becoming a country of immigra-
tion.

55
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 56

Obviously, an evaluation of the relationship between research and policy in the field of
migration and integration issues in a country like Greece has to take into account that
relevant research capacity is relatively small, and research interest in the topic and
political and administrative openness to the idea of research-based policy a very recent
development. Conversely, evaluation of that relationship in countries like the UK or the
Netherlands have to take account of their long history of migration and ethnic rela-
tions research and research-based or -legitimated policy. Generally speaking, one can
conclude that the role assigned to science as a basis and legitimation of policy direc-
tions differs across countries, across historical time and across sectors. One may
hypothesise that national styles of governance differ regarding the value attached to
science, but that these differences are slowly decreasing under the convergent pressure
of international and transnational organisations and institutions. This trend is stronger
in some sectors than others, depending, amongst other things, on the extent to which
the sector is influenced by the international arena.

3.2.1.5 The political belief in rational planning

As argued above, there are considerable national differences, regarding the extent to
which science is seen as an important input for policy. Once part of the policy-culture,
the importance attached to (social) science legitimation of policy directions and policy
actions was a persistent characteristic which seems to have diminished somewhat. The
disillusionment of policy with this type of research seems subject to patterns of peaks
and troughs (see note 60), although the wave does not necessarily correspond precise-
ly to the degree of research utilisation. Once science is accepted as an important
source of relevant data, ideas, and advocacy material, its use becomes institutionalised
and disappointment is translated into different preferences for kinds of research (for
example, more evaluation, less causal analysis), as well as for disciplines (more eco-
nomics, less sociology), and changing ways of linking with research (more explicit
short-term contract research and less block grant finance, rather than abondoning the
commissioning and the use of research).

One may argue that the place accorded to science as a knowledge producer by the
political and administrative establishment is closely related to the wider concept of the
political belief in rational planning. The belief in science-based policy and the belief in
rational planning seem to have a strong family resemblance and are often inseparable
elements in the amalgam one could call the policy attitude towards science input. For
those who regard science as an emblem of rationality (scientists) this is only to be
expected, but for others (policy users) not all science counts as rational input. If the
belief in science-based policy is a symptom of a broader set of assumptions, national
variations concerning them within the political and administrative system become
important for understanding the differences in importance attached to science as a
source of knowledge.

The usual recollection encountered in the KU literature[58] goes like this: the populari-
ty of the political belief in rational planning has waxed and waned throughout the
20th century[59]. Across the developed world the optimism about rational, and thus,
science-based planning of the 60s and 70s was followed by doubt and a more limited
perception of the role science can play. To a certain extent, budget reductions for

56
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 57

social research in general, and for non-mission oriented, non-contract research in par-
ticular, is related to this scaling down of expectations[60].

However, we believe that the above is much too simplistic to be useful. As stated earli-
er, changes in the way social science interacts with policy-making may correlate with
the ups and downs, but in as far as the level of interaction remains comparable, how
do we explain national differences in that level of interaction? Obviously, this question
is beyond the remit of our study. For those wanting to assess the role the wider con-
text of planning and policy, however, we suggest exploring the following perspectives:
• Closely related to the more specific factor (i.e. the place accorded to science as a
knowledge producer by the political and administrative establishment), but meriting
separate attention, we suggest that the use of science advisers as policymakers[61]
is an indicator of the strength of technocratic values in the political and administra-
tive process.
• A second indicator of the extent to which technocratic values have taken hold in a
particular country’s politico-administrative culture is the relative extent to which it
has participated in the general phases of science and technology policy during the
last three decades. Box 24 outlines these phases as described by Gibbons et.al. in
The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contem-
porary societies[62]. We would argue that only countries that have actually gone
through all three stages – as opposed to countries that have jumped on the band-
wagon during stage two or three only – can be called more technocratic.
• Lastly, we suggest that Gibbons et.al. call the shift towards a new mode of knowl-
edge production, as identified in a particular national context, and especially within
the social sciences[63], is an indicator of the pervasiveness of technocratic values.
Box 25 presents this new mode of knowledge production.

Three phases of science and technology policy 24

Gibbons et.al. identify three phases in science and technology policy that they classify as “policy for
science”, “science in policy” and “policy for technological innovation”. They contend that there is a
new phase in the making, based on the belief that the new mode of knowledge production is in
the process of becoming recognised by those involved in developing science and technology policy
(see Box 24).

Policy for science

‘In the first phase, the problem..... was posed in terms of working out a policy for science. The main
issue, was the growth of the scientific enterprise per se. The key questions, then were concerned
with criteria for choice within science; setting up guidelines for choosing between expensive proj-
ects, often in different disciplines. This vision of science policy, in which the key decisions were to be
taken by scientists, now seems untenable if not naive. None the less, it still lingers in the minds of
many in academia as the norm of a proper policy for science.... So much is happening outside the
traditional disciplines that it seems folly to formulate policy entirely within them....

Science in policy
In the second phase, both scientists and policy makers advocated a reform: policy needed to shift
from policy for science to policy in which science was seen to support the objectives of other poli-
cies – a shift to science in policy.... The intention was that science and technology should play a key

57
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 58

role in achieving the diverse policy objectives of a modern industrial state rather than simply aiming
at the development of science itself.... That there were potential benefits to be had from science
was unquestioned, but it was not [considered] the scientists’ job to extract them....

Policy for technological innovation

During the 1980s, declining economic performance and increasing world-wide competition forced
policy makers to narrow their perspective on the role of science in achieving national goals to the
single question of how to hitch the scientific enterprise to industrial innovation and competitive-
ness.....[P]olicies shifted to technology as a more effective base from which to support national
industries.... This change of orientation and belief clearly exhibits some of the attributes of knowl-
edge production in Mode 2 [see Box 24]: a blurring of the distinction between science and technol-
ogy, the creation of national and in some cases supranational programmes.... [T]he establishment of
networks and other informal modes of communication among active partners and growing famil-
iarity of university scientists with working in large, often multinational, teams....

The old and the new mode of knowledge production 25

Gibbons et.al. Propose that trends in the way knowledge is produced amount, ‘... not singly but in
their interaction and combination, to a transformation in the mode of knowledge production....
The transformation is described [in their book] in terms of the emergence alongside traditional
modes of knowledge production [as a new mode] that we will call Mode 2’ (p.1).
The differences between the old and new modes of knowledge production are presented below as
summarised by Caracostas and Muldur[64]: (see table next page)

It is important to note that Gibbons et.al. identify the massification of higher education as a major
push factor in the emergence of Mode 2 knowledge production. It raises ‘... the general level of
familiarity with science and technology throughout society. The result is a multiplication of the
number of sites where research is a recognisable, professional activity.’ (p.72). As this massification
is a trend in all countries, this supports our claim that in the long term national differences regard-
ing the importance of science as supplier of data, ideas and legitimation will level off.

58
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 59

Table: Differences between the old and new ‘models’ of knowledge production

Parameters Mode 1 Mode 2

Problem definition In the context of essentially With a view to applications,

and solution academic interest on the basis of consultation
of a specific community with different interests

Field of research Single-discipline Transdisciplinary

Homogeneous Heterogeneous

Organisation method Hierarchical Temporary collaboration on a

Specialised (by type of institution) problem, production at
several sites and in several
institutions at the same time

Dissemination of Through institutional channels Within the network during

results production and then, by
reconfiguration to address
new problems, in society

Funding Essentially institutional Raised for each project from

a range of public and private
sources

Assessment of Ex-post, when results are Ex-ante, when defining

social impact interpreted or disseminated problems and setting
priorities for research

Quality control of Essentially peer judgement of the Includes a varied body of

results scientific contribution made by intellectual, social, economic
individuals and political interest; quality
is no longer simply a
scientific question, which is
why it is criticised by
partisans of mode 1

Source: based on Gibbons et al., 1997.

59
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 60

3.2.1.6 The different status assigned to different disciplines

Economics, demography, and statistics are disciplines that are well-respected every-
where – irrespective of their success. And this is true not only of their methods but of
their theory too. Economics is the best example, of course; its predictions are off the
mark regularly but this does not seem to influence its stature in policy debates. The
status accorded to other sciences varies considerably over time and across countries.
For example, ten years ago political science used to be a respected discipline in the
eyes of the policy world in the US, but enjoyed little status in Europe; however, given
the growing importance of the citizenship issue, political science seems to have gained
ground in several European countries. A decade ago IMER research (IMmigration and
Ethnic Relations) – based mostly in anthropology and sociology departments – reigned
supreme in Norway and Sweden. Now there is a definite move towards funding quan-
titatively oriented studies on labour market participation, housing segregation etc.,
based in departments like economic geography.

The obvious difference, however, is not more “macro”; it is the overall higher status
conferred upon the social sciences in the US as compared to Europe. The description
of this difference in Box 26 is 15 years old but is still as valid as it was then.

Status of the social sciences: US versus Europe[65] 26

‘In the U.S.A. the dialogue between social researchers, policy makers and civil servants is much more
intensive and productive than it is in Europe; in the American society much more money is spent on
social research funding (about 30 times more than, for example, in the United Kingdom), social
research findings influence much more public policy and many more university social scientists are
used as advisors to government policy or are brought in directly into it to fill important positions.
This much greater receptivity of the social sciences and of social scientists themselves from “users”
side which has been observed in the States is, owing to a number of reasons, related to the struc-
ture of the American society itself, the workings of its political and bureaucratic system, as well as
to the high status conferred in that country on the social sciences (including the so-called soft ones
like sociology, political science, etc.). As humorously pointed out by J.L. Sharpe in his comparison of
‘the social scientist and policy making in Britain and America’ (1975): “The British (but one could
equally well say European) social scientist who goes to the United States feels like an English chef
visiting Paris”’ (p.17).

3.2.2 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

All of the factors described above, have their institutional expression; normally, at the
institutional level several of the above factors collectively shape a particular national
configuration. Within a particular context, it might be possible to say something sensi-
ble about the historically determined co-evolution, co-determination, relationship,
interaction (or whatever other concept one feels appropriate to use), of (some of) the
these factors and the institutional arrangements of both the research system and the
policy sector concerned. In general, the relationship between ideology and practice is
hotly contested; unfortunately, we cannot go into detail here, since it presupposes in-
depth case study analysis. But, since institutional arrangements in themselves have a
dynamic of their own, we are going to explore some aspects of that dynamic.

60
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 61

3.2.2.1 The research system in a particular sector

The institutional structure of the research system in a particular sector differs across
countries. One element already mentioned with respect to national R&D infrastructure
as a whole is the degree to which the research capacity for a sector is university based.
Other important elements are the scale and sector. Small countries like Flanders,
Switzerland or Norway have peculiar problems as well as characteristics. Box 27
describes the scale issue of research capacity.

Being small can be a problem: Flanders, Switzerland and Norway

Developing and maintaining sufficient research capacity in areas deemed important is a
27
major problem for smaller countries. The three smallest countries (Belgium, for practical purposes,
consisting of two parallel research systems) visited during the survey all showed signs of this prob-
lem and its correlates.

Flanders
One of our interview partners, Dr Bogdan van Doninck, who works for the federal office supporting
the prime minister (affaires scientifique, techniques et culturelles), lamented that Flanders and Wal-
lone, constituting such small markets for research, lacked expertise in many areas that are relevant
for the policy world. He also pointed out that the issue of scale has negative effects on the quality
of academic work, because it weakens peer control:
‘In Belgium we do not have a tradition of debating either research results or the relationship
between research and policy. The country is too small. We all know each other and may be (finan-
cially or otherwise) dependent on each other anytime in the future. To give but one example: when
in 1994/1995 the research of a faculty of social sciences Dean had to be evaluated, it proved impos-
sible to find someone willing to do it, even anonymously. The risk that in the future the Dean
would be on a peer review panel that would judge a proposal submitted by the evaluator were
apparantly considered too great’.

Switzerland
Switzerland resembles Belgium in the multi-research system respect. An evaluation report of the
Swiss Science Council[66] described the situation as follows:
‘... tensions... by necessity must arise in a political system that is organised so as to institutionally
reflect the diversities of tradition and culture of the various parts of the country. This diversity, and
the resulting cantonal authority over most of the university system... surfaces clearly in the enor-
mous divergences between the German and French-speaking parts of the country, and also in the
divergences within these parts. Different regulations, for example, apply to the same issues in all
elements of research organisation, teaching, and career structures. As a result, cooperation both in
research and teaching, is considerably hampered.’ (p.14).

Consequences are not only negative:

‘A common feature of much of the research undertaken in Switzerland is that it is done in refer-
ence to, and often in cooperation with, international scholars. This pervasive situation reflects the
fact that a country of the size of Switzerland frequently cannot provide a sufficient number of
scholars working on the same or even related topics. While this situation reinforces the fragmenta-
tion of social science research in the country, it, on the other hand, contributes to the regular
import of international research findings and expertise’(p.13).

Norway
In 1996, the Research Council of Norway, in co-operation with the Ministry of Local government
and Regional Development, decided to fund a new five year programme (1997-2001) on Interna-

61
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 62

tional Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER – as a follow up to previous programmes on this theme
since 1985). The decision to continue funding was largely based on the following conclusion of the
previous programme committee:

‘The basic problems of the IMER area are, however, the same as when IMER and Programme for
Immigration Research were established in the beginning of the 1990s; there are relatively few
researchers who have worked continuously and for a long time in this field. These researchers are
spread over many different institutions and places in Norway. The universities and the well-estab-
lished disciplines capture to only a very small degree, the research challenges connected to interna-
tional migrations and ethnic relations in the multicultural society. The increased interest in applied
research and testing of new solutions in the field have not been followed up with an equivalent
contribution in basic research. Applied research is mainly done by market-oriented research institu-
tions with increasingly greater demand for payback... It is therefore difficult to achive a satisfactory,
continuous and stable development of competence in the field’.[67]

As far as sectoral differences are concerned, the research infrastructure differs consid-
erably across sectors; for example a small country like the Netherlands has a dispropor-
tionally large agricultural research sector. And the example of the Swedish focus on
medical research has been mentioned above (see Box 18).

Related to the research infrastructure are things like the organisation of research train-
ing[68] and the system of research funding. The influence of research training may be
understood in terms of the kind of socialisation different training regimes amount to
(see Box 19 for the German example). The influence of the predominant mode of
research funding seems of crucial importance; in some countries the policy world is a
vital funder of research, in others, it is not. When there is no necessity to collaborate
with the policy world, obviously it will happen a lot less (Germany is an example, see
Box 19). Also, funding systems in which government money is channelled through
National Science Councils as opposed to those where it is used to run departmental
research programmes create very different environments. Examples of the first are the
IMER programmes of the Norwegian government, the social cohesion programme of
the Dutch government, or the Forschungsschwerpunkt Fremdenfeindlichkeit of the
Austrian government. Examples of the latter include the Blomman-money project in
Sweden, the research budget of the interdepartmental co-ordination group on Minori-
ty policy in the Netherlands, or the Italian Metropolis project .
Dutch research on migration, integration, and ethnic relations in the past was and con-
tinues to be funded through both NSC and departmental channels. What makes it an
interesting case is that it is a small(er) country, with a long tradition of migration and
ethnic relations research which has an almost total dependency on government money
for research in this field. Box 28 describes the close relationship between Dutch
research and policy in this sector.

As far as sectoral differences are concerned: the research infrastructure differs consid-
erable across sectors. A small country like the Netherlands has a disproportionally large
agricultural research sector for example. The example of the Swedish focus on medical
research has been mentioned above (see Box 17) [69].

62
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 63

The Dutch case 28

With respect to the field of migration and integration research, the Dutch case can be described as
being developed in close harmony between civil servants and social scientists within a context of
public debate that is not politicised[70]. Ellemers, in his article commenting upon what seven for-
eign collegues wrote on Dutch research and policy in this field[71], summarises the linkage. After
expressing surprise at the fact that hardly any of the authors addressed the proximity of research
and policy (the docility with which research follows fashions and policy problem definitions) and
the funding issue, he says:

‘All things considered, it is odd that Dutch research on immigration and minorities seems hardly
inspired by and is not done on the basis of academic curiosity, but is mostly determined by govern-
mental research programmes and the problem definitions contained therein. Even most Dutch dis-
sertations in this field are direct or indirect fruits of research conducted on the basis of government
contracts. A large majority of research is the result of contracts of government agencies – often
ministries, with or without liaison of the Advisory Committee on Minority Research (ACOM) – or are
the result of the National Research Council priority programme on ethnic minorities’(p.82).

Obviously, many of his Dutch collegues would disagree with depictions like docile etc., and would
argue for example, that the ACOM programming ensured that the voice of academia was influen-
tial. The about face in the perception of labour migrants (from temporary guest workers to perma-
nent immigrants) was made relatively early in the Netherlands and arguably due to the close
involvement of social scientists in policy problem definition. However, it seems undeniable that the
framing of the debate in terms of “ethnic minorities” is in line with what Daalder, Lijphart and oth-
ers have called the ‘consociative democracy’ of the Netherlands[72], which does not pivot on the
interpretation of a highly critical academia. The marxist perspective, very much en vogue in both
France and the UK at that time, may have neglected the cultural dimension but highlighted aspects
(such as class) that were absent in the Dutch problem definition[73].

3.2.2.2 The institutional structure of the policy sector

With respect to the institutional structure of the policy sector, the level of de/centrali-
sation has an especially important influence; just who is responsible for what kinds of
policy decisions? Urban policy (of crucial significance for the connection between
migrants and cities) is a good example because cities are an important level of sub-
national government. In countries with a federal structure, such as Germany, Switzer-
land, and Belgium, the division of task between the federal government and the sub-
national ‘regions’ (L‰nder, cantons, or regions/communautÈs), as well as the actual
differences in terms of the policy content between the sub-national units, may all co-
determine if in a particular sector research-policy linkage is a national affair, or is main-
ly a sub-national affair and if there are large differences between various regions.
Another level at which the decentralisation of responsibilities seems crucial is that of
the control of research budgets. When these are controlled at a low level within the
hierarchy (i.e. Austria), the bulk of contract research will have a very applied nature,
and when higher levels have their own budgets, chances increase of more long-term
programme funding .
The research funds of the European Union are an interesting case with respect to the
connection between the level government invested with authority over a particular
policy domain and research involvement/investment. Box 29 profers the argument

63
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 64

that only when the Union went beyond its purely economic mandate were the social
sciences offered a share of its research funds.

The European union and the social sciences 29

The research policy of the European union historically has been and remains one mainly designed to
support economic competitiveness. Since Luca Guzetti described the history of its research policy[74] in
1995, little has changed. His monograph makes it abundantly clear that in as far as interest in the
social sciences has played a role in the deliberations on the course of European science policy, it was
only in the limited sense of auxiliary sciences for technological problem-solving[75]. The major EC pub-
lication on science and technology, the 2nd report on science and technology indicators[76], is fully
focused on the issue regarding ways to facilitate the move from R&D towards innovation and competi-
tiveness. The information bulletins produced by the commission bureaucracy, Cordis focus, Innovation
& Technology Transfer, Euroabstracts, etc., and discussions within relevant advisory committees, are all
dominated by the theme of technology transfer. If “society” enters the picture, it is usually in terms of
the relationship between technology and society. The indicators themselves do not immediately show
this absence of the social sciences as a source of relevant information per se (see Appendix I), but the
share of social science programmes proper within the frameworks do. The fourth framework pro-
gramme had a total of 1% of its funds dedicated to what was called the “targeted socio-economic
programme”. Within that programme, however, a large share went to the sector “evaluation of sci-
ence and technology evalution options”, an interesting but nevertheless auxiliary topic. Within the cur-
rent fifth framework programme, the “slot” for social science research is more or less abolished again
in favour of interdisciplinary programmes. The actual share of social science capacity within these pro-
grammes remains uncertain but we would predict a relatively marginal increase compared to the
fourth framework programme.

Guido Martinotti a former chairman of the standing committee on social sciences of the ESF (among
many other positions), is more optimistic[77]:
‘Social scientists have always worked intensively with the commission, but in the past exclusively in
applied projects. Access to “scientific” research proper was barred. With the fourth framework pro-
gramme a partial opening was achieved, under the label Targeted Socio-Economic Research, or TSER.
The awkwardness of the title, and in part of the content, reflects the difficulty of the process. In the
preparatory work there was a great effort to include themes such as those relating to the changing
production system. Instead more pietistic concern about social exclusion prevailed, because when social
science approaches charity it becomes more understandable to non-experts. This is not to say that the
theme of social exclusion is not important, but that there is a widespread tendency to start from
“social problems” and work back to their ‘causes’, rather than to invest in systematic knowledge on
social process.... The preparation of the 5th framework programme introduced dramatic changes
which will have profound and lasting consequences on the issue of interdisciplinarity.... The change
from science-driven research to society-driven research imposes integration of disciplinary knowledge
in wider problems and issues. It is debatable whether this approach will favour the standing of social
sciences on the European research scene, but there is no doubt that it will give a powerful boost to
interdisciplinarity’ (p.166).

Whatever our differing expectations about the near future, we fully agree with Martinotti on the fun-
damental change implied by the recognition of the social sciences as important to the research efforts
of the EU. We suggest this is directly connected with the extension of EU regulatory authority into
hitherto national domains of “social” policy by the Maastricht (1992) and Amsterdam (1997) treaties.
There is a delay between the institutionalisation of EU authority in “social” matters and the willingness
to fund its own social science base for data gathering, conceptual development, and other functions
policy looks towards when engaging research, but the connection seems too obvious to deny.

64
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 65

3.2.2.3 Mobility of professionals between sectors and institutional settings

The problem of mobility of professionals between sectors and institutional settings has
been mentioned earlier as an important context factor regarding the relationship
between research and policy. The greatest difference is between the US and Europe as
a whole (see Box 26). The higher level of mobility in the US creates a situation in
which it is normal for researchers to be (temporarily) employed in a policy environ-
ment, and for policy personnel to switch to research institutions. Consequently, the
resulting staffing profiles increase chances for mutual understanding when policy and
research meet.

Obviously, mobility is just one possible facilitator for better understanding, it is no

guarantee. Many sociological studies suggest that the working environment is a strong
determinant of individual perspective. Most of what has been brought forward under
the previous two headings (the research system in a particular sector and the institu-
tional structure of that sector’s policy domain) would substantiate that. This means
that a researcher within a policy environment will tend to quickly take on the policy
perspective, and vice versa.

But the fact remains that changing environments familiarises staff with the opportuni-
ties and constraints of the new environment. And this requires spending time
immersed in a particular work setting to fully realise ‘how things really work’. One
may read about, or hear about the budgetary constraints inherent in (local) govern-
ment policy-making, but it may take the actual experience of participating in such a
pressurised environment to drive home the point that subsequent decisions do not
result necessarily from misinformation or bad intent. And it needs being party to
everyday departmental gossip and politics, to really understand why disciplines remain
such strong refuges.

Although real mobility between the research and the policy domain is much less com-
mon in Europe than in the US, there are second best options to be found in the for-
mer:The scientist-as-policy advisor is a more or less common role in all of the countries
surveyed. In some this role has institutionalised forms, consisting of advisory commit-
tees with a mixed membership of researchers and civil servants. Collaboration on vari-
ous issues over a longer time period also gives participants an opportunity to become
acquainted with the operational constraints of the other domain. Box 30 gives an Ital-
ian example.

Commissione per l’integrazione (Italy) 30

This commission was established in July 1998 by the Department of Social Affairs. It is chaired by
Professor Giovanna Zincone, and is comprised of members from various universities and ministries,
the national research council, independent consultants and the NGO sector (Charitas). Its mission is
to advise the government on integration policy. It has organised several national and two interna-
tional expert meetings to discuss various specific matters like the position of Roma, the reform of
citizenship legislation and political participation of migrants. It has commissioned various prelimi-
nary studies, on matters such as models and indicators of integration in Europe, Islam and the
media, cost-benefit analysis of immigration, and housing policy for migrants. The commission
recently published its first report on integration of immigrants in Italy[78].

65
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 66

The Netherlands is another country with this formal mechanism. Box 31 gives an
overview of the various forms the formal mechanism of “advisory council” has taken
in there.

Advisory councils in the Netherlands[79]

31
The country used to have a plethora of “councils” but with the enactment of the so-called “desert
law”, the current coalition government (effective from 1 January 1997) abolished many topic-specif-
ic councils and restructured the advisory function along sectoral lines. At present, the Dutch govern-
ment has three main types of advisory bodies. The three types are:
• Publicly funded policy research institutions such as the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy
Analysis (CPB), and the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP).
• Advisory commissions of a similar nature as the above Italian example described in Box 29. One
example is the Council for Public Administration, which is concerned with the organisation and
functioning of public administration in order to increase its efficiency. It consists of a membership
of 12 people, including a mix of university professors, civil servants (in this instance, for example,
a mayor and an ex-provicial governor), and consultants. Members’ expenses are paid for and they
receive modest fixed consultancy fees. The Council for Public Administration shares a support
office with the other Interior Ministry Council, the Council for Financial Relations, that advises on
legislation concerning financial relations, particularly those between the national government
and the municipalities and provinces. This support is substantial and is comprised of two man-
agers, eight advisors and three secretarial staff.
• The third type is an interesting mix of the first two: The Netherlands Scientific Council for Gov-
ernment Policy. Members may be drawn from the scientific community, the business world, and
the civil service. Moreover, various academic disciplines are represented; in addition to outstand-
ing scholarship, it is important that Council members understand social processes and are familiar
with the workings of the political and administrative system. The Council aims to reflect the
diversity of society as a whole. The office of Chairperson is a full-time appointment, while the
other members are expected to be available for at least two days a week. Members are appoint-
ed for a period of five years, and may be reappointed once, although there are also advisory
members. The Secretary to the Council, assisted by an Assistant Secretary, also heads the Bureau
that supports the Council in its activities. The Council concentrates on developments that will
affect society in the longer term, and its work centres on the publication of public reports,
known as Reports to the Government. In theory, the Council can deal with any subject regarding
government policy, provided that they are concerned with the future, are supra-sectoral in
nature, and concern major social and political issues which require remedies over a period of
years. Furthermore, the Council publishes a series of preliminary and background studies and a
series of working documents. Both series provide the building blocks for its reports.

3.2.3 HISTORY
Without taking sides in the historicism debate, we would argue that, historical contin-
gencies are a major explanatory context variable for the interpretation of cross-country
differences, in addition to more specific ideological and institutional factors described
above. In general, it is the interaction of various factors described earlier - in combina-
tion with particular personalities and historical contingencies - that determine a particu-
lar context. It is often impossible to point to any particular influence as the most impor-
tant. In our interviews we very often encountered explanations couched in historical
terms, for the state of affairs regarding national research-policy relationships in general:

66
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 67

• Belgium’s four-tiered administrative system (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels, and the

Federal government);
• The grounding of Austria’s political culture in its civil war preceding WW II. During
the first republic preceding the Nazi take-over in 1938, Austria experienced a gen-
uine civil war. During WWII, political elites were detained in camps. There a new
way of dealing with political differences (in terms of coalitions) emerged. After the
war the detained generation vowed to practice their non-violent skills in order to
prevent a repetition of the disastrous interbellum conflict. The only post-war excep-
tion to the coalition arrangement, social-democrat Kreisky, was more than once
described as “combining the big coalition in his own person”.

Or, for the relationship between research and policy within the migration and integra-
tion policy-arena:
• Germany’s WW II history and the recent reunification. Several interviewees analysed
the German “mental block” against accepting a self-definition as a country of immi-
gration in terms of German insecurity about national identity, in terms of the nearly
untranslatable “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” (“to deal with one’s history”).
• Italy’s or Sweden’s decentralised organisation of responsibilities between the national
government and cities.
Of course, one may argue over precisely what is meant by the term “historical contin-
gency”. To the extent that historical happenings can be “explained” in terms of ideo-
logical and institutional variables, these events may be thought to have lost their inde-
pendent explanatory power. On the other hand, the kinds of major events, and
historically grown structural givens, play a role of their own, beyond all that may have
contributed to their origin. Whatever may have caused Austria’s civil war, the fact that
it took place in itself seems a powerful force against changing the present status quo.
Whatever may have caused the federalisation of Belgium, once it had taken shape it
became the major determinant of the Belgian interaction context. But in the end, is
remains a matter of perspective regarding what is identified as “ideology”, “institu-
tional structure” and “historical contingency”.

To conclude, one characteristic that should be part of all perspectives is the relativity of
each influence, but that is often lost in the enthousiasm of arguing for a particular
determining relationship. Ideologies, institutional arrangements and the hold of history
on the present are neither total nor unchangeable. Indeed, this point about the
explanatory power of ideology was already made in section 3.2.1.3. The point about
history[80] is well-illustrated by recent events in Germany and Austria. Since we held
our interviews, German citizenship law has changed, and Austria’s great coalition
between the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats has broken up. The Austri-
an “turn-around” is especially interesting because it shows that stability and change
are often rooted in the same factors. Box 32 presents the vote for Haider’s right wing
party as a protest against the stagnant, “power corrupting” effects of a great coalition
if it remains unchallenged for too long.

67
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 68

Jorg Haider, Austria’s conundrum 32

‘The main reason why support for Mr Haider has leapt, from 5% in 1986 to 27% at the general
election last year to 33% in the latest opinion polls, is not the stirring of racial hatred (which is less
acute in rich, stable Austria than in, say, France) but the Austrians’ growing dislike of a grubby sys-
tem known as Proporz, under which Austria’s two main parties – the Socialists and the centre-right
People’s Party – have shared out power and patronage between them since the second world war.
Most top jobs in state business and the public service, including schools and hospitals, are allocated
by Proporz; even janitors and committees selecting juries are affected. Long before immigration
became controversial, Mr Haider’s main purpose was to break up what had become a corrupt
duopoly’.[81]

3.3 Context factors and the conceptual framework

It is important to realise that the conceptual framework outlined in 2.5.3 does not yet
“model” context factors in the way it incorporates the characteristics that constitute
the core of the network of interdependencies that frames the relationship between
research and policy. However, it does provide a basic structure for discussing context
factors because it forces their analysis into a concrete mode; it enables us to ask ques-
tions such as “which of the core factors is/are influenced by what context factor(s) in
what way”?
This is valuable not only because context factors are extremely important in under-
standing exactly what went on in a particular case, but also because the comparison of
sufficient cases will make it possible to separate analytically the context factors that
should be brought into the core model itself from those that may be regarded as con-
text proper. As we indicated in 2.5.3, we reserve the label “context” for ideological
and institutional influences that go beyond the particular issue at hand. But, exactly
what an instrumental set of context characteristics would look like remains to be seen.
The list above, based on the survey experience, reflects a raw set of factors that need
additional comparative work.

To give just one example of what the difference between core and context factors
means; in general, researchers often have interests such as advancing scientific knowl-
edge and advancing their status among peers. These interests are characteristics of the
“actor” factor of the core network of interdependencies. Within a particular context,
the future earning capacity of their department may be a major factor in the way
researchers enter the interaction with the policy world. However, comparative case
studies may lead to the conclusion that “future earning capacity”, more often than
not, is part of the interdependent network of actor characteristics determining the
relationship. If this were the case, they are better included in the core “model”. Since
the issue of context has received the least attention in KU studies, we are not yet in a
position to separate conclusively context proper from the core.

Having said this, we have to make an even greater concession; we do not claim that
our framework covers all possible interaction circumstances. Rather, our framework
should be viewed as a tool which can be modified or enhanced as needed; please feel

68
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 69

free to add to it, reformulate certain elements or parameters, and suggest new con-
nections within it. We believe that it covers sufficient ground to serve its purpose of
providing a common vocabulary across international cases, which, when implemented,
should make it easier to:
• identify the still uncharted territory on the map;
• position case studies in relation to each other;
• identify the relevant characteristics of core factors; and
• analytically separate characteristics of core factors from the context.

After the core of the conceptual framework has been finetuned by the addition of
these extra characteristics, and has proven its conceptual validity, it could even be used
to describe types of interaction/linkage in terms of various combinations of core char-
acteristics. If such a typological approach would be viable in practice, remains to be
seen, but we would suggest that creating a typology based on the conceptual frame-
work is one way of facilitating the application of the framework to real-life cases.

69
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 70

70
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 71

4. Comparing European perspectives: content[82]

Our interviews regularly compiled lists of topics considered candidates for either state-
of-the-art reviews or new research. As stated earlier, however, this assessment of
information needs is admittedly sketchy, even in terms of an exploratory survey. On
the other hand, the the survey took place under the Metropolis umbrella, an organisa-
tion which has already identified a triad of areas of interest to its wide range of partici-
pants[83]. Therefore, in this exercise we did not have to start from scratch. Although
we did not confront our interviewees with the Metropolis list of themes, we did use
the list as a frame for digesting the suggestions received. It is undeniable that this
method could have proven unworkable; if many of the information needs mentioned
did not ‘fit’ the chosen frame, we would have been forced to discard that frame. Ulti-
mately, however, it proved to be a useful ordering instrument, thereby affirming the
Metropolis choice of core themes.

Actually, the issues emerging from Metropolis “exercises” (to define common interests
among its two main types of stakeholder in the programme), were so close to what
we picked up during the interviews that, for practical purposes, it was possible to com-
bine them into a proposal for a Metropolis agenda for action. However, before exam-
ining the content of the issues it should be pointed out, that the universe we drew our
information from excludes one important stakeholder, namely migrants and ethnic
minorities themselves. There is no substitute for including them at some stage in the
formulation of information needs.

Having faced the challenge of trying to summarise some core ideas emerging out of
the interviews with researchers and civil servants across Europe, and the many hours
of debate at the workshops in the second and third Metropolis International confer-
ences (1997 and 1998), we were struck by the emergent consensus on the type of
problems and issues deserving more research attention. While a faithful listing of ideas
would take many pages, three points can be made.

4.1 A delineation of the field

First, there is a clear delineation of the field in the minds of those participating in the
universe surveyed. Box 33 lists a number of themes that recur.

4.2 Three analytical perspectives

Second, when reflecting on what is especially important, interviewees and participants

focus on three kinds of analytical perspectives :
• While the issues were not expressed in precisely this way, the predominant concern
is not with migration processes per se but rather with their consequences. In this
regard, the focus is more on integration, perhaps because those drawn into the

71
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 72

Migration and integration research: a list of themes 33

1. Theories of migration
1.1 Theories of migration processes
1.2 Theories of integration
2. Migration processes and patterns
2.1 Immigration trends
2.2 Migration types and typologies
2.3 Migration networks
2.4 Forced migration
2.5 Gender and migration
2.6 Undocumented migration
2.7 Return migration and development
2.8 Demographic trends in migrant populations and host populations
3. Issues of settlement
3.1 Areas of settlement
3.2 Urban concentration
3.3 Indicators of segregation
3.4 Language acquisition
4. Economic integration
4.1 Labour market segmentation and patterns of income inequality
4.2 Skills mismatch and economic restructuring
4.3 Ethnic entrepreneurship
4.4 The employment of undocumented workers
4.5 Migrants and organised labour
4.6 Fiscal impacts of immigration
5. Political and legal integration
5.1 Patterns of immigration control
5.2 Models of multiculturalism/assimilation
5.3 Acquisition of citizenship
5.4 Anti-discrimination legislation
5.5 Voting behaviour
5.6 Political mobilisation and political organisations
6. Social integration
6.1 Measures of social integration
6.2 Family, household, and community organisation
6.3 Housing type and quality
6.4 Educational aspirations
6.5 Educational achievement
6.6 Social mobility among migrants
6.7 Migrants and health issues
6.8 Migrants and the criminal justice system
7. Majority responses
7.1 Prejudice and attitudes to immigration/immigrants
7.2 Patterns of discrimination
7.3 Nationalism and xenophobia
7.4 Racial violence
7.5 Political extremism
8. Social and cultural identity
8.1 Ethnic and racial identities
8.2 Ethnic stereotypes

72
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 73

Metropolis arena – and thus also our interviewees – are preoccupied with cities and
their development[84].
• With this in mind, some tend to select “supply-side” questions, such as human capi-
tal or resources, while others are concerned with ‘demand-side’ issues such as job
supply or adequate housing.
• In between thes two positions are those who worry primarily about the impediments
that inhibit the use of resources in fulfilling ther available opportunities.

These three perspectives are elaborated below in the form of bipolar alternatives.

4.2.1 MIGRANTS OR MINORITIES?

In all countries, the processes of migration (causes, regulatory systems, selection mech-
anisms, etc.) remain important topics for further investigation. It is equally clear, how-
ever, that the system is dynamic deriving partly from the transformation of the migra-
tion process into one of integration[85]. By and large, the cities are the locus for
integrative processes, so it is more important to reflect this in a future research agenda
than to study migration itself. That does not mean that the term “minority” has to be
employed, but it suggests that more research on the (so-called) “second generation”
is appropriate. Here, as in many other areas, there is much variation according to the
ethnic origin of the young people concerned. For example, in the UK, South and
Southeast Asians (of Indian, Pakistani and Chinese ethnic origin) are over-represented
in higher education while other groups with a longer migration history are under-rep-
resented. Insofar as labour market problems are often linked with educational deficits,
these variations are important to understand.The important point though, is to move
attention beyond the issue of migration itself. Long after the issue of “newcomers”
becomes passé, questions of “integration” remain unresolved. The answers to these
questions are not self-evident. If they were, then differences in the fortunes of the
same group in different locations, or of different groups in the same location, would
be easier to understand.

4.2.2 HUMAN CAPITAL OR STRUCTURES OF OPPORTUNITY?

The preceding argument is reminiscent of one of the most common disputes in the
research literature between those who argue from a “supply-side” perspective empha-
sising human capital and those who stress the importance of “demand-side” deficits.
There is a natural tendency in the early years of migration to focus on human capital,
but in subsequent phases, the consequences of changes to societies themselves are as
important. It is interesting to observe this maturation of vision in the thinking behind
the European Commission’s new urban development initiative:

‘The economic globalisation that accompanies globalisation has had a major impact
upon the economic and social condition of cities. It has brought fragmented labour
markets, a decline in manufacturing and a growth in the service sector, high levels of
structural unemployment, an increase in part-time employment, more insecure and
low-paid jobs, a shift in the balance of male and female employment and a growing
gap between the highest and lowest levels of household incomes’[86] (p. 5).

This leads, in turn, to segregation that is reenforced by social changes in family com-

73
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 74

position, birth rate declines, and suburban out-migration. But the evidence suggests
that these structural transformations affect some cities much more than others. It is by
no means clear, for example, whether prosperous cities are less or more likely to devel-
op these ghettoised features[87]. A research agenda in this area has to look compara-
tively at the balance between human resources, barriers to their mobilisation, and the
opportunities that can be accessed with them. It is the interaction that is interesting,
as well as being vital for policy purposes. After all, it makes a great deal of difference
whether the focus for policy initiative is on schooling, or on housing, and urban plan-
ning, or on fiscal measures of income distribution.

4.2.3 VICTIMS OR AGENTS?

Without in any way wishing to neglect the effects of discrimination or the conse-
quences of job loss, it is important not to fall into the trap of treating all migrants and
their descendants as victims. Some clearly are; others, equally clearly, are not. In
between, there is a growing number made up of those who are victims to some
extent, but who have found a way round the obstacles that have twarted others. The
tide of history can be seen as helping this process. Take, for example, the case of
trade.

While there are as many disputes today about whether globalisation is still charac-
terised by uniquely high levels of trade as there are about its consequences, there are
very few who would argue challenge the belief that trade offers considerable opportu-
nities. Migrants have always been adept at utilising their knowledge and cultural famil-
iarity to good effect in exploiting trading possibilities. We are familiar with the proposi-
tion that migration is a consequence of globalised ties, but it may well be that the
world economy in the next millennium is increasingly dependent upon globalised peo-
ple. Transnational migrants, and in particular, diasporic communities, are therefore at
the forefront of economic ties and represent an advanced, rather than retarded sec-
tion, of the business community[88]. Put another way, ethnic networks are able to
become so significant precisely because they operate in a globalised economy.

Thus “ethnic business” is not necessarily a self-contained and second-rate form of

capitalism; rather it may represent an inchoate form of commercial activity on which a
large proportion of the global economy will ultimately come to depend. Thus it is vital
not to see urban migrants only as victims; they may be essential resources on which
the city’s fortunes are based. The interesting research questions arise in trying to
understand the circumstances that are conducive to this more positive outcome.

4.3 Perspectives and themes

And third, as mentioned earlier, when reflecting on what is especially important, inter-
viewees and participants do not veer far from the short list which formed the back-
bone of the Second Metropolis International Conference in November 1997 in Den-
mark. Social scientists are likely to want to stress the linkage between the three
perspectives and the three themes. Figure 2 illustrates how this linkage could be con-
ceptualised.

74
 Researchpaper 99/07
29/2/00

Research within Metropolis

16:56

Substantive Focus Levels of Analysis

MICRO-LEVEL MESO-LEVEL MACRO LEVEL
Resources Pathways Opportunity structures
Page 75

Employment and the e.g. skills acquisition/ethnic e.g. ethnic division of labour/ e.g. changing structure of urban
Labour market business studies intergroup variation in labour markets/informalisation
labour market processes/changes in meaning
performance/job of work etc
discrimination studies/

Urban social and spatial e.g. migrant communities e.g. social and spatial mobility/ e.g. permeability and response of
structure and transnational networks critical group studies urban institutions/operation of
(second generation etc) housing market/effects of local
fiscal policy etc/urban
demographic change

Social solidarity and e.g. ethnic identity issues e.g. political mobilisation and e.g. integration strategies and
Social cohesion participation citizenship policies/majority
responses (attitudinal and actual)/
actions of control institutions (e.g.
police, criminal justice etc)

75
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 76

4.4 Migration

The universe we drew our positions from was primarily concerned with integration as
opposed to migration issues (push and pull factors, regulatory systems, selection
mechanisms, etc.) which were previously mentioned, and are particularly relevant in
the “new” immigration countries such as Italy.
Box 34 gives an example of a list derived from one such country

A shortlist of topics for research from Greece[89] 34

• The cultural aspects of migration, especially with respect to the education of second generation
immigrants;
• Education in both the mother tongue and the language of the host country;
• Migration and Social exclusion;
• Employment in relation to legal migration;
• Problems related to legal and employment conditions of non-legal immigrants;
• Issues related to political migrants;
• Questions related to the role of the state in the control of migration;
• Migration and political and economic relationships with neighbouring counties.

As alluded to in 4.2, it is important to recognise that the focus on integration of the

constituency that we drew our information from – those involved with the Metropolis
arena, who are preoccupied with cities and their development – is not necessarily
shared by all involved with migration issues in the wider sense. The much neglected
feasibility studies on the possible establishment of a European migration observato-
ry[90] drew their input (partly) from different policy and research informants, selected
on the basis of their involvement with migration rather than integration issues. In the
final report, for example, the authors dealt with obtaining the views of governments in
the following way:

‘Assessing the demand from governments poses certain difficulties, given that migra-
tion issues are usually dealt with by several ministries or departments. The strategy
adopted, in consulation with the Secretariat-General, was to concentrate upon the
national Steering Group representatives of the K4 Committee. One problem with this
strategy was that it focusses mainly on officials of interior ministries where the princi-
ple current concerns are associated with asylum issues. Most Steering Group members
interviewed, for example attend CIREA’ (P.6) [Centre for Information, Discussion and
Exchange on Asylum, a formal network of the SG].

Although additional sources were consulted to redress the focus on asylum issues, the
list is still noticably different from ours in terms of focal interest. Box 35 shows that the
world looks noticably different when migration is the predominant concern.

76
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 77

The definitional range of migration studies and information gaps 35

The pre-feasibility study concludes its survey (regarding studies about migrants, theories on the
causes of migration, policies to direct migration flows, and current data collection and research
activities) by stating:
‘The field of migration is notorious for its diversity and interconnections. To introduce some basic sys-
tematic order among the areas covered, at least six areas show distinguishable differences.’ (p.46)
In the final report, these areas are used to describe the “definitional range” of migration studies:

1. Actual flows, stocks and return migration

2. Root causes
for migration from the South
for migration from the East
policies to tackle root causes: overseas development assistance
3. Impact
4. Integration
the general context
current topics
5. The demand for migration
demographic demand
labour demand
6. Policy evaluation (p.15-31)

The differences between a focus on migration as opposed to integration become even more evi-
dent when looking at the information needs identified by the user group survey of the feasibility
study team:
• Coordination and access to migration information
• Comprehensive and up-to-date information on national policy and legislation
• Timely, reliable, and harmonised statistics, especially on asylum
• Comparative trend analyses of migration trends, most notably stocks, flows, asylum and labour
migration, but also integration and citizenship
• Origin country reports and early warning, especially on asylum
• Specific research gaps and access to information about ongoing research

4.5 An immigration perspective

Most of our interview partners were quite adamant that within their national contexts
the policy balance of power was clearly in favour of the migration focus. The “fortress
Europe” perspective on migration issues was identified as the dominant player on the
policy field. France and Germany are apparent examples: in both countries the ministry
of social affairs/labour, who is in charge of “integration”, is subordinate to the more
powerful ministry of interior in charge of border-flows, and also the citizenship issue.
Moreover, in a country like the Netherlands where that the balance of power between
the ministry of interior and the ministry of justice is more evenly distributed, both the
political and the public arena are dominated by the asylum and the illegal migrants
issues.

In conclusion, we offer the following thoughts on the subject regarding research needs

77
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 78

as identified by our informants:

First, when comparing the rankings identified in Boxes 33 and 35, two things are evi-
dent: there is a fair amount of overlap, but the foci are quite different. The different
emphases are a reflection of the phenomena pointed to by the feasibility study team
quoted above: ‘... migration issues are usually dealt with by several ministries or
departments’. Often a national academic domain follows the sectoral divisions of the
policy world, but in this particular case the research community seems less segregated
(across the board) than the policy domain. Although normally different individuals
have responsibility for, and expertise in migration (stocks and flow) and integration
issues, they usually share the same institutional research-setting.

Next, we believe that the differentiation within the policy domain is a reflection of the
difficulty European states have with the transformation into countries of immigration.
There are substantial differences between countries regarding the extent to which the
notion has taken hold, but even in the countries most aware, the political and public
acceptance of immigration is still far removed from what is to be found in the “tradi-
tional” immigration countries like the US. However much trends (especially demo-
graphic) are converging, and pushing all western European economies to import
increasingly large numbers of immigrant labour within the foreseeable future, the
acceptance of this reality is very slow (see Box 36)

Western Europe and immigration 36

A press release on an unpublished report by the United Nations Population Divison[91] spells out
the immigration consequences of Europe’s declining and ageing population. What is the need for
replacement migration if:
• countries want to retain their present population size?
• countries want to retain their present working age population?
• countries want to retain their present ratio of the working age population (15-64 years) to the
retired age group (65+ years)?

‘According to the medium variant population projections, [due to low fertility (less than two chil-
dren per couple) RH] the countries of Europe and Japan are expected to decrease in population size
over the next 50 years. For example, the population of Italy, currently 57 million, is projected to
reach 41 million by 2050.... In addition to the decrease in population size, the countries of Europe
and Japan are undergoing a relatively rapid ageing process.... [I]n Italy, the median age of the pop-
ulation increases from 40 years to 53 years and the proportion of the population 65 years or older
goes from 18% to 35%.... In order to maintain its current population size to 2050, Italy would need
about 240,000 migrants per year.

Declining and ageing populations lead to shrinking working age group populations (15-64 years)
both in absolute and relative terms. According to United Nations projections (the medium variant
which assumes some in migration) for Italy, for example, the working age population is projected to
decrease from 39 million today to 22 million by 2050. And in Germany, the working age population
is expected to decline from 56 million today to 43 million in 2050.... [I]t is estimated that if Italy and
Germany wish to maintain the size of their working age populations constant at the 1995 levels up
to the year 2050, Italy will need approximately 350,000 migrants per year and Germany close to
500,000 migrants per year.

78
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 79

The ratio of the working age population (15-64 years) to the retired age group (65+ years) is
expected to decrease substantially in Europe and Japan. For example, whereas in Europe today
there are approximately five persons in the working age group for each person in the retirement
age group, by 2050 this ratio will be about half this size, two persons in the working age group for
every person in the retirement age group.... in the case of Italy and Germany, in order to maintain
roughly the ratio of four persons in the working age population (15-64 years) for every person in
the retired age group (65+years), the average numbers of migrants needed over the period 1995-
2050 would be 2.2 million per year for Italy and 3.4 million per year for Germany’.

And last, we would argue that acceptance of this ‘immigration country’ status, and a
concomitant evenly distributed policy interest in both immigration and integration
issues, is the way forward. Box 37 cites Francis Fukuyama, who, in a recent interview,
referring to the UN demographic figures of Box 36, makes exactly this point.

Immigration and integration[92] 37

‘During the next two generations, immigration is going to be one of the major political issues for
Europe. In the 21st century the populations of countries like Italy and Germany are going to
decrease at a yearly rate of more than one percent. During one generation they will lose more than
30 percent of their autochthonous population! The resulting massive major labour shortage can
only be accommodated by immigration. Countries that will succeed in not only admitting labourers
from outside but also integrating them into a larger culture are going to be most successful. I do
not believe in multiculturalism if that means the co-existence of different separate cultures within
one society.... What is needed is a tolerant and liberal society that accepts “others”, but eventually
succeeds in integrating them into a single pattern of language and values. The United States was
successful precisely because they originated from a shared political idea and not from a common
culture. That enabled people from different backgrounds to cooperate. Europe is going to have
much bigger problems with immigration because its nations existed before they developed into
democracies. That is the reason for the rise of politicians like Austria’s Jörg Haider and political par-
ties like the Belgian Vlaams Blok’ [translation RH].

We are not in a position to determine if the programme portfolio of the major Euro-
pean research institutes already shows such balance between (im)migration and inte-
gration interests; however, our educated guess would be that research – being less
constrained by public opinion and the ballot Box – is ahead of policy in integration
interest[93].

4.6 Attitudes towards international comparison

As stated in the objectives for this study, we wanted to identify (variation in) attitudes
towards international comparison. Given the reasons explained in the chapter on
methodology, our data on this topic are quite haphazard, and therefore cannot be
called a sufficient basis for drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, several trends in the
survey material warrant further comment.

79
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 80

4.6.1 GENERAL TRENDS

1. In the countries surveyed, international comparison might not figure equally promi-
nent on the agenda of research priorities, but differences between individuals seem
much more substantial than those between countries.

2. If there is one variable that points to a “national” lack of interest in international

comparison, it is the presence of a “national” barrier to policy change in the sector con-
cerned. In Germany, more than anywhere else, we encountered the argument that the
political obstruction to regarding changes in citizenship legislation was so crucial for the
integration problems faced by the policy world, that expecting much of research in this
domain, let alone internationally comparative research, was considered naive. But this
argument was as much one against (the assumption that ) science-based policy is realis-
tic, as against international comparisons per se. In fact, enough individuals in Germany
stressed the importance of international comparison to make any generalising state-
ment about the country problematic.

3. When subjects were defined in terms of policy issues, comparison was considered
sensible only when the contexts compared were similar. It seemed that the further
removed from policy assumptions, the less restrictive the view on the potentials of com-
parison.

4. Comparison, even among those enthusiastically advocating its scientific and policy
importance, is always considered an extremely difficult enterprise. There is a very
informative body of literature on international comparison, and nothing flagged by our
interviewees was especially new. The major difficulties highlighted were:
• Contexts are systems of interdependent institutions and their supportive ideologies. It
is therefore near impossible to create comparative contextualisations for a particular
phenomenon. There are too many variables involved with too many differently
organised interdependencies, which makes comparison between the phenomenon in
question in country A and country B problematic.
• Because different ideologies dominate the national debates on migration and integra-
tion issues, core concepts like “citizenship” and “integration” have different mean-
ings in different contexts. For example, in as far as national data on aspects of inte-
gration are available, these data are collected on the basis of indicators that vary
according to the particular meaning attached to “integration”.
• The particular “national” ideologies of the policy arena are strong conceptual filters
that make it difficult for those “socialised” in ideology A to really understand the
viewpoint of others inculcated in ideology B. Even internationally-oriented individuals
frequently commented upon the difficulty they have experienced in trying to prevent
or overcome conceptual misunderstandings at international gatherings.
• All of the above makes it very difficult to organise the nuts and bolts of international-
ly comparative projects. Since phenomena are embedded in their local context, it is
advisable to have local researchers/teams tackle the project in each participating
country. But, because of inhered conceptual problems, the ensuing difficulties of
identifying indicators that are valid across countries, or finding proper equivalents for
indicators that are impossible to standardise, in addition to the normal constraints of
time and especially funding[94], in reality, most international comparisons are often-

80
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 81

collections of related national studies rather than bonafide comparative studies.

• Often closely related to the issues raised above, but clearly needing separate atten-
tion, concerns the data sources that enable comparative research to be conducted.
Again, this is a problem that has received considerable attention and is addressed by
many parties: data producers and collection agencies (EUROSTAT, OECD, the UN
system); large scale social science data facilities like the Central Archive for Empirical
Social Science Research at Köln University and the European Centre for Analysis in
the Social Sciences at Essex University; and European funding agencies (the European
Commission and the European Science Foundation).

This last pitfall was mentioned by nearly all who commented upon international com-
parative work. One could also argue that it stands out among the list of difficulties
mentioned. However, the other problems bear a strong family resemblance to the prob-
lems addressed in the rest of this report, in that they have the same relational quality
that connects many aspects of the research policy interaction issue. On the other hand,
the availability of data sources is less of an interaction problem and may be tackled by
more conventional approaches. Therefore, we have singled it out for a closer look.

4.6.2 DEALING WITH DATA[95]

The problems of developing data sources that will enable comparative research to be
conducted are very considerable. They are also well known. Box 38 on Data archives
will address some of the issues.

Data archives[96] 38
The UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) ‘encourages the establishment of data
archives. R.CADE, for example, was established in 1995 to access data on Europe...[it] was founded
because:
The European data base is not well integrated; large scale research is hardly co-ordinated; measure-
ment instruments and data representation lack compatibility; data access and data protection regu-
lations differ, and even information about the availability of information is not easy to obtain. In
short the criteria for efficient organisation of databases have hitherto been defined from a national
perspective, and, even within nations, there is little co-ordinated resource management’ (p.155).

John Salt, Rinus Penninx and Catherine Withol de Wenden, et.al. summarised some of the issues
raised during the course of their feasibility study regarding the creation of a European migration
observatory concerning the compilation, use, and distribution of statistical data bases:

‘The first issue that was raised numerous times concerned the need for comparable data. The
requirement for good meta-data (data about data) was cited, especially for the methodology used
to collect a particular dataset. A second, related issue is the need to provide information that
explains the meaning of data rather than a catalogue of records and fields and how they were col-
lected. In essence, this is a desire to have expertise to supplement the data and implies that analysis
is carried out and that data and results are placed into a context....
Finally, there was a perceived need to be able to integrate databases. This includes, but goes far
beyond, the issue of comparable data. At a fundamental level, it involves the linkage of spatially
referenced datasets (data collected and reported for known spatial units) with non-spatial databas-
es, including documentary databases. Several institutes are beginning to confront this problem
directly... by using Geographic Information Systems’ (p.165-166).

81
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 82

It is telling that the feasibility study proposes an important role for the observatory-to-be-estab-
lished in coordinating (statistical and other) information, in acting as a catalyst for data harmonisa-
tion, in overseeing the provision of comprehensive meta-data, and in playing an analytical role in
data interpretation. The existing initiatives are clearly insufficient.

The essential problem is that different European countries pursue inconsistent strategies
in collecting data and seldom accord sufficient, if any, consideration to the need for
comparative research.Yet at the same time, the debate has been very restricted. It has
been concentrated largely on issues of stocks and flows. Once it is accepted that the
contribution of the research community should be directed both towards these areas
and integration issues, then the picture changes. The Labour Force Survey, for example,
could be hugely beneficial for comparative research, although where relatively small
communities are concerned, it fails to sample large enough numbers to be very helpful.

The Treaty on European Union recognises the role of the Council of the European
Community (CEC) in acting to improve the conditions of employment of third country
nationals and the need ‘... to monitor regularly the progress towards achieving eco-
nomic and social cohesion’[97] but there are no comparative sources of economic and
social data which focus specifically on the position of ethnic minorities and third coun-
try nationals. What is required is the adoption of the best practice from member states
in terms of social surveys in other countries, so that over time comparable data sets
can be developed. The need for initiatives of this kind has been recognised by the
European Science Foundation (ESF) in its report on the Social Science Frontiers in
European Research (1993). This document reported on a workshop in October 1993
that was convened in order to offer advice on the European Commission’s Fourth
Framework Programme. It includes the comment that:

‘[A] valuable initiative could be to finance European value-added surveys in several

countries, based upon the design and experience of national surveys..... The collection
of this comparative data would be both of value to policy development and cost-
effective in terms of co-ordinating and maximising the costs versus results ratio of
research at both the national and community levels’ (p.19).

The ESF has established a ‘general attitude survey’ along these lines, but this is only
one aspect of the problem.

The same concern was reflected in the work programme for the ‘Targeted Socio-Eco-
nomic Research’ (TSER) component of the 4th Framework Programme that identified
the need for ‘... conceptual and methodological work on constructing and integrating
data and indicator systems as a common effort of the European social science research
community...’[98]. In practice, this area of the TSER has not yet yielded a great deal of
value regarding integration issues and while the 5th Framework Programme docu-
ments speak of ‘...establishing a common research infrastructure’, it remains unclear
whether real progress will be made on improving the quality of comparable data in the
medium term.
It is not, however, as if “good practice” does not exist. The new European Household

82
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 83

Panel study run by EUROSTAT, for example, is one obvious instance even though the
sample sizes are too small to be of much use for problems at city and neighbourhood
level. It is widely known that in the UK, the 1991 population census for the first time
contained an “ethnic question” and that a fourth national survey of ethnic minorities
has been conducted, paid for partly by the Economic and Social Research Council ijn
tandem with the British government. This was a major survey (with a control sample
from the indigenous population) which focused on the experience of discrimination,
inter-ethnic relations (including those between different minority groups) and diver-
gences between ethnic groups. It also measured the degree to which the majority
population accepts and supports “multiculturalism”. The first results of the survey
were published in 1997.[99] In Germany, the Household Panel survey also offers lon-
gitudinal data of exceptional interest, particularly for measuring the fortunes of, say,
Turks, in the labour market, and mention has previously been made of recent French
surveys (see Box 21). At the national level, then, there is plenty of good social science
data collection, but it is of little use in generating a comparative understanding at the
European level because it is seldom utilised to stimulate similar data collection else-
where. A key opportunity arises for social scientists to improve this situation by taking
the instruments in national surveys and applying a relevant core of questions else-
where.

Extrapolating from our survey material, we would promote the interpretation that the
adoption of periodic surveys using a common core of measurement instruments
would be very much welcomed by many of our interview partners.

83
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 84

84
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 85

5. Comparing European perspectives: good linkage arrangements

In this chapter, we will describe our findings of linkage arrangements that tend to
work, but before sketching these arrangements, we want to reiterate what we stated
about these arrangements in the methodology section of chapter one.

We aimed to cast the net regarding experiences and perceptions as broadly as possi-
ble, which means that the examples of practices that seem to work will not be core of
this report. This would have made sense only if the examples were described in-depth.
However, broad coverage and in-depth description tend to be mutually exclusive. In
other words, this chapter offers the (so-called) “good arrangements”, a do-it-yourself
toolkit of broadly applicable linkage modalities ideas,

The best way to think about these is in terms of an analytical level,that is located mid-
way between the abstract level of factors shaping the context of research-policy inter-
action (chapter 3) and the concrete level of examples of good practice. This meso-level
of abstraction is based on “good practice” examples, analysed within their context, as
well as changes over time within those contexts. It is phrased in the form of tenden-
cies of particular kinds of arrangements to better facilitate linkage than other kinds of
arrangements in the long-term. This means that our conclusions say something about
“good” in a longer-term perspective.

Arrangements are a label for institutionalised ways of research policy interaction. The
survey material points out that arrangements are not the only determinant of fruitful
interaction. Arrangements tend to facilitate but only when staffed by the right kind of
persons. Therefore a separate section is dedicated to the role of individuals.

5.1 The role of individuals

The role of individuals is crucial since linkage between policy and research is always
achieved between people. However favourable the macro-context may be or support-
ive the institutional arrangements, it needs mutual understanding, fruitful interaction
requires the mutual understanding and cooperation of individuals at the interpersonbal
level. Time and again informants acknowledged this when asked about the reasons
why a particular collaboration deserved the label “good practice”.

Focusing on individual personalities, one first of all thinks about that particular
researcher who regularly succeeds in bridging the gulf with the policy world because
of her mastery of the policy discourse, her ability to connect short term policy prob-
lems with theoretical notions, and her sensitivity to the role of sources of information
and legitimation (other than science), etc. Or one notes an express civil servant who is
willing to commit budgettary resources to longer term projects, able to consider policy
consenquences of research results and theoretical notions (even when these are not
directly available in the form of a policy summary), and is sensitive to the time con-

85
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 86

straints that methodological rigour may impose on research projects etc. Such person-
alities were referred to repeatedly by respondents asked to explain why a particular
collaborative project had been successful.

5.1.1 BENCH-MARKING: THE FIELD OF MANAGEMENT

Yet if we attempt to go beyond the conclusion that any structure needs agents to
make it all happen – agents who are much more than just (replaceable) cogs in a
machine – this raises questions about whether such effective individuals share certain
characteristics, or if particular mixes of individual characteristics and situational charac-
teristics are more effective than others. Obviously, in-depth psychological profiles are
beyon the remit of our study, but we suggest that turning one’s attention to manage-
ment literature may be a sensible way to proceed. As soon as relationship was intro-
duced as our major perspective on the interaction between research and policy, “man-
agement” came into view as a potentially rich bench-marking area. The more
restricted area of interorganisational networking has been dealt with earlier (see 2.4.2),
but much wider areas in the field of management are relevant.

One lesson that is gleaned from management literature is that it is fruitless to search
for one superior “personal style”, for leadership, for team membership, for change
management, or whatever other issue to be considered. Box 39 presents the concept
of team roles, “cooperative styles”, or characteristic ways to contribute to the team.
One of the conclusions to be drawn from this is that the “habitus” of monitor and
critical evaluator, very prominent in both academia as well as among research commis-
sioners within policy circles, is a problematic basis for collaboration if not tempered by
the presence of other team roles.

Team roles[100] 39
When psychologist Belbin started studying participants of management games at Henley, the
famous British business school, he put together a team of the “smartest” managers. Unexpectedly,
this team scored below average. Team members fiercely disagreed about everything and could not
decide on a course of action. After seven more years of research, Belbin developed a theory about
team roles based on three principles:
• Team members fulfil several roles at the same time: a functional role (based on technical expert-
ise), an organisational role (based on formal position), and a team role (based on personality).
Belbin identifies nine such “cooperative styles”, or characteristic ways to contribute to the team;
• A good allocation of tasks, and a good mix of team roles are keys to succes;
• The more that functional roles match team roles, the more successful teams can be. If one’s per-
sonality fits one’s tasks, the strengths of a cooperative style can be used to maximum benefit.

Belbin’s the team roles are:

• The company man: practical organiser, hard worker, loyal and persistent, needs regularity and
clear structures;
• The source researcher: explores ideas and sources from outside and brings them to the team,
spots chances;
• The plant: the creative mind, visionair, introvert;
• The monitor: analytical thinker, evaluator of ideas and plans;
• The shaper: passionate and achievement oriented doer, provides direction, thrives in stressful
situations;

86
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 87

• The chairman: coordinator of objectives, manager of conflicting interests, procedure oriented;

• The caretaker: looking after details, accurate and concentrated, worrying and control oriented;
• The group worker: focussed on personal relations, striving for an ‘us-feeling’, prevents unneces-
sary stress and confrontations;
• The expert: technical specialist, solo performer;

The influence of the roles can best be illustrated by one participant’s experience in a management
game. Teams for the game were put together on the basis of people’s scores on a team role test: a
team of monitors, a team of company men, a team of shapers, etc. The author, Rob Groen was part
of the monitor team:

‘what followed was a shocking experience: the cooperation with my fellow spirits resulted in an
impressing magnification of my own qualities and weaknesses, a frightening charicature of my own
way of dealing with things. As monitors amongst ourselves, we discussed numerous possible game
strategies, evaluated their risks, weighted their pro’s and con’s and, finally, rejected all. Rules were
discussed in terms of their (lack of) logic, and the ensuing exchanges were so acrid and fundamen-
tal that we let auctions and other game opportunities slip. We lost, never having had a chance....
Also the other teams experienced enourmous difficulties trying to escape their doom. The company
men, in a very efficient and disciplined manner developed a plan of action, but lacked any talent to
change gear when circumstances suddenly changed. The shapers, with grim determination and piti-
ful bravado, bluffed their way to victory and triumphantly boasted about that the next day’
(p.202)[translation RH].

In real-life situations, however, if a certain team has a multi-role membership that is optimally
adjusted to the tasks at hand, this is mostly due to sheer luck. Teams heavily dominated by one par-
ticular role type, may be very successful in certain situations (for example, victory of the shapers)
but the range of these situations tends to be very limited. Most teams are somewhere in between
the optimal mix of roles and one-sided membership.

Management consultants would classify both academia and the policy world as being high on mon-
itors, so the chances that during shared sessions monitors are overrepresented are very real. That is
not a promising basis for cooperation.

Obviously, thinking about these interaction styles in terms of roles is only one possible
way of looking at it. Another way to think of them is as ways of thought. Box 6
already presented a specimen of this approach (Morgan’s images or metaphors of
organisation). Box 40 gives another example of an analysis in terms of thought styles.

Thinking in yellow, blue, red, green or white print[101] 40

Dutch management consultant Leon de Caluwé developed a typology for thinking about change
using colour labels[102]. According to this model things/people are likely to change if one....
• Yellowprint thinking: brings interests together, forces them to formulate opinions, creates win-
win situations and forms coalitions, shows the advantages of certain opinions (power, status,
influence);
• Blueprint thinking: formulates an unambiguous objective, develops a plan of action, monitors
the process and adjusts accordingly, stabilises and controls the situation, reduces complexity to a
minimum;
• Redprint thinking: stimulates people in the right way (by punishment and reward), implemeting

87
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 88

sophisticated HRM-instruments for remunerating, motivating, promoting, status, returns some-

thing for what is received;
• Greenprint thinking: makes people aware of new perspectives and personal shortcomings, moti-
vates them to see, learn, do new things, create suitable shared learning experiences;
• Whiteprint thinking: takes personal wishes as a starting point, flows with the energy of the peo-
ple, is open to dynamism and complexity, works at removing blockades, uses rituals and symbols.

All of these perspectives have their value, but when individuals, thinking in different “colours” col-
laborate on a common venture, good mediation is needed to prevent misunderstandings and con-
flicts. When organising a workshop, for example, yellowprint thinkers will tend to expect consensus
about something, blueprint thinkers will tend to expect concrete results, while redprint thinkers
will be satisfied if the atmosphere is positive, and participants show commitment. It is amasing how
long these kinds of expectations can be implicit!

More important than the subtle differences between these conceptualisations are their
similarities:
• People are limited in the number of roles or styles they master; most of us prefer
one or two of the styles over the others, and make it a habit of applying them irre-
spective of the needs of the situation;
• Certain styles fit some situations better than others;
• People differ regarding the extent to which they are self-reflexive about their per-
sonal styles and preferences;
• The use of a mediator/facilitator is the most obvious “instrument” for dealing with
the opportunities and problems associated with the one-sidedness of and the differ-
ences in interaction and thought styles.

5.1.2. THE FACILITATOR

We suggest that the idea of mediation or facilitation of collaborative processes is

Facilitating a product developing team[103] 41

‘In the summer of 1997 Vrumona, the soft drinks producer of the Heineken corporation, organised
a two-day brainstorm session to generate ideas for new products. One of the resulting ideas is a
drink for the modern and awareness-oriented adult, with ingredients that go along with the
human biorhythm and improve balance and vitality.... In November, the management gives the
‘biorhythm’ project team the go-ahead to develop the new soft drink. It takes project leader Haars-
ma and his team a year and around 450.000 Euro to create ‘Xi’.
Haarsma considers a multidisciplinary project team essential for the product’s success. It consists of a
brand manager, a technological product innovator, a logistic expert, a purchasing agent and
account managers for the household market and the catering industry.
“Before, the marketeer studied the consumer market and told the technologist what kind of drink
he needed. But the product innovator should be directly involved in the market research because
he is much more knowledgeable about tastes. With all different disciplines combined it is easier to
make the right decisions, but it asks a lot of the members of one’s team”.
That is why the biorhythm team gets an external mediator to facilitate the group interaction. She
confronts team members with communicative habits, like continuously interrupting others, that
block smooth interaction and intervenes when discussions are non-productive or collaboration runs
into rough waters’.[translation RH]

88
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 89

something to be taken on board when considering the issue of research-policy linkage.

We have come across this idea before; although not immediately evident in the
description of Box 10, the success of participatory planning techniques like ZOPP is
dependent upon professional mediation by a process facilitator. Box 41 gives the
example of facilitating a product development team in a private enterprise.

Facilitators can be enlisted for various kinds of functions. Box 42 gives an overview of
possible roles a facilitator can play. This list is taken from a field that qualifies as anoth-
er bench-marking candidate: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Appendix J
describes ADR in more detail.

Roles and functions of a facilitator[104] 42

The mediator may assume a wide variety of roles and functions to help parties resolve conflicts.
Moore[105] distinguishes nine such roles:
• The opener of communications channels who initiates communication or facilitates better com-
munication if the parties are already talking;
• The legitimiser who helps all parties recognise the right of others to be involved in negotiations;
• The process facilitator who provides a procedure and often formally chairs the negotiation ses-
sion;
• The trainer who educates novice, unskilled, or unprepared negotiators in the bargaining process;
• The resource expander who provides procedural assistance to the parties and links them to out-
side experts and resources, such as lawyers, technical experts, decision makers, or additional
goods for exchange, that may enable them to enlarge acceptable settlement options;
• The problem explorer who enables people in dispute to examine a problem from a variety of
viewpoints, assists in defining basic issues and interests, and looks for mutually satisfactory
options;
• The agent of reality who helps build a reasonable and implementable settlement and questions
and challenges parties who have extreme and unrealistic goals;
• The scapegoat who may take some responsibility or blame for an unpopular decision that the
parties are nevertheless willing to accept. This enables them to maintain their integrity and,
when appropriate, gain the support of their constituents;
• The leader who takes the initiative to move the negotiations forward by procedural, or on occa-
sion, substantive suggestions.

Thus, the role of mediator is by no means straightforward. The tasks that a mediator should per-
form have to be determined anew for each bargaining process, and the role of a mediator can
change as negotiations proceed.

From the viewpoint of the problem to be solved, it is remarkable that the concept of
an external facilitator with a coaching, guiding, and conflict mediating role has not
gained any currency in research policy interactions. Indeed, without acceptance of the
role of facilitor in practice, all kinds of participatory planning methods, presented earli-
er as bench-mark areas, are impossible to implement.

The examples given above – coaching a team with an unambiguous indicator for suc-
cess, and mediating in conflicts of interest – examples that may both be classified as
“high pressure”, give an indication why this may be the case; unless the stakes are

89
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 90

high, it is difficult to admit that external involvement may be beneficial. The accept-
ance of outside help might be interpreted as the acknowledgement of one’s own
shortcomings. The threat of serious trouble if success fails to materialise seems a good
push factor to overcome such hesitations. Research-policy collaboration is normally
perceived as a commitment to do one’s best, not an obligation to succeed. And a
commitment in itself may not be a strong enough incentive to face one’s weaknesses.

5.1.3 THE INTERMEDIARY

Although the role of facilitator/mediator is virtually unheard of in the field of research
policy relations, intermediaries do exist. Both the policy and the academic world have
knowledge brokers or entrepreneurs, who are intermediaries that link inside and out-
side arenas.

5.1.3.1 The policy entrepreneur

In countries where scientific data is accepted input and legitimation for policy, min-
istries, larger cities, and large quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations
(quango’s) usually have a staff whose task descriptions are focussed on providing that
scientific input. Modalities for bringing this about vary widely; some major ones
encountered during our survey are described in Box 43.

Ways of embedding knowledge brokers in a policy setting 43

A full-fledged research department is one modality to ensure the necessary research input. An
example of this is the The Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of
Justice. WODC can best be characterised as the knowledge centre in law and justice, which aims to
make a professional contribution to the development and evaluation of justice policies. This
involves:
• conducting research concerning criminal and justice policy;
• instigating and supervising research conducted by other institutions, granting subsidies and pro-
viding access to files;
• analysing global trends and policies for internal and external relations;
• collecting and providing documentation mainly concerning criminal and justice policy literature.

A city such as Rotterdam has its own Centre for Research and Statistics (COS), that provides much of
the city’s data gathering and data analysis needs (see www.cos.nl).

Another modality is a research liaison department. The WODC (described above) instigates and
supervises external research as one of its tasks, but some focus exclusively on the intermediary role;
for example, the Direction de la Recherche et des Affaires Scientifiques et Techniques (DRAST) of
the French Ministry for Housing and Transport:

Dans une société moderne et dynamique, la compétence technique est essentielle. La Direction de
la Recherche et des Affaires Scientifiques et Techniques (DRAST) exerce, en matière de recherche et
d’innovation, les attributions du ministère, sauf dans le domaine de l’aviation civile où elle inter-
vient en coordination avec la direction compétente (DGAC).
Équipe légère d’une cinquantaine d’agents, elle assume des fonctions de pilotage, d’animation et
d’incitation en étroite liaison avec les autres directions d’administration centrale de l’Équipement et
le ministère chargé de la Recherche[106].

90
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 91

The Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (DREES) of the French
Ministry of Labour and Health is another example of this type of modality:
Les attributions de la DREES:[107]
• Statistiques et systèmes d’information: Concevoir l’appareil statistique et assurer la collecte, l’ex-
ploitation et la diffusion des statistiques. Assurer la conception et la cohérence des systèmes sta-
tistiques;
• Recherche: Orienter, en liaison avec le ministère chargé de la recherche, la politique de la
recherche. Concourir au développement des travaux de recherche et à la valorisation de leurs
résultats;
• Synthèses et études: Effectuer des travaux de synthèse, notamment les comptes de la santé et les
comptes de la protection sociale. Réaliser des études et des projections socio-démographiques,
économiques et financières. Coordonner et animer les études menées sous l’égide du ministère;
• Evaluation: Contribuer à promouvoir les travaux d’évaluation. Analyser les effets structurels des
politiques sociales et participer à la conception, à la validation et à la mise en oeuvre des
méthodes d’évaluation;
• Information: Diffuser et publier les travaux dont elle a assuré la réalisation et la coordination.

Another common modality is that of policy advisors within policy departments who are given the
task of research liaison, which, inturn, can be regarded as the decentralised variant of the cen-
tralised liaison function described above.

At the sub-departmental level, within the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional
Development, the innvandringspolitisk seksjon (ips) of the Department of Indigenous, Minority and
Immigrant Affairs, research liaison is part of the task description of the senior policy advisor.
Likewise, the foreigners office of the Social Services department of the Milan municipality has inte-
grated its research liaison function within its own staffing profile. And for its statistical needs it per-
manently employes its own “resident” consultant (see also Box 16)

5.1.3.2 The research entrepreneur

Also in the research setting, the liaison function has been institutionalised. As recount-
ed earlier (see 3.1. and appendix F), universities have increasing systemic linkages with
the outside world. The institutional context of research is changing as universities are
encouraged to enter into joint ventures and cooperative research with industry, gov-
ernment facilities, and other research institutions as a means of improving the effec-
tiveness of networks and feedback loops in national innovation systems. Most univer-
sities have created service departments to facilitate these linkages. Box 44 gives the
example of a UK university liaison office. The Anglo-Saxon academic world has the
most advanced linkage facilities. For example, the liaison office often plays a direct
(editorial) role in the development of funding applications.

A research liaison office: RDSO of Warwick university[108] 44

The Research and Development Services Office (RDSO) is part of the Warwick University’s central
administrative support services. Its principal roles are to:
• provide a ‘one-stop-shop’ for research support for academic staff, identifying research funding,
helping with grant applications and contract negotiations, advising on intellectual property mat-
ters, and assisting with the financial management of research projects;
• liaise with industry and those organisations who sponsor research, regionally, nationally, and in
Europe.

91
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 92

Its organisation:
The Research Grants and Contracts Group is divided into two teams which, between them, are
responsible for the administration of research grants and contracts from inception to completion.
• The Pre Award Team provides:
- help with grant applications to research councils, charities, and to Europe;
- research contract negotiations with industrial and commercial bodies;
- costing, pricing, and processing research contracts.
• The Post Award Team handles:
- financial administration of all grants and contracts accepted by the University;
- financial planning and forecasting for research grants and contracts;
- financial administration of research-related grants (most funded by the EC).
• The Regional and Industrial Development Group provides advice and support with:
- liaison with research and development bodies in Europe and the West Midlands Region; liaison
with industry, commerce, government bodies, and agencies;
- links with the University Science Park and local business (including SMEs);
- intellectual property matters and the exploitation of research;
- the Teaching Company Scheme.

• In addition, the RDSO is responsible for:

- identifying and disseminating information on research funding opportunities;
- databases and management information on grants and contracts;
- maintaining the RDSO web site;
- advice and support on research policy for University management and committees;
- administration of the University’s Research and Teaching Development Fund, which provides
pump-priming money for the research projects.

5.1.3.3 Prerequisites and Problems

A major prerequisite for being able to function as an intermediary is the ability to
relate to all of the parties that are to be linked. The benefits of overlapping experience
for acquiring this ability are evident. The staff of research liaison departments within
policy environments are usually former academic researchers. In general they are
equiped with sufficient sensitivity for the constraints with which their research and pol-
icy partners have to grapple. University liaison offices are staffed (to a lesser degree)
by people with a background that covers both worlds, although experience in the pri-
vate sector is quite common. In general, however, we would argue that entrepreneurs
at both sides of the curtain are sufficiently familiar with the various contexts in which
they operate.

One problem that was mentioned several times in interviews was the risk of role con-
fusion, a problem faced mainly by the policy entrepreneur. A researcher employed by a
ministry or city research department is supposed to represent the interests of her
employer. Yet, in the longer term, it is difficult to escape being taken aboard, when
immersed in a particular culture. Although, in principle such intermediaries are well
equipped to understand the interests and perspectives of the academics contracted for
a particular project, they often tend to become increasingly preoccupied by the short
term policy perspective and objectives reigning their work environment. So, instead of
sitting on the fence, they risk “going native”.

92
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 93

The risk of university liaison office staff giving priority to the academic perspective
appears to be less, since they tend to be much less involved with the content of
research than their counterparts in the policy world. Intermediaries in the policy world
usually liaise from the beginning (formulating the terms of reference for the project),
through the research process (for example, membership of a supervising or guidance
committee), until the end (judging the resulting output), often representing the policy
interest in the absence of the actual policy staff. Conversely, university liaison staff,
whose prime motivation is turn-over, are usually much less a party to the content dis-
cussions between the policy and the research parties involved. They connect, assist in
contractual negotiations, and might monitor contractual obligations, but are not nor-
mally involved in defining the problem to be studied, nor negotiating about the final
version of the end product(s).

As far as we know, the task definitions regarding intermediary functions, either within
a policy or a university setting, these do not include the role of facilitator/mediator as
described earlier. Management consultants often claim that coaching the interaction
process between those concerned with the content of the project does not require any
knowledge of the either the content nor the particular settings where interaction part-
ners come from. We would certainly agree that the ability to coach such processes
without content and background knowledge is proof of superior counselling skills. And
would also agree with the argument that close involvement with either the particular
content or with any of the interaction partners poses the risk of role confusion and
induces facilitators to participate in discussions instead of guiding them. On the other
hand, mediators of longer-term processes do tend to familiarise themselves with the
problem as well as with the different interests involved. As in anthropological field-
work, there is a delicate balance between distance and involvement, between the
insider and the outsider perspectives, between engagement and observation; a balance
to find each time one enters an interaction situation.

However, we contend that the existing intermediary role could become much more
effective in bringing about fruitful research-policy linkages[109] by defining their task
in terms of process facilitation, and, whenever opportune, by making use of participa-
tory planning and monitoring instruments.

5.2 The role of institutions

In this section we will discuss the tendencies of particular kinds of arrangements, or

institutionalised ways of research policy interaction (that we distilled out of ‘good
practice’ examples collected during the survey) to effectively facilitate linkage in the
long-term.

5.2.1 COMBINING APPLIED DATA-GATHERING AND THEORY-DRIVEN RESEARCH

Arrangements that facilitate the connection between short-term data-gathering,
applied research, and longer-term, theory-driven programmes, are better for linkage
than those where these two kinds of research are separated institutionally.

93
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 94

Two important differences between the “academic” perspective and the “policy” per-
spective, concern the time horizon and the comprehensiveness of the problem defini-
tion. While policy is (usually) interested in answers to or solutions for very specific
problems within the shortest possible time, academics are interested in framing specific
problems within larger contexts, with the implication that the more time is available,
the more context can be apprehended. These differences have been highlighted earlier
in the paragraph 2.1. We may point out the similarities with another well known
dichotomy, the categories of “fundamental” versus “applied” research. Box 45
describes the characteristic differing emphasis regarding theory while also signalling
the similarities.

Fundamental versus applied research: theory 45

According to Peter Nas, fundamental and applied research tend to differ on several characteristics,
such as who takes the initiative, how project monitoring is organised, objectives of the study, prob-
lem definition, theory, methods, target group, and dissemination of results. The role of theory is an
obvious parallel with the differences between an academic and a policy perspective. Nas says:

‘As far as theory is concerned, fundamental research is focussed on formal theory construction, on
abstract and generalising statements, and applied research is targetting grounded concepts, that
are less abstract and more obviously refer to particular (local) forms of a social problem or phe-
nomenon. With the former, methodological rigour is crucial: reliability, validity, generalisability and
other basic scientific principles reign supreme. While for the latter, policy relevance is crucial: using
a diversity of methods and instruments the research aims at applicable results’.[110]

This difference usually finds its institutional expression in the fact that the first kind of
research, longer-term theory-driven programmes and the second kinds, short-term
data-gathering applied research, are done by different personnel who tend to gather
at different institutes. Of course, there is a certain amount (even a fair amount) of
overlap between data-gathering versus theory-driven research, and academic versus
commercial research described in Appendix E (Contract research by commercial agen-
cies). But our argument has broader relevance. Within the category of academic
research, for example, an institutional split is manifested between institutes that target
data-gathering and those that target theory-driven research. In principle, there is noth-
ing wrong with either kind of research, but their insulation from each other makes
both less effective (informing policy) in the longer term, than they could be in concert.
And, it may be added, less effective in advancing theory than would otherwise have
been possible. Box 46 gives an example of an institute that comes close to the ideal of
combining both research perspectives within one setting: the Italian Censis foundation.

Censis, Centre for Social Studies and Policies (Italy)[111] 46

Censis, the Centre for Social Studies and Policies, was founded in 1964 and carries out socio-eco-
nomic studies and research. In1973, it became a legally recognised Foundation (bill no. 712 of Octo-
ber 11, 1973), and enjoys the support and participation of several large public and private institu-
tions. For the past thirty years it has carried out numerous studies, consultancy services, and

94
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 95

proposals in social areas: education and training, employment, welfare, territorial networks, the
environment, the economy, local and urban development, public government, communication, and
culture. Research is carried out mainly on behalf of ministries, regional, provincial and municipal
governments, chambers of commerce, business and professional associations, banks, private compa-
nies, network managers, and international agencies in the context of EU programmes.

Censis carries out approximately 60 research studies every year on behalf of several clients .... using
research methods that are midway between an essentially academic style and one which is exclu-
sively geared towards research goals. This has allowed Censis to develop over the years a remark-
able knowledge of even the smallest and most local mechanisms that determine the development
model for Italian society. Also, it provided a sophisticated methodological apparatus to pursue indi-
vidual research goals and to refer them back to a more general interpretive framework.

Besides these research fields (mentioned above), Censis is also involved in three other sectors. They
are cross-cutting and aimed at data processing and research methods, at disseminating information
from research activities, and putting it into perspective internationally:
• the centre for data processing and methodology deals with methodological and statistical plan-
ning of research studies, and its implications for computerised resources. It processes close to
100,000 statistical data every year and manages both Censis and external databanks;
• the communication, press, and publishing department manages Censis’ communication services,
interacts with the press, and manages the various publishing projects related to the Institute. It
also features a specific line of research on media, information, and research studies including a
sizable component on public relations and image;
• the international projects department has recently developed a very close relationship with the
European Commission, especially with the departments in charge of public relations, employ-
ment and social issues, communication and culture, environment, research, telecommunications
and regional policies. It supervises research programmes and technical consultancy; it cooperates
with the interested institutions, and undertakes and contributes to innovative international proj-
ects sponsored by such major agencies as OECD, World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development.

We contend that two major conditions need be fulfilled to enable an institution to

merge both kinds of interests:
• The mission statement of the institution must be explicit about the importance of
both data-gathering and theory, and contain the right mix of direct policy relevance
(implying a particular customer) as well as that of more general conceptual rele-
vance which are aimed at the academic and the public debate.
• The funding arrangements must allow for a certain amount of independence. To
take the example of Censis; although admittedly conducting many contract research
projects, the institute is not fully dependent upon this type of research and conducts
various self-funded activities, such as the Annual report on the Italian social situa-
tion.[112]

Some argue that the kind of knowledge production described here as “better” actually
constitutes a new mode that can be contrasted with the traditional disciplinary mode of
knowledge production (see Box 25 on the old and the new modes of knowledge pro-
duction). This new mode, however, refers to arrangements that are quite network-like
and temporary, aimed at solving a particular “problem”, while we would argue that the
virtual organisation of multi-disciplinary expertise is not yet a common reality within the

95
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 96

social “field”; Box 47 gives a Dutch example of such a network collaboration.

The Dutch annual poverty reports 47

In 1996 the Dutch Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs commissioned an academic research team,
led by Professor Engbersen (Erasmus university Rotterdam), to annually produce a poverty report
for 1997 through to 2000. The contract funded two elements:
• Four annual reports on poverty and social exclusion. They are based on analyses of the yearly
poverty monitor data collected by the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP, see also Box 31),
along with contributions by leading poverty experts and the results of anthropological neigh-
bourhood studies;
• Anthropological fieldwork in five neighbourhoods in different Dutch cities, focusing on identify-
ing the different survival strategies developed by various vulnerable groups; and how are these
facilitated or hindered by geographical and institutional factors.

The results of this project are the major input for the annual “social conference” which brings
together all Dutch poverty-oriented academic, policy and implementation interests for a brain-
storming about possible policy responses.

The contract brings together all relevant academic expertise, ensures that proper conceptual analy-
sis of the (relatively) raw data derived from the poverty monitor is linked directly to the policy
debate. At the same time, the reports are produced under the auspices of an independent editorial
team, and are a crucial element of the academic research programme of the sociology department
at Erasmus university.

We believe that there is plenty of scope for such network arrangements in the social
field. The Dutch example, described in Box 47, signals one interesting mode for such
arrangements; that is, networks with particular data sets or data storage facilities at
their core. The large-scale social science “facilities” that enjoy the status of host insti-
tutes for recipients of EU framework programme grants, are prime examples of such
modes that could become the focus of various issue-networks.[113]

5.2.2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH

Arrangements that bring about actual multidisciplinary collaboration of (disciplinary)
experts in order to solve a jointly defined problem are better for linkage than those
that foster mono-disciplinary approaches or those that stop short of a shared problem
definition.

A well-known difference between the academic perspective and the policy perspective
is that the tension between the mono-disciplinary approach normally followed in aca-
demia, often leads to partial insights that usually do not (adequately) answer the poli-
cy question. Multidisciplinary approaches tend to come closer to addressing the real
problem as perceived by the policy interest.[114] This is not to say that the problem as
defined by the policy interest involved is necessarily the best approach to a solution!
The policy territory is as much disputed between different ministries, departments, etc.
as the academic territory is disputed between disciplines. As one of our informants put
it, a researcher will never understand how a local authority functions without knowl-

96
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 97

edge of the compartmentalisation of its budget[115]. Academic perspectives, either

mono- or multi-disciplinary, may reveal crucial aspects of a problem that are out the
purview of the particular policy perspective that they are dealing with (see below).

Be that as it may, we did not encounter much opposition against the position that
multidisciplinary approaches are more adequate for real-life issues. This stance was not
only common among our interviewees from the policy community, but equally
acknowledged by academic researchers. Earlier we identified the issue of interdisci-
plinarity as a bench-marking area. Box 48 describes an arrangement proposed to solve
two kinds of difficulties at the same time: those associated with internationally com-
parative research[116] and those regarding interdisciplinary collaboration.

Light infrastructure social science laboratories 48

‘Much of comparative research in the field of the social sciences today is hardly cost-effective. Typi-
cally, a group of researchers physically travels to participate in meetings in which no little time is
spent in trying to understand one another.... the same intellectual result would cost much less, and
would take up much less time and would almost certainly be better, if it were possible to bring
together working groups for a limited, but sufficiently long, period, from a few months to a year or
more, at research institutions or “laboratories” which one could describe as “light infrastructure”....

By using “light infrastructures” at reasonable cost, one could envisage different laboratories linked
in networks. Why these “light infrastrucures”? .... [T]o avoid confusion with institutions such as the
European University Institute in Florence or the various centres for “advanced research”, which are
either institutions for permanent academics or places of “reward” for emeritus researchers at the
end of their careers.... [I]t is necessary to conceive rather of places similar to laboratories, in which
teams of researchers could find everything they need for empirical research (instruments, data, doc-
uments, communications), with a permanent technical and operational staff, in order to avoid the
creation of vested institutional interests on the part of the residents....

This type of initiative would... involve selected groups of people, above all young researchers, with
the emphasis on interdisciplinarity.... [E]minent scientists... would... perform co-ordinating functions
in the laboratories and be responsible for scientific direction, although they would not always be
present. The teams admitted to these laboratories should then undertake to leave in the laboratory
the data they have obtained and created for the use of subsequent researchers. They would also be
encouraged to collect data according to determined protocols which would facilitate their reusabili-
ty’.[117]

One may note the heavy emphasis on “time for understanding each other”: several months to more
than a year! One may also note the “negative” attitude towards established centres of excellence,
because they focus on academic excellence only. We would argue that the first supports our claim
that relationship is the perspective to take if one wants to create real linkage. As far as the second
is concerned, we agree that the existing academic institutes[118] have limited objectives, but we
propose that they are, nevertheless, settings to learn from if one wants to improve research-policy
linkage.

97
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 98

As far as multidisciplinary potential is concerned, most research institutes in the field of

migration and ethnic relations have staff teams drawn from various disciplines. Experi-
ence shows that collaboration between closely related disciplines within single research
projects is not uncommon, but that input from less related disciplines normally takes
the form of sub-projects that do not share much of a common theoretical core. It is
also the case that the disciplines represented do not cover the social sciences as a
whole but part of the continuum, either sociological/anthropological, legal, geographic
or economic.

5.2.3 SHARED PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT MONITORING

Arrangements in which the policy interest and the research interest actively collaborate
from the start (that is to say from the problem definition onwards) without losing sight
of their respective roles and responsibilities, are better for linkage than those where
there is either no collaboration or role-confusion, and superior to arrangements where
the problem definition is not shared.

When research addresses a question posed by policy, a shared understanding of what

problem is to be addressed is obviously essential to prevent misunderstandings and
clashes later on. Without prior attunement, it is usually quite difficult to relate research
results to policy needs. Moreover, prior agreement is important from the perspective of
consensus regarding the most pertinent question, as this may turn out to be some-
thing different from that which either research or policy would come up with separate-
ly. Since this is a question of negotiation, it is important to safeguard the interests of
both parties involved, lest power differentials (for example, in contract research) exert
more influence than they should. Negotiation between different interests also means
that both really ought to be represented. Researchers getting too closely involved with
policy and policy-makers getting too closely involved with researchers may “cross
over” to the other camp, a risk that is especially evident when the person involved is
institutionally embedded in that other camp (usually a researcher within a government
office).[119] Time and again shared problem definition and shared project monitoring
were highlighted by informants as crucial for good linkage. With respect to shared
conceptualisation and implementation of research, the survey resulted in the following
conclusions:
• Such collaboration is regularly found at the level of individual research projects;
• Successful collaboration is normally followed up by easier access into the policy
world for the researchers involved;
• It does not, however, regularly result in longer term collaboration of the same inten-
sity;
• Where collaboration at the level of research programmes (normally creatures with a
longer lifespan than projects) occurs, the exact problem definition etc. of projects
within the programme tend to be non-collaborative ventures.

Box 49 describes an example of a research project, which was successful in terms of

shared problem definition and project monitoring.

98
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 99

Looking at native language teaching for immigrant children in Austria 49

‘At the beginning of the school year 1992/93, native language instruction for the children of immi-
grants (muttersprachlicher Unterricht; formerly muttersprachlicher Zusatzunterricht) became part of
the regular curriculum in Austria’s compulsory schools... However are the... ambitious educational
and sociopolitical goals implemented?.... Contradictions exist on several levels between the
demands on native language instruction and its legal and organisational implementation’.[120]

In 1996 the Ministry responsible (Education and Cultural Affairs) commissioned the Europäisches
Zentrum für Wohlfahrtspolitik und Sozialforschung in Vienna to conduct a study of the current
legal and organisational implementation of native language instruction. The coordinating
researcher, Dilek Çinar, described the collaboration with the departmental representatives (Referen-
tinen) in very positive terms. She explained her positive attitude by referring to the following cir-
cumstances:
• Researchers and Referentinen already knew each other for a long time and trusted each others’
expertise and commitment;
• The Ministry was in genuine need of information about the administrative practice and open to
its outcome;
• The Ministry was willing to involve practitioners in the research and to accept their viewpoint as
relevant input. Results of a representative survey amongst native language teachers were dis-
cussed with a select group of teachers. The results of this discussion were an integral part of the
analysis;
• The object of study was defined collaboratively. Two long sessions were spent to reach consensus
on the problem definition, on the required financial and time scopes, and on the methodological
restrictions;
• Researchers and Referentinen were in frequent contact during the study, and the study team
received a lot of assistance (in terms of access to material and statistics from other departments
which otherwise would have been very difficult to obtain);
• The results of the study were discussed with departmental policy makers over several meetings;
• Afterwards, the researchers were invited to contribute to departmental discussions whenever
their expertise covered the issue debated; and
• The results were published by the Ministry and put at the disposal of all respondents without
cost.

The example of Box 49 corroborates the first two of our conclusions. We will illustrate
the other one with another example from Austria, taken from the Research pro-
gramme on Xenophobia. The format – followed by the Austrian Federal Ministry for
Science and Transport for developing a programme, and fleshing it out with research
projects – is typical regarding the way research programmes are developed every-
where, either in National Research Councils, with or without the collaboration of Min-
istries, or under the auspices of a Ministry directly.

99
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 100

The Austrian research programme on Xenophobia[121] 50

The homepage of the Research Programme on Xenophobia, funded by the Austrian federal Min-
istry for Science and Transport, describes the development of the programme with the following
statement:
‘The recent increase of xenophobia and racist activities all over Europe as well as the lack of scien-
tific discussion of these phenomena in Austria have been the motive for the Austrian Ministery of
Science to develop a research programme on “Fremdenfeindlichkeit – xenophobia”.

The issue of this programme is to stimulate and concentrate scientific research on these topics, to
provide constant communication and cooperation between research-teams and to build up research
networks within the context of the programme as a whole.

The research programme has been planned and is supervised by an interdisciplinary scientific board.
In 1995 the programme was publicly announced, and interested reseachers were invited to submit
drafts within the following research-areas:
• Phenomenology of Xenophobia
• Migration and Xenophobia
• Politics, Economy and Xenophobia
• Media and Xenophobia
• Social Structure and Xenophobia
• Intercultural Conflict and Xenophobia

The call for papers resulted in 118 proposals, out of which the 30 best evaluated projects were
selected. Their outcomes, presumably at hand within the years 1998/99, are planned to be pub-
lished. Results of relevance to everyday praxis will be forwarded to concerned professions (city plan-
ners, social- and streetworkers, teachers, police officers).’[122]

The steps from idea to projects can be summarised as follows:

• The ministry identifies the need for a coherent scientific research programme with two objec-
tives: develop the field in terms of fundamental research, and develop intervention strategies;
• An interdisciplinary constituted scientific board, 15 members strong, discusses the outlines of the
programme, commissiones two background papers, and organises an international expert meet-
ing to finalise the six focal research areas;
• A call is announced, Austrian researchers hand in proposals, to be evaluated through peer
review.

It is hoped that an accompagnying programme of workshops, and lectures will bring the research
results to the attention of practitioners and policy makers and fulfil the interventionist objective.
The emphasis on the scientific debate during programme development is, however, a telling sign.
The edited volume, which came out of the expert meeting referred to above, ended with a short
evaluation by a departmental official, about programme development up to that point. His basic
message is that the research community had not shown much concern for anything else other than
their own hobby horses.[123]

100
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 101

5.2.4 FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENTS

Arrangements that allow for innovation in approaches are better for linkage than
those that are constrained by an a priori format of gathering and delivering results.

The problems as defined by research and policy, and the research and policy processes
are both dynamic phenomena. Arrangements that are too narrowly bound by a priori
contractually agreed procedures are not flexible enough to allow for changes when
these are needed. No one will dispute the advantages of clear and unambiguous
agreements, but when the intrinsic uncertainty and flux of reality is being agreed out
of existence, effectiveness will be sacrificed. Rigidity often results from a lack of trust
between the parties involved. With adequate time on their hands, contract partners
can open up initial arrangements after mutual trust has been established. Large-scale
data-gathering exercises (e.g. monitors of sectoral policies, or panel studies) are exam-
ples of projects that are usually regulated by detailed contracts which, in the longer
term, stifle their potential policy relevance if they are not open for renegotiation. We
will illustrate this point with a Dutch example: the monitors of the Institute of Socio-
logical and Economic Research of Erasmus University (Rotterdam).

Monitors on behalf of the Dutch Home Ministry[124] 51

The Institute for Sociological and Economic Research (ISEO) was established in 1986 to facilitate the
research group around Justus Veenman whom the Home Ministry had commissioned to monitor the
position of minorities in Dutch society (in sectors such as education, the labour market, welfare
arrangements and health care, identified by the acronym T&E).[125] In 1995 the same Ministry com-
missioned ISEO to conduct a yearly monitor “Grote-Stedenbeleid” (GSB, meaning Large City Policy)
that charts the urban developments in the 25 biggest cities (down to neighbourhood level) in the
Netherlands.

Both monitors are heavily data-oriented. Veenman commented upon the advantages that these
multi-year contracts (T&E is now in its 14th year) have:
‘The policy request for research usually comes when the answer is needed immediately. Shared
reflection upon questions that might become urgent in the future is only possible within the con-
text of an established relationship between policy-maker and researcher. A multi-year contract
offers the possibility to establish a sound relationship and prove one’s trustworthiness to each
other. Also, within a multi-year context it is much easier to accept that not everything is foreseable,
and that new issues and questions might appear that need to be included. My experience with
these monitors is that a relationship of mutual understanding and acceptance makes things possible
that were not open for discussion earlier. For example, with the GSB monitor, right from the start,
we pushed to be allowed to go beyond data gathering. Initially, our funder thought this politically
too sensitive. But with the years, more in-depth data analysis and interpretation has become part of
our terms of reference’.

5.2.5 LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS

Arrangements that allow for collaboration between individuals across different projects
over time, and that facilitate the development of mutual trust and sensitivity to the
interests of the others involved, are better for linkage than those favouring single
project linkages.

101
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 102

As already mentioned above, mutual trust is a very important, and trust needs time to
develop. Indeed, without it, the open communication necessary to arrive at shared
problem definitions is difficult to bring about, and the flexibility required to deal with
changes in the real-life situations under scrutiny and changes in the research and poli-
cy processes involved, is tough to arrange. Time and again mutual trust was brought
up in interviews as the reason why a particular collaborative effort worked out well.

Surprisingly, there is often little recognition of what real collaboration entails. Box 52
gives an inspired description. It is the kind of cooperation that facilitators try to bring
about in teams responsible for product development (see Box 41), that would ensure
optimal linkage between research and policy interests. While it is difficult to bring
about, it should, nevertheless, be the ideal goal.

Cooperation[126] 52
‘Cooperation is a skill. Before a team can function successfully, several important conditions have to
be fulfilled.... an unambiguous, shared aim, the willingness to share responsibility, equal participa-
tion, sincerity and trust , and sufficient autonomy for each individual.

Cooperation is also an art, a communicative art... It is the art to deal with the various perspectives
existing within a team, and to understand, value and “manage” their interrelationships.

But cooperation is foremost a choice.... Cooperation implies more than knowing what one has to
offer and what one takes responsibility for, it also implies knowing what one refrains from, what
one leaves to others.... Cooperation means that people are consciously willing to be mutually
dependent.

That is why cooperation always has its price: it makes one vulnerable because it draws heavily on
trust, on solidarity, and on one’s willingness to honour agreements. Cooperation costs time and
energy, because one’s own input and interest must constantly be tuned to those of others. And
cooperation can be boring, because taking radical and extreme positions is curtailed, and strong
conflicting needs must be patiently reconciled, for example, the need to individually excell and the
need to be part of the team.

Cooperation is a quite a task.’ (p.206)[translation RH]

That long-term commitments indeed become enduring[127] is also shown by the

development of the T&E monitor described in Box 51. The survey supporting the moni-
tor, was conducted three times (1988, 1991, 1994) by ISEO alone. In 1998 it was con-
ducted in collaboration with the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) of the Dutch
government. The Ministry that commissions the T&E monitor also commissions a yearly
minorities report from the SCP[128]. Any outsider, who is familiar with the budgetary
pressures faced by the research sections of Ministries, would not have bet on such a
scenario. The second monitor was commissioned supposedly to decrease the Ministry’s
dependency upon only one source of information. But two monitors on the same issue
is hard to sell to the public. Nevertheless, the Ministry has not (yet) favoured one over
the other, but only encouraged them to collaborate on the factual data collection.

102
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 103

5.2.6 OVERLAPPING EXPERIENCE

Better linkage arrangements also create opportunities for individuals to equip them-
selves with the knowledge and skills necessary to correctly interpret both the academic
as well as the policy discourse, as well as the structure of constraints and opportunities
that underlies each of them.

Mutual trust is important, but can hardly develop (let alone be sustained) without a
sound understanding of the opportunities and constraints inherent in the counterpart’s
envoronment. Frequent interaction already helps in this respect, but is not the only
way forward. The list of context factors that shape the research-policy interaction
environment, contained other factors that are directly relevant to this issue: mobility of
professionals between sectors and institutional settings, and the extent to which policy
circles are staffed by academically educated personnel. In both cases, people familiar
with one perspective operate within the institutional setting of the other. Although the
label is normally used with a more restricted connotation, they too might be called
“knowledge brokers”, equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to under-
stand the discourse of both worlds and thus able to act as a bridge between them.
Usually the term is used for staff that is explicitly hired to fulfil such a bridging func-
tion.

In paragraph 5.1.3.3 we discussed the role of overlapping experience, and the risks of
role confusion, from the perspective of the individual. In terms of institutional arrange-
ments, overlapping experience signals the promises of (temporary) staff exchanges.
Unlike the macro-factors mentioned above (that are givens from the perspective of
individual organisations interested in improving their linkage with either research or
policy) the introduction of staff exchanges is within the range of possibilities of single
organisations.

We suggest that in European settings, which lack the American-style mobility between
the research and policy sectors[129], policy research (studies carried out as part of the
policy process) offer the best opportunity for temporary staff exchange. It is important
not to under-estimate the value of policy research. After all, most policy development
takes place without research of any kind. It should be broadly defined to include infor-
mation gathering and in-depth evaluations which are the grist of the policy maker’s
mill. The critical problem in policy research is the lack of time and personal space with-
in which to develop ideas and formulate policy proposals. Another constraining vari-
able is a lack of access to a supporting environment. This works two ways. Academic
researchers, often dismissive of policy research, can profit from the privileged access to
administrative data, process information, and personal contacts that a placement with-
in the civil service may provide. A civil servant can profit from the access to scientific
data, theoretical debate, and personal contacts that placement within an academic set-
ting may offer. And both can profit from the time saving aspect that freedom of nor-
mal day-to-day chores brings.

5.2.7 SELF-REFLEXIVITY
Arrangements that have a certain amount of self-reflexivity built into them are better
than those that lack opportunities for such reflection. We understand self-reflection

103
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 104

here not so much in terms of short term monitoring and evaluation of particular
projects, but rather in terms of all parties concerned reflecting together about how
their field is evolving over time.

What reflection may offer is:

• A clearer understanding, albeit retrospectively, of what linkages between research,
policy and reality (apart from “direct utilization” of research) have actually evolved.
Such exercises may make the relevance of otherwise invisible research apparent; for
example, its indirect influence on policy via public discourse. It may also uncover the
instances where policy informed research, and not the other way around ( for better
or worse);
• The opportunity for a discussion (as opposed to an exchange of stereotypes) about
the peculiar features of the worlds of research and policy that influence their interac-
tion.

Mutual, and even better, shared understanding of such matters can both strengthen
the relationship, and directly improve knowledge use. The following Boxes give some
examples of the kind of research and policy realities that are usually held against one
by the other, but are hardly ever faced jointly.

To argue an opinion means to risk its credibility 53

‘A[n].... efficient practice of neutralizing expert statements is to simply contradict them. It is not
necessary to cite evidence against them and it may be positively harmful to do so. For the public
pronouncements of experts are simply “opinion”. An opposing opinion on the same subject is suffi-
cient to set off any impression the expert may have made on the public. Some administrators and
politicians ... understand that regardless of whether research is “true” or not, to express a contra-
dictory opinion is sufficient in order to keep public opinion undecided. Other administrators and
politicians ... make the mistake of arguing a contradictory opinion in public instead of just issuing
an apodictic statement. To have to argue already implies that the opinion is not common sense, is
technical, is interpretation, and in this way raises the suspicion it may be contrived. In short, to
argue an opinion means to risk its credibility. “Truth” is widely held to be simple, and obvious. Any
expert, outside or inside the bureaucracy, commencing to argue a point has already lost the
game’.[130]

Academics, of course, live by argument, and are particularly prone to misinterpret mechanisms, like
the one described here. As part of academic training, one learns to acknowledge the existence of
several possible descriptions, explanations, or interpretations of a given reality, and to weigh the
case for each one of them, with the hope of being able to settle for one, but more often than not
ending with new questions instead of definite solutions. These kinds of differences between aca-
demic and political debate[131] tend to create unnecessary hard feelings because each side experi-
ences the other as not understanding the “rules”.

104
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 105

Incremental policy 54
Although policy is often formulated as if rational planning were possible (see also 3.2.1.5), policy
development actually follows an “incremental model”:
‘One proceeds gradually, builds upon accepted conceptions and established policy. Conflict is avoid-
ed, and problems are played down. Knowing that they often disappear by themselves, or change
through particular circumstances, or move down the list of priorities, they are only confronted
when they cannot be neglected anymore. The golden rule to follow is: seek accommodation, be
flexible, stay in the game, and safeguard one’s alternatives....
Incremental policy is what Lindblom termed “the science of muddling through”.[132] .... Good poli-
cy is policy that is accepted by all parties involved. The differentiation between means and ends is
not very important because consensus about certain means is sufficient, even if different parties
envision different ends.... The analysis is usually quite restricted, because alternative values, means,
and side-effects are kept out of the discussion to uphold consensus, as opposed to rational policy
development that strives for exhaustiveness and takes account of all relevant factors....
This is an important reason for the gulf between scientists and policy-makers.... Scientists usually
prefer rational policy and have no respect for incremental procedures that often appear strange
and ad hoc to them. Policy makers, on the other hand, often cannot implement advice based on a
rational planning model, precisely because of their incremental way of muddling through’.[133]
[translation, RH]

It has to be said that opportunities for such reflection presuppose a policy culture in
which science is accorded an important place as a knowledge producer by the political
and administrative establishment. It assumes a willingness to temporarily suspend
one’s personal and institutional convictions, and the ability to discuss them without
defending them. The same applies to the academics involved. They must be willing to
see their theories for what they are: potentially productive fictions that may or may
not enlighten a certain situation. Box 55 contains another quote from the unpublished
paper of August Gächter, admittedly a caricature, but true nevertheless.

Research fictions and policy fictions 55

‘...[B]ureaucracies tend to insulate themselves. The real world is too worrisome and too complicated
to be taken into account. Officials, being only human, prefer the neat fictions of party orthodoxies
– ideologies would be too grand a word – and of internal memos. Consequently, state action is
based on fiction rather than fact, and is very often directed at making the real world conform to
the fictions. In this bureaucrats and experts are not very different. The latter also hold tight to their
fictions, either as learnt from text books on econometrics or the latest sociological bestseller, or as
spun from the yarn of their personal neuroses.’

‘Researchers ... need to adhere to academic conventions which often resemble a church’s articles of
faith. They can be quite removed from empirical reality. In this sense researchers tend to produce
fiction. This fiction can be quite at odds with the bureaucracy’s. When they clash the issue is never
that it is fiction but that the two sets deviate’.[134]

When, at a certain moment in time, self-reflexivity has entered a linkage relationship,

institutional memory does not last longer than the individuals involved. Thus, even in
such settings, opportunities have to be worked at; they never become the rule.

105
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 106

106
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 107

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This report had several objectives. The main ones were:

• to further the discussion about the various ways social science research and policy
interact by providing a common vocabulary across contexts; and
• to identify effective means or arrangements to facilitate linkage between research
and social policy.

Subsidiary objectives were to:

• describe differences and similarities between European countries in the research-poli-
cy interaction environment;
• identify differences and similarities between these countries in their knowledge
needs;
• identify (variation in) attitudes towards international comparison.

In the previous chapters we have developed a conceptual framework of the research

policy relationship (chapter two), we have drawn as many relevant context factors as
possible out of our survey material (chapter three), we have described the knowledge
needs expressed, and the attitudes towards international comparison (chapter four),
and we have identified linkage arrangements that tend to work better than other
arrangements (chapter five).

The knowledge needs and the attitudes towards comparison do not need much fur-
ther treatment; primary conclusions were obvious and dealt with in chapter four itself:
• The needs expressed by our interview partners were easily matched with the
Metropolis list of core themes, thereby corroborating this list;
• The comparison attitudes underlined the need for data harmonisation and periodic
surveys using a common core of measurement instruments.

6.1 The conceptual framework revisited

6.1.1 THE FRAMEWORK FLESHED OUT

All that has been presented in chapters three and five can now be added to the con-
ceptual framework.

As already indicated in the relevant chapters, the conceptual framework is an instru-

ment to be developed. It needs to be applied to reveal its limitations, to distill addi-
tional core factors from what is now lumped together under the context heading, and
to improve our understanding of the interdependencies among the core factors.

Despite these limitations, the conceptual framework can be said to fulfil the objective
of providing a common vocabulary across contexts to further the discussion about the
various ways social science research and policy interact.

107
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 108

Figure 4

Context
• historical particularities
• political culture & institutional structure of the policy sector
• academic culture & institutional structure of the research system in a particular policy sector
• the prevailing culture of public debate
• the policy philosophy of the sector concerned
• mobility of professionals between sectors and institutional settings
• place accorded to social science research as a knowledge producer by the political and
administrative establishment
• political/administrative belief in rational planning
• status of different social science disciplines

Actors
THE RESEARCHER(S) INTEREST GROUPS
• role and the rules it is bounded by • role and the rules they are bounded by
• interests characteristic of the role • interests characteristic of the role
• individual personalities • individual personalities
• professional standing OTHER INTERMEDIARIES
• standing of employing institution • role and the rules they are bounded by
THE POLITICIAN(S) • interests characteristic of the
• role and the rules it is bounded by role
• interests characteristic of the role • (educational) background and personality of
• individual personalities individuals
THE CIVIL SERVANT(S) THE MEDIA
• role and the rules it is bounded by • role and the rules they are bounded by
• interests characteristic of the role • interests characteristic of the role
• individual personalities • (educational) background and personality of
individuals

Issue-arena Instruments to link research and policy

• phase in the policy cycle WHEN NEW RESEARCH IS AT STAKE
• amenability of the issue to research and • institutional arrangements that ensure the
evaluation connection between data-gathering applied
• degree of political polarisation research and theory-driven programmes
• intensity of lobbying from interested • multi-disciplinary teamwork
parties • shared problem definition
• the extent to which research runs • contractual arrangements that allow for mid-
counter to the politics of the arena term changes
• commitment to collaborate extending beyond
one particular project, allowing for shared
Research learning
• purpose of the research WHEN THE ACCESSIBILITY OF EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IS AT
• kind of research STAKE
• good versus bad methodological quality • state of the art summaries
• quantitative versus qualitative • short non-academic summaries of research
• meta-analyses/reviews versus single findings
studies • targeted meetings
• research versus advice WHEN THE RESEARCHER IS A POLICY ADVISOR
• clear task description
• clear distinction between scientific opinions
The use and political-normative opinions
• instrumental use
• conceptual use
• transformation use

108
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 109

6.1.2 THE FRAMEWORK ANALYSED

In chapters three and five, more was presented than simply factors and linkage
“instruments”. We followed up on the shift in perspective from knowledge utilisation
to relationship (see 2.3). From the latter perspective, we presented three issue-arenas
that are interesting as bench-marking fields (see 2.4). In chapter five we added man-
agement as a fourth candidate. Throughout chapter five we have used examples and
references to these other fields. We have already stated that this is not the place for a
proper bench-marking exercise (see 2.4.4), but, given the readily available examples
from these fields for our argument, we feel confident that such an exercise would be a
real possibility for the advancement of the social science perspective regarding the
linkage between research and policy. We conclude that:
• The focus on relationship has indeed opened up new vistas;
• Bench-marking related fields that have traditionally been analysed in relational terms
is a way forward;
• Our analysis suggests several, more specific themes that would be particularly inter-
esting to pursue:
– Participatory project planning and monitoring techniques
– The role of facilitator, or mediator
– The potential utility of metaphor as an analytical instrument for understanding
research policy linkage

The first two seem directly relevant for the development of good linkage arrange-
ments, while the last theme warrants some additional comment. Looking at “relation-
ship” through the lens of management literature has signalled metaphor as a poten-
tially useful instrument. Again, such an analysis would go beyond the confines of the
present study, but we suggest that “thinking through” the consequences of various
metaphorical images of the relationship between research and policy may be a produc-
tive way to translate the vocabulary of the framework into an analysis of the interac-
tion. Obviously, the first task to be accomplished would be to identify the most impor-
tant metaphors that are used for relationships like those between research and policy.
Recalling the organisational metaphors identified by Morgan (see Box 6), some seem
applicable, others less so. One does not need much imagination to see that the ones
that can be applied (for example the organism, brain-as-information-processor, and
political system metaphors) evidently result in very different “stories” (using the same
vocabulary).

One could even say that our suggestion to shift perspective from utilisation to rela-
tionship is also a change of metaphorical images of the linkage situation as a whole.
Going beyond the perspective advocated in this study would imply a search for yet
other “master perspectives” or metaphorical lenses. Our claim would be that having
more images creates better opportunities for understanding. Each image or perspective
highlights certain aspects and hides others. We offer the Market metaphor as our sug-
gestion for an alternative perspective on the linkage situation. Not so much in its
restricted sense of the user as buyer and the researcher as seller, but in a broader sense
that defines the arena as a “market of information”.

109
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 110

6.2 Linking good arrangements to kinds of research involvement

The second major objective – to identify effective means or arrangements to facilitate

linkage between research and social policy – needs an additional analytical step to
enable us to frame our conclusions as recommendations. The tendencies of certain
arrangements to provide better linkage than others are not mutually exclusive. The
framework in its full-fledged form (see figure 4) uses the triad of new research/acces-
sibility of existing research/policy advice as an ordering principle. It is telling that near-
ly all tendencies cluster within the category “new research”.

There are, however, different “styles” of research, and it is obvious that particular
arrangements are best applied to particular styles.

6.2.1 STYLES OF RESEARCH[135]

It is conventional to draw a distinction between policy research, policy relevant
research and academic research.

• Policy research refers to studies carried out as part of the policy process. The moti-
vation is to illuminate one aspect of that process in the interests of effective policy
development. It may include feasibility studies, background reports and evaluation
research. In fact, the last kind – that is research which explores the success or other-
wise of a policy meeting its declared objective(s) – is the most common. The critical
determining condition of policy research is that it is premised upon the definitions,
perceptions, and priorities of policy makers. A significant proportion of this research
is carried out “in-house”; that is, by research and development, or statistical, divi-
sions of government agencies at the local, national or regional levels.[136] The
results are typically published (if at all) in the form of reports (“grey literature”),
tend to be presented without much theoretical underpinning[137], and are some-
times evidently politically motivated.

• Policy relevant research, by contrast, may be focused equally on policy issues but
does not share the assumptions of the policy maker. It is thus more wide-ranging,
perhaps more critical, and often longer-term. Much of the work carried out in the
migration and ethnic studies literature falls into this category. It is driven by a combi-
nation of academic logic coupled with one which is essentially moral, or ethical. The
choice of topic, in particular, is never derived entirely from the academic literature
alone. For example, the distinguished US sociologist William Julius Wilson, while
undoubtedly committed to the highest standards of scholarship, is also highly con-
cerned about the consequences of urban change for America’s minorities.

• Academic research differs from these two not by the standards it seeks to attain but
by the origins of the problem it explores. When this is derived exclusively from the
scientific literature itself, without any recourse to policy or political debate, then it
may be said to fall into this category. The long-standing debate on the origins of
ethnicity is perhaps one example (Smith, Gellner et al). Typically found in academic
journals, such debates sometimes have a flavour of careerism about them; their pro-
ponents appear locked in a struggle for prestige and academic advancement[138].

110
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 111

Three questions arise in relation to this classification. Is it accurate? Is it exhaustive,

and what relevance may it have for the good arrangements identified through the sur-
vey?

To dismiss the first question quickly; it is more of a caricature than a typology. The
boundaries are frequently crossed, just as the distinction between policy-maker and
researcher is often rather muddy in practice, as people with PhDs and a research
record end up in ministries or in local government.

We are more concerned with whether it is exhaustive. The majority of researchers

interested in migration and ethnic studies end up pursuing interests in the policy rele-
vant category. Some of them, however, are interested in moving further in the direc-
tion of action, while at the same time seeking to avoid becoming too enmeshed in the
short-term and sometimes “fickle” priorities of officials. We all know, for example,
that research is sometimes exploited as a strategy for evading politically unpopular
decisions. Similarly, there are clearly those in city administrations, in local government,
in state administrations, national/federal governments and in regional administrations
who understand the need to step outside the building, not only to commission policy
evaluation but also to reflect with others on how to stop “second generation” youth
from becoming disaffected, how to prevent urban ghettos, how to promote
entrepreneurship, how to control criminality or extremism, or whatever the problem at
hand may be.

• One might call this a new category of policy oriented research which is defined as
studies based on a shared perception of the issues, where relevance and topicality
are critical, and where the object is to improve the quality and effectiveness of pub-
lic policy. This differs from policy research in being more independent and thus
potentially more critical; it differs from policy-relevant research in being constrained
by policy priorities and perceptions.

6.2.2 STYLES AND ARRANGEMENTS

We propose that particular arrangements are best applied to specific styles. This does
not, however, mean that the arrangement-style connections, suggested below, are
exhaustive; they are the most obvious, and, in terms of recommendations that follow
from our study, the first to be tried out.

6.2.2.1 Policy research

The category of policy research seems most apt to be the arena for periodic staff
exchanges, or other similar facilities. The point of exchange is two-pronged:
• An instrument to increase overlapping experience;
• An instrument to conduct the research in a supportive and informed setting.

In view of what we say below about policy relevant research, we explicitly include the
writing of reviews of policy research as a potentially interesting objective of staff
exchange. Thinking about objectives for researchers and civil servants, the following
differentiation seems appropriate:

111
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 112

• For policy staff, time in an academic setting to review existing (often grey) policy
research material;
• For researchers, conducting policy research on secondment in a policy setting.

An issue at stake in the policy research category is the expertise and data sources
gathered within commercial research agencies. These agencies, being fully dependent
on contract research, operate on a more competitive footing than their academic
equivalents. In addition to the risks associated with the primacy of profit maximalisa-
tion (see appendix E), this means that accumulated data and expertise tends to be
kept in-house. Agencies strive towards dominating particular niches in the market and
this intellectual capital is their most important resource. (Raw) data of singular policy
research studies are often not particularly relevant for the scientific community. How-
ever, larger, specialised agencies often possess raw data of many related studies, that
together, constitute an interesting source for all kinds of further research and meta-
analyses. We believe that, from the viewpoint of furthering social scientific insight, the
in accessibility of these sources is regretted. This is not the place to explore possible
ways to overcome this problem, but given the continuous increase in the use of con-
tract research by commercial agencies, we strongly recommend that action should be
taken on this issue.

6.2.2.2 Policy relevant research

As far as access to existing research is concerned, the category of policy relevant
research is most promising in terms of delivering useful input for policy debate and
development (but see above). However, our study did not produce any revolutionary
ideas for accessing existing research information, but reconfirmed the utility of known
instruments:
• State of the art research summaries/reviews: the ones prepared for the 1997
Copenhagen conference of Metropolis are a good example of these (see
http://international.metropolis.net/research-policy/index_e.html). Their access fig-
ures (as well as the locations from where they are being accessed[5]) on the Web-
sites that host these reviews, make the demand for such reviews abundantly clear;
• Short non-academic summaries of research: 3-4 page long précis of important stud-
ies that set out the main findings in non-technical language. The research summaries
of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the UK’s largest independent social research
and development charity, are a good example (see http://www.jrf.org.uk/);
• Targetted meetings: a series of seminars, organised monthly on specific topics. A
concrete example is “Le petit déjeune de la MIRE” (Mission interministérielle de
recherche et experimention; Ministry of Employment and Solidarity, France). From
20 to 30 minutes, a researcher presents his work, followed by a general discussion
with 20-30 invited participants. In total, every seminar lasts 1,5 hours. Participants
are personally invited and are drawn from civil servants and researchers who are
directly involved with the subject matter. All present receive a copy of the research
report. In order to assure the informal character and non-hierarchical nature of the
seminar, the organisers tend to avoid inviting very senior individuals (e.g. ministers,
secretaries of state or directors of departments).

Obviously, state of the art research summaries/reviews of academic and policy-orient-

112
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 113

ed research also make a lot of sense.

• Reviews of academic research may feed new ideas and perspectives into both the
policy relevant and policy-oriented research arenas; and
• Reviews of policy-oriented research may feed into either the policy relevant and
even academic terrains, but also into the policy research arena.

We suggest that both kinds of review require academic backgrounds because they
assume familiarity with current theories. Reviewing policy-oriented research for the
benefit of policy research assumes overlapping experience (for reviews of policy
research, see above).

Without doubt, the generative potential for new ideas and new perspectives from
such reviews (of all styles of research) is equally relevant for improving the utility of
research findings, for policy development and debate, and for academic debate and
theory formation. It is also apparent that reviews are more effective if they are target-
ted to a particular audience. That means that reviewing policy relevant research to
inform policy debate presupposes a review which is distinct from reviewing the same
corpus to inform academic debate. The connection we propose between policy rele-
vant research and reviews is premised on the policy community as the main benefici-
ary of these reviews.

6.2.2.3 Policy-oriented research

It is evident that the category of policy-oriented research is the prototypical arena for
linking research and policy in terms of new research. This is the kind of research that is
near enough to (current) policy concerns to be of direct interest to civil servants and
politicians, while still being grounded in (academic) theory. It is the kind of research
that offers good linkage potential if:
• Problem definitions and project monitoring are shared by the research and the policy
interests;
• And project teams are open to all disciplines necessary for the study of the problem
as defined;
• Within the context of a long-term commitment;
• That is flexible enough to allow mid-term adjustments.

6.2.3 INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN

The question now arises about what kind of institution(s) or organisation(s) could
deliver these functions. A number of principles can be set out; all follow from the need
to safeguard:
• The independence of the institution from any one particular interest;
• The necessary time to develop the institution.

First, if the funding is too piecemeal and short-term, it will not succeed. There has to
be a commitment for ‘core’ funding over a period of at least 5 years. On that basis, it
is relatively straightforward to raise project money from research councils, national or
local government, or from many other national and regional sources. The second prin-
ciple is that the institution should have a core staff of limited number, who have
research support functions only. This ensures the continuity necessary to develop

113
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 114

proper infrastructural provisons and an institutional memory. The third principle is that
those involved as research staff should be on secondment rather than recruited in the
normal way. Otherwise, there is an inevitable tendency to build a bureaucratic career
structure that would be quite inappropriate for an experimental initiative. The second-
ment should be for a longer duration than one particular project, however! Two to
three years seems the kind of period that avoids the risks associated with permanent
staff, while guaranteeing sufficient time for longer term collaboration. A fourth princi-
ple is that any initiative should not be too closely entwined within the tentacles of
any one larger body, either a public (government, university) or private organisation.
This is because association with any other institution which is too close creates the risk
of self-interested interference. Even undeserved interpretations of interference by any
of the other parties would already diminish the potential effectiveness of the institu-
tion as a means of linkage.

We do not know of existing institutions that embody all of these principles. The mis-
sions of the Swiss and Austrian Migration Fora come close to the kind of linkage
arrangement envisioned but both are still traditional institutions in the sense that:
• They are hosted by one particular mother institution;
• They have tenured research staff; and
• The research projects they conduct are not designed in fully participatory ways.

The Swiss Migration Forum has been in existence since 1995, and is the more tradi-
tional of the two. Its history and present facilities are described in appendix L. The
Austrian Forum for Migrationstudies (ÖFM), started in 1998, has a history that shows
more policy involvement in its formative phase. Box 56 describes its development and
present operations.

Österreichisches Forum für Migrationsstudien 56

In 1997 the Austrian Ministry of the Interior commissioned the International Centre for Migration
Policy Development (ICMPD, Vienna) to conduct a feasibility study for an Austrian Forum for Migra-
tion studies[140] (along the lines of the Swiss Forum for Migration studies). The project team:
• Made an inventory of Austrian migration studies from 1980 onwards;
• Surveyed the Austrian research world for opinions about the status quo with respect to migra-
tion studies and themes to be explored in the future;
• Surveyed national and local policy circles and NGO’s about their information needs and accessibil-
ity problems, their collaboration with research, and their ideas about the mission and the organi-
sational structure of an Austrian Migration Forum.

In 1998, on the basis of the resulting proposal, the Ministry gave ICMPD a three year grant to devel-
op the Forum. The Forum presents itself in a leaflet as follows[141]:
‘Am ÖFM kommt ein kleines und qualifiziertes Team zum Einsatz. Den Kern bilden eine wis-
senschaftliche und koordinatorische Leiterin, eine Soziologin und Dokumentaristin, sowie eine
Dokumentationsassistentin. Auserdem wird das Team nach Bedarf von externen Experten unter-
stützt....

Dokumentation und Forschung bilden am ÖFM eine Einheit. Forschungsprojecte des ÖFM beinhal-
ten daher meist einen ausführlichen Literatur- und Dokumentationsteil....

114
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 115

Das Forum bemüht sich um die Erfassung und Auswertung von Materialien die über herkömmliche
Literatursammlungen nur schwer zugänglich sind....
[Das] ÖFM setz aktuelle und spezifische Schwerpunkte:
• Migration und EU-Osterweiterung;
• Integration ausländischer Arbeitnehmerinnen in den Arbeitsmarkt;
• Illegale Migration;
• Ost-, Mittel- und Südosteuropa.

Das ÖFM versucht als clearinghouse dazu beizutragen, dass sich das “know-how” von migrationsbe-
fassten Stellen nicht unnötig dupliziert, sondern sinnvoll ergänzt:
• ÖFM bringt Forscherinnen und Behördenvertreterinnen an einen Tisch und stärkt ihre Koopera-
tion im Migrationsbereich. ÖFM vermittelt geeignete Kontakte. In der umfangreichen Adress-
datenbank können in vielen Fällen auch gezielt einzelne Ansprechpartnerinnen gefunden wer-
den.
• ÖFM informiert sich über laufende und abgeschlossene Projekte, Themenschwerpunkte und Ver-
anstaltungen und gibt diese Information auf Anfrage an Sie weiter.
• ÖFM organisiert fachspezifische Veranstaltungen.

Although facilities such as a documentation centre and a clearinghouse are valuable assets for any
linkage institution, the ÖFM lacks[142] what should be the core of that kind of organisation, a
jointly formulated and monitored programme of policy-oriented research.

Figure 5 visualises all of the above discussion. The arrows represent state of the
art/review potential. The shaded areas represent the proposed research style –
arrangement links (one of these being reviews of policy relevant research for the bene-
fit of policy oriented research and policy advice). The space called linking research and
policy designates the operational area of the proposed linking organisation, with policy
oriented research as the core of its mission, and supportive roles for policy research
and particular kinds of policy advice.

115
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 116

Figure 5

Linking Research and Policy

Academic New Research

Research

Policy
Oriented Policy Commercial
Research Research Policy
Research

Reviews
Staff-exchanges
Policy
Relevant
Research Policy
Advice

The area designated linking research and policy suggests the core functions that an
ideal linkage institution should fulfil:
• Jointly programme and conduct a series of policy-oriented studies;
• Produce state of the art reviews of policy relevant research to inform both its policy-
oriented research programme and its policy advice;
• Be a clearinghouse of staff exchanges between research and policy;

Other characteristics of this institution would be:

• The principles outlined above, financial and organisational independence, a limited
number of support staff and research (and policy advice) staff on secondment or
temporary (part-time) basis are important conditions to be fulfilled;
• Important in-house (support) skills should cover participatory project planning and
monitoring techniques, and other team facilitation management tools;
• The overlap in figure 5 between the linkage area and “policy advice” indicates the
possibility of the institution assuming the secretariat for policy advice councils, com-
parable to the arrangements described in Box 31 (Advisory councils in the Nether-
lands);
• Obviously, documentation and data warehousing facilities fit the profile of such an
institution;
• The functions envisioned presuppose that the institution is at the heart of a network
of research and policy actors. It has to offer added value in terms of playing a coor-

116
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 117

dinating linkage and brokerage role. This, again, presumes that the research and
policy actors share a common interest concerning content. That is to say that the
institution should focus on a certain issue-arena (as opposed to arrangements like
The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy, described in Box 31).
[143]

6.3 Linkage and Relationship

As stated above, we did not find this kind of arrangement in practice. However, we
did find several arrangements that can be considered partial implementations of the
ideas presented, such as the Migration Fora described in Box 56 and Appendix L, and
the advisory councils described in Box 31. Also, the proposals for “light infrastructure
social science laboratories” (Martinotti, see Box 48) and for a European Migration
Observatory[144] (see also Boxes 35 and 38) contain features comparable to what we
propose here.

However, none of these stress the need for in-house (support) skills that include par-
ticipatory project planning and monitoring techniques, and other team facilitation
management tools. This ties in directly with our proposal to think primarily about the
linkage issue in terms of creating a relationship of mutual trust and appreciation
between research and policy actors. All of the existing institutional arrangements are
characterised by the focus on knowledge and information. Obviously, information is
what everyone is ultimately after, but we contend that when linkage is the primary
aim of an institution, one should imbibe the lessons gleaned by those investigating
linkage issues in other “fields” (the ones described as interesting sectors for bench-
marking exercises):
• Bridging gulfs, such as between research and policy, is often too difficult for the par-
ties involved to bring about themselves, without outside help;
• Facilitation of the bridging process is best organised through the involvement of a
consultant, without any personal or institutional interests attached to the issue at
hand, who is trained in mediation techniques, possibly with the use of particular
planning and monitoring tools.

Intriguingly, the policy community is normally very eager to use the private (profit)
sector as a bench-mark. It is an interesting question why the use of the described
kinds of (process) management tools, indeed quite common in the business world,
have not caught their attention.

117
Researchpaper 99/07 29/2/00 16:56 Page 118

118
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 119

7. Select annotated bibliography: A guide to further reading

1. Research policy linkage

1.1 KNOWLEDGE UTLIZATION CLASSICS

What is, and what is not to count as a classic is a matter of contention. The list below
could be longer, and/or it could list other works; the points we want to make are:
a) anyone interested in the subject should get acquianted with the work of Caplan,
Weiss and Bulmer;
b)Jasanoff is less well-known, because her topic is more specific to the US situation,
but it is certainly a classic as far as the scientist-as-advisor role is concerned;
c) anyone looking for well-edited anthologies may go for Bulmer but the more recent
Wagner c.s. has interesting articles too; for example, the Weiss piece, linking func-
tions of research to circumstances under which it can influence policy, can be called
a classic in itself.

Bulmer. M., 1986, Social science and social policy. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bulmer, M. (ed.), 1987, Social science research and government. Cambridge university
press.
Caplan, N., Morrsion, A. & Stambough, R. (1975) The use of social science knowl-
edge in policy decisions at the national level. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Caplan, N. (1979) The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American
Behavioural Scientist, 459-470.
Jasanoff, S., 1990, The fifth branch: science adviser as policymakers, Cambridge: Har-
vard U.P.
Wagner, P., Weiss, C.H., Wittrock, B., Wollman, H. (eds.), 1991, Social sciences and
modern states. Cambridge University Press.
Weiss, C., 1977, Using social research in public policy making, Mass: Lexington
Heath.
Weiss, C., Bucuvalas, M., 1980, Social science research and decision making, NY
(etc.): Columbia UP, 1980.
Weiss, C. , 1991, Policy research: data, ideas or arguments? In: Wagner, P. et.al.

1.2 THE NETHERLANDS

The Netherlands are a country with a long tradition of research policy linkage; the
linkage has been studied and commented upon quite extensively, but, unfortunately,
all of it is internationally inaccessible because it is written in Dutch. And even in the
Netherlands, part of it is difficult to locate, because of its “grey” status. The point of
this overview is to show that
a) when a particular country is studied more intensively, one can find quite some inter-
esting material in writing;
b)the KU field could profit from the rich empirical sources available in the Netherlands.

1.2.1 Meerjarenplan Sociaal Onderzoek en Beleid

In 1979, the ministry of Education initiated a five year research programme Social

119
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 120

research and policy, to empirically study issues of

• interaction and cooperation between researchers and civil servants;
• the programming of social policy research.

A literature review and the development of contract research guidelines were also part
of the project. The immediate output is listed below; afterwards, two of the
researchers involved wrote their dissertations, on the basis of the material collected.

Becker, H.A. (red.), 1986, Sociaal-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en Beleid; resultaat

van een studiedag ter afsluiting van het ‘Meerjarenplan SociaalOnderzoek en
Beleid’, Utrecht: Jan van Arkel.
Hoesel, P.H.M van, A. van Gageldonk, N. Schoemaker, 1982, Programmering van
Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk beleidsonderzoek, Leiden: Lisbon.
Hoesel, P.H.M. van & A.F. Wiersema, 1984, Onderzoek programmeren, hoe doe je
dat? Leiden: Lisbon.
Hoesel, P.H.M. van, 1984, Programmering van sociaal wetenschappelijk beleidsonder-
zoek, Leiden: Lisbon.
Hutjes, J.M. & M.C.J. Cuisinier, 1982, Sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek in het
overheidsbeleid; een analyse van de empirische literatuur, Nijmegen: I.T.S.: Instituut
voor Toegepaste Sociologie.
Oijen, P.M.M. van, B.W. Frijling, I.Th.M. Snellen & J.M. van Westerlaak, 1982, Samen-
werking tussen onderzoek en beleid, Nijmegen: ITS.
Oijen, P.M.M. van, I.Th.M. Snellen & J.M. van Westerlaak, 1984, Ambtenaren en
onderzoekers; een vergelijkende studie naar de samenwerking tussen onderzoek en
beleid bij 45 onderzoeksprojecten in opdracht van 10 departementen, Leiden: Lis-
bon.
O & W, 1985, Het meerjarenplan voor Sociaal Onderzoek en Beleid; een overzicht,
Zoetermeer: Graafland.

1.2.2 Other relevant literature

The overview presented here is not exhaustive, but shows that the linkage issue has
received a fair amount of attention.

Bos, B., 1993, Overheid en onderzoeksinstituten tussen doel en markt; omvang,

organisatie en sturing van het beleidsonderzoek bij de rijksoverheid, Zoetermeer:
CIP.
An evaluation of magnitude, organisation and programming of contract research by
all Dutch ministries.
Ester, P., J. Geurts & M. Vermeulen (eds.), 1997, De makers van de toekomst; over nut
en noodzaak van toekomstverkenningen voor beleidsonderzoek, Tilburg: U.P.
Necessity, usefulness, methods and constraints of scenario-analysis for policy
research.
Gorter, K.A., 1991, De rol van lopend onderzoek bij onderzoeksprogrammering; feiten
en meningen over themakeuze in onderzoeksprogramma’s, Den Haag: Nimawo.
Research registration and research programming.
Homminga, A., T. Van de Pennen & J. Svensson, 1994, Van feit naar beleid; een theo-
retisch en empirisch onderzoek naar de relatie tussen onderzoek en (welzijns-)

120
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 121

beleid; verslag deel 1 van de stage bij het SCP.

A sectoral study: the relationship between research and welfare policy.
Hoesel, P.H.M. van, 1987, De identificatie van beleidsonderzoek. In M. Van der Vall
(red.) Sociaal Beleidsonderzoek. Den Haag: VUGA.
Characteristics of policy research.
Lucassen, L. & A.J.F. Köbben, 1992, Het partiële gelijk; controverses voor het onder-
wijs in de eigen taal en cultuur en de rol daarbij van beleid en wetenschap (1951-
1991), Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
A detailed case study, of the kind that Carol Weiss is looking for; the relationship
between Dutch research on teaching non-Dutch children their mother tongue and
Dutch policy in this field.
Penninx, R., 1988, Wie betaalt, bepaalt? De ontwikkeling en programmering van
onderzoek naar migranten, etnische minderheden en woonwagenbewoners, 1955-
1985, met speciale aandacht voor de rol, van de overheid. Amsterdamse sociaal-
geografische studies, 13.
Rinus Penninx has analysed the relationship between research and policy in the sec-
tor of migration and integration issues several times during the last decade. The
three publications listed here are the gist of his work on this topic.
Penninx, R. 1992. Wie betaalt en wie bepaalt? Onderzoeksbeleid van de overheid
m.b.t. minderheden en de invloed van onderzoek op beleid. The hague: Home
Ministry.
Penninx, R. 1998. Over machtsverhoudingen tussen politiek, beleid en onderzoek; de
casus van minderhedenstudies en -beleid. Sociale Interventie, 7(4), p.175-181.
Puffelen, F. van, S. Hietbrink, M. Schuit, D.D. van der Stelt-Scheele, 1989, Opdracht-
gevers onderzocht; opdrachtonderzoek bij de overheid: feiten, opinies en trends,
Amsterdam: SEO.
An opinion survey among civil servants commissioning research: facts, opinions and
trends.
Research voor beleid b.v., 1996, De wisselwerking tussen beleid en onderzoek; een
overzicht vanuit de praktijk van 13 departementen, Leiden: Lisbon.
An evaluation of organisation, programming and perceived usefulness of contract
research by all Dutch ministries.
Snel, E., 1996, De vertaling van wetenschap; Nederlandse sociologie in praktijk,
Utrecht: SWP.
An analysis of the relationship between Dutch sociology and Dutch social policy in
the 50s and 60s; it is a dissertation and includes both empirical work and conceptual
analysis of the transformations of scientific knowledge in the interaction between
research and policy.
Snel, E. 1996. Voorbij ‘engineering’ en ‘enlightment’. Nieuwe visies op het theorie-
praktijk probleem in de sociologie. Beleid&Maatschappij, 3, p. 109-120.

1.3 RELEVANT LITERATURE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES: GENERAL PERSPECTIVE

The Netherlands stand out in terms of the quantity of available material, especially
empirical material. However, also other European countries produce interesting materi-
al. The underneath is meant to underline that only consulting the (very much Anglo-
Saxon) classics, may not be the right way forward. Both Hartman and Nowotny and
Lambiri-Dimaki contain input from various European countries. The other two are

121
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 122

more nationally oriented.

Hartman, F. (Hg.), 1993, Standort und Perspektiven der außeruniveritären Sozial-

forschung, Wien: Remaprint.
INPL, Congrés National de la valorisation universitaire et assemblee generale du reseau
curie 98, 1998, Actes, Nancy: INPL.
Lampinen, O., 1992, The utilization of social science research in public policy. Suomen
Akatemian Julkaisuja 4, Helsinki: Vapk-Kustannus
Nowotny, H. & J. Lambiri-Dimaki (eds.), 1985, The difficult dialogue between produc-
ers and users of social science research, Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare
Training and Research.

1.4 RELEVANT LITERATURE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES: SECTORAL PERSPECTIVE

Apart from general work on the relationship between research and policy, there are
sectoral studies. As these, in principle, take more of the relationship context into
account, they are worth mentioning separately. Below are three studies on education
and one on urban policy. It is interesting to note that many converge upon action
research-type strategies as the most effective model of linkage.

OECD, 1995, Knowledge Bases for Education Policies, Paris: OECD.

Reimers, F., Mcginn, N., 1997, Informed dialogue: using research to shape education
policy around the world. Glenview: Praeger.
Tydén, T. (ed.), 1995, When school meet science, Stockholm: Stockhom Institute of
Education Press.
Weisbrod, B.A., Worthy, J.C., 1997, The urban crises: linking research to action. Illi-
nois: Northwestern University Press.

1.5 MEDIA
Fenton, N., A. Bryman & D. Deacon, 1998, Mediating social science, London: Sage.
The media are an increasinly important factor in public debate; if you look for a
starting point to explore their role in the triangle research/public opinion/policy, this
is the one to go for.

1.6 NEW MODE OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott & M. Trow, 1994,
The new production of knowledge; the dynamics of science and research in cntem-
porary societies, London: Sage.
This book and its claim of the emergence of a new mode of knowledge production
very quickly took hold of debates around research-policy linkage, interdisciplinarity,
technology and innovation studies etc. Stimulating read, but as yet unproven
hypothesis, especially for the social sciences.

2. Academic culture
Whatever the limitations of the “two communities” approach to the linkage issue may be,
understanding the particular institutional and ideological constraints of the research arena
and the policy domain, is essential to understanding the relationship between the two.
Baggen, P., A. Tellings & W. van Haaften (eds.), 1998, The university and the knowl-

122
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 123

edge society, London: Concorde.

Proceedings of a conference on the role that universities can, or should play in an
increasingly knowledge intensive society
Becher, T., 1989, Academic tribes and territories; intellectual enquiry and the cultures
of disciplines, London: O.U.P.
A classic study on the disciplinary mechanisms determining academic life; Cunning-
ham, R., 1999 (see Interdisciplinarity) contains an article of another authority on this
topic: John Ziman.
Defoort, C. & N. Standaert, 1997, Areastudies stellen wetenschappen ter discussie,
Leuven: Leuvense perspectieven, 4.
The concept of area studies as an “early” critique of disciplinarity.
Fruytier, B. & V. Timmerhuis, 1995, Mensen in onderzoek; het mobiliseren van human
resources in wetenschapsorganisaties, Assen: Van Gorcum.
HRM in scientific organizations.
Galtung, J.,1981, Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic,
teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches. Social Science Information (Sage), 20 (6),
p. 817-856.
Still an unsurpassed essay on intellectual styles.
Haan, J. de, 1994, Research groups in Dutch sociology, Amsterdam: Thesis.
An empirical study on the functioning of “schools” of thought within one discipline;
although a very local study, the analysis has universal applicability.
Hemels, J., F. van der Kolff, Y. De Lusent, 1999, Kennis in afleveringen; een kleine
geschiedenis van het wetenschappelijk tijdschrift, Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut
voor Wetenschappelijke Informatiediensten.
The history of the scientific journal.
OECD, 1995, Research training; present & future, Paris: OECD.
Zaunberger, K., Kerner, W., 1999, Strategies and research policies on research training
in Europe. Luxembourg: EC (IHP).

3. Policy culture
As stated under 2, whatever the limits of the two communities approach to the link-
age issue may be, understanding the particular institutional and ideological constraints
of the research arena and the policy domain is essential for understanding the relation-
ship between the two. A difference between the research and the policy domains is
that on the last so much more has been written. The studies listed below are just a
first reading suggestion for those wanting to get a feel for the kinds of material avail-
able. They are examples of particular perspectives on the policy domain, and steer
clear of technical analyses.

Kingdon, J., W., 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Don Mills, Ot.:
Harper Collins.
Wilson, J., Q., 1989, Bureaucracy: what government agencies do and why they do it.
Basic Books.
Stone, D., 1997, Policy paradox, the art op political decision making, New York: Nor-
ton.

123
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 124

4. European comparisons: immigration, integration, urban policy and practice

For those interested in comparisons of different countries in terms of policy arena’s rel-
evant to migrants and cities, quite an extensive bibliography is available by now.

Berg, L. van den, Braun, E, Meer, van der, J.,1997, National urban policy in the Euro-
pean union. European institute for comparative urban research, EUR.
Short descritions of national urban policy of all 15 EU states.
Bommes, M. & J. Halfmann, 1998, Migration in nationalen Wohlfahrtsstaaten, theo-
retische und vergleichende Untersuchungen. Osnabrück: Rasch.
The Netherlands, Germany, the US, Australia, Switzerland, France, Sweden.
Breebaart, M., S. Musterd & W. Ostendorf, 1997, Mutli-Ethnic Metropolis: Patterns
and Policies, Amsterdam: AME.
Patterns and policies concerning ethnic segregation in The Netherlands, Belgium,
Germany, the UK, Sweden, France and Canada.
Community Relations, 1997, Measurement and indicators of integration, Strassburg:
Council of Europe.
When comparing, the issue of indicators is crucial; indicators for integration are a
very much unsolved debate.
Council of Europe, Community relations, 1999, Political and social participation of
immigrants through consultative bodies, Strasbourg: Cedex.
The Netherlands, France, Norway, Portugal, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, Germany,
Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark.
European Commission, 1994, Pre-feasibility study on the possible establishment of a
European migration observatory. Luxembourg: E.C.
European Commission, 1996/1998, Feasibility study for a European migration obser-
vatory; Final report, Luxembourg: E.C.
These two reports give an excellent overview of who does what in the field of
migration studies in Europe; especially strong on stocks and flow data-collection
(also the international organizations involved); the research centre info is somewhat
outdated.
International centre of comparative urban policy studies, 1998, Racism, xenophobia
and minority policies in the European city (draft), Rotterdam.
Antwerp, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Dublin, Helsinki,
Lille, Lisbon, Madrid, Milan, Rotterdam, Vienna.
Mitteilungen der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Auslän-
der,1996, Ausländerbeauftragte anderer Länder: Darstellung von Instituionen in EU-
Staaten, Norwegen, der Schweiz, Tschechien sowie den USA und Kanada mit ähn-
lichen Aufgaben wie die der “Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für die Belange der
Ausländer” in Deutschland, Bonn.
OECD, 1998, Immigrations, integration and cities; exploring the links, Paris: OECD.
Australia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK, the US.
Soysal, Y.N.,1994, Limits of citizenship; migrants and postnational membership in
Europe. University of Chicago Press.
A recent addition to the tradition of citizenship literature. A good introduction to the
field.
Vermeulen, H., 1997, Immigrant Policy for a Multicultural Society; a comparative
study of integration, language and religious policy in five western European coun-

124
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 125

tries, Brussels: MPG.

Belgium, Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands.

5. European comparisons: research and policy context

Comparisons between countries not focussed on migrants and/or cities but illuminat-
ing broader contextual differences.

Clark, B.R., 1995, Places of Inquiry. Research and advanced education in modern uni-
versities. Berkeley: UCP.
The US, the UK, Germany, France, Japan.
COS (Commissie van Overleg Sectorraden), 1999, Internationalisering Sectorraden:
Mogelijkheden vanv erkenningen en potentiële internationale partners, Rijswijk: NV
Sdu.
An overview of a) ‘partner organizations’ within the EU for the Dutch government
advisory bodies for research, and b) examples of foresight exercises in the UK, Aus-
tralia, the US, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and France.
Felderer, B. & D.F.J. Campbell, 1994, Forschungsfinanzierung in Europa; Trends-Mod-
elle Empfehlungen für Österreich, Wien: Manz.
Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, Austria.
OECD Group on the Science System, 1998, University research in transition, Paris:
OECD.
OECD countries.
OECD, 1995, Educational Research and Development; Austria, Germany, Switzerland,
Paris: OECD.
Suzenet, G., 1997, R & D Policies: Case study: water; present status in Greece, Italy,
Portugal and Spain, EUR 17726 EN, Luxembourg: EC.
Good factual descriptions of the general R&D system in the countries surveyed
Waarden, F. van.1996. Instituties en internationale mobiliteit; Een vergelijking van
wetenschappelijke banenmarkten en carrierepatronen in Duitsland, Oostenrijk,
Engeland, de USA, Belgie en Nederland. AWSB working papers 96/03.
Wagner, P., 1999, The twentieth century - the century of the social sciences? In:
UNESCO, WSSR, p.16-41.
An overview of the role accorded to the social sciences.

6. Networks
Network studies are a relatively recent field (although early studies exist, e.g. Warren);
the ripe and green selection below gives an indication of the kind of material available
when one wanted to look at networking as a field for bench-marking.

Bandemer, S. von, P. Kalff, M.A. Suàrez, J.F. Tellechea & J.P. Watson, 1996, Typology
of partnerships in the European research and innovation system, EUR 16964 EN,
Luxembourg: E.C.
Bazzane, G. & C. Ayache, 1998, Study on the impact of HCM networks in the field of
communication technologies, EUR 18624 EN, Luxembourg: EC.
COST, 1997, COST Evaluation, Main report.
European Commission, 1996/1998, Feasibility study for a European migration obser-
vatory; Final report, Luxembourg: E.C.

125
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 126

Glasbergen, P. (Ed.), 1995, Managing environmental disputes: network management

as an alternative. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marsh, D., 1998, Comparing Policy Networks, Buckingham: O.U.P.
Mast, W. & L. ten Brummeler, 1994, Organisatienetwerken in de non-profit sector; de
dynamiek van netwerken aan de hand van vijf relevante dimensies. Utrecht: SWP.
Warren, R.L., 1967, The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation, Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 12, 1967, p.396-419.

7. Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinarity is possibly the field closest to research-policy linkage. It is widely rec-
ognized as a must, it is widely recognised as an intractable problem, and it is strong on
problem descriptions and weak on solutions.

Cunningham, R., 1999, Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in

Europe, Luxembourg: EC.
The proceedings of a recent (1997), and very good conference on the subject. Lots
of interesting (bench-marking) material.
Lunca, M. 1996, An epistemological programme for interdisciplinarisation, Utrecht:
Isor.
The kind of philosophical analysis that does full justice to the scientific issue of inter-
disciplinary theory construction, yet stops short of considering the pragmatics of
solving concrete problems.
Mudimbe, V.Y. & B. Jewsiewicki (eds.), Open the Social Sciences, repot of the Gul-
benkian Commision on the restructuring of the Social Sciences, Stanford, California:
S.U.P.
The kind of analysis that does full justice to the societal need of interdisciplinary
problem approaches and gives some practical suggestions that are easily transferable
to the research policy arena.

8. Participatory techniques
Participatory (project planning and monitoring) techniques is similar to the research-
policy linkage issue in terms of the fact that the participants supposed to collaborate
are often identical (researchers, policy staff and practitioners), yet it is much more
focused on practical instruments to bring about fruitful collaboration.

Becker, H.A., 1997, Social Impact Assessment, London: UCL

One of the techniques available within the field of policy research, that might be
used to structure the interaction between more academicly oriented researchers and
policy makers, interested to draw from their expertise.
Boog, B, H. Coenen, L. Keune & R. Lammerts, 1998, The complexity of relationships
in action research, Tilburg: T.U.P.
Based on a 1997 conference, this edited volume focuses on the relationship of the
researchers and the researched, with many of the contributions being case study
descriptions.
Smith, S.E., D.G. Willms & N.A. Johnson, 1997, Nurtured by knowledge: learning to
do participatory action-research, New York: Apex.
One of the more “extreme” approaches to action research in third world contexts.

126
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 127

World bank., 1996, The World Bank Participation Source Book, (http://www.world-
bank.org/wbi/sourcebook/ sbhome.htm
The book to consult if one is interested in participatory techniques, online available
on the internet.

9. R&D indicators
The kind of literature available if one is after quantitative information on R&D invest-
ments in different countries.

Commission cooperation federale de la conference interministrerielle de la politique

scientifique, 1995, Vademecum pour l’utilisateur des statistiques et des indicateurs
en matiere de science, technologie et innovation.
Just to indicate that in a world of often non-harmonised data sources, one needs
manuals to find one’s way through a jungle of material, and even more important,to
refrain from drawing invalid conclusions.
European Commission, 1998, Research and Development: Annual statistics 1998,
Luxembourg: E.C.
Strong on figures, weak on analysis.
Kazancigil, A. & D. Makinson, 1999, World social science; Report 1999, Paris:
UNESCO, Elsevier.
Contains a chapter on the social sciences.
Muldur, U. et al., 1997, Second European Report on S & T Indicator incl. Appendix,
EUR 17639 EN, Luxembourg: E.C.
The major European publication; uses a wealth of data sources but concentrates
largely on technology indicators. First report published in 1994.
Tijssen, R.J.W., Th.N. van Leeuwen, B. Verspagen & H. Hollanders, 1998, Weten-
schaps- en technologie-indicatoren 1998, Zoetermeer: NOWT (Het Nederlands
observatorium van wetenschap en technologie).
The Netherlands are known for their accurate statistical information; bi-annually the
data on science and technology are analysed in a comparative perspective. Contains
more info on the social sciences than the EC material, but much of it is non-compar-
ative

10. RTD studies

Another field that would be interesting for conceptual bench-marking.

Caracostas, P. & U. Mulder, 1997, Society, the endless frontier; A European vision of
research and innovation policies for the 21st century, EUR 17655 EN, Luxembourg:
E.C.
Interesting, because it draws on many recent RTD studies to suggest new approach-
es; it is therefore a good introduction to recent research in this field.
Dodgson & Besant, 1996, Effective Innovation Policy: a New Approach, London: ITP
One of the directly relevant studies Caracostas and Muldur draw upon.

127
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 128

128
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 129

8. Other literature used or mentioned in this report

Anderson, R., 1997, ‘Divided cities’ as a policy-based notion in contemporary Swe-

den, paper submitted to the URU conference on unidivided cities, Utrecht.
Angeli, F., 1997, Italy today, social picture and trends, 1996, Milano: Tipomonza.
A.R.I.E.L.E. (Associazone per la Ricerca sulle Istituziono l’Economia e il Lavoro in
Europa, 1998, Il Rapporto sulla ricera socio-economica in Italia; preservare gli spazi
di interpretazione nel sociale, Roma: A.R.I.E.L.E.
Auriat, N., 1998, Social policy and social enquiry: reopening debate. International
Social Science Journal, 156, p.275-287.
Bade, K.J., 1994, Das Manifest der 60: Deutschland un die Einwanderung, München:
Beck.
Belbin, R.,M. Management teams: over succes en faalfactoren voor teams, Academic
Service.
Biffl, G., E. Deutsch, H. Lutz & M. Marterbauer, 1997, Ökonomische und strukturelle
Aspekte der Ausländerbeschäftigung in Österreich, Wien: WIFO.
Brillard, E. & A. Querrien, 1997, Cities and Immigration: Bibliography, Val d’Oise:
Arcane Impressions.
Bukow, W-D. & Llaryora, R., 1995, Het Nederlandse minderhedenbeleid vanuit Duits
standpunt bekeken, Migrantenstudies, 1, p.20-29.
Burkert, G., K. Guzei, C. Lutter, A. Schmölzer (eds.), 1995, Fremdenfeindlichkeit,
Wien: Remaprint.
Caluwé, de L.,I.,A., 1998, Denken over veranderen in vijf kleuren. M&O, 4, p.7-27.
Campbell, D.F.J. & B. Felderer, 1997, Evaluating Academic Research in Germany; Pat-
terns and policies, Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS).
Çinar D., 1998, Gleichwertige sprachen? Muttersprachlicher unterricht für die Kinder
von Einwandern, Innsbruck: Studien Verlag.
Collectif, 1997, En marge de la ville au coeur de la société: Ces Quartiers dont on
parle, France: l’aube.
Cohen, R., 1997, Global Diasporas: an Introduction London UCL Press.
Commission of the European Communities, 1998, Draft European Action Plan for Sus-
tainable Development.
Commissione per le politiche di integrazione degli immigrati, 1999, Primo rapporto
sullíntegrazione degli immigrati in Italia. Roma: Dipartimento per gli Affari Sociali -
Presidenza del Consigliuo dei Ministri.
Cross, M., 1998, Research within Metropolis: an Agenda for Action paper prepared
for the 3rd international Metropolis conference, Zichron Yaacov, Israel.
Cross, M.& Moore, R. (eds), in press, Globalisation and the New City: Migrants,
Minorities and Urban Transformations in Comparative Perspective London, Macmil-
lan.
Decker, P. de, B. Hubeau, S. Nieuwinckel (eds.), 1996, In de ban van stad en wijk,
Berchem: EPO.
Diesen, A. van, 1998, Keeping hold of the stick and handing over the carrot: dilemmas
arising when development agencies use PRA. In: Boog.

129
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 130

Economist. Editorial of the 11-12-99 issue: The non-governmental order; will NGO’s
democratise, or merely disrupt global governance?
Economist, Editorial of the 21-2-2000 issue: Jorg Haider, Austria’s conundrum
Entzinger, H. 1999. Immigrants’ political and social participation in the integration pro-
cess. In: Political and social participation of immigrants through consultative bod-
ies. Council of Europe Community Relations series, p.9-63.
ESF, 1993, Social Science Frontiers in European Research. Strassbourg.
Fassmann, H. & R. Münz, 1995, Einwanderungsland Österreich? Historische Migra-
tionsmuster, aktuelle Trends und politische Maßnahmen, Wien: J & V.
Fermin, A., 1997, Nederlandse politieke partijen over minderhedenbeleid 1977-1995.
Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
Foblets, M.C., B. Hubeau & A. de Muycnk (eds.), 1997, Migrantenonderzoek voor de
toekomst, Leuven: Acco.
Gächter, A.,5/5/1998, Less fact and more fiction.The role of research in the making of
migration policy: a collection of anecdotes from inside the state. Unpublished
paper.
Gesundheitswesen der Stadt Wien, 1997, 1. Teil: Die gesundheitliche Situation von
MigrantInnen in Wien; 2. Teil: Kommunikation mit Nichtsdeutschsprachigen in
Wiener Gesundheits- und Sozialeinrichtungen, Wien: Institut für Soziologie der
Grund- und Integrativwissenschaften der Universität Wien.
Gruppe für Wissenschaft und Forschung, 1998, Vers une société fondée sur l’éduca-
tion, la science et la culture, Suisse: G.W.F.
Guzetti, L, 1995, A brief hostory of European Union research policy, Luxembourg: EC.
Häggroth, S, K. Kronvall, C. Riberdahl & K. Rudebeck, 1993, Swedish Local Govern-
ment; traditions and reforms, Sweden: Svenska Institut.
Hjarnø, J., 1999, From Metropolis to Cosmopolis, Esjberg: SYDJSK Universiteitsforlag.
Interview with Francis Fukuyama by Didier Seroo in IS, 2000/1, p.22.
Jörg, L., W. Polt & W. Pichler, 1996, Der österreichische Wissenschaftscluster; die
Rolle der Universität im Nationalen Innovationssystem Österreichs: Eine Bestand-
saufnahme, Wien: T.I.P.
Kempen, R. van, 1999, Onderzoek en het grotestedenbeleid: inventarisatie en
knelpunten, Den Haag: BiZa.
Kemper, F. 1998, Research and Policy Research in the Netherlands, paper presented at
the 14th ISA conference, session on Policy Making and Applied Sociology.
Lijphart, A., 1975, The politics of accomodation - pluralism and democracy in the
Netherlands. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Lindblom, C.,E., 1959, “The science of muddling through”. Public Administration
Review, 19, p.79-88.
Mahnig, H., 1995, ‘Gelijkheid’ of ‘respect voor verschil’? Integratiepolitiek in Frankrijk
en Nederland, Migrantenstudies, 1, p. 39-48.
Metropolis Italian Team, 1997, Immigration and foreign people in Italy: the nineties in
six metropolitan areas, Denmark: Metropolis.
Mitteilungen der Beauftragten der Bundersregierung für Ausländerfragen, 1997,
Migration und Integration in Zahlen; ein Handbuch, Bonn.
Mitteilungen der Beauftragten der Bundersregierung für Ausländerfragen, 1999, Daten
und Fakten zur Ausländersituation, Bonn.

130
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 131

Modood, T., Bertoud, R., et al., 1997, Ethnic minorities in Britain: diversity and disad-
vantage. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Moore, C.,W. 1986. The mediation process; practical strategies for resolving conflicts.
Jossey-Bass publishers.
Mowforth, M., & Munt, I., 1998, Tourism and sustainability: new tourism in the third
world. London & NY: Routledge.
Nas, P., c.s. (eds.), 1997, Ontwikkelingssamenwerking in sociaal-wetenschappelijk
perspectief. Bussum: Coutinho.
Newby, H., 1998, De sociale wetenschappen en de kennismaatschappij, Facta, 4, p.
10-15, lecture in a series of four on knowledge production, organized by the Dutch
Ministry of Education (OC&W).
Oba, Jun, 1999, The social sciences in OECD countries, in: WSSR, p.58-73.
OECD, 1994, The measurement of scientific and technological activities: proposed
standard practice for surveys of research and development - Frascati manual 1993,
Paris.
Öhrström, L., 1991, Research, the Swedish Approach, Sweden: Skogs Boktryckeri AB.
Oudenhoven, N. van & R. Wazir, 1998, Replicating social programmes; approaches,
strategies and conceptual issues, MOST (Management of Social Transformations),
http://www.unesco.org/most/dsp18.htm.
Pittau, F. & M. Sepi dell’Iscos, 1997, Italia Multiculturale: I paesi d’origine degli immi-
grati, Roma: Anterem.
Relazione alle Camere del Ministro dell’Universita’e i Ricerca Scientifica Technologica,
1997, Linee per il Riordino del Sistema Nazionale della Ricerca, Art.18, comma 3,
Legge 59/97.
Ritchie, J. & Goeldner, C. 2nd ed. (Eds), 1994, Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality
Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers. NY: Wiley.
Schmalz-Jacobson, C. & G. Hansen, 1995, Ethnische Minderheiten in der Bundesre-
publik Deutschland: ein Lexicon, München: Beck.
Silberman, R., Fournier, I.,1998, Educational attainment and unemployment for immi-
grants’ children in France: an investigation of the discrimination hypothesis.
Unpublished paper presented tot the 3rd MigCities conference, Milan, November.
Stoa, 1998, Transparency and openness in scientific advisory committees: the Ameri-
can Experience, Luxembourg: E.C.
La Società Multietnica, 1997, La formazione professionale delle immigrate e degli
immigrati a Bologna, Bologna: Centri Stampa Comune.
SSTC, 1997, Missions et activites, Bruxelles: Affaires Scientifiques, Techniques et Cul-
turelles.
Stacher, I., K. Demel & E. Dostal, 1997, Machbarkeitsstudie für ein österreichisches
Forum für Migrationsstudien und Entwurf für die Organisation eines Forums für
Migrationsstudien, Wien: ICMPD.
Steurs, G. & V. Cortese, 1993, L’impact des programmes de recherche Européens sur
la science et la technologie en Belgique, Leuven: U.P.
Swiss Science Council, 1993, Revitalising Swiss social science: evaluation report,
Research policy, FOP13.
Swiss Science Council, 1998, Evaluation de la recherche en sciences humaines en
Suisse, Politique de la recherche, FOP 53/1998.

131
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:58 Page 132

Tarozzi, A., 1998, Osservare le immigrazioni; metodi, leggi, studi di caso, Italia: L’Har-
mattan.
UNESCO, 1984, Manual for statistics on scientific and technological activities, Paris.
United Nations Population Division, in press, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to
Declining and Ageing Populations? See: http://www.undp.org/popin/wdtrends/
replamigration.htm.
Wall Bake, D., van den, a.o. (Berenschot BV), 1999, The senior civil service. A com-
parison of personnel development for top managers in fourteen OECD member
countries. Management summary at http://www.minbzk.nl/
Weiss, C., 1999, Factors that Improve the Use of Research in Social Policy - Case
Studies. A draft proposal for research funding to the program on Management Of
Social Transformations (MOST)/Unesco.
Wobbe, W., 1993, EG Forschüngsförderung: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven aus dem
Sektor Sozialwissenschaften, in: Hartman, F. (Hg.), 1993, Standort und Perspektiven
der außeruniveritären Sozialforschung, Wien: Remaprint.
W.R.R., 1997, Mosterd bij de maaltijd, bundel t.g.v. 25-jarig bestaan van de Weten-
schappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Den Haag: WRR.
Young, C. Ed., 1999, The accomodation of cultural diversity: case studies. London:
Macmillian.
Zanfrini, L., 1997, La ricerca sull’immigrazione in Italia; gli sviluppi più recenti,
Milano: Cariplo.

132
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 133

Notes

1. The text of this paragraph is taken (with some alterations) from Malcolm Cross’
paper Research within Metropolis: an Agenda for Action prepared for the 3rd
international Metropolis conference, Zichron Yaacov, Israel, December 1998.
2. For an analysis of the relationship between cities and nations see Robin Cohen,
“Back to the future: From Metropolis to Cosmopolis”, in: Jan Hjarnø (ed.)(1999)
From Metropolis to Cosmopolis, South Jutland University Press, p. 9-26.
3. The academic literature on migration and ethnic relations contains various defini-
tions of labels like migrants and (ethnic, cultural) minorities. On top of “academ-
ic” differences of opinion, debates in particular national settings “prefer” particu-
lar labels, the most well known example being the use of Ausländer (foreigners)
in Germany. This is not the place to argue for any particular label and, therefore,
we are going to use them indiscriminately.
4. In all countries surveyed, important players within the policy world have defined
these issues as being important; obviously in some countries, the agenda-setting
is much more recent that in others.
5. EUROSTAT, Eurobarometer 1996.
6. Not only in the sense of differences between countries, but also in the sense that
within the same country migrants and minorities regularly move in and out of
media headlines.
7. The assignment to conduct the survey was given in March 1998, the appoint-
ments to the ES were temporary and lasted until August 1998.
8. English, French, German, Dutch, and Greek.
9. See 2.1: a label used to describe the basic linkage problem, first coined by Caplan
in his analysis:
– Caplan, N., Morrison, A. & Stambough, R. (1975) The use of social science
knowledge in policy decisions at the national level. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.
– Caplan, N. (1979) The two communities theory and knowledge utilisation.
American Behavioral Scientist, 459-470
10. A discussion within Metropolis on the development of a database of “good prac-
tice” examples of integration policies clearly signalled the demand for the inclu-
sion evaluations (prerequisites and context determinants). Without such analytic
information it seemed impossible to consider transferability regarding examples.
11. If anyone can reflect with authority on issues of research/policy linkage it is pro-
fessor Carol Weiss (Harvard Graduate School for Education). She has authored
various classics such as Using social research in public policy making, Mass: Lex-
ington Heath, 1977, and (with Bucuvalas) Social science research and decision
making, NY (etc.): Columbia UP, 1980.
12. This summary is based on Fons Kemper’s description in “Research and Policy
Research in the Netherlands”, a paper presented at the 14th ISA conference, in
the session on Policy Making and Applied Sociology, July 1998.
13. For a brief description of the development of KU as a separate field of research,
see Tyden, T. 1995, Introduction. In: idem (Ed.) When School meets Science.
Stockholm Institute of Eduvcation Press.

133
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 134

14. The quote is taken from a draft proposal for research funding to the program on
Management Of Social Transformations (MOST)/Unesco: Factors that Improve
the Use of Research in Social Policy – Case Studies, 1999.
15. Homminga, A., Penne, van de T., Svensson, J., 1994, Van Feit naar Beleid; een
theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek naar de relatie tussen onderzoek en (welzi-
jns-)beleid. Unpublished, Twente University; the list is partly based on: Hoessel,
P.H.M. van, 1987, De identificatie van beleidsonderzoek. In M. Van der Vall (ed.)
Sociaal Beleidsonderzoek. Den Haag: VUGA.
16. Weis 1977, see note 10.
17. One may point to the well-known 1980 Weiss and Bucuvalas study (see note
11), but also to the kind of approach used in research handbooks for particular
policy sectors. An interesting example is the 1994 Travel, Tourism, and Hospitali-
ty Research: A Handbook for Managers and Researchers (Ritchie, J. & Goeldner,
C. 2nd ed., NY:Wiley). This manual- type standard work, starts out with a chap-
ter on the role of research in tourism management that defines it purely in terms
of information supply for management decision making.
18. Caracostas, P. & Muldur, U. , 1998, Society, the endless frontier: A European
vision of research and innovation policies for the 21st century. EC/DG XII.
19. Dodgson & Besant, 1996, Effective Innovation Policy: a New Approach, London:
ITP.
20. This material is taken from Morgan, G., 1986, Images of organisation. Beverly
Hills etc.: Sage.
21. Two relevant publications are the 1996 Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on
the Restructuring of the Social Sciences edited by V. Mudimbe, and the 1999
Academia Europaea report on Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowl-
edge in Europe edited by Richard Cunningham (proceeding of a 1997 confer-
ence).
22. Boden, M.A., 1999, “What is interdisciplinarity?” in: the Academia Europaea
report, p.13-23.
23. R.L. Warren, for example, did research on the development of networks among
community decision organisations in the 60s and developed a typology of net-
work structures (“The interorganisational field as a focus for investigation”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1967, p.396-419).
24. Another example would be the growing importance of policy networks; see D.
Marsh (ed.), 1998, Comparing policy networks. Buckingham: OUP.
25. Editorial of the 11-12-99 issue: The non-governmental order; will NGO’s
democratise, or merely disrupt global governance? (see www.economist.com)
26. An interesting example is Bandemer, S. van, c.s., 1996. Typology of partnerships
in the European research and innovation system. Brussels: EC/DG XII.
27. Mast, W. & Ten Brummeler, L., 1994, Organisatienetwerken in de non-profit sec-
tor. Utrecht: SWP.
28. The close relationship between action-research and project planning is demon-
strated by the fact that professional meetings regularly include exponents of both
poles of the continuum. The 1997 edited volume that came out of the annual
conference of the Dutch Action Research Network contains two contribution that
are explicitly focussed on project planning by development agencies (Ben Boog
c.s. [eds.], 1998, The complexity of Relationships in Action Research, Tilburg:

134
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 135

TUP.
29. A recent exponent of this approach is the 1997 book edited by Susan Smith and
others Nurtered by Knowledge: learning to do participatory Action-Research, NY:
Apex Press.
30. Also see 5.1.2 on facilitators
31. This text is taken from the appendix on methods and tools of The World Bank
Participation Source Book, 1996.
32. Diesen, A. van, 1998, Keeping hold of the stick and handing over the carrot:
dilemmas arising when development agencies use PRA. In: Boog, see note 28.
33. This is not to claim that government and private sector are identical to each other
in all respects! The private sector is ruled by the “market”, public administration
is ruled by the “budget”. Party politics are particular to government, as are the
guiding concepts of legitimacy and public accountability (analysis borrowed from
an interview with Marjan Smit De BV Nederland? Onzin!, Intermediair,2 , 2000.
34. Apart from Carol Weiss, our thinking on this conceptual framework has greatly
profited from discussions with prof.dr. Rinus Penninx, director of the Institute of
Migration Studies of the University of Amsterdam (formerly employed by the
Dutch department that was – at that time – responsible for migration and inte-
gration policy), and dr. Erik Snel, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Both have also
written on the relationship between research and policy (see the references).
35. A common vocabulary is a prerequisite for a discussion, but it does not in itself
ensure a productive discussion!
36. Various authors label the phases slightly differently and/or distinguish three or
five phases; however, the gist of all these phase-models is the same.
37. For another labelling of very comparable types of utilisation, see Box 4
38. Obviously, this is a matter of preference; another way of thinking about it would
be to draw a distinction between the issue-arena as the “immediate context” and
the other characteristics as the “wider context”.
39. Presentation on Challenges for Postgraduate Education in the Social Sciences, by
Ron Amann, chief ESRC, during the april 1999 ALSISS conference on Postgradu-
ate Education in the Social Sciences (for ALSISS, see www.alsiss.org.uk).
40. EC, 1997, second European report on S&T indicators. Brussels.
41. See Clark, B.R., 1995, Places of Inquiry. Research and advanced education in
modern universities. Berkeley: UCP, for a comparison of the United States, the
United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan.
42. Jun Oba, 1999, “The social sciences in OECD countries”, in: WSSR, p.58-73.
43. A. Gächter. Less fact and more fiction.The role of research in the making of
migration policy: a collection of anecdotes from inside the state. 5/5/1998
44. Kingdon, J., W., 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Don Mills, Ot.:
Harper Collins.
45. The SPD-led coalition that came to power in 1998 adopted a new, more ‘ius soli’
based law on naturalisation that went into effect on the 1st of January 2000.
46. Waarden, F. van.1996. “Instituties en internationale mobiliteit; Een vergelijking
van wetenschappelijke banenmarkten en carrierepatronen in Duitsland, Oosten-
rijk, Engeland, de USA, Belgie en Nederland”. AWSB working papers 96/03.
47. 1981, “Structure, culture, and intellectual style: An essay comparing Saxonic,
Teutonic, Gallic and Nipponic approaches”. Social Science Information (Sage), 20

135
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 136

(6), p. 817-856.
48. The factual information and quotes are taken from Öhrström, L. 1991. Research,
the Swedish approach. Stockholm: The Swedish Institute, and interviews with
Erland Bergman, administrative director of the Swedish Council for Social
Research (www.socforsk.se), and Prof Roger Anderson, a geographer based at
Uppsala University (including information contained in his 1997 ‘Divided cities’
as a policy-based notion in contemporary Sweden, paper submitted to the
NETHUR conference on undivided cities.
49. Campbell, D. & Felderer, B. 1997. Evaluating academic research in Germany: pat-
terns and policy. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
50. For a cross-national comparison of this institution see: 1996. Ausländerbeauf-
tragte anderer Länder. Darstellungen von Institutionen in EU-Staaten, Norwegen,
der Schweiz, Tschechien sowie den USA und Kanada mit ähnlichen Aufgaben
wie die der ‘Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Ausländer’ in
Deutschland. Mitteilungen der Beauftragten etc.
51. Entzinger, H. 1999. “Immigrants’ political and social participation in the integra-
tion process”. in: Political and social participation of immigrants through consul-
tative bodies. Council of Europe Community Relations series, p.9-63. The exten-
sive literature references in the original have been left out.
52. These models correspond to a large extent with those that have been distin-
guished by Soysal in her study on forms of immigrant membership and participa-
tion in Europe (Soysal, Y.N.1994. Limits of citizenship; migrants and postnational
membership in Europe. University of Chicago Press).
53. Bukow, W-D. & Llaryora, R. “Het Nederlandse minderhedenbeleid vanuit Duits
standpunt bekeken”, Migrantenstudies, 1, p.20-29; Mahnig, H. ‘Gelijkheid’ of
‘respect voor verschil’? Integratiepolitiek in Frankrijk en Nederland, idem,. p. 39-
48.
54. For a recent review of the relationship between differences in policy assumptions
and similarities in practices, see Vermeulen, H. (ed.) 1997. Immigrant policy for a
multicultural society. A comparative study of integration, language and religious
policy in five western European countries. Brussels: MPG.
55. The text of this paragraph is taken from Malcolm Cross’ paper Research within
Metropolis: an Agenda for Action prepared for the 3rd international Metropolis
conference, Zichron Yaacov, Israel, December 1998; for literature references, see
the original.
56. Silberman and Fournier note, for example, that the relative absence of studies on
education and labour market performance amongst migrant descended popula-
tions is ‘...more a lack of questions than a shortage of data...’ (Silberman, R.,
Fournier, I.,1998, Educational attainment and unemployment for immigrants’
children in France: an investigation of the discrimination hypothesis. Unpub-
lished paper presented tot the 3rd MigCities conference, Milan, november, p.3).
57. Taken from Malcolm Cross’ paper Research within Metropolis: an Agenda for
Action prepared for the 3rd international Metropolis conference, Zichron Yaacov,
Israel, December 1998.
58. Representative is the following quote from Helga Nowotny’s “Social science
research in a changing policy context”, in the 1985 book she edited with Jane
Lambiri-Dimaki, The difficult dialogue between producers and users of social sci-

136
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 137

ence research. Vienna: European centre for social welfare training and research.
As Box 25 shows, her own thinking has developed considerably since that time,
yet her position remains representative of social science self-reflection on the
issue:
‘There was a time – not too long ago – when many of us were actually lured by
the signs that the princes of the day sent out – signals for wanting our advice: in
the planning euphoria of the late 1960s and early 1970s the belief in the mal-
leability of societies and in rational planning as an indispensable feature of mature
societies not only permeated our text-books, but also lead to an unprecedented
flourishing of applied social science research. It was carried by the belief that soci-
eties could be reformed through the fiat of political interventions and our belief in
the possibility that we as researchers could produce solutions to any kind of prob-
lem posed to us. But, as Brecht already remarked, belief is often followed by
doubt’. (p.7)
59. For a recent more elaborate overview, see Peter Wagner’s “The twentieth century
– the century of the social sciences?” in: UNESCO, 1999, WSSR, p.16-41.
60. One has to be careful with univariate causal attributions here because the loss of
belief in rational planning was also connected to the worldwide economic crisis of
the 70s.
61. Derived from the subtitle of Sheila Jasanoff’s 1990 classic The fifth branch: sci-
ence advisers as policy makers, Cambridge etc.: Harvard University Press.
62. Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter
Scott and Martin Trow, 1994, London: Sage.
63. We believe that their provocative analysis is much more accurate for the natural
than for the social sciences and the humanities. Their book contains a chapter on
the case of the humanities but is arguably less convincing than their material on
science and technology.
64. 1997, Society, the endless frontier, Brussels: EC/DGXII.
65. Lambiri-Dimaki, J., 1985, “The difficult dialogue between producers and users of
social science research: some comments on the theme”. in: Helga Nowotny and
Jane Lambiri-Dimaki (eds.).
66. 1993, Revitalising Swiss social science. Berne:Research policy FOP 13.
67. The Research Council of Norway, 1998, International Migration and Ethnic Rela-
tions – IMER: Work Programme, Oslo, p. 6-7.
68. For a good overview of differences see: OECD, 1995, Research training; present
& future, Paris.
69. For a good overview of differences see: OECD, 1995, Research training; present
& future, Paris.
70. See Hans Mahnig, 1995. The political consensus that Mahnig identifies in the late
70s only increased in the 80s and 90s as analysed in the 1997 dissertation of
Alfons Fermin Nederlandse politieke partijen over minderhedenbeleid 1977-
1995. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
71. Ellemers, J.L., 1995, “Immigranten en etnische verhoudingen in Nederland gezien
door buitenlandse ogen”. in: Migrantenstudies, 1, p.80-86.
72. For example, see Lijphart, A., 1975, The politics of accomodation – pluralism
and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
73. Rath, J., 1993, Ethnic minorities studies’ in the Netherlands: the remarkable

137
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 138

absence of marxist theory. Unpublished paper (see also Ellemers).

74. 1995, A brief history of European Union research policy, Brussels: EC/DGXII.
75. For a similar evaluation, see Wobbe, W., 1993, “EG Forschüngsförderung:
Erfahrungen und Perspektiven aus dem Sektor Sozialwissenschaften”, in: Hart-
man, F. (Hg.), 1993, Standort und Perspektiven der aufleruniveritären Sozial-
forschung, Wien: Remaprint.
76. Muldur, U. et al., 1997, Second European Report on S & T Indicator incl.
Appendix, EUR 17639 EN, Luxembourg: E.C.
77. 1999, “Interdisciplinarity and the social sciences”. in: Cunningham, R., 1999,
Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, Luxembourg:
EC., p.149- 176.
78. Commissione per le politiche di integrazione degli immigrati, 1999, Primo rappor-
to sullÌntegrazione degli immigrati in Italia. Roma: Dipartimento per gli Affari
Sociali - Presidenza del Consigliuo dei Ministri.
79. For more detailed information see http://www.wrr.nl/HTML-EN/BasisDE-EN.html
80. History itself is always in a state of “flux” as interpretations are continually (re-)
created, and historians (or anyone else for that matter) have difficulty distancing
themselves from the current climates of opinion of the era in which they live.
[comment by Dr Nancy Schaefer]
81. Editorial, The Economist, February 12th - 18th 2000.
82. This chapter is derived from Malcolm Cross’ analysis of a research agenda for
Metropolis, based (among other input) on the survey. See his 1998 paper
Research within Metropolis: an agenda for action.
83. The range is clearly much wider than the European countries covered by the sur-
vey, yet Metropolis is definitely slanted towards industrialised economies, with
the core of its membership coming from Europe and north America. And howev-
er much their perspectives on and approaches towards some topics (especially
migration) might differ, the issues identified as meriting reviews, research, and
international comparison are indeed very similar.
84. See however 4.3!
85. C. Young recently argued that ‘The search for effective policy accommodation of
cultural diversity is unending. Concepts of nationhood, distributive impacts of
state action and communal identities themselves are in constant flux and evolu-
tion. Policies which on balance facilitated harmonious relationships among groups
yesterday may have different effects tomorrow. Ethnic “problems” are never
“solved”’. C. Young (ed.), 1999, The accomodation of cultural diversity: case
studies. London: Macmillian.
86. Commission of the European Communities, 1998, Draft European Action Plan for
Sustainable Development.
87. Cross, M.& Moore, R. (eds), in press, Globalisation and the New City: Migrants,
Minorities and Urban Transformations in Comparative Perspective London,
Macmillan.
88. Cohen, R., 1997, Global Diasporas: an Introduction London UCL Press.
89. This list is based on information provided by the director Prof Dimitris G. Tsaousis
and the vice director Prof Koula Kasimati of KEKMOKOP, and by Petros Linardos-
Rylmond, Scientific Consultant at the Labour Institute.
90. In response to the EC’s 1994 Draft Communication to the European Parliament

138
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 139

and the Council (on immigration and asylum policies) COM (94) 0023, the Sec-
retariat General commissioned a Pre-feasibility study on the possible establish-
ment of a European migration observatory (Pachler, M., Penninx, R., Groenendi-
jk, K., & Böcker, A, 1994, Luxembourg), and on the basis of its report, A
Feasibility study for a migration observatory: final report (1996/1998, Salt, J.,
Densham, P., Chell, V., Prophet, H., Hogarth, J., Penninx, R., Doomernik, J.,
Withol de Wenden, C., & Vuddamalay, V. Luxembourg.
91. Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? is
a study currently in progress at the United Nations Population Division. A prelimi-
nary report on the findings of this study is expected to be available at the end of
March 2000. Quotes from: http://www.undp.org/popin/wdtrends/replamigra-
tion.htm.
92. Interview with Francis Fukuyama by Didier Seroo in IS, 2000/1, p.22.
93. The feasibility study for a European migration observatory: final report
(1996/1998), contains a chapter on research by existing institutions: inventory of
data collection, funding and analysis. Among many other things they identify:
•‘an imbalance in the topics covered....there is a heavy emphasis on integration.
In sharp contrast, the (future) demand for immigration is least covered.... Most, if
not all, EU states do not conceive themselves to be countries of (mass) immigra-
tion and thus rarely sponsor research which could make this stance less unequivo-
cal’.
•‘[an imbalance in topics covered between countries], for example there is a
plethora of research to be found on integration in Germany, whilst little exists in
Italy’ (p.67).
94. For practical purposes, the EC framework and other research programs are the
only regular funding sources for internationally comparative work in Europe. Net-
work funding is easier to obtain, but this implies that the research projects them-
selves have to be funded though local sources. In practice, this means serving
two masters: the project tries to comply as closely as possible to a common,
internationally agreed format, while at the same time obliging the terms of refer-
ence of its national sponsor. If this sponsor has policy objectives, there are bound
to be (major) differences between what is the best indicator, approach, etc. for
the local objectives and what is the best choice for the international comparison.
This normally means that the comparative objective ends up being compromised.
95. With slight changes taken from Malcolm Cross’ Research within Metropolis: an
Agenda for Action.
96. All material here is taken from the European Commission’s, 1996/1998, Feasibili-
ty study for a European migration observatory; Final report, Luxembourg: E.C.
See paragraph 4.4 for more information about this study.
97. CEC, 1992: 203.
98. Working Document SOCIO-ECO/1: 8 October 1994.
99. Modood, T., Bertoud, R., et al., 1997, Ethnic minorities in Britain: diversity and
disadvantage. London: Policy Studies Institute.
100. Based on Belbin, R.,M. Management teams: over succes en faalfactoren voor
teams, Academic Service, and Rob Groen’s epilogue in that book.
101. Taken from Caluwé, de L.,I.,A., 1998, “Denken over veranderen in vijf kleuren”.
M&O, 4, p.7-27.

139
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 140

102. It should be noted that there is no relation between the famous de Bono hats
(1985, Six thinking hats, Penguin) and de Caluwé’s colour scheme.
103. Danko, Q, 2000, “Kom met een nieuw product”, Intermediar, 4, p.21.
104. This quote is from Driessen, P., Vermeulen, W. “Network management in per-
spective: concluding remarks on network management as an innovative form of
environmental management”. In: Glasbergen, P. (Ed.), 1995, Managing environ-
mental disputes: network management as an alternative. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, p.168.
105. Moore, C.,W. 1986. The mediation process; practical strategies for resolving con-
flicts. Jossey-Bass publishers.
106. http://www.equipement.gouv.fr/recherche/index.htm
107. http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/publication/index.htm
108. http://www.csv.warwick.ac.uk/services/RDSO/
109. As is evident from the descriptions in Boxes 43 and 44, intermediary roles have
all kinds of other functions, too.
110. Nas, P., ‘Application’. In: Nas, P., et.al.. (eds.), 1997, Ontwikkelingssamenwerking
in sociaal-wetenschappelijk perspectief. Bussum: Coutinho, p.41.
111. See for more information: http://www.censis.it/; Dutch examples are government
funded policy research institutes like CPB and SCP (www.cpb.nl and www.scp.nl,
see also Box 31) or an institute such as the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demo-
graphic Institute (www.nidi.nl).
112. The Annual report on the Italian social situation stemmed from the need for a
readily available tool for analysing and interpreting social phenomena, processes,
tensions, and needs as they surfaced in Italy. This undertaking has been carried
out uninterruptedly for over thirty years, starting in 1967. The report consists of:
• An overall view, an interpretation of the evolution of Italian society..... This
interpretive approach tries to link the analytical thread with the line followed in
the previous years. Therefore, it is useful for anybody wishing to investigate
closely the continuous transformation of the country;
• A phenomenological analysis . It offers a study and appraisal of the events
occurring during the year that had a profound influence on the country, even if
they were only “embryonic”;
• Areas of social policies and means and procedures. They offer a yearly assess-
ment of the various sectors, namely education, employment, welfare, territory
and networks, economic actors, local governments, communication and culture.
113. For a short description of the history of data archives, see Martinotti, G.,1998,
“Interdisciplinarity and the social sciences”. In: Cunningham (ed.), p.173-174.
114. In the discourse on the new mode of knowledge production mentioned above,
joint problem definition between experts of heterogeneous background is called
transdisciplinarity.
115. From the City of Rotterdam.
116. Another potential bench-marking area.
117. Martinotti, G.,1998, “Interdisciplinarity and the social sciences”. In: Cunninham
(ed.), p.172-173.
118. To name but a few: the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies in Wassenaar,
the Wissenschaftszentrum in Berlin, the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna,
or the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris.

140
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 141

119. However, This does not mean that such individuals cannot fulfil a very important
function as “knowledge broker”, equipped as they are with inside knowledge
and skills of both the research and the policy world.
120. Çinar D., 1998, Gleichwertige sprachen? Muttersprachlicher unterricht für die
Kinder von Einwandern, Innsbruck: Studien Verlag, p. 324. The content of this
Box is based on this book as well as on a personal interview with the author.
121. See: http://bmwfa6.bmwf.gv.at/4fte/fremd/lse.htm and Burkert, G., K. Guzei, C.
Lutter, A. Schmölzer (eds.), 1995, Fremdenfeindlichkeit, Wien: Remaprint.
122. http://bmwfa6.bmwf.gv.at/4fte/fremd/lse.htm
123. Burkert, G., 1995, “Nach-Forschung unerwünscht. Ein Ergebnis?” In: Burkert, G.
et.al.
124. Based on an interview with the director of ISEO, Professor Justus Veenman, and
information from website
http://www.few.eur.nl/few/research/iseo/info/index.htm
125. The project is called Toegankelijkheid and Evenredigheid (Accessibility and Pro-
portion) and includes a survey conducted every three to four years (Sociale posi-
tie en voorzieningengebruik van allochtonen – spva).
126. Groen, R., 1998, “Teamrolmanagement in Nederland”. In: Belbin, R.,M. Manage-
ment teams: over succes en faalfactoren voor teams, Academic Service.
127. Obviously, a lack of change can mean stagnation too. We are aware of the dan-
gers when relationships tend towards symbiosis, but our argument is developed
against a backcloth of too few long-term relationships.
128. The SCP has completed seven reports since 1993.
129. This is not to say that Europeans never move from one sector to the other, but
when that happens, it is usually a one-time only occurence, whereas carreer
movement in the US tends to be more fluid. Countries differ widely regarding the
extent to which people change jobs between different sectors. Restricting our-
selves to some examples drawn from the civil service:
• Belgium has entrance examinations for the civil service, and pension claims and
seniority rules do not take previous careers into account, which are quite
formidable institutional barriers for changing sectors.
• France has a special higher education institution for its senior civil service posts,
L’école nationale d’administration (ENA), which means that at that level inward
mobility from other backgrounds is hardly possible (see for more information on
the French educational system: http://www.edutel.fr/syst/default.htm).
• The Dutch civil service is quite open to outside candidates at the higher levels
of the hierarchy.
• The higher echelons of the German civil service are dominated by professionals
who have a background in law; since “cultures” tend to reproduce, this makes
inward mobility of social science experts difficult.
A recent study commissioned by the Dutch Ministry responsible for the civil serv-
ice, gives a comparative overview of civil service personnel policy in 14 OECD
countries, and makes it abundantly clear that mobility is exclusively discussed in
terms of interdepartmental mobility: Wall Bake, D., van den, a.o. (Berenschot
BV), 1999, The senior civil service. A comparison of personnel development for
top managers in fourteen OECD member countries (The management summary
can be downloaded from http://www.minbzk.nl/).

141
noten 99/07 29/2/00 16:58 Page 142

130. Gächter, A.,5 May 1998, Less fact and more fiction. The role of research in the
making of migration policy: a collection of anecdotes from inside the state.
Unpublished paper.
131. Obviously, differences of degree, not of nature! Academic debate can be very
political and political debate can be academic.
132. Lindblom, C.,E., 1959, “The science of muddling through”. Public Administration
Review, 19, p.79-88.
133. Nas, P., et.al. (eds.), 1997, Ontwikkelingssamenwerking in sociaal-wetenschap-
pelijk perspectief. Bussum: Coutinho, p.54-55.
134. Both quotes from: Gächter, A.,5 May1998, Less fact and more fiction. The role
of research in the making of migration policy: a collection of anecdotes from
inside the state. Unpublished paper.
135. With slight changes taken from Malcolm Cross’ paper Research within Metropo-
lis: an Agenda for Action, 1998.
136. This distinction and those that follow are quite different from debates about
methodology and about quality. Quantitative and qualitative methods, or a com-
bination of such techniques, may be appropriate for any style of research, and all
have benefits and drawbacks.
137. However, an interesting development is the growing use of techniques such as
Log(ical) Framework Analysis, that compare implicit policy assumptions (about
behavioural, social, and institutional processes) and explanatory social science
theories [personal communication Professor Frans Leeuw, chief inspector Dutch
higher education]. For an practical introduction, see website
http://iucn.org/themes/eval/english/lfa.htm
138. Nevertheless, these debates are a nursery of new ideas for policy relevant
research.
139. This is done through the statistical services of the counter on the pages con-
cerned.
140. Stacher, I., K. Demel & E. Dostal, 1997, Machbarkeitsstudie für ein österreichis-
ches Forum für Migrationsstudien und Entwurf für die Organisation eines
Forums für Migrationsstudien, Wien: ICMPD.
141. ÖFM Fokus.
142. This is not to “blame” the ÖFM for its shortcomings; it has just started up, with a
very limited staff, and concentrates for the time being on reviews; it has the
potential to grow into a fully-fledged linkage institution. However, this would
imply less emphasis on research themes of the host institution (ICMPD), and
more direct involvement of its users in the agenda setting.
143. This aspect has remained implicit because our study did indeed focus on a certain
issue-arena.
144. European Commission, 1996/1998, Feasibility study for a European migration
observatory; Final report, Luxembourg: E.C.

142
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 143

Appendix A: The international Metropolis project*

Introduction
The International Metropolis Project is a set of coordinated activities carried out by a membership
of research and policy organizations who share a vision of strengthened immigration policy by
means of applied academic research. The Metropolis partnership, now from twenty countries and
a number of international research and policy organizations representing a wide range of policy
and academic interests, is sustained by the attractions of its core idea. The members of Metropo-
lis work collaboratively on issues of immigration and integration, always with the goal of
strengthening policy and thereby allowing societies to better manage the challenges and oppor-
tunities that immigration presents, especially to their cities. Ideally, this work would involve teams
made up of both researchers and policy-makers.

Metropolis is an evolving project and has witnessed considerable growth since it beginnings in
1995. Members are now from:
• North America: Canada, United States
• South America: Argentina
• Europe: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
• Middle East: Israel
• Africa: South Africa
• Australasia: Australia, New Zealand, Japan
• International Organizations: European Commission, UNESCO, Migration Policy Group,
Quartiers en Crise, International Centre for Migration Policy Development, International Orga-
nization for Migration

The Underlying Idea: Research Enriching Policy

The idea of using academic research to stimulate and strengthen policy making enjoys consider-
able currency. As governments come to question the necessity and appropriateness of their direct
involvement in numerous facets of society, they are looking for ways to better use the capacities
of third parties, particularly universities, for the information required to develop policies, legisla-
tion, and programs. Metropolis is an attempt to advance the role that research plays in policy-
making on an international scale. It seeks to promote evidence-based decision-making in the field
of immigration and integration. Metropolis is expected to yield not only reliable and relevant
information about immigration but also to serve as an instructive model for the engagement of
the external research community in policy-research. The critical element in policy-research and in
evidence-based decision-making is effective communication among researchers, policy-developers
and decision-makers. In none of these communities is this emphasized sufficiently.

There are many ways that one can try to link policy with academic research. What might be con-
sidered the traditional way is to follow a broadly consumer transaction model. Often, we con-
ceive of the role of research in the policy development process as a very simple transfer of knowl-
edge from a supplier, the researcher, to a consumer, the policy analyst or decision maker. One
might envision Metropolis along these familiar lines. Metropolis provides many fora for conveying

* All text from the Metropolis International website: http://international.metropolis.net/

143
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 144

the research products from the supplier to the consumer, including the Internet, conferences and
seminars, and publications of various sorts. However, to regard Metropolis as functioning only in
this way would be to sell short its partnership structure. The researchers and policy makers are
not simply suppliers and consumers, but are partners with a shared objective: stronger policy in
the field of immigration.
The Metropolis approach to the relations between academic research and policy is to encourage
joint initiatives to:
• identify and articulate issues and problems for policy and research work;
• develop appropriate data;
• conduct international comparative research directly related to the policy issues identified as pri-
orities for the Metropolis partnership;
• exchange and analyze experiences amongst the partnership regarding the effects of immigra-
tion, especially within our cities, and the effects of government and non-government interven-
tions, especially those designed to facilitate immigrant integration;
• develop conclusions, especially with regard to best policy practices; and
• exchange and analyze information about effective practices where these have been identified
and explained on the basis of rigorous empirical research.

Metropolis encourages these joint initiatives by fostering the growing international network of
researchers and policy makers, by convening events that provide opportunities for its members to
hold informed discussions, to discover where potential for collaboration exists, and to plan
accordingly. There is no question that a partnership arrangement is more demanding than a mere
supplier-consumer relation; there is also no question that its potential is far richer. Metropolis has
organized its activities on the premise that one reason for the relatively low level of exchange
that often has existed between the academic and the policy communities is that neither organiza-
tional culture was attuned to work with the other. Consequently, Metropolis has conceived of
itself as a project wherein opportunities would be provided for intensive face to face collaboration
on active policy issues. The means for doing so have been conferences and seminars, organiza-
tional meetings, international comparative research projects, and the establishment of an internet
website.

How to Contact the International Metropolis Network

For general information check www.international.metropolis.net
For specific questions contact the International Secretariat at:

Dr. Howard Duncan Dr. Marco Lombardi

Director Director
Metropolis International Secretariat Metropolis International Secretariat
North American Arm European Arm
Citizenship and Immigration Canada ISMU
365 Laurier Avenue Foro Buonoparte, 22
Jean Edmonds Tower South B-1846 Milano, Italy
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1 39 02 72 02 33 75
(613) 957-5916 39 02 87 60 42 (fax)
(613) 957-5968 (fax) [email protected]
[email protected]

144
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 145

Appendix B: Interviewees

Institutional affiliation as per time of interview

Austria (13) Mr Bernhard Perchinig

Mr Rainer Bauböck Wiener Integrationsfonds
Institute for Advanced Studies, Wien
Ms Irene Stacher
Ms Katarina Bemal International Centre for Migration Policy
International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Wien
Development, Wien
Belgium (16)
Ms Gudrun Biffl Mr Youssef Ben Abdeljelil
Austrian Institute of Economic Research, Wien University of Antwerp, CASUM

Ms Dilek Çinar Mr Jean-Luc Agosti

European Centre for Policy Research, Wien Gouvernement de la region wallonne, Cabinet
du Ministre de l’action sociale, de la santé et
Mr Jens Danschat du logement, Jambe
Institut für Stadt- und Regionalforschung,
Technische Universität Wien Mr Thierry Basomboli
Cabinet Echevinat de la jeunesse, des sports,
Mr Heinz Fassman du logement péri-urbain et des relations inter-
Austrian Acadamie of Science/Institut für culturelles, Liege
Stadt- und Regionalforschung, Technische Uni-
versität Wien Mr Albert Bastenier
(see also Germany) Catholic University of Louvain, Collège J.
Leclerc
Ms Heidemarie Fenzl
Bundesministerium für Innere, Wien Ms Talbia Belouari
Commission Communautaire Française, Brussel
Mr August Gächter
Institute for Advanced Studies, Wien Mr Bogdan Van Doninck
Federale Diensten voor Wetenschappelijke,
Mr Rudolf Giffinger Technische en Culturele Aangelegenheiden,
Institut für Stadt- und Regionalforschung, Brussel
Technische Universität Wien
Mr Bernard Hubeau
Mr Nikolaus Marschik Faculty of Law, University of
International Centre for Migration Policy Antwerp/Ombudsman City of Antwerp/Co-
Development, Wien chair Antwerps Centrum voor Migrantenstud-
ies
Ms Elisabeth Menasse-Wiesbauer
Bundesministerum fur Wissenschaft und Mr Stefan Nieuwinckel
Verkehr, Wien SOMA, SIF+URBAN Programmacoördinatie,
Antwerpen

145
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 146

Ms Nouria Ouali Mr Jean-Paul Le Divenah

University of Brussels, Institute for Sociology Fond d’action sociale (FAS), Paris

Ms Karen Phalet Mr Patrick Du Chayron

ERCOMER, Utrecht University Mission interministérielle de recherche et
expérimentation, Ministère de l’emploi et de la
Ms Arlette Pollain solidarité , Paris
Centre régional d’intégration de Liège
Ms Marie-Thérèse Espinasse
Mr Michel Poulain Ministère de l’emploi et de la solidarité,
Catholic University of Louvain, Gedop Département de la population et des migra-
tions , Paris
Mr Andréa Rea
University of Brussels, Institute for Sociology Mr Francis Godard
Programme of Research, Ministère de la
Mr Michel Vanderkam recherche, de l’éducation et de technologie ,
Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte Paris
contre le racisme, Brussel
Mr. Thierry Hubert
Mr Yves Van de Vloet Délégation interministerielle à la ville , Paris
Gouvernement de la région Bruxelles-Capitale,
Cabinet du Ministre-Président Ms Anne Querrien
Plan Urbain, Ministère de l’équipement , Paris
Mr Jan Vranken
University of Antwerp, CASUM Mr Patrick Simon
Institut National des Etudes Démographiques
France (13) (INED), Paris
Ms Jocelyne Bac-Teissandier
Dept. of Development, Evaluation and Meth- Ms Laura Vanhué
ods, Fond d’action sociale (FAS), Paris Urban consultant, Brussel

Mr Maurice Blanc Germany (14)

Department for Sociology, University of Mr Rainer Albrecht
Nancy, LATES Ausländerbeanftragter der FHH/Ref. f. Auslän-
derrecht (Hamburg)
Ms Sophie Body-Gendrot
Institut des etudes anglaises/nord-américaines, Mr Philip Anderson
Université de Paris-Sorbonne Jesuit Refugee Service, München

Mr John Crowley Mr Bernd Baumhold

Centre des études et de recherches interna- VHS Hattingen (Ausländerbeauftragter Hattin-
tionales (CERI), Paris gen)

Mr Michel Digne Mr Peter Ederer

Fond d’action sociale (FAS), Paris Sozial- und Sportamt (Ausländerbeauftragter
Ravensburg)

146
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 147

Ms Michelle C. Fanzo Ms Koula Kasimati

Journalist, Berlin Centre for Social Morphology and Social poli-
cy (KEKMOKOP), Department of Social Policy
Mr Heinz Fassman and Social Anthropology, Panteio University
Institute for Geography, Technical University
München Petros Linardos-Rylmond
(see also Austria) Scientific Consultant, INE Labour Institute
GSEE, Athens
Mr Bernd Geiss
Büro der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung Chara Paraskeuopoulou
für Ausländerfragen, Bonn E.E.T.A.A. (Greek Company for Local Devel-
opment and Self-government), Athens
Mr Kay Hailbronner
Konstanz University, Juristische Fakultät Mrs Euanthia Papadatou
Department Of Economic and Social Policy,
Mr Uwe Hunger General Secretariat for Greeks Abroad, Min-
Institute for Political Sciences, Münster univer- istry of Foreign Affairs
sity Athens

Mr Herald Lederer Ms Marina Petronoti

European Forum for Migration Studies, Uni- National Centre for Social Research (EKKE),
versity of Bamberg Athens,

Mr Helmut Rittstieg Mr Dimitris G. Tsaousis

Universität Hamburg, Juristuische Facultät Centre for Social Morphology and Social poli-
cy (KEKMOKOP), Department of Social Policy
Mr Emir Ali Saq and Social Anthropology, Panteio University
Foreigners Office, Bielefeld
Ms Olga Tsakiridi
Mr Georgios Tsapanos Institute of Urban and Rural Sociology,
Büro der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung National Centre for Social Research (EKKE),
für Ausländerfragen, Bonn Athens

Ms Rosi Wolf-Almanasreh Ms Maria Tzortzopoulou

Amt für Multikulturelle Angelegenheiten/Aus- National Centre for Social Research (EKKE),
länderbeanftragte Frankfurt am Main Athens,

Greece (10) Italy (14)

Mr Dimitrios Charalambis Ms Christina M. Bettini
Institute of Political Science, National Centre Foreigners Office, Municipality of Milan
for Social Research (EKKE), Athens,
Ms Maria Adriana Bernardotti
Mrs. Marily Galaora Osservatorio delle Immigrazione, Bologna
Special Consultant in migration policy, Ministry
of Labour and Social Security, Athens Mr Guido Bolaffi
Department of Social Affairs, Presidency of
Ministers Council, Rome

147
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 148

Ms Giancarla Boreatti Director Lowe Kuiper & Schouten BV, Amster-

Foreigners Office, Municipality of Milan dam

Ms Carla Collicelli Mr Gotfried Engbersen

CENSIS, Roma Department of Sociology, Erasmus University
Rotterdam
Ms Maura de Bernart
University of Bologna, Department of Sociolo- Mr Han Entzinger
gy AWSB, Utrecht University

Mr Zeleke Eresso Mr Köbben

Forum of Immigrants, Municipality of Bologna LISWO, Leiden University

Mr Matteo Fiore Mr Ben Koolen

Settore del Servizi Sociali, Milano Ministry of Interior, The Hague

Mr Marco Lombardi Mr Chris de Lange

Fondazione Cariplo - ISMU, Milano Externe Fondsen en EG Coördinatie, Ontwikel-
ingsbedrijf Rotterdam
Mr Bruno Murer
Foreigners Office, Municipality of Milan Mr Hans van Miert
Immigration and Naturalisation Department
Mr Andrea Pacini (INDIAC), Ministry of Justice, Immigration Pol-
Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli, Torino icy Department, The Hague

Mr Franco Pittau Mr Jaap Modder

Caritas Diocesana Roma, Centro Studi & Doc- Netherlands Institute for Physical Planning and
umentatione, Roma Housing, The Hague

Ms Francesca Steiner Mr Philip Muus

Istituzione dei Servici per l’Immigrazione, ERCOMER, Utrecht University
Bologna
Mr Nico van Nimwegen
Ms Giovanna Zincone The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic
University of Torino Institute, The Hague

The Netherlands (19) Mr Peter Odermat

Ms Edith Elizabeth Bleeker Emporium, Municipality of Amsterdam, Eco-
Ministry of Justice, Immigration Policy Depart- nomic Affairs
ment, The Hague
Ms Cora Oudijk
Mr Pieter Bol Center for Research and Statistics (COS), Rot-
Adviser for Social Affairs, Municipality of Rot- terdam
terdam
Mr Rinus Pennix
Mr Jan Bouts Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies
Director Research NIPO/Strategic Planing (IMES), University of Amsterdam

148
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 149

Mr Arie de Ruyter Ms Anna Siri Rustad

CERES, Utrecht University Equal Opportunity Section, Directorate of
Immigration, Oslo
Ms Surendra Santokhi
Major Cities Policy, Municipality of The Hague Mr Serdar Semen
IMES /Institute of Philosophy, Bergen
Ms Nel Statema
Urban Migration Policy, Municipality of The Ms Vivien Wrede-Holm
Hague Municipality of Oslo, Department for Employ-
ment and Social Affairs
Mr Justus Veenman
Institute for Sociological and Economic Sweden (14)
Research (ISEO), Erasmus University Rotter- Mr Gunar Alsmark
dam Lund University, Department of European Eth-
nology
Norway (11)
Ms Nina Gran Mr Roger Anderson
Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Dep. of Social and Economic Geography, Upp-
Authorities, Municipal Policy Department, sala University
Oslo
Mr Erland Bergman
Ms Eli Grut Regional Swedish Council of Social Research, Stockholm
Directorate of Immigration, Oslo
Ms Monica Claesson
Ms Eva Haagensen Malmö City
Ministry of Local Government and Regional
Development, Department of Immigrant and Mr Eric Clark
Refugee Affairs, Oslo Department of Social and Economic Geogra-
phy, Lund University
Ms Anna G. Kolky
Equal Opportunity Section, Directorate of Ms Kristine Dosen
Immigration, Oslo Stadshuset, Göteborg Stad

Mr Tor Lunde Larsen Ms Asa Helg

Research Council of Norway, Oslo Sverige 2000 Institutet, Göteborg

Mr Steven Meglitch Mr Urban Herlitz

IMER, Oslo Department of Social Work, University of
Goteborg
Mr Lars Ostby
Statistics Norway, Division for Social and Mr Kent Johansson
Demographic Research, Oslo District North, Goteborgs Stadsbyggnadskon-
tor
Ms Nasim Riaz
IMER, Bergen Mr Evald Malm
Förvaltnings AB Frantiden, “The Future of
Hjällbo”

149
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 150

Ms Irene Molina Mr Gottfried Zürcker

Dep. of Social and Economic Geography, Upp- Federal Office for Refugees, Ministry of Jus-
sala University tice, Berne

Ms Birgitta Ornbrant European Commission (4)

Ministry of Interior, Stockholm Ms Annette Bosscher
Head of Section Labour Mobility and Equal
Ms Marthe Valeonfari Opportunities Division, DG V
Sverige 2000 Institutet, Göteborg
Ms Sandra S. Lutchman
Mr Charles Westin Auxiliary Officer Labour Mobility and Equal
Center for Resarch in International Migration Opportunities Division, DG V
and Ethnic Relation, University of Stockholm
Stefaan de Runck
Switzerland (10) Administrative Officer, DG XVI
Mr Claudio Bolzman
Centre for Social Research, Ecole Supérieure Ms Floriana Sipala
de Travail Social , Geneva Secretariat-General

Mr Michele Galizia International organizations (2)

Federal Commission Against Racisme, Bern Mr John Murray
Council of Europe, Division for Population and
Mr Michel Goenczy Migration, Strasbourg
General Direction for Social Action of Geneva
Canton Mr Roger Zegers de Beijl
Migration Branch, International Labour
Mr Dieter Grossen Organisation, Geneva
Federal Office for Foreigners, Ministry of Jus-
tice

Mr Werner Haug
Population and Employment Division, Federal
Office for Statistics, Bern

Mr René Riedo
Secretariat of Federal Commission for Foreign-
ers, Bern

Mr Walter Schmied
Fürsorgeamt der Stad Zürich

Mr Hans-Rudolf Wicker
Tobler University, Institut of Ethnology, Bern

Mr Andreas Wimmer
Swiss Forum for Migration Studies, Neuchâtel

150
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 151

Appendix C: Conferences attended

SISWO: Sociaal-wetenschappelijke studiedagen, April 1998, Amsterdam, session on “social sci-

ence and advocacy”.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Anton Köbben, Leiden university
prof Siep Stuurman, Erasmus university, Rotterdam
prof Godfried Engbersen, Erasmus university, Rotterdam

Bundeskonferenz der Ausländerbeauftragten des Bundes, der Länder und der Kommunen, May
1998, Bonn.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Faruk Sen, director Zentrum für Turkeistudien, Essen
dr Lale Akgün, director Landeszentrum für Zuwanderung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Solingen
ms Cornelia Schmalz-Jacobsen, Beauftragte der Bundesregierung für Ausländerfragen, MP

Metropolis Interconference: Divided Cities and strategies for undivided cities, May 1998, Göte-
borg.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
mr Meyer Burstein, head metropolis project Citizenship and Immigration Canada
prof Roger Anderson, Uppsala university
dr Ronald van Kempen, Utrecht university
ms Krisine Dösen, senior planner, Göteborg city
dr Lars-Göran Karlsson, Umeå university
dr Per Broomé, Institute of population economics, Stockholm
dr Sören Olsson, Göteborg university
dr Ingrid Johansson, Göteborg university
dr. Irene molina, Uppsala university
dr Gunar Alsmark, Lund university
dr Urban Herlitz, Göteborg university
mr Evald malm, Framtiden municipal housing group, Göteborg

City of Vienna/OECD: Migration and sustainable urban development, June 1998, Vienna.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Hans-Joachim Hoffmann-Nowotny, Zürich university
dr Gudrun Biffle, Austrian institute of economic research, Vienna
Josef Konvitz, Urban affairs, TDS OECD, Paris
dr Jean-Pierre Garson, DEELSA, International migration unit, OECD, Paris
prof Maria Ardiana Bernardotti, Bologna university
dr. George Muskens, DOCA, Tilburg
prof Heinz Fassmann, Technical university, München
dr Etienne Piguet, Swiss forum for migration studies, Neuchâtel
prof Faruk Sen, Zentrum für Turkeistudien, Essen
dr Jean Tillie, University of Amsterdam
prof Robert Giffinger, Technical university of Vienna
dr Achmed Ishtiaq, Bradford racial equality council

151
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 152

prof Jens Dangschat, Technical university of Vienna

ms Barbara John, dept. for migration and integration, Berlin

Universität der Bundeswehr: Managing migration in the 21st century, on the politics and eco-
nomics of illegal migration, Hamburg.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Richard Alba, State univerity of New York
mr Rainer Albrecht, Ausländerbeautragter der FHH, Hamburg
dr Philip Anderson, Jesuit refugee service, München
prof Kay Hailbronner, Universität Konstanz
dr Harald Lederer, European forum for migration studies, Bamberg
prof Ivan Light, University of California, LA
prof Susan Martin, Institute for the study of international migration, University Georgetown
prof Philip Martin, University of California, Davis
prof Jim Hollifield, Southern Methodist university Dallas
Mr Olaf Reermann, ministerialdirektor, home ministry
prof Jeff Passel, Urban institute, Washington
prof Rainer Hofmann, Walther Schücking institute for international law, Kiel
prof Thomas Straubhaar, Universität der Bundeswehr, Hamburg

NVMC: Waan van de dag. March 1999, Utrecht.

Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Peter Ester, director Organization for strategic labour-market research (OSA)
prof Paul Schnabel, director Social and Cultural Planning Office Dutch government
prof Ed van Thijn, former home minister , former mayor of Amsterdam
prof Andre Köbben, Leiden university
drs Pieter Broertjes, chief editor Volkskrant
dr Lieteke van Vucht Tijssen, board Utrecht university
drs. Jos Kok, director research department ministry of social affairs
dr Paul de Beer, Social and Cultural Planning Office
mr Kees Tamboer, journalist Parool

Royal Netherlands Academy for the Arts and Sciences/Board for the Social Sciences (SWR)
Sociale wetenschappen en beleid: spannende verhoudingen, November 1999, Amsterdam.
Speakers addressing the topic of research-policy linkages:
prof Pieter Drenth, chair SWR
prof M. Scheltema, chair Netherlands scientific council for government policy (WRR)
prof Dick Wolfson, Institute for Social Studies, The Hague

152
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 153

Appendix D: Topics to be addressed in the European exploration of

(good practice) in the use of (internationally comparative) research in
policy development on migrants and cities

Explanation
On behalf of the European Commission (DG XII) the European arm of the Metropolis secretariat
conducts an internationally comparative survey of experiences with and perceptions of the use of
scientific information in policy development in the area of migrants and cities. In a minimum of 6
European countries interviews will be conducted with, on the one hand, some key players in the
development of migrant and minority integration policy (at national level and at city level), and
on the other hand with academics closely involved with research that is being used for policy
development.

Against the context of the national administrative arrangement of responsibilities for immigration
and integration policies (for example in terms of what is done nationally and what is done local-
ly), and against the context of national arrangements of ensuring the availability of information
and advise on these issues, we want to make an exploratory inventory of
• Examples of good practices in the linkage between research and policy and their pre-conditions
• Major policy-issues that deserve more attention from research
• The potential of international comparison

In line with the exploratory nature of the survey the interviews will have an open character.
Below are the issues to be addressed. Each issue is expressed in a lead question and an outline of
the territory as the investigators perceive it. This outline is not to be interpreted as an interview
schedule but as a way to ensure that interviewer and interviewee share the same understanding
of the issue to be discussed.

Factual information
During Interview name
Institutional affiliation
Contact details

1. PRESENT USE OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION (POLICY VERSION)

Lead question: To what extent and how does your department make use of scientific informa-
tion for policy development

Outline of the territory of this topic:

• what are the most important inputs into policy development (independently produced scientific
information, commissioned scientific information, information from policy implementers, lobby
groups, political interest,.....)
• does your department make use of scientific knowledge in policy development, policy imple-
mentation or policy evaluation
- is it an important ingredient or relatively minor compared to the other inputs
- in which of these areas is it used most
• where do you get your scientific information from
- does your department have a section that is responsible for research and/or documentation

153
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 154

- is that a general resource or is it specifically aimed at issues related to migration, minorities

and city/or city-issues
- for getting access to interesting scientific information do you rely mostly on contacts with
individual researchers, contacts with research institutes or on documentation
- do you go about it in a systematic way
- does the information come directly from the producers or via intermediaries
- does it come mainly from universities, from advisory bodies/agencies or from contract
research agencies
- is most of what you make use of commissioned by yourself or is it independently produced
- how extensive is the portfolio of research that your department is actively involved with
• Do you experience the present situation of the linkage and exchange between research and
policy as problematic
- If so what do you do to deal with the problem

Note:
In as far as possible ratios should be indicated by a %, and amounts should be quantified, not
with the aim to have precise figures but to make expressions like “more”, or “not much” more
precise and thus more comparable.

2. Good/bad practice examples of the linkage between research and policy

Lead question: Can you give examples of effective ways of ensuring the policy-relevance of aca-
demic research

Outline of the territory of this topic:

• do you have experience with research/policy linkages that work(ed)
In terms of the timeline of the research process one could think about good practice with
respect to:
- problem definition
- organisational/contractual arrangements
- monitoring
- output
- are there any contextual conditions that are essential for the success
- what is your experience with particular instruments to “valorise” (non-commissioned or
existing) research like literature reviews, policy summaries....
• do you have experience with practices that did/do not work at all

If specific examples are mentioned request information about them to be send to secretariat

3. Ideas for instruments, arrangements, etc. that might work or that are needed
Lead question: Do you have ideas about instruments, facilities and/or arrangements that do not
yet exist for the domain of migration/integration and urban policy but that would improve the
use of scientific information in policy development

Outline of the territory of this topic:

• can you propose new instruments, arrangements, facilities that would be helpful in linking
research to policy development
- can you indicate where these ideas come from

154
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 155

• what would be needed for these ideas to materialise (action strategies)

4. Topics/Issues that deserve attention

Lead question: What are the major issues that research should deliver input for

Outline of the territory of this topic:

• what are the major policy issues as defined in the recent past and at present for which research
information was/is being used as input
• in which areas/on what topics do we need more information than is available at present
• in which areas/on what topics is research information available that is not made use of (prop-
erly)
- what can/should be done about the lack of use of relevant existing material

If there are policy documents that indicate present and/or future topics of interest, ask for them
to be send to the secretariat

5. International comparison
Lead question: How can international comparison be of help in policy development

Outline of the territory of this topic:

• do you make use of institutional contacts for exchanging research information and policy expe-
rience across borders (and if so which)
- what would you need to make more use of international comparison
• what is needed to make international comparison viable and productive
• in which areas do you think international comparison is of added value
- can you indicated which countries are the most interesting comparison partners for which
each area of interest

If material is available on international comparisons that the department has been involved with
or makes use and evaluates as productive request for it to be send to the secretariat

Some of our interview partners were expected to be knowledgeable about the the general link-
age “climate” in their country. The were asked an additional set of questions:

6. The national situation with respect to migrants and cities issues

Explanation
Our exploratory inventory of
• Examples of good practices in the linkage between research and policy and their pre-conditions
• Major policy-issues that deserve more attention from research
• The potential of international comparison
should be set against the context of the national administrative arrangement of responsibilities for
immigration and integration policies (for example in terms of what is done nationally and what is
done locally), and against the context of national arrangements of ensuring the availability of
information and advise on these issues.

We want to describe that context for your country in paragraph that is informative enough to

155
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 156

serve its purpose (being the context for the other information) but without going into too much
detail.

1. Are you aware of a document that would best describe this context for our purposes
- administrative arrangement of responsibilities for immigration and
- integration policies
- arrangements of ensuring the availability of information and advise on these issues

2. Could you identify the major institutional interests

- on the policy side
- on the research side

3. Does your country have a tradition of research for policy in this field

156
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 157

Appendix E: Contract research by commercial agencies1

At present, contract research is characterised by an explicit agreement with the principal commis-
sioning the research about problem definition and the expected outcomes of a study. In return
the research partner charges rates that guarantee the continuity of the research agency.

For a policy-maker in search of particular knowledge, such arrangements are attractive; major
problems associated with research-policy linkage can be avoided when using contracts. Different
timeframes are hardly a problem; if results are needed within four months, four months will be
stipulated in the contract. The framing of the research questions is under direct control of the
contractor, and can be moulded to the needs at hand. The results must be presented in the prop-
er format which directly fulfills the function contracted.

It took time for the “contract” that gives contract research its name to become fully exploited as
an instrument to ensure a “customer”orientation. Academic culture is not normally customer
directed, neither in terms of the professional attitude inculcated in staff, nor in its internal organi-
sation. It is small wonder that the demand for contracts, with increasingly elaborate terms of ref-
erence, is growing at a phenomenal rate everywhere, paralelled by a growth of research agencies
outside of universities on the supply-side of the market2.

As contract research questions are derived from real life concerns and not from discipline-based
theories, the internal organisation of contract research agencies is different from that of universi-
ty-based research units. A contract research work environment can be attractive for researchers
because of its different way of doing things:
“After my graduation I wanted to leave university and go out into the world... I was looking for
an environment that would enable me to develop more of my capabilities and personality. I now
work with a large commercial research agency and I am required to do things that I neglected,
could avoid or missed at university: teamwork, keeping time schedules, immediate and unam-
biguous communication, bagging contracts and giving good-fellowship higher priority than per-
sonal glory”.3

For many policy purposes, contract research is obviously a most appropriate linkage form
between research and policy. The market mechanisms unleashed by the contract form do create
their own problems, however.

To the extent that a research agency becomes dependent on contracts, it tends to develop into a
regular commercial company, with performance statistics, shareholders, and a management delib-
erating mergers and take-overs. It will tend to perceive the “market” exclusively in terms of profit
maximalization. Profit generation as a master objective does not imply negligence of scientific

1. This box is partly based on an analysis of the internal workings of contract research by an employee of a
Dutch research pvt. Ltd. (NEI): R.van der AA. “Niet bij brood alleen! Over de binnenkant van contractonder-
zoek”. Facta 1999-8, 12-14, and partly on information with directors of other such agencies (ITS, NIPO, RvB)
2. These agencies often start off as institutes that retain a university affiliation, but more often than not, this is
only a temporary phase on the way towards fullfledged independence.
3. Wilma Aarts in Facta, 1999-8, p.17.

157
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 158

integrity, professionalism, or public relevance of research results, but it does pose risks in terms of
the immunity to pressure from the principal to deliver results that are in line with his financial or
other interests and in terms of the quality of the results.

Understandably, the issue of independence from those commissioning the research is downplayed
as a serious risk by those involved. Commercial agencies always describe bending reality to please
those commissioning research as signing their own derath warrant, because in the longer term,
principals do not want to be associated with agencies whose results can be bought. The argu-
ment runs as follows: contractors will argue that if they can buy results from agency x, others can
buy results too. The chances that the reputation of agency x is or will be damaged are therefore
real. Given that one’s reputation for intellectual independence and integrity can result in real
clout, principles do not want to be associated with tainted reputations. Yet it dt does seem
unwise, however, to flatly deny the risks involved; short-term needs often overrule longer-term
interests, making it more difficult to determine what is intellectual fraud (the complication in
research is often not in the results as such but in the problem definition which is often entirely
determined by the principal). Moreover, a relatively lucrative market for contract research like the
Dutch one is regularly upset by scandals, most recently about the extent to which research, that
is needed by companies and authorities to demonstrate their compliance with environmental leg-
islation, can be and is bought by private operators as well as local authorities4. It should be
stressed that the issue as such is tied to (research) contracts in general, and that the above
assessment of a difference in risk between university-based (contract) research and commercial
agencies is purely one of degree.

The quality issue is closely linked with the fact that time is money and therefore, the research is
going to be limited by a very strict time constraints. The construction of elaborate theoretical
models is usually not part of the deal. Data analysis is limited to information that is needed to
answer the question posed by the commissioner, and that question is more often than not of a
very practical nature. Time for additional analyses to uncover underlying causes and relationships
is not available. In other words, quality is conceived in terms of value added to scientific under-
standing. Commercial agencies counter this argument by pointing towards the trend of segmen-
tation of the market for contract research; some agencies specialise in consumer research, others
in opinion polls, and others again, on even more specific topics like monitoring and evaluation of
labour market policy. Within a specialised agency, considerable sector know-how can be collect-
ed, also in terms of data. Time limitations are going to stimulate the use of variables and tech-
niques that have been proven to be valid and reliable, and across individual projects, can con-
tribute to an even greater cumulative knowledge. From a commercial point of view, such
knowledge banks or data warehouses are very interesting because they can be “mined” for new
information with relatively minor additional investment5. Agencies can employ an interesting mix
of methodological specialists and broadly oriented conceptual researchers and actively advertise
their expertise to make the most of their sector monopoly. However true this counter argument
may be, it applies only to a minority of agencies and even for these, it usually applies only to a

4. In a report (1999, Wie betaalt, bepaalt) researcher M. van den Anker of the Rotterdam policeforce conclud-
ed that many environmental consultancy agencies and laboratories are prepared to commit fraud.
5. As is argued elsewhere in this report, the institutionalisation of contract research into separate institutions
that lack regular exchange channels with the academic world, should be defined a problem of its own. Poten-
tially important data are not available for (further) analysis.

158
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 159

part of their research portfolio6. The bulk of contract agency research is aimed at answering ad
hoc and short term knowledge needs and does not feed into either a cumulative knowledge
base nor into (long-term) strategic policy development.

Defining the contract as the solution for research-policy linkage problems is like defining the proj-
ect as the solution for all development problems. It will do for certain problems, under certain cir-
cumstances, but is not a general panacea7.

6. We obviously lack quantitative data to substantiate this statement and it should be interpreted for what it is:
an educated guess.
7. For a recent critique of the project form see Andrew Sheppard,1998, Sustainable Rural Development. Lon-
don: Macmillan. Especially chapter 5, The project, p.120-145

159
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 160

Appendix F: Universities adapting to changes in their environment

In 1998, the OECD group on the Science System published a study on University Research in
Transition. The summary of that report provides a good summary of the changes that universities
are going through in response to changes in their environment. Although ‘...on balance universi-
ties are adapting to changes ... in largely positive ways..’ the trends sketched underneath ‘...raise
serious questions about how to ensure that universities can continue to make their unique contri-
bution to long-term basic research and maintain an appropriate balance among research, training
and knowledge transfer.’

• ‘Declining government R&D finance... with the result that universities are seeking new sources
of support and a new basis for that support.
• Changing nature of government finance - government funding for academic research is
increasingly mission-oriented and contract-based and more dependent on output and perform-
ance criteria. This can lead universities to perform more short-term and market-oriented
research.
• Increasing industry R&D finance.
• Growing demand for economic relevance... they are often constrained by rigidities arising from
the traditional disciplinary organisation of research.
• Increasing systemic linkages - the institutional context of research is changing as universities
are encouraged to enter into joint ventures and cooperative research with industry, govern-
ment facilities, and other research institutions as a means of improving the effectiveness of net-
works and feedback loops in national innovation systems.
• Growing research personnel concerns.
• Internationalisation of university research... is... making research more competitive and leading
to specialization.’
(p. 7-8)

160
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 161

Appendix G: Philosophies of governance

Bovens and ‘t Hart provide a helpful typology of philosophies of governance, perspectives, or

outlooks on the possibility of steering societal processes*. When analysing problems:
• Optimists will see systems that in principle function well, but are hampered by a particular mis-
fit or mistake at the level of the individuals involved. The world is controllable, policy is defined
as problem solving and fiascos are exceptions.
• Realists will see faulty institutional arrangements and an arena of competing interests, both of
which, especially in their interconnectedness, are never completely overcome. The world con-
sists of opportunities and constraints, policy is organised action, and fiascos are organisational
failures.
• Pessimists will focus on the interconnectedness of all factors mentioned above, and many more
not mentioned; systems as a whole are bound to misfunction, having failure wired into them.
Policy is overdetermined, and successful interaction is the exception to the rule.

It is important to realise that each perspective has its merits. Each focuses on particular phenome-
na (and disregards others) and it is not difficult to illustrate the partial truths that are revealed by
these respective foci:
• The pessimists highlight that usually both parties involved in research-policy linkages are dis-
satisfied with the results. Even in settings with a long-standing history of frequent interaction,
with a long-standing history of trying to prevent communication problems and of trying to cre-
ate institutional arrangements facilitating linkage (e.g. the Netherlands) dissatisfaction is the
rule. The fact that “direct utilisation” is the common way of defining success is a major com-
ponent of this disenchantment. Our data confirm both the widespread dissatisfaction as well as
the domination of the utilisation criterion as a measure for success.
• The optimists highlight that, whatever constraints exists, examples of good practice can always
be found. Against all odds, individual enthusiasm and particular (historical) circumstances can
beat any system. We have not encountered a single (national) setting wherein research and
policy did not meet sometime to the profit of both.
• The realists highlight that some institutional arrangements and some interaction “climates” (to
use a term that better describes what “systems” amounts to) are definitely more favourable to
research-policy interaction than others.

We believe (policy) recommendations should focus on the areas where changes can make a dif-
ference. That is why we have looked at “good practice” examples with a mixture of an opti-
mistic, individual-focused perspective on the one hand, and a realistic, institutional arrangements
and negotiation-of-interest-focused perspective on the other, in order to arrive at “good arrange-
ment” suggestions.

* Bovens, M. & ‘t Hart, P. 1996. Understanding policy fiascos. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.

161
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 162

Appendix H: Weiss’ comparative case studies*

The Weiss plan for case studies involves a conceptual framework that dictates exploration of the
following characteristcs and features of the individual cases:

the initiation of the study

(Who initiated it? For what reasons? For what purposes? Did the initiators evince concern for the
application of results of the research to practical action? Was there a formal proposal or Request
for Proposals? How was the research performer chosen? Who funded the study?

review of the proposal for the study

Who judged its merits? Were there conflicting opinions about the worth of the study? Was the
expected usefulness of results a criterion for approval? Did reviewers consider the methodological
quality of the proposed study? Did they consider the academic reputation of the researcher(s)
and/or their organization?

the researcher(s)
What was their reputation as researchers? What was the reputation of their research organiza-
tion? Had they done research of this kind before? What was their disciplinary affiliation?

conduct of the study

How long did the study take? How many people worked on it, in what capacities? Were stake-
holders, including policy makers, involved in the conduct of the study during its course? Did the
research have an explicit theoretical basis? What research methods were used? How were data
collected? How were the data analyzed? Did the methodology adhere to sound technical princi-
ples? What kind(s) of report(s) were written?

findings
What did the findings show? Did they provide clear direction for action? Were the implications of
the research a need to make changes in current policy or programming? Big changes or small
changes? Did the findings run counter to established policy or agency interest? Would implemen-
tation of the findings be expensive in financial terms? Would implementation of findings require
changes in agency structure or standard operating procedures?

dissemination of results
How were results of the research communicated to research audiences? to policy making audi-
ences? Did the researchers speak at conferences, or training sessions for professionals, or in public
forums? Did researchers attempt to reach policy makers with their findings? Was there a
“research champion” outside of the research team who publicized the findings? Did the media
report any of the findings? Did other “intermediaries,” such as think tanks or interest groups,
communicate the findings to policy audiences?

* Taken from a draft proposal for research funding to the program on Management Of Social Transformations
(MOST)/Unesco: Factors that Improve the Use of Research in Social Policy, Case Studies, 1999, p.5-6.

162
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 163

political context
What was the history of the issue-arena, e.g. decentralization of educational administration, pri-
vatization of day care provision? Had the topic been debated before? Were there clear supporters
and opponents of the direction that the research supported? Were divisions between supporters
and opponents long-standing and firm? Did the issue-arena respect research evidence? What
other research findings, if any, were in currency? What other information was being supplied to
decision makers? What groups were lobbying decision makers in support of which causes? Did
any of the lobbying interests use research findings in making their case? Was their time pressure
for reaching a decision? Were decision makers facing a crisis in which existing solutions were
unworkable?

prospective users
Who were the most appropriate users of the research? What positions do they hold? What is
their disciplinary background? How long have they worked in the issue-arena? Did they learn of
the findings of the research? Through what channels? If they heard about findings, did they
believe them? Did they believe that the findings were relevant to their issues and the conditions
they faced? Did they interpret the findings fairly, or did they misinterpret or distort the findings?

utilization
Did decision makers, in fact, use the findings to reconsider what they were doing or planning to
do? Did they make changes? If so, were they big changes or small changes? Which findings were
ignored? How much time elapsed before they implemented changes related to the research?
What factors promoted consideration of the research? What factors inhibited consideration of the
findings? How satisfied were decision makers with the extent to which the research served their
needs?

163
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 164

Appendix I: Comparative macro-indicators of RTD

Below, we present two tables from the 1997 Second European Report on Science and Technology
(S&T) Indicators. Definitions and classifications are standardised, mainly through the so-called
Frascati manual of OECD1 (and the subsequent Canberra manual for the measurement of human
resources); for non-EU/OECD countries, the main data source is UNESCO, sometimes using a
broader definition of Research and Development (R&D) than the OECD2. It is important to note
that R&D covers three activities: basic research, applied research and experimental development.
It does not include policy related studies!

The first table refers to Government R&D appropriations as a percentage of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). ‘Government R&D appropriations (GBAORD) means all appropriations by central
government allocated to R&D in central government budgets. Data on government appropria-
tions, therefore, refer to budget provisions, not to actual expenditure.’ (p. M-16)

It goes without saying, that the above qualifications severely compromise the validity of the fig-
ures below, when they are used to indicate differences in the use of scientific research by policy.

Table A Government R&D appropriations as a percentage of GDP from 1986 to 1996

[Source Second European Report on S&T Indicators,1997]

Country 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995* 1996*

EU 15# 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.84 0.81
B 0.57 0.55 0.53 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.60 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.65
DK 0.61 0.66 0.83 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.70 0.66 0.68 0.75 0.75
D 1.11 1.11 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.99 0.93 0.91 0.91
GR 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.31
E 0.34 0.39 0.43 0.52 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.46
F 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.37 1.38 1.37 1.29 1.26 1.24 1.16 1.10
IRL 0.39 0.39 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.30 0.31 0.37
I 0.72 0.75 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.80 0.69 0.63 0.62 0.59
NL 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.76 0.76
A 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.63 0.64 0.67 0.72 0.70 0.67
P 0.27 0.31 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.41 0.43 0.55 0.451 0.5 0.49
FIN 0.72 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.97 1.05 1.09 1.03 1.01 0.98
S 1.20 1.25 1.23 1.18 1.21 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.211 1.19 -
UK 1.11 1.04 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.76
NO 0.74 0.81 0.89 0.95 0.98 0.98 1.06 1.03 0.99 0.94 -
CH 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.34 - - - -

* Provisional #
Excluding Luxembourg
Source: Eurostat, CSRS, Data: OECD

1. OECD, 1994, The measurement of scientific and technological activities: proposed standard practice for sur-
veys of research and development - Frascati manual 1993, Paris.
2. I.e. when following the definitions outlined in UNESCO, 1984, Manual for statistics on scientific and tech-
nological activities, Paris.

164
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 165

The second table refers to Government R&D Appropriations by Socio-Economic Objective. It is

important to note that the breakdown follows the nomenclature for the analysis and comparison
of scientific programmes and budgets (NABS) developed by the EC. ‘In order to arrive at political-
ly more interesting groups, some NABS-classes have been combined’. Specifically, the NABS-
classes
• Infrastructure and general planning of land use.
• Control and care of the environment.
• Protection and improvement of human health.
• Social structures and relationships.
have been aggregated to form Human and Social Objectives (see p. M-16). When looking at the
desegregated 1996 data3, across the EU15, the most “social” of the categories, Social structures
and relationships, accounts for 21% of the amount spent on Human and Social Objectives. And
percentages for individual years of individual countries may vary considerably. It seems likely that
the aggregation is partly motivated to compensate for the yearly fluctuations and to create trends
that are more easily interpreted. The result is, that it becomes even more impossible to establish
how much social science in “contained” in the figures.

Table B Government R&D Appropriations (GBAORD) by Socio-Economic Objective

[Million; 1990 Purchasing Power Standards; Source Second European Report on S&T Indica-
tors,1997]
1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
B 726 798 922 947 934 978 976 1007 1073
Human and social objectives 57 52 54 73 65 64 63 74 93
Technological objectives 265 300 278 276 266 288 285 305 295
Agriculture 57 56 47 48 47 42 41 35 45
Research financed from GUF 186 177 315 318 320 343 342 338 373
Non-oriented research 147 179 188 188 188 188 189 193 188
Other civil research 11 22 36 42 45 50 54 58 74
Defence 3 12 4 2 2 2 2 3 5

D a
10048 10781 11164 | 12597 12613 12256 11821 11837 11984
Human and social objectives 1353 1120 1277 1403 1415 1367 1 312 1269 1300
Technological objectives 3159 3535 2981 3200 3433 3085 2914 2866 2854
Agriculture 187 214 216 400 318 318 313 308 307
Research financed from GUF .. 3389 3636 4178 4440 4544 4479 4467 4467
Non-oriented research .. 1228 1464 1911 1696 1877 1711 1779 1786
Othercivil research .. 9 86 122 46 20 80 76 89
Defence 1020 1286 1504 1384 1265 1044 1012 1072 1180

EL 87 144 196 189 169 183 198 278 301

Human and social objectives 16 25 30 27 23 28 27 36 42
Technological objectives 14 24 34 32 25 31 28 54 64
Agriculture 22 39 34 30 23 24 24 30 33
Research financed from GUF 13 41 81 87 84 83 95 127 129
Non-oriented research 17 9 9 7 8 13 21 27 29
Othercivil research - 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 0
Defence 6 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 4

3. European Commission, 1998, Research and Development: Annual statistics 1998, Luxembourg: E.C.

165
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 166

1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

F 8149 11306 12653 12662 12021 11620 11424 10769 10773

Human and social objectives 887 1145 700 704 833 844 809 902 932
Technological objectives 2122 3061 3134 3306 2641 2588 2517 2257 2273
Agriculture 318 401 504 526 466 459 446 373 386
Research financed from GUF .. 1348 1478 1574 1619 1612 1638 1687 1721
Non-oriented research .. 1628 1914 1931 2020 2085 2 037 2 086 2068
Othercivil research 36 188 48 53 164 161 201 205 270
Defence 2974 3536 4874 4568 4277 3870 3777 3259 3124

I 2765 4867 6340 6552 7013 5988 5540 5624 ..

Human and social objectives 243 380 949 1 135 984 818 693 772 ..
Technological objectives 1346 2366 2077 1755 1982 1450 1317 1 175 ..
Agriculture 115 185 186 186 176 154 133 122 ..
ResearchfinancedfromGUF .. 1055 1892 2052 2515 2312 2245 2362 ..
Non-oriented research .. 367 691 695 611 536 467 513 ..
Othercivil research .. 30 156 211 250 207 194 175 ..
Defence 74 483 389 518 495 511 492 505 ..

NL 1785 1774 2026 1947 1956 1924 1907 1954 1924

Human and social objectives 292 230 268 292 296 317 278 246 234
Technological objectives 320 406 596 511 515 424 403 391 392
Agriculture 162 78 89 104 89 91 94 92 94
Research financed from GUF 731 751 674 639 643 676 718 807 791
Non-oriented research 191 178 239 242 251 247 250 235 231
Othercivil research 41 77 92 92 90 101 97 120 118
Defence 48 54 68 67 71 68 67 63 64

A 461 564 664 771 796 849 915 897 873

Human and social objectives 22 30 49 64 68 67 95 80 71
Technological objectives 76 58 67 91 83 82 101 89 84
Agriculture 19 25 26 26 29 30 30 29 30
Research financed from GUF 293 382 442 493 515 549 580 581 570
Non-oriented research 52 69 78 95 99 120 108 117 117
Other civil research - 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Defence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S 1337 1510 1628 | 1694 | 1684 | 1668 1605 1638 ..

Human and social objectives 231 208 328 261 254 248 299 266 ..
Technological objectives 278 270 163 178 175 146 152 172 ..
Agriculture 26 30 31 30 31 28 20 28 ..
Research financed from GUF .. 418 511 515 814 620 628 640 ..
Non-oriented research .. 221 210 247 - 235 204 189 ..
Other civil research .. - - - - - - - ..
Defence 203 363 385 463 410 392 303 342 ..

166
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 167

1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

UK 6905 8245 7509 7131 6886 7136 6765 7083 6909

Human and social objectives .. 650 825 776 856 986 981 1430 1395
Technological objectives .. 1684 1385 1136 1052 1112 1068 584 569
Agriculture .. 405 300 301 350 367 343 358 349
Research financed from GUF .. 1333 1271 1312 1315 1224 1324 1294 1262
Non-oriented research .. 366 433 402 454 369 390 830 810
Othercivil research .. 25 17 51 33 45 29 31 31
Defence 3745 3782 3280 3154 2826 3032 2630 2555 2493

NO 416 480 730 746 838 837 846 829 844

Human and social objectives 88 103 148 156 169 170 167 147 150
Technological objectives 92 92 161 162 182 194 184 185 174
Agriculture 38 49 76 74 86 85 85 82 83
Research financed from GUF 150 153 234 242 279 281 303 301 316
Non-oriented research 29 34 67 70 79 64 65 74 78
Other civil research - - - - - - - - -
Defence 19 49 43 42 43 43 42 41 42

CH bc
378 .. 455 465 487 .. .. .. ..
Human and social objectives .. .. 82 95 .. .. .. .. ..
Technological objectives .. .. 52 56 .. .. .. .. ..
Agriculture .. .. 45 43 .. .. .. .. ..
Research financed from GUF .. .. - - .. .. .. .. ..
Non-oriented research .. .. 182 185 .. .. .. .. ..
Other civil research .. .. 2 0 .. .. .. .. ..
Defence 59 .. 91 86 .. .. .. .. ..

US bcd
43551 55452 59056 58782 59299 59310 56846 54209 53294
Human and social objectives 8492 8297 10078 10801 11494 11555 12051 11722 11 40
Technological objectives 10280 6443 8596 9289 9418 9109 9692 9604 8982
Agriculture 1114 1186 1183 1260 1331 1355 1430 1364 1306
Research financed from GUF - - - - - - - - -
Non-oriented research 1803 2070 2231 2350 2305 2284 2256 2202 2208
Other civil research - - - - - - - - -
Defence 21863 37457 36968 35082 34751 35008 31417 29318 29160

European Commission ef
284 573 1314 1646 1762 2047 2026 2298 2591
Million ECU
Human and social objectives - 62 142 209 272 443 398 461 574
Technological objectives - 487 1040 1261 1177 1253 1170 1365 1439
Agriculture - 16 47 69 97 100 115 124 149
Research financed from GUF - - - - - - - - -
Non-oriented research - 8 40 49 97 21 22 42 174
Other civil research - - 45 58 119 230 321 305 256
Defence - - - - - - - - -

167
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 168

Notes
1996 data are provisional
a Break in series because of unification
b Excludes data for the R&D content of general payment to the higher education sector for combined
education and research (public GUF)
c Federal or central government only
d Excludes most or all capital expenditure
e Data rate in current prices due to the lack of an appropriate deflator
f Administrative costs not included

Source: EU plus Norway: Eurostat, but 1980 data from OECD

European Commission: Eurostat DGXII-AS-4
Other OECD countries: OECD

168
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 169

Appendix J:
Philosophies governing European migration and minority policies*

The one-dimensional classification of different perspectives on minorities, presented in Box 20, is

one way of carving up the European space, but neither the only one, nor the best for all purpos-
es. The categorisation below is two-dimensional, based on the general view on citizenship in dif-
ferent countries and their immigration history.

‘The philosophies basically governing migration and minority policies on the national and urban
level can be divided in four or five types:

• The “ex-colonial” type

Policies concerning residence and social rights have been primarily formed in times of ex-colo-
nial immigration and are directed at the integration of immigrants in structural terms (labour
market, housing, health care, education, political participation, etc.). The minority “problem” is
viewed as a problem of access to the markets where valuable goods and services are distribut-
ed; minority problems are interpreted as “class”- problems within the existing system of social
classes, frequently aggravated by institutional and personal discrimination. Policies to redress
“unfair” inequality stress participation of minorities in the decision making and executive pro-
cesses (Birmingham, Rotterdam, to a certain extent Antwerp and Lille).

• The “guest worker approach”

Migrants and ethnic minorities established themselves primarily as guest workers, temporarily
by definition. Presently, they may have permanent residence rights, but stay “foreigners”, in a
conceptual context, which is characterised by citizenship definitions, stressing the “ius sangui-
nis”-principle. Immigrants enjoy certain social rights, which may differ from policy sector to
policy sector and from nationality to nationality. Guestworkers stay predominantly “a class
apart” outside the autochtonouos system (Berlin, Vienna, to a certain extent Copenhagen).
They have to cross over into the autochtouos nationality before the are entitled to full citizen-
ship rights. The cultural dimension is not an important issue of debate.

• The pluralist approach

Policies are designed and carried out with the objective of full social integration of minorities
on the structural markets of goods and services. If residence requirements are satisfied, social
rights almost automatically follow. Policies are directed at redressing the unequal social-eco-
nomic position of immigrants (class-approach). Migrant should therefore participate in the cen-
tres of power. The most important distinguishing element, however, is the relevance of the cul-
tural dimension. Where large minorities are present, their cultural contribution is to be valued
as structural part of a pluralist society, which is supposed to change autochtonouos culture as
well as the culture of immigrant groups. Immigrants and ethnic minorities are a structural and
permanent part of society (Rotterdam, to a certain extent Antwerp, Copenhagen and Birming-
ham).

* International centre of comparative urban policy studies, 1998, Racism, xenophobia and minority policies in
the European city (draft), Rotterdam.

169
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 170

• “Universalisme republicain”
The French appproach (Lille) to migrants and ethnic minorities is strongly structural, in the
sense that public policies are directed at insertion in the labourmarket, the housing market,
education, etc. Culturally and legally, however, France applies strict rules to “public space”; all
legal resident are protected by the same republican rules if they obey the same republican rules
(the assimilationist approach).

• Humanitarian action
This category consists of cities with heterogeneous policies and initiatives (Lisbon, Madrid,
Barcelona, Milan, Athens, Dublin). Most policies are in a formative phase; a number of actions
are carried out, directed at “easing” the settlement process. Some show some structural ele-
ments (Barcelona, Madrid, Helsinki), opening up employment opportunities, housing, educa-
tion, public health to immigrant newcomers. One of the key elements in policies is promotion
of respect for “human rights”. Milan possesses a broad assortement of initiatives and organisa-
tions often funded by national, regional and municipal authorities. Dublin and Athens still find
themselves in the first phases of ad-hoc interventions.’ (p. 8-10)

‘Although cities function in a common national political space, which structures in the concep-
tions about and regulations on migration and minorities in their respective countries, there is
room for a certain amount of variation within the national territority: Berlin is not München, Lille
not Marseille and Milan not Palermo. There are demographic differences in terms of number of
immigrant and the composition of ethnic groups present, there are geographical differences,
which determine to a certain extent the functions cities acquire in the process of immigration.
There are of course differences in the availability of resources, in the existence of administrative
and organisational structures, but also in political attitudes to “the problem” of migration and
conceptions of social equity.

In spite of the eventual variations within a country, it is the national state and its laws regarding
the residence titles and the ensueing rights, which to a very large extent determine the way in
which the phenomenon of migration and the presence of ethnic groups in the local level is
viewed and treated. There are surprisingly large differences between countries concerning the
conceptions of citizenship. This even may be the most important factor to explain the variations
in the European Union in national policies towards immigrants and established black and ethnic
minorities’ (p. 105).

‘One important general characteristic of the actual urban agendas everywhere in minority policies
is, that the pressures of the refugee phenomenon tend to overshadow, if not supersede policies
directed at established minorities. “The crisis of the newcomers” (refugees, asylum seekers, illegal
immigrants) seems to increasingly occupy public attention, while “routine” policies directed at
established minorities seem to loose support.’(p.10)

170
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 171

Appendix K: Alternative Dispute Resolution

‘Network management makes use of methods of social conflict resolution known as ‘collaborative
problem solving’ ..., ‘joint problem solving’ ... or ‘consensual approaches’ .... The methods are
also subsumed under the generic heading of Alternative (Environmental) Dispute Resolution
(ADR). Bingham typifies them as “a variety of approaches that allow the parties to meet face to
face in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the issues in a dispute or potentially
controversial situation”.... The key concepts are consensus building, joint problem solving, and
negotiation. The methods aim to start a structured negotiation process among the parties
involved in a dispute. The objective of negotiation is to convert win-lose confrontations into joint
problem-solving efforts. In the negotiating process, all-gain results are sought. These are solutions
that convince all parties that, on balance, they can expect their gains to be greater than their
losses... ADR is generally considered applicable in situations that are kindred to the principles of
network management:

• There needs to be a “mixed motive” situation. This is a situation where the social actors
involved are facing both cooperative and confrontational stimuli;
• The parties involved in environmental conflict must perceive a mutual dependence. That is,
they must judge themselves to be incapable of achieving their self-interest independently;
• Each of the parties must be of the opinion that voluntary participation in a joint dialogue and
concerted effort to solve the problem will yield more benefits than losses.’*

‘Network management is not simply concerned with carrying out a “project” that has a clear
objective; where the starting point and finish line are recognizable; and for which the financing,
scheduling and human resources can be budgeted beforehand. Indeed, the opposite is more like-
ly. Network management involves a great deal of uncertainty....

Although there will be agreement on the direction of the outcome, the final result can only be
determined after various rounds of consultation and negotiation. It takes a specific form of pro-
cess supervision to deal with these uncertainties. We use the term ‘process’ here because we refer
to course or the development of the interactions between the actors involved. Such a process
does not occur spontaneously but requires supervision, planning and organization. “Supervision”
means that guidance is provided for the interaction processes; “planning” means that the differ-
ent activities are attuned to each other; and ‘organisation’ means that purposeful relations are
created among the actors.

Several aspects are crucial to the design of network management. These aspects, which are close-
ly related to each other, are the following:
• the stages in the interaction and communication processes;
• the selective activation of actors;
• the formation of a specific organisational structure;

* Quote taken from Glasbergen, P., Environmental dispute resolution as a management issue; towards new
forms of decision management. In: Glasbergen, P. (Ed.), 1995, Managing environmental disputes: network
management as an alternative. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.12-13. For references: see the
original.

171
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 172

• the definition of the policy problem;

• the design of the interaction and communication processes;
• the enlistment of a mediator;
• the formulation of conditions for implementation.’*

* Quote taken from Driessen, P., Vermeulen, W. “Network management in perspective: concluding remarks on
network management as an innovative form of environmental management”. in: Glasbergen, P. (ed.), 1995,
Managing environmental disputes: network management as an alternative. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, p.160.

172
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 173

Appendix L:
Aufgaben und Organisation des Schweizerischen Forums für
Migrationsstudien*
(Stand: Dezember 1998)

Zur Geschichte
Das Projekt zur Einrichtung einer zentralen Forschungs- und Dokumentationsstelle für die schwei-
zerische Migrationsforschung wurzelt in einem forschungspolitischen Bericht für den Fachbereich
Ethnologie aus dem Jahre 1991. Der Bericht identifizierte als primäres Ziel die Schaffung eines
interdisziplinär konzipierten und anwendungsorientierten Forschungs- und Dokumentationszen-
trums für Migrationsfragen. Ein vom Wissenschaftsrat – dem höchsten forschungspolitischen Gre-
mium der Schweiz – organisiertes Hearing, an dem Fachleute aus Forschung und Praxis teilnah-
men, machte die Dringlichkeit des Vorhabens deutlich.

Die Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (SAGW) übernahm darauf-
hin mit finanzieller Unterstützung des Wissenschaftsrats die Planung. Die SAGW setzte eine inter-
disziplinäre Arbeitsgruppe ein. Auf der Basis einer vorgängigen Umfrage sowie einer Vernehmlas-
sung entwickelte die Arbeitsgruppe das Konzept zur Einrichtung eines Schweizerischen Forums
für Migrationsstudien, das sowohl den Bedürfnissen der Forschung wie jenen der behördlichen
Entscheidungsträger oder anderer in der Praxis mit Migrationsfragen betrauter Stellen gerecht
werden sollte. Fachpersonen und Arbeitsgebiete der schweizerischen Migrationsforschung wur-
den inventarisiert, die Wünsche der Praxis und der Forschung eruiert, das Aufgabenprofil des
SFM definiert, ein Organisationsmodell entwickelt, ein Stellenplan und Finanzierungsmodelle erar-
beitet sowie der Standort Neuenburg festgelegt. Die SAGW schlug daraufhin das Projekt
“Schweizerisches Forum für Migrationsstudien” an erster Stelle für ein sozialwissenschaftliches
Schwerpunktprogramm des Nationalfonds vor. Die forschungspolitischen Entscheidungsträger
gaben jedoch dem Projekt “Zukunft Schweiz” den Vorzug, weil mit den Schwerpunktprogram-
men grundsätzlich keine dauerhaften Institutionen finanziert werden sollen.

Von der Tatsache ermuntert, dass die Einrichtung einer Forschungs- und Dokumentationsstelle im
Migrationsbereich einem breiten Bedürfnis verschiedenster Kreise entsprach, versuchte die
Arbeitsgruppe, das Projekt auf anderem Weg zu realisieren. Der Kanton, die Stadt und die Uni-
versität Neuenburg sowie einige Bundesämter unterstützten das Bestreben, das SFM auch ohne
Förderung durch den Nationalsfonds aufzubauen. Die Arbeitsgruppe erhielt vom Bundesamt für
Flüchtlinge, dem Bundesamt für Statistik, vom Eidgenössischen Departement für auswärtige
Angelegenheiten sowie der Stiftung Bevölkerung, Migration und Umwelt (Zürich) einen Aufbau-
kredit zugesprochen. Im Jahre 1995 konnte das Forum schliesslich die von der Universität Neuen-
burg zur Verfügung gestellten Räumlichkeiten beziehen, die ersten Mitarbeiter beschäftigen und
seinen Betrieb aufnehmen.

Aufgaben
Grenzüberschreitende Migration stellt eine der wesentlichen sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und politi-
schen Herausforderungen unserer Zeit dar. Seit die Arbeitsmigration aus Südeuropa durch andere

* See www.unine.ch/fsm/

173
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 174

Formen der Einwanderung aus neuen Herkunftsgebieten ergänzt wurde, zeichnet sich auch für
die Schweiz eine zusäätzliche soziale und kulturelle Heterogenisierung ab. Dabei sind vielfältige
Beziehungen der Einbindung und Ausgrenzung zwischen Zugewanderten und ansässiger Bevölke-
rung entstanden.

Eine Vielzahl von Institutionen beschäftigt sich mit der neuen Einwanderungsdynamik: die Behör-
den des Bundes, der Kantone und der Gemeinden, die Privatwirtschaft, Kirchen, Hilfswerke, Aus-
ländervereinigungen, internationale Organisationen etc. Häufig fehlen jedoch die Entscheidungs-
grundlagen für angemessenes migrationspolitisches Handeln.

Das Schweizerische Forum für Migrationsstudien stellt Forschungskapazitäten bereit, um Informa-

tionen aufzubereiten, Analysen zu erstellen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten zu evaluieren. Zentrales
Ziel ist es dabei, mit diesen Studien einen Beitrag zur Versachlichung und Professionalisierung der
hiesigen Diskussion zur Migrationsproblematik leisten zu können. Die angewandte Forschung des
SFM wird durch eine kontinuierliche Aufarbeitung der wissenschaftlichen Literatur sowie durch
Grundlagenforschung ergänzt.

Das SFM stellt der Forschung sowie der interessierten Öffentlichkeit eine Dokumentation und
Bibliothek zur Migrationsthematik zur Verfügung und betätigt sich im Bereich der universitären
Lehre und der Weiterbildung. Es koordiniert und dokumentiert wissenschaftliche Studien zur
Migrationsproblematik in der Schweiz und dient als Kontakt- und Vermittlungsstelle füür andere
Forschungsinstitute in Europa. Im einzelnen umfassen die Aufgaben des SFM:
Forschung
• Grundlagenforschung
• Auftragsforschung
• Expertisen und Evaluationen
Koordination
• Forschungskoordination im Inland
• Verbindungsstelle zur Migrationsforschung anderer Länder
Kommunikation
• Verbreitung von migrationsspezifischem Sachwissen in der Öffentlichkeit
• Beratung und Information
• Weiterbildungsveranstaltungen
Dokumentation
• Spezialbibliothek
• Bibliographische Datenbank
• Datenbank zu Institutionen im Migrationsbereich

Rechtliche Form, Organisationsstruktur und Finanzierung

Das Schweizerische Forum für Migrationsstudien wird von einer gemeinnützigen Stiftung getra-
gen, welche der Aufsicht des Eidgenössischen Departements des Innern untersteht. Stiftungs-
gründer sind der Kanton Neuenburg, die SAGW sowie die Stiftung Bevölkerung, Migration und
Umwelt (Zürich). Das SFM ist der Universität Neuenburg als fakultätsunabhängiges Institut ange-
gliedert. Ein Vertrag regelt die Nutzung der universitären Infrastruktur (Informatik und Räumlich-
keiten). Der Direktor des SFM ist als Dozent für Migrationssoziologie an der Universität Neuen-
burg tätig.

174
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 175

Das SFM gliedert sich in den Stiftungsrat als Kontrollorgan, den Wissenschaftlichen Beirat als
beratendem und dem Institut als durchführendem Organ.

Der Stiftungsrat setzt sich neben den Stiftungsgründern aus Vertretern von Verwaltung und Hilfs-
werken zusammen, welche im Migrationsbereich tätig sind, namentlich des Bundesamts für
Flüchtlinge, des Bundesamts für Statistik, des Bundesamts füür Ausländerfragen, der Caritas
Schweiz, des Eidgenössischen Departements für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten, des Schweizeri-
schen Roten Kreuzes sowie der Universität Neuenburg. Als Mitglieder des Wissenschaftlichen Bei-
rats wurden die wichtigsten Vertreter der verschiedenen Zweige und Disziplinen der schweizeri-
schen Migrationsforschung berufen. Der Beirat wacht über die Qualität der vom Institut
getätigten Forschung sowie über die Einhaltung der ethischen Richtlinien, unterstützt die Direkti-
on bei der Forschungskoordination und mit Expertisen zu einzelnen Sachfragen.

Das Institut steht unter der Leitung von PD Dr. Andreas Wimmer (Ethnologe)[Momentan Sandro
Cattacin phd, RH]. Als wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter im Forschungsbereich sind gegenwärtig auf
der Basis einer festen Anstellung ein Ökonome, zwei Politologe und eine Soziologin beschäftigt.
Der Dokumentationsbereich wird von einem wissenschaftlichen Dokumentalist geleitet, der von
einer Bibliothekarin unterstützt wird. Insgesamt sind 500 Stellenprozente in Festanstellungen
gebunden und durchschnittlich weitere 100 durch Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter auf Mandats-
basis.

Die Aktivitäten des Forums basieren auf zwei finanziellen Pfeilern: einerseits den Einnahmen aus
Forschungsmandaten (ca. 65% der Erträge), andererseits auf leistungsunabhängigen Beiträgen
der Stiftung Bevölkerung, Migration und Umwelt, des Schweizerischen Roten Kreuzes sowie der
Caritas Schweiz. Das Jahresbudget beläuft sich auf rund 850’000 Franken.

Bisherige Tätigkeit des SFM

Schwerpunktmässig war das Institut während der ersten Jahre seiner Existenz darum bemüht,
Dokumentation und Bibliothek aufzubauen sowie Mandate im Bereich der angewandten Migrati-
onsforschung auszuführen. Es ist dem SFM gelungen, sich innerhalb dieser kurzen Zeit einen Ruf
als Produzent qualitativ hochstehender Forschung zu erwerben und eine Dokumentationsstelle zu
schaffen, die einen schnellen Zugriff auf die Literatur zum Thema Migration in der Schweiz
ermöglicht.

Während der Aufbauphase konnten nicht alle Aufgaben des Instituts in gleichem Masse wahrge-
nommen werden. So war es nur sehr beschränkt möglich, migrationsspezifisches Sachwissen einer
breiteren Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen oder im Bereich der Forschungskoordination im In-
und Ausland tätig zu werden. Die folgende Darstellung beschränkt sich deshalb weitgehend auf
die Bereiche Forschung und Dokumentation.

Forschung
Die Mehrzahl dieser Forschungsprojekte weisen einen transdisziplinären Charakter auf und wer-
den entsprechend meist in Teamarbeit konzipiert und durchgeführt. Soziologie, Ethnologie, Poli-
tikwissenschaft und Wirtschaftswissenschaft sind die am häufigsten zueinander in Beziehung
gesetzten Fächer. Das SFM stellt eine der wenigen sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsinstitutio-
nen der Schweiz dar, die transdisziplinäre, anwendungsorientierte Forschung in der tääglichen
Arbeit praktizieren. Gerade für ein Themenfeld wie die internationale Migration erweist sich diese

175
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 176

institutionalisierte Kooperation zwischen den Disziplinen als äusserst fruchtbar.

Darüber hinaus zeichnet sich die Forschungstätigkeit des SFM dadurch aus, dass aufgrund der
personellen Zusammensetzung des Mitarbeiterstabes die französischsprachige und die deutsch-
sprachige Forschungstradition verbunden werden. In den meisten Projekten arbeiten Mitarbeiter
mit französisschprachiger und deutschsprachiger Universitätsausbildung eng miteinander zusam-
men.

Bibliothek und Dokumentation

Der Dokumentationsdienst des SFM setzt sich zum Ziel, detaillierte Informationen über alle
Aspekte des Migrationsgeschehens in der Schweiz zur Verfügung zu stellen. Der gesamte Bereich
wurde von Beginn an auf die modernen Kommunikationstechnologien ausgerichtet. Es ist der
Dokumentation gelungen, mit sehr geringem Kostenaufwand diese neuen technischen Möglich-
keiten zu nutzen und als eines der ersten sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsinstitute der Schweiz
eine recherchierbare Datenbank auf dem Netz anzubieten. Die Dokumentation umfasst gegen-
wärtig folgende Teile:
• eine Spezialbibliothek, welche einen Grossteil der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema
Migration in der Schweiz enthält. Darüber hinaus sind über 100 Zeitschriften und Bulletins
abonniert, neben den Publikationsorganen von Schweizer NGOs und Regierungsstellen auch
die wichtigsten internationalen Fachzeitschriften.
• eine bibliographische Datenbank zum Thema Migration in der Schweiz. Sie beruht auf einer
ersten systematischen Umfrage bei schweizerischen Forschern und Forscherinnen sowie einer
ständigen Nachführung.
• eine Datenbank mit über 1000 Adressen von Forschern, Behörden auf Bundes-, Kantons- und
Gemeindeebene sowie weiteren in der Praxis mit Migrationsfragen beauftragten Institutionen.
• eine Datenbank mit den Adressen und dem Aufgabenprofil der in der Ausländerberatung täti-
gen schweizerischen Organisationen, welche auf einer Umfrage des SFM beruht.
• Eine Homepage mit allgemeinen Informationen, einer Publikationsliste des SFM, Angaben über
schweizerische Kongresse und Weiterbildungsveranstaltungen im Migrationsbereich sowie dem
Bibliothekskatalog.

Die Dokumentation pflegt regelmässige Kontakte zu anderen Dokumentationsstellen im In- und

Ausland. Inzwischen ist das SFM zu einem festen Ansprechpartner für ausländische Dokumentati-
onszentren geworden, welche sich ebenfalls auf den Migrationsbereich spezialisiert haben.

Zukunftsperspektiven
Die Nachfrage nach angewandter Forschung im Migrationsbereich scheint nachhaltig zu sein. Die
Migrationsproblematik wird die Schweiz auch in Zukunft – beispielsweise nach dem Abschluss
eines Freizügigkeitsabkommens mit der EU – beschäftigten und figuriert weiterhin weit oben auf
der Liste der Politikfelder mit grossem Handlungsbedarf. Insbesondere die Integrationsfrage wird
in Zukunft noch an Bedeutung gewinnen, zeichnen sich doch hier bereits jetzt grössere Defizite
ab, welche durch die allgemeinen wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklungen wohl noch spürba-
rer werden.

Die rasch wachsende Zahl der Anfragen an den Dokumentationsdienst zeigt, dass in der breiteren
Öffentlichkeit sowie in Kreisen der Forschung ein Bedürfnis nach einer zentralen Informationsstel-
le besteht. Auch ausländische Forschungsinstitute im Migrationsbereich zeigen grosses Interesse

176
rp 99/07 h7-eind 29/2/00 16:59 Page 177

an der Tätigkeit des SFM; eine zentrale Ansprech- und Scharnierstelle zwischen ausländischer und
schweizerischer Forschung ist gerade für einen Bereich wie die Einwanderungsthematik von gros-
ser Bedeutung, nicht nur weil Migration per se ein transnationales Phänomen darstellt und eine
vergleichende Perspektive in der Forschung nötig ist, sondern auch weil der europäische Eini-
gungsprozess eine zunehmende Koordination und Vernetzung sowohl der Einwanderungspolitik
wie der Forschung nach sich zieht.

Die Zukunftsperspektiven für eine schweizerische Forschungs- und Dokumentationsstelle, welche

sich ausschliesslich Migrationsfragen widmet, sind insgesamt als gut zu bezeichnen. Um seiner
Aufgabenstellung und den kommenden Herausforderungen gerecht werden zu können, wird das
SFM sein bisheriges Tätigkeitsprofil erweitern. Zu den zukünftig anvisierten Tätigkeitsfeldern
gehören die Grundlagenforschung sowie die Forschungskoordination und -kommunikation.

Wir hoffen, dass sich die Forschungs- und Dokumentationsarbeiten des Instituts weiterhin auf
einem Pfad nachhaltigen Wachstums entwickeln und dass sie dazu beitragen werden, einen sach-
lichen und informierten Umgang mit den zukünftigen Herausforderungen im Migrationsbereich
zu wahren.

177