Search

This article presents an immanent critique of neoliberal welfare reform using observation of participatory research involving left-behind communities in the North East of England and Australia. It argues that harms, such as passivity, invoked to reduce social security and increase conditionality are actually enhanced by austerity, conditionality and philanthropic giving. Deploying Mauss’ conception of the gift suggests that aggressive, conditional giving, combined with consumption through indebtedness, has served to strip individuals of authority. This leads to a radical conclusion: the stated aims of policy platforms like Big Society can only be realized through statutory entitlements like basic income.

The UK Conservative Government 2017-2019 has taken steps to promote Engagement as a means of Knowledge Exchange (KE). In 2019/2020, a Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) will be introduced alongside the existing Research (REF) and Teaching (TEF) evaluations. Indeed, the OfS (Office for Students) and UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) [2018. "Collaboration Agreement between the Office for Students (OfS) and UK Research and Innovation." London: OfS, 1] regard each of these evaluations as 'mutually reinforcing'. Given that the KEF is likely to take place in full for the first time in 2020, it is essential that colleagues understand both the nature of the Engagement agenda, the reasons for its emergence, the possibilities it offers and means by which to reduce opportunity cost. In this article, I draw upon a range of resources to present a clear overview of these factors and argue that KEF can be harnessed effectively for a number of, often socially valuable, ends and that its most onerous implications can be mitigated efficiently.

Participatory action research (PAR) investigates issues through collaboration and cooperation between academics and nonacademic community members. Recently, awareness of such approaches has increased as the need for transformative research and contribution to social goods has become clear. However, participatory methods have been deployed unevenly within the Humanities and Social Sciences, and opportunities for engagement have been explored unevenly. This article seeks to assist colleagues in teaching PAR methods by reflecting upon our practice of working with Early Career Researchers to identify, explore, and deploy participatory methods in ways that foster genuine social change and meaningful research trajectories.

The COVID-19 crisis has served not just to instil fear in the populace but to highlight the importance of fear as a motivating dynamic in politics. The gradual emergence of political-philosophical approaches calling for concern for 'positive' emotions may have made sense under non-pandemic conditions. Now, however, describing fear in the face of a deadly pandemic as 'irrational' or born of 'ignorance' seems 'irrational' and 'ignorant'. In this article, we draw upon the work of John Gray and behavioural science to present a defence of fear. We show how the pandemic has highlighted deficits in the work of four thinkers highly critical of fear: Martha Nussbaum, Zygmunt Bauman, Hannah Arendt and Sara Ahmed. We argue that, if such approaches are to be of value in anything other than optimal conditions, then they have to acknowledge the fundamental role of fear in helping human beings to pursue fundamental interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, Matthew Johnson examines the possibility of using elements of John Gray's work to advance a means of evaluating cultures, in order to inform the development of pluralist perfectionist forms of public policy and, in particular, educational programs. Johnson engages critically with elements of Gray's value pluralism, such as his understanding of the objectivity and universality in human values, needs, and well-being; determinacy of circumstance; and particularity with regard to the selection of values. These elements support an instrumental account of culture in which a group's choice of values is assessed according to their contribution to well-being. Johnson then considers the potential conflict between pluralism and perfectionism in the development of education systems in heterogeneous societies, highlighting the harms inflicted on the identity, meaning, and security of particular groups by attempts to promote well-being. Johnson concludes the article with an exploration of possible means of minimizing harm through pragmatic engagement with identity and circumstance. (Contains 78 footnotes.)

Over the course of the last century, it has become increasingly unfashionable in the social sciences to make cross-cultural evaluations. The advance of cultural relativism has ensured that criticisms of other cultures are regarded as subjective and ethnocentric. There remain, however, cultural beliefs, practices and traditions which appear, "prima facie", to contradict people's interests. Are there any means of evaluating such practices or cultures according to objective, universal criteria? If there are, these need to withstand a series of challenges posed by "relativist" critics of objectivity and universality. This article categorises these challenges, detailing anti-foundationalist belief in a conflation of perception and truth, culturalist belief in the overwhelming importance to wellbeing of living according to one's group's traditions, and a romantic challenge, which invokes anti-universalism only instrumentally, to particular aspects of Western culture. In order to overcome these challenges, a theory of cultural evaluation must demonstrate the existence of certain goods which are intrinsic to human beings, can be affected by cultural activity and are of greater importance than the culturalist good of living according to one's group's traditions. I put forward three plausible conceptual candidates--needs, capabilities and flourishing--discussing briefly the possible merits of each. Finally, I argue that, if we are to measure culture, rather than quality of life, we must consider the influence of circumstance on the nature of cultures and the level of wellbeing. This article is an attempt to identify the parameters for more detailed research into this contentious, but potentially valuable, field of study.

Background A large body of evidence indicates the importance of upstream determinants to health. Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been suggested as an upstream intervention capable of promoting health by affecting material, biopsychosocial and behavioural determinants. Calls are emerging across the political spectrum to introduce an emergency UBI to address socioeconomic insecurity. However, although existing studies indicate effects on health through cash transfers, UBI schemes have not previously been designed specifically to promote health. Methods In this article, we scope the existing literature to set out a set of interdisciplinary research challenges to address in designing a trial of the effectiveness of UBI as a population health measure. Results We present a theoretical model of impact that identifies three pathways to health impact, before identifying open questions related to regularity, size of payment, needs-based supplements, personality and behaviour, conditionality and duration. Conclusions These results set, for the first time, a set of research activities required in order to maximize health impact in UBI programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Conservative Government 2017–2019 has taken steps to promote Engagement as a means of Knowledge Exchange (KE). In 2019/2020, a Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) will be introduced alongside the existing Research (REF) and Teaching (TEF) evaluations. Indeed, the OfS (Office for Students) and UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) [2018. Collaboration Agreement between the Office for Students (OfS) and UK Research and Innovation. London: OfS, 1] regard each of these evaluations as 'mutually reinforcing'. Given that the KEF is likely to take place in full for the first time in 2020, it is essential that colleagues understand both the nature of the Engagement agenda, the reasons for its emergence, the possibilities it offers and means by which to reduce opportunity cost. In this article, I draw upon a range of resources to present a clear overview of these factors and argue that KEF can be harnessed effectively for a number of, often socially valuable, ends and that its most onerous implications can be mitigated efficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participatory action research (PAR) investigates issues through collaboration and cooperation between academics and nonacademic community members. Recently, awareness of such approaches has increased as the need for transformative research and contribution to social goods has become clear. However, participatory methods have been deployed unevenly within the Humanities and Social Sciences, and opportunities for engagement have been explored unevenly. This article seeks to assist colleagues in teaching PAR methods by reflecting upon our practice of working with Early Career Researchers to identify, explore, and deploy participatory methods in ways that foster genuine social change and meaningful research trajectories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract \nPoints of Interest Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been proposed as a means of addressing a range of issues relating to welfare systems, including by removing disincentives to economic, social and physical activity. However, UK disability organisations and figures have expressed concerns about whether UBI could lead to unintended consequences for people who currently receive support conditional on needs, means and/or behaviour. In this article, we outline prominent positions regarding disabled people in the literature on UBI and welfare reforms. We find that while there are reservations about the intentions and designs of UBI, there are means of securing positive outcomes and collaboration between its supporters and disability organisations. We also attempted a consultation but were unable to obtain a significant response. This was sometimes due to an expressed inability to respond meaningfully. This serves as a call for organisations to engage with UBI as a key issue of interest to disabled people. Some disability organisations and leading figures have expressed concern about Universal Basic Income (UBI), a potential welfare system in which everyone receives a regular, secure and guaranteed payment. They feel that disabled people who currently receive support might lose out because they would not gain as much as others might or could even get less if existing spending is spread over the whole population. Some would prefer reforms that ensure disabled people receive a guaranteed minimum income that is still conditional on their income and needs. Some supporters of Universal Basic Income suggest that it is still possible to ensure that people with additional needs can receive more money alongside a guaranteed UBI payment. Most UK disability organisations appear not to have a clear (published) policy or position on Universal Basic Income. Disability organisations and leading figures in the movement must engage with Universal Basic Income as a policy that would impact disabled people’s lives significantly. Some disability organisations and leading figures have expressed concern about Universal Basic Income (UBI), a potential welfare system in which everyone receives a regular, secure and guaranteed payment. They feel that disabled people who currently receive support might lose out because they would not gain as much as others might or could even get less if existing spending is spread over the whole population.Some would prefer reforms that ensure disabled people receive a guaranteed minimum income that is still conditional on their income and needs.Some supporters of Universal Basic Income suggest that it is still possible to ensure that people with additional needs can receive more money alongside a guaranteed UBI payment.Most UK disability organisations appear not to have a clear (published) policy or position on Universal Basic Income.Disability organisations and leading figures in the movement must engage with Universal Basic Income as a policy that would impact disabled people’s lives significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]