Month: January 2023

Categories
Urgent Questions

Dr Mark Bennister

MARK BENNISTER

Mark Bennister is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of Lincoln. He is Director of the Lincoln Policy Hub and ParliLinc, the Lincoln Parliamentary Research Centre. He was awarded a parliamentary academic fellowship (2016-19) and has published on political leadership, prime ministerial power, and political oratory. He is also co-convenor of the PSA Political Leadership Specialist Group.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

I took a rather roundabout route into an academic career. I started off working in an independent record shop Selectadisc in Nottingham and had various jobs in the theatre after completing my degree at Nottingham Trent University. I returned to academia to complete an MA at Loughborough University in Contemporary European Studies. I managed to get a job working for Alan Simpson, the Nottingham South Labour MP, and then worked for an MEP in Kent before a year working at LSE and then several years at the Australian High Commission in London as a locally engaged officer supporting diplomats. My time at the High Commission really got me interested in comparative political leadership. I was lucky enough to get a ESRC 1+3 studentship at Sussex with Paul Webb and Tim Bale looking at comparative prime ministerial power in the UK and Australia. After some associate lecturer posts at Sussex and UCL, I landed a lectureship at Canterbury Christ Church University, moving on to the University of Lincoln in 2018.

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

Political Leadership by Jean Blondel first got me thinking about the topic. I was lucky enough to later meet with Jean after he took part in our ECPR joint sessions and delighted that he wrote a chapter for our book.

Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies by Robert Elgie introduced me to comparative research possibilities through the interactive approach.

The House of Commons by Emma Crewe was a revelation and got me interested in anthropological approaches to studying legislatures.

Paul ‘t Hart’s work has always been particularly influential as he gets readers to think about research ‘puzzles’ and Understanding Public Leadership has been a key teaching text for me.

Jim Walter’s biography of Gough Whitlam provides a real insight into political leadership and introduced me to political psychology in leadership studies.

Which people have been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

In no particular order: my Dad who passed away long before I started my academic career, but as a chemist he passed on his inquisitive mind; Lindsey for everything especially supporting my late career change; and Bea for questioning the way we older folk think about stuff. In academia: Larry Wilde who sadly passed away recently, Paul ‘t Hart, Jim Walter, Alix Kelso, Ben Worthy, Kevin Theakston, Paul Webb, Tim Bale, Dan Hough, David Bates, Frank Dabba Smith, Matt Flinders, Sarah Childs, Meg Russell, Andrew Defty, Anitha Sundari, Hugh and Cath Bochel.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

Turning my PhD into a book Prime Ministers in Power. Completing the challenge of co-editing a book. To be honest just getting stuff published is something to be proud of.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Becoming an academic is an achievement itself! Publishing a book. Gaining an academic fellowship in the House of Commons attached to the Liaison Committee and being around in Westminster during the turbulent Brexit years. Being awarding a contract to deliver Parliamentary Studies module at Canterbury Christ Church.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Numerous unsuccessful funding applications – so much effort for so little reward.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

It’s all about relationships between parties, MPs, parliamentary staff, public, etc.

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

I was born in the northwest London suburb of Queensbury, near Wembley. Went to the local comprehensive school. I now divide my time between High Barnet in North London and Lincoln.

What was your first job?

Packing frozen rabbits (lasted a week), then runner in the City, clearing cheques in the pre-digital era.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

See above – frozen rabbits. Working backstage on Panto at Nottingham Playhouse (oh yes I did!) was great fun, but 3 shows a day was exhausting. Screaming kids, hectic scene changes, early start and late finishes mopping the stage at midnight.

What  would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

Cricket commentator – travel the world, watch cricket, talk about it. Perfect.

What are your hobbies?

Used to be playing cricket, now just watching. Football – I share an Arsenal season ticket (lucky me this year!). Going to watch live music. I volunteer at the Roundhouse in Camden. Travel – India, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Canada, etc. etc. Hiking – have walked London to Brighton, round the Isle of Wight, and have completed 2 stages of the Pennine Way. Knees knackered though.

What are your favourite novels?

Taken to audiobooks in the last few years and best recent books I’ve listened to are Shuggie Bain by Douglas Stuart and Mayflies by Andrew O’Hagan. Beekeeper of Aleppo and the Taliban Cricket Club deserve a mention. Mark Lanegan’s rock ‘n’ roll autobiography read by the author was a harrowing listen.

What is your favourite music?

Big Bowie fan and Low, Ziggy Stardust and Hunky Dory are my top 3 albums. Missed seeing The Clash but London Calling is still the best. Last 3 gigs were Kae Tempest, Ezra Furman and Fontaines DC – all brilliant. Nick Cave keeps getting better. Recently got into ambient classical such as Olafur Arnalds and Nils Frahm (great for working to). Thom Yorke’s new venture The Smile at Edinburgh Usher Hall – probably the best live gig I’ve seen for a long while.

What is your favourite artwork?

Blown away by Kusama at Tate Modern recently. As a kid I was fascinated by Dali’s Metamorphosis of Narcissus. My aunt’s Marching on Parliament abstract painting in our sitting room is a particularly favourite.

What is your favourite film?

Tough one. Kes is an amazing film and still Loach’s best. We did a school production of it, and I played the unfortunate lad who got caned for nothing.

What is your favourite building?

Big fan of the British Library, if you can get a seat to work. St Pancras station shows what can be done with great architecture and public spaces. Lord’s Cricket ground manages to blend old and new.

Favourite parliament –Reichstag Building in Berlin, the public space in the roof looking down on the proceedings is spectacular.

What is your favourite tv show?

Anything with Stephen Graham in.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Love the food and wine in Portugal. Landscape in Iceland. Vastness of Australia. Could go back to Berlin again and again. St Agnes in Cornwall is fab too.

What is your favourite sport?

Cricket and football. Played both, but never good enough. Honourable mentions to rugby union having travelled to watch England lose and synchronised (now artistic) swimming having watched my daughter in countless competitions.

What is your favourite restaurant?

Cant beat a really good fish restaurant or indeed fish fresh from the sea in Portugal.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

Yes, please.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Elected.

Restoration or Renewal?

Both.

Cat or Dog?

Dog.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains – I’m always on them!

Fish and chips or Curry?

Fish and chips.

And, finally, two questions asked by Ira and Bernadette, who have just turned four: What’s your favourite colour and why? And have you ever had a pet?

Red – see my team above.

Dougie the dog who is 10 years old (see below).

Categories
Blog

Evidence use by parliamentary committees: what is it good for?

Select committees in the UK House of Commons are the principal mechanism by which Parliament holds government to account, which can be highly influential on government policy and legislation. While many adopt distinctive approaches and styles to undertake their scrutiny work, a key element of all committee work is the basis of their scrutiny through an evidence-gathering process. Many of us are familiar with oral evidence: combative sessions between chairs and ministers, emotional testimony from high-profile witnesses, or significant and detailed information-gathering with academics, NGOs, think tanks and businesses. Alongside these sessions, committees receive large volumes of written evidence from a whole host of groups and individuals to share their perspectives on a policy question under scrutiny. Evidence, then, is an everyday part of committee work. But how well is the process working? What are the practices of gathering and using evidence? That’s exactly what I wanted to find out in my 12-month parliamentary academic fellowship, organised by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST).

In autumn 2021, I set out to review and study trends and practices of evidence use by committees. Although recent research has begun to shed light on the role of evidence in Parliament (especially POST’s own landmark report from 2017), I was intrigued to examine the everyday practices and judgements made by MPs and officials as they directly engage with, question and handle evidence. To study their views, I therefore undertook interviews with 50 participants (26 MPs and 24 officials) to reflect on the processes and practices for gathering, analysing and using select committee evidence. There are some unsurprising findings: written evidence makes up the bulk of evidence and is indeed seen as the main source of information for officials. MPs’ own engagement focuses on oral evidence, which are usually divided into information-gathering or accountability types of hearing.

Alongside these findings, I found three trends that are impacting the way that committees gather, analyse and use evidence. First, there is a much bigger focus on ‘lived experience’ as a form of evidence to support formal and informal evidence-gathering than in the past. Committee members, in particular, value direct engagement with the public and with those that come into direct contact with government policy. As a result, committees have sought to innovate with the use of social media to elicit questions, use of surveys to understand the public’s views of government policy, and focus groups to get more qualitative and in-depth knowledge. 

Second, committees’ long-standing interest and tradition in gaining a diversity of political viewpoints is being matched by an emphasis of diversity on witnesses’ personal characteristics. Increasingly, committees see it as important to make sure that their evidence reflects the make-up of wider society. 

Both of these factors come out of a third trend that I have observed, namely that the role of select committees is changing. Committees exist not only to provide scrutiny of government policy, but increasingly for MPs (and officials, though this was less noticeable) committees should be vehicles for public participation. This builds on previous initiatives and academic research on how to combat public disaffection with politics and political institutions. 

The three trends – especially the final one – raise really interesting questions about the democratic and institutional design of parliaments. First, it raises a normative question about how far committees should pursue a role of public participation. Second, relatedly, it raises a practical question of how well committees are equipped to fulfil this, and other, roles.  These are important questions because I have found, in my research, several challenges that the changing trends and patterns seem to give rise to: a significant growth in the volumes of evidence, which has created pressures on committee teams; a lack of clarity over the principles and values of using ‘lived experience’ as a form of evidence in committee inquiries; a continuing tension in promoting diversity of evidence, which some see as a normative good but others do not; and resultant pressures on resources, including time, training and staff to fulfil the growing number of tasks being given to committees. At the same time, the process for gathering evidence has remained largely the same – despite innovations, improved technological advances, and changing practices and values.

Based on my research, and interviewees’ reflections, there are lots of ways that evidence-gathering could be improved (in my report, I list 14 small suggestions), but there are two areas I want to focus on. First, we need to open a debate about what ‘good’ evidence use in Parliament looks like. These choices are not without consequences. And while I can sketch out broad principles – appropriateness, diversity and representativeness, systematic analysis, and focused on the needs of MPs – much more work could be done about what values parliamentary democracies need to hold to promote use of evidence. 

Second, regarding the procedures of evidence-gathering, I want to suggest that maybe the traditional process for gathering evidence – that will be familiar to an MP from today as much as it would for one in the nineteenth century – needs updating. I would re-think evidence in terms of ‘pillars’, each recognised formally as evidence in Parliament:

  • Pillar 1. Submissions of information/evidence. Formerly known as written evidence, this would include other formats except Word or PDF documents written by professionals, such as video evidence, pictures, graphs, etc.
  • Pillar 2. Committee hearings. Formerly known as oral evidence, this part of the process would be kept largely the same but with a plainer form of language.
  • Pillar 3. Consultation and engagement. Rather than classing all non-written/oral evidence as ‘informal’, I would give other processes for gathering information a formal status through a summary document within Pillar 3, which summarises the findings from surveys, focus groups, or large volumes of written evidence received by individuals.

I am aware that this suggestion is not without its own problems – but once again I want to open a debate to question whether the way that the process currently works is working well in light of the changing practices of evidence use by Parliament.

This gives you a flavour of some of the findings and conclusions from my research project. You can find the full report on which this blog is based here. I am hugely grateful to have had the support from Parliament to pursue this research, and time and funding from my university to pursue it. Most of all, my interview participants have been incredibly kind in giving up their time for this research.

—

Dr Marc Geddes is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh. His research focuses on how MPs and officials interpret and undertake their roles in parliaments. He has published widely on the role of select committees in the UK House of Commons, including an award-winning book, Dramas at Westminster (Manchester University Press, 2020), and in a range of specialist journals and for public audiences.

Categories
News

January 2023 Newsletter

Happy New Year! We have some updates for you in this slightly later than normal newsletter:

  1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!
  2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online
  3. Urgent Questions with Emma Crewe
  4. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners
  5. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees
  6. Call for Papers: RCLS at the IPSA World Congress
  7. Call for Papers: Party Politics at the Local Level
  8. Job Opportunity: Research Fellowship – Addressing Barriers in Political Engagement
  9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  10. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our prizewinning group, please let us know.

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and Ruxandra.

1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!

After a very successful annual conference in Birmingham at the start of November, PSA Parliaments will be holding two extra online panels in the new year.

Our first panel is on representatives and representation and will be held on Wednesday 25th January 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

Our second panel is called Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context and will be held on Wednesday 15th February 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online

Registration has opened for the 2023 PSA Annual Conference being held in Liverpool and virtually in April 2023. Early bird registration ends on 4 February 2023, and accepted paper-givers must register by then to guarantee their place. Full details of the conference and how to register can be found on the PSA23 website.

The PSA offers support to UK based PhD students and early career researchers as well as scholars from the Global South. See the website for more information.

We are running at least four panels. More information will follow soon.

Whether in person or online, we hope to see you there!

3. Urgent Questions with Emma Crewe

This month’s interviewee is Professor Emma Crewe (SOAS)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about Himachal Pradesh, Rodin, Bourdieu, and chatting to daughters!

4. PSA Parliaments Book Launch: Henry J. Miller’s A Nation of Petitioners

We are delighted to announce that PSA Parliaments will be hosting a book launch for Henry J. Miller’s new book, A Nation of Petitioners: Petitions and Petitioning in the United Kingdom, 1780-1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023).

The event will take place via Zoom on Wednesday 3rd May at 2pm BST.

Full details, including how to book your free ticket, can be found here.

5. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees

Our very good friends on IPSA’s Research Committee of Legislative Specialists are holding two online seminars in the new year on legislative and parliamentary committees.

The first is On the Outskirts of Parliament – the Delegation for Women’s Rights where Claire Bloquet (Institute for Parliamentary Research, Berlin) will be discussing their prize-winning work about the French National Assembly. The seminar will take place on Monday 23rd January 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

Full details of the event, including how to book your free tickets, can be found here.

The second is a book launch for Maya Kornberg‘s Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press). The launch will take place on Monday 13th February 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

Full details of the event, including how to book your free tickets, can be found here.

If you are not yet a member of RCLS, you can join (for free) here.

6. Call for Papers: RCLS at the IPSA World Congress

RCLS are also hosting a number of panels at the IPSA World Congress in Buenos Aires and online, 15-19 July 2023.

Please see here for more details.

7. Call for Papers: Party Politics at the Local Level

The call for papers for the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops 2023 in Toulouse (25-28 April) is open until January, 9, 2023. 

One workshop is endorsed by the ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments. It concerns ‘Party Politics at the Local Level’ and will be directed by Simon Otjes (Leiden University) and Christina-Marie Juen (Darmstadt University).

This Workshop aims to shed more light on the role of political parties in local politics. It focuses on the interaction, competition and cooperation between parties in the electoral arena and local councils.

More information can be found here.

8. Job Opportunity: Research Fellowship – Addressing Barriers in Political Engagement

Are you interested in working on perceptions and barriers to political engagement? If so, this post may be for you. 

You’d be working with Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira together with staff in the UK and Welsh Parliaments to explore people’s perceptions of political engagement through focus groups. 

Deadline for application: 10 January 2023. Feel free to contact Cristina for more details.

9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

Philip Cowley and Resul Umit have published Legislator Dissent Does Not Affect Electoral Outcomes in the British Journal of Political Science.

Simon Weschle has published Politicians’ Private Sector Jobs and Parliamentary Behavior in the American Journal of Political Science.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

10. Recently on the Blog

We published two great blogs last month:

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
News

December 2022 Newsletter

We hope that you are keeping safe and well. We have some updates for you:

  1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!
  2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online
  3. Urgent Questions with Felicity Matthews
  4. Welcome to Ruxandra Serban!
  5. PSA and Specialist Group Membership
  6. New Parliament Thematic Research Lead: Congratulations to Rick Whitaker!
  7. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees
  8. Petition against Job Losses at Birkbeck
  9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye
  10. Recently on the Blog

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our prizewinning group, please let us know.

We’ll see you in 2023!

Best wishes

Stephen, Seán, Caroline, Chris and, for the first time, Ruxandra.

1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference 2022: Extra Online Panels!

After a very successful annual conference in Birmingham at the start of November, PSA Parliaments will be holding two extra online panels in the new year.

Our first panel is on representatives and representation and will be held on Wednesday 25th January 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

Our second panel is called Parliaments & Parliamentarians in Context and will be held on Wednesday 15th February 2023 at 2pm (GMT). 

Full details of the panel, including how to book tickets (for free) can be found here.

2. PSA Annual Conference 2023 in Liverpool & Online

Registration has opened for the 2023 PSA Annual Conference being held in Liverpool and virtually in April 2023. Early bird registration ends on 4 February 2023, and accepted paper-givers must register by then to guarantee their place. Full details of the conference and how to register can be found on the PSA23 website.

The PSA offers support to UK based PhD students and early career researchers as well as scholars from the Global South. See the website for more information.

We are running at least four panels. More information will follow soon.

Whether in person or online, we hope to see you there!

3. Urgent Questions with Felicity Matthews

This month’s interviewee is Professor Felicity Matthews (University of Sheffield)!

Head over to Urgent Questions to read about Suede, architecture, cakes, pizzas and wood pigeons!

4. Welcome to Ruxandra Serban!

Welcome to Ruxandra Serban who joins the PSA Parliaments team as our new Membership Officer and Treasurer!

Ruxandra is a political scientist specialising in comparative legislative studies and UK parliamentary politics. She is an LSE Fellow in Qualitative Research Methods in the Department of Methodology at the LSE. She holds a PhD in Political Science from UCL, where she also worked as a Research Assistant at the Constitution Unit. 

Ruxandra has published on procedures and practices of prime ministerial questioning in different parliaments, and she maintains a research agenda on parliamentary questioning procedures.

You can follow her on Twitter here (if it’s still working by the time you read this).

5. PSA and Specialist Group Membership

If you receive this newsletter and are not a PSA member, please consider joining. You enjoy lots of benefits as a PSA member, such as subscriptions and free or discounted access to events. More information on how to join can be found here.

If you are already a PSA member and enjoy this newsletter and our activities, could we kindly ask you to check that you have also formally joined our group via your PSA account.

Joining our group officially will help us with our funding and capacity to host events and support early career scholars, and we would greatly appreciate it!

For any questions, please contact our membership officer, Ruxandra.

6. New Parliament Thematic Research Lead: Congratulations to Rick Whitaker!

Congratulations to Rick Whitaker of the University of Leicester on becoming the first Thematic Research Lead on Parliament, Public administration and the Constitution.

The thematic research leads have been established by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) and the holders will each join new thematic policy hubs which will bring together staff from POST, the House of Commons Library and Select Committee teams, ensuring greater co-ordination and a better flow of research information through Parliament.

More details about the initiative can be found here.

7. IPSA RCLS Online Seminars on Legislative & Parliamentary Committees

Our very good friends on IPSA’s Research Committee of Legislative Specialists are holding two online seminars in the new year on legislative and parliamentary committees.

The first is On the Outskirts of Parliament – the Delegation for Women’s Rights where Claire Bloquet (Institute for Parliamentary Research, Berlin) will be discussing their prize-winning work about the French National Assembly. The seminar will take place on Monday 23rd January 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

Full details of the event, including how to book your free tickets, can be found here.

The second is a book launch for Maya Kornberg‘s Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process (Columbia University Press). The launch will take place on Monday 13th February 2023, 14:00–15:30 UTC.

Full details of the event, including how to book your free tickets, can be found here.

If you are not yet a member of RCLS, you can join (for free) here.

8. Petition against Job Losses at Birkbeck

You may have already heard the depressing news about the potential job losses at Birkbeck, including up to 7 in the Politics Department where PSA Parliaments has many friends.

You can read a BISA, UACES and PSA joint letter on the future of politics at Birkbeck here and you can sign a petition against the job losses here.

9. Recent Publications that have Caught Our Eye

John Connolly, Matthew Flinders, David Judge, Michael Torrance and Philippa Tudor have published an article, Institutions Ignored: A History of Select Committee Scrutiny in the House of Lords, 1968–2021, in Parliamentary History.

Anja Osei and Daniel Wigmore-Shepherd have published an article, Personal Power in Africa: Legislative Networks and Executive Appointments in Ghana, Togo and Gabon, in Government & Opposition.

And there are new issues of the Journal of Legislative Studies , the International Journal of Parliamentary Studies and Legislative Studies Quarterly out.

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Stephen with details.

10. Recently on the Blog

We published seven(!) great blogs this month:

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer, Chris.

Categories
Blog

Information Literacy for Scrutiny: Equality and Diversity in research

Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) “ensures fair treatment and opportunity for all. It aims to eradicate prejudice and discrimination on the basis of […] protected characteristics” (University of Edinburgh, 2021[1]). In the workplace, EDI is usually addressed centrally, through policies and Human Resources training. 

In this blog post I will share the development of an Information Literacy (IL) framework to strengthen scrutiny within Select Committee proceedings. The framework is aimed at highly skilled researchers through an EDI lens.

My role in the House of Commons Library is to work closely with the Select Committee Team and to perform a knowledge exchange role. My work can be summarised in three areas of focus: liaison, outreach, and training. 

Information Literacy

One of my first projects after joining Parliament in 2020 was to introduce IL to select committee specialists.

Information Literacy is defined by CILIP; the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals as “the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use”. 

Information Literacy is not a new concept, but it can be divisive amongst scholars and information professionals especially in terms of what it encompasses and how it applies in different context.

Early in the process of creating training content, I knew I had to make this concept meaningful within Parliament: through its “branding” and its applicability. 

I chose the term Information Scrutiny. Scrutiny relates back to a familiar concept whilst the introduction of the word “information” introduces a new layer of knowledge and expertise that enhances current practices and encourage reflection on methodology. 

To develop an appropriate and challenging Information Literacy framework, I needed an approach suited to this very particular audience and to find a hook to get them to see Information Literacy as an integral part of research and scrutiny. 

EDI

EDI has been a focus in Parliament like in many workplaces across the United Kingdom with efforts on recruitment, on progression for colleagues and all the training we can think of to address systemic imbalances.

For Select Committees this is underpinned by the 2019 Liaison Committee report on the effectiveness and influence of the select committee system. 

It leant on the work prompted by the 2018 Witness Gender Diversity report to increase gender diversity of witnesses and encouraged committees to continue their efforts and share good practice to increase witness diversity and to go further on BAME representation. .  

In practical terms this translates into increasing the diversity of evidence received, the diversity of witnesses, the effort to make everybody able to participate in this democratic process, from start to finish.

It is something I feel strongly about; with my education background, this aligns well with wider decolonisation and critical librarianship practice in the academic sector. 

So, I chose to focus on IL and research through a diversity and inclusion angle. 

Information behaviour analysis

However, the last thing I wanted to do was to stand in front of an expert crowd and tell them what they already know! This is where the concept of enrichment is key. 

To develop the below modules, I conducted information needs and information behaviour analysis to better understand select committee specialists:

  • Their research practices
  • How they had evolved to suit the needs of the Select Committee
  • How policy area affects their research
  • The typical running of an inquiry

I conducted 15 interviews with specialists across the Select Committee Team and carried out other activities to help me understand research in a Select Committee context such as shadowing inquiries or examining scoping documents and reports.

Co-creation

Co-creation is the practice of creating content with the intended audience. It is a process I found immensely valuable when I worked in Further and Higher Education, and I wanted to explore how I could replicate this in a workplace environment. 

From the start, I had the intention of anchoring the knowledge of the modules with clear examples of how some issues or solutions looked like in day-to-day work practices, so I chose to run a peer-review programme. 

The peer-review process was easy and straightforward:

  • Peer-reviewers had a month to submit feedback. They would receive a shared link to the PowerPoint with slides, slide notes and instructions by email and then 3 weeks later, a gentle reminder
  • Two types of responses about the content were sought:
  • General comments such as answers to “does the knowledge flow well?” or “Is this advice practical for your job role? Why?” Peer-reviewers were asked to send answers to those by email.
  • Using the “comment” function in PowerPoint; targeted questions on slides were asked, usually when specific feedback or an example were needed.

A concerted effort was made to make the peer-review process easy for all users and this included not taking for granted their level of digital literacy so all instructions for the peer-review were included in the PowerPoint. 

All the received feedback was imported into a shared document and colour-coded by peer-reviewer to analyse the response. Similar comments were collated and differences in opinion highlighted. This resulted in a list of changes to be made. 

Impact

The modules have been extremely well-received. Select Committee colleagues understand why Information Scrutiny is important and how it benefits their practice. 

Though the content was developed with specialist researchers in mind, the sessions have been attended widely across teams and departments. 

The feedback was mostly positive with some, welcome, suggestions for improvement such as leaving more room for discussion or sharing more examples of how some issues had manifested in Select Committee inquiries. 

Measuring the long-term impact of Information Literacy interventions is challenging as it relies on assessing personal development and day-to-day working practices but already colleagues have seen the value of being more reflective on their research, of including EDI as an essential component of their strategy.

Measuring impact by following small cohorts going through the whole course of the framework would provide better impact data. New joiners in the Select Committee Team, for example, would be an ideal target.

Applicability 

If you too would like to run an Information Literacy programme here are my top tips: 

  • Make sure to research how your audience research: why, how, who do they talk to, how much time do they dedicate to this. Carry out observations, interviews, have a look at outputs
  • Find an angle: here I used EDI to enrich my content and have a concrete impact in and beyond Parliament. This could be different for you: look at your department/organisation’s aims and objectives are a good place to start
  • Get buy-in involve colleagues in your decision –making
  • Do not assume levels of digital literacy or understanding of key concepts. 
  • Think strategically about knowledge sharing: how can you use the time in your modules more efficiently by sharing content ahead of time
  • Establish early on how you will measure your impact. 

Biography

Anne-Lise Harding (she/elle) is Senior Liaison Librarian at the House of Commons and Deputy Chair of the CILIP Information Literacy Group (ILG). 

Anne-Lise’s interests lie in Information Literacy, decolonisation, information behaviour and trainer education. After graduating with an MA in Librarianship in 2011, Anne-Lise held several roles in the education sector; making the transition to the government sector in 2020.  

In her role, Anne-Lise supports both the House of Commons Library and Select Committee Teams; focusing mainly on Information Literacy training, liaison and outreach. She is leading on Information Literacy work to make research for scrutiny more diverse, inclusive and representative.

[1] https://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/about-edi/what-does-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-mean#:~:text=EDI%20(Equality%2C%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion,group%20of%20individual’s%20protected%20characteristics.

Categories
Urgent Questions

Professor Emma Crewe

EMMA CREWE

Emma Crewe is Professor of Social Anthropology and Director of the  Global Research Network for Parliaments and People at SOAS University of London. Her most recent book is An Anthropology of Parliaments: Entanglements in Democratic Politics (Routledge). She is on the right in the above photo, visiting the Sao Paulo Legislative Assembly with Professor Cristiane Bernardes.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

I studied social anthropology at Edinburgh University. I fell in love with this discipline when I visited a village in Himachal Pradesh in 1984 as a 3rd year undergraduate to study inter-caste relations. Caste was horrifying but it was exciting to realise that everything I knew about the world growing up in London was culturally specific. I had to unlearn to learn anew.

For years I worked in international development NGOs, continually arguing that we needed to unlearn our assumptions about progress and expertise and be more honest about the politics of aid. But due to disillusionment with my own capacity to change mindsets and practices, I returned to academia in the early 1990s getting a job as a university lecturer.

A few years later, I jumped to researching Parliaments – first the House of Lords and then the House of Commons. I wrote ethnographies of both Houses, aiming to be provocatively sympathetic in recognition of the increasingly difficult work that politicians and parliamentary officials do. I’m shifting towards a more critical view now, because scholars need to do a job of scrutiny as well, but I’m also creating coalitions for comparative work across parliaments (ww.grnpp.org). My two current jobs are a perfect combination for me: a research professor in social anthropology at SOAS University of London and supervisor of PhDs in management at the University of Hertfordshire. My obsession for today is how to make collaboration work well both intellectually and ethically.

Which five books/articles have been most important to you in your academic career?

As an undergraduate Nature, Culture and Gender edited by Carol MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern helped me realise that not only is gender experienced differently across cultures, but so are most interesting aspects of our being in the world. During my PhD the book that changed the way I think was Pierre Bourdieu’s An Outline of a Theory of Practice. I did not really understand it, but he gave me a way of conceiving of social structures beyond individuals and seeing how inequality was continually being created at every turn. His theory was so compelling, I got stuck in a post-structural rigidity for years. My examiner, Jonathan Spencer, was a massive influence – his article Post-colonialism and the Political Imagination (and later his book Anthropology, Politics and the State) – freed me up to think more about history, emotion and performance. Chantel Mohanty’s Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses alerted me to the racism in much Western feminism but also scholarship more generally. It wasn’t until I worked with Ralph Stacey – who has written a range of books about complexity and management – that I began to understand the experience of structural constraint and individual freedom through the concept of paradox. Our colleague Chris Mowles summarises this theoretical approach beautifully in his book Managing in Uncertainty: Complexity and the paradoxes of everyday organizational life.

Which people have been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

Tony Good suggested that I apply for a PhD award under his supervision. I wouldn’t have dreamt of doing this in a million years if he hadn’t encouraged me. He was a brilliant supervisor. I liked to take arguments to the extreme and he kept pulling me back to a more honest position.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

I like a passage where I copy Woody Allen’s film Annie Hall and provide the transcript of giving evidence to a select committee alongside an embarrassing narrative of the emotions I was feeling, and political tactics I remember calculating, as a witness during the session (the Anthropology of Parliaments, p.123).

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Learning to live with imposter syndrome.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Failing to entirely banish imposter syndrome.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

What you can’t easily see is even more interesting that what is on public view.

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

Born in Cambridge, grew up in London, about to move to Hastings.

What was your first job?

A waitress in a hotel in Norfolk.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

Teaching undergraduate courses about branches of anthropology that I knew nothing about at all.

What  would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

A novelist if I had the talent, which I don’t.

What are your hobbies?

Chatting to my daughters in cafes and kitchens.

What are your favourite novels?

Hopeful Monsters, by Nicholas Moseley – it’s about love, political idealism, and history of the twentieth century. I read it as a student and it prepared me for life. Otherwise magical realism starting with Isabel Allende’s The House of Spirits.

What is your favourite music?

Playlists created by my two daughters. I can enjoy the music, but also enjoy the thought of my daughters enjoying the music.

What is your favourite artwork?

Rodin sculptures in his museum in Paris for their beauty.

What is your favourite film?

Nearly all films directed by the Coen brothers for their humour.

What is your favourite building?

I find it interesting looking at religious buildings that are like Russian dolls – a temple inside a mosque inside a church etc – even though they can have disturbing histories.

What is your favourite tv show?

The Wire – the most sociological box set I’ve ever seen.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Brancaster, North Norfolk, for the swimming, walks and mussels.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

No thanks.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Hybrid.

Restoration or Renewal?

Renewal.

Cat or Dog?

Cat in the house, dog outside.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Fish and chips in small towns, curry in the city.

Scones: Cornish or Devonshire method?

Cornish.

And, finally, a question asked by Ira and Bernadette, who have just turned four: What is your favourite letter of the alphabet and what’s your favourite number?

My favourites are Z and 5.