Search

What do 'dilemmas' reveal about elites' underlying beliefs, values and attitudes to parliaments and reform? In this article, I answer this question in two ways. First, I identify three parliamentary 'traditions' among elites regarding the UK Parliament and reform in British politics (specifically: conservative, liberal and reformist traditions). Second, I explore how these different traditions inform MPs when confronted with dilemmas about Parliament's role using two illustrative case studies: the vote to leave the European Union and the Covid-19 pandemic. In so doing, this article makes two original contributions: empirically, by establishing that MPs' actions were informed by one of three traditions, it offers a new explanation for how parliamentary actors respond to challenges; and, theoretically, through the use of the interpretive concept of 'dilemmas', the article demonstrates the added value of using interpretive approaches to explaining parliamentary politics and, specifically, opportunities for analysing institutional change and continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of ongoing debates around academic engagements with policymakers, this article discusses how academics can successfully engage with the often overlooked institution of Parliament. We argue that the UK Parliament is not a homogeneous organisation but has differing knowledge requirements for different parliamentary sites. While there are common barriers that need to be overcome by researchers, there is no universal recipe that will ensure successful research impact. We argue that there are different forms of engagement likely to lead to influence, and that co-production is the most important way by which academics can engage with Parliament.

This article contributes to debates about how Covid-19 became a dilemma of procedure inside the UK Parliament. Specifically, the article attempts to give an answer to the puzzle of why in-person proceedings and traditional approaches to representation were more important than adopting new and different ways to support representatives through, digital forms of participation. In order to answer this question, the article outlines and develops a theoretical argument, namely an interpretive approach to political science, and identifies a conceptual framework of beliefs, traditions and dilemmas. The article’s main focus is to develop this theory and apply it, in particular the concept of dilemma, in order to understand Covid-19 in Parliament. The article argues that the clash of beliefs that resulted from Covid-19 was ultimately won over through conservative webs of belief that relied on embedded and historical parliamentary practices and the power relations of MPs. This article therefore offers a conceptual contribution, specifically the importance of ideas and dilemmas to understanding politics, and an empirical contribution, by examining the case study of Covid-19 in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do institutions adapt and reform themselves in response to new challenges? This article considers the role of ideas and posits that the concept of 'dilemma' – clashes of beliefs played out through power relations and practices – offers a complementary tool to understand institutional change. It draws on the 2014 appointment of a new Clerk to the UK House of Commons – in which conflicting beliefs about the House of Commons administration opened a dilemma for key parliamentary actors – as a token case study to highlight the value of the concepts of beliefs, practices and dilemmas. It further broadens out these findings to consider the value of a wider interpretive approach for understanding how institutions may adapt and change. In doing so, it makes (1) a theoretical contribution by exploring the role of ideas in causing institutional change and (2) an empirical contribution through its analysis of parliamentary administration, an understudied area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A wide‐ranging literature has explored the relationship between research, knowledge and policy. However, legislatures have often been overlooked in this research. While some studies have looked at 'who has access', the literature on how parliaments seek to engage with knowledge claims is particularly scarce. This article addresses this gap through a case study of UK select committees. By adopting an interpretive lens, the article explores how MPs and officials make sense of evidence in committee settings. It finds that legalistic definitions around 'evidence' shape wider beliefs in how to engage with knowledge claims and the practices of undertaking inquiries, and are underpinned by a distinctly political function of knowledge use in politics. Beliefs around evidence have significant repercussions and highlight tensions (i) around the authority of committee reports, (ii) between epistemic and democratic claims and (iii) with respect to who is included and who is excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]