Notes on a Social Policy Conference
Marg Gilling
"Conferences can be boringly informative, provide opportunities for impressive grandstanding or be an enjoyable employee 'perk'. This conference was different."
Marin Adams, North Shore Network
Victoria University of Wellington was the venue for the Social Policy Conference December 4-6, 1992. This conference was the second conference organised jointly by the Association of Social Science Researchers and the Sociological Association of Aotearoa. The goal for the conference was to provide a forum for discussion and debate about the changes that have taken place in the social policy arena in past years.
The theme for the conference was Changing Responsibilities. Susan St John addressed this theme in the opening plenary session, and a panel of speakers revisited it at the concluding session. There were a number of "sub-themes", all of which were developed in panel presentations:
- The State as Market
- Working Together – Research in the Community
- Monitoring of Government Policy and Trends
- Intergenerational Responsibilities
- Finding Resources for Social Research
- Gender
There was much interest in the Forum on Poverty on the Friday night, again with a panel of speakers, and in the plenary session on the Treaty of Waitangi on the Saturday. There were also parallel sessions at five of the sessions with people presenting papers on such diverse topics as Housing; Evaluation of the Domestic Purposes Benefit; Health Reforms; Māori Women in Prison; Disability Research; Intra-family Income.
As with any conference, people found the different speakers, topics and themes to be of varying interest and challenge. Andy West's opening remarks about how social science research is organised compared with other science research evoked a lot of interest. So too did Martin Adams's paper on community research. There was always a hum of conversation at the tea breaks, with people gesticulating, arguing about what they had just heard, or perhaps standing in quiet contemplation, mulling through new ideas, trying to deal with some trenchant criticism.
From the outset, the planning group for this conference had wanted to attract people from "the community", tertiary institutions, government departments and ministries. It was this mix of people that gave the conference its ethos and dynamic. There were people from several People's Resource Centres, church agencies and local government; people from polytechnics and a sprinkling from universities; people from private research organisations; from the Ministries of Education, and Research Science and Technology; from Justice, Internal Affairs, Police, Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry of Māori Affairs), and over 20 participants from the Social Policy Agency (SPA).
The conference was not an "easy" one for some people, even though
"… the people attending seemed to have a real commitment and concern at a personal level for the issues raised. There was listening as well as talking. People were challenged."
Many of the ideas presented were challenging, and immediate for SPA participants. Pat Shannon, in his paper "What we need: Beneficiary Perspectives on Welfare Reform", and Raymond Harbridge, speaking about the Employment Contracts Act, were both critical of policy changes, and searching for alternatives. Linda Allan and Claudia Scott explored the connections between research and policy; Celia Briar spoke about her follow-up research to the Peoples Select Committee.
Issues were raised by community workers about their lack of voice in government policymaking; about the training and qualifications and gatekeeping involved with what it takes to be "a researcher"; and their inability to get their research taken seriously and get it funded. Some people were surprised at the vehemence with which community people demanded to be heard, not as part of a government research project, but in their own right. Often there was a "talking past each other", until a realisation or meeting on common ground.
Questions were raised, yet again, about obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in both government policy development and research, about cultural perspectives and research methodologies; about the allocation of funding for both Māori and Pacific Islands research.
At times there was a great deal of confusion about the role of people working in government ministries and departments, and government itself, and a seeming lack of awareness of the constraints under which state servants now work. Two comments from people in SPA illustrate this dilemma:
"If people don't understand SPA's role, SPA has an obligation in this type of forum to explain…"
"Some strong feelings were expressed about the Department [of Social Welfare, including SPA] as institutions, and about the things we weren't doing. This was not always easy to reply to without being disloyal…"
There were accusations levelled at people that "the policy arm of government was very powerful"; that policy makers were responsible for the many changes; that such people are out of touch with the community; that what policy analysts do is "pretty rubbishy". These accusations caused a lot of consternation and pain for government employees, especially SPA staff, who were conspicuous in their numbers as they chaired sessions, presented papers, fronted up to session after session for yet more plain speaking.
There was a positive side to this dialogue. People within and without SPA were asked for their comments five months after the conference:
SPA comments included:
"It was a good opportunity to 'stand back' and look at issues and [get] different perspectives…the conference was useful to learn what community groups are doing… [it was] a good networking opportunity; it showed the gap In understanding about what policy analysts do… and the difficulties involved in consulting on confidential material… the importance of knowing what research is done by community groups, and knowing how to access this… [there are] lots of issues coming out of the conference we still have to deal with…"
"I am quite sure this sort of activity is worthwhile. It will strengthen our links [which are very tenuous] with the wider community, and so improve the quality of our advice to government."
Several issues were highlighted as needing action. These include developing better working relationships between government and academia; looking at the relationship between research and policy development, and "being clear where we are coming from".
"We really need some…code of ethics that we adhere to as analysts that is recognised in the community."
People from outside SPA commented:
"The conference highlighted the diversity of people and organisations who work with issues raised in the social arena. It is by drawing on the talents, resources and knowledge of all these groups which will show us what areas…need most attention."
"The Conference provided a valuable opportunity for theorists …to discuss and debate ideas with those who directly formulate and implement policy."
"One of the major benefits to come from this conference …was the recognition of a need for a comprehensive information centre for all research, data and information relating to the social arena."
Challenges made at the final plenary were both loud and strong, and a group of people were nominated to continue the debate on some of these issues. On May 5, this group presented to an Association of Social Science Researchers meeting a gift – Changing Responsibilities, Stage 2. The gift of four papers and a list of recommendations is for both the associations that sponsored the conference , and covers many of the issues raised during the conference. The challenge, however, is for people at all levels: individual, employee, voluntary and government.
The quote at the beginning of one of the papers in that collection is a searing one:
"We lose our humanity when other people take it upon themselves to tell our stories."
The paper on research in the community includes a page of questions; the other two papers – "The Validation and Recognition of Māori Methods of Social Research", and "Pacific Islands Dialogue– Whose Facts Count?" contain challenges spoken countless times before. The authors, however, ask for more than the hearing of these words; they demand a response.
The recommendations are too numerous to include in this brief overview, but include tasks such as:
"actively pursue and nurture the desire of Māori people, organisations and individuals to design, complete and control research affecting themselves"
"lobby and actively promote the acknowledgment and validation of a range of research methodologies"
"encourage partnerships between communities and institutions- networks and links…"
The Social Policy Conference at Victoria University worked because of the people dynamics, because of the level of debate, discussion, challenge. Ultimately, its worth is measured not by those three days but what happens afterwards, by what translates from conversation into action.
Sally Jackman of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, commented:
"We need to talk a lot more so that people with the skills and knowledge from each sector can cooperatively focus on the really serious problems."
The conference was one step in that process. How do we continue to meet across community, government and academic boundaries? How can we talk and listen? How can we reach agreement on the definition of "the really serious problems" and search for humane solutions to these problems? (Anyone interested in obtaining copies of the papers may contact me at SPA).
