• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
QRPM2011 Conference Booklet
 

QRPM2011 Conference Booklet

on

  • 1,292 views

Qualitative Research for Policy Making 2011: 2nd Annual

Qualitative Research for Policy Making 2011: 2nd Annual

26-27 May 2011, Belfast

Organised by Merlien Institute

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,292
Views on SlideShare
1,291
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    QRPM2011 Conference Booklet QRPM2011 Conference Booklet Document Transcript

    • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR POLICY MAKING 2011 2ND ANNUAL 26 & 27 May 2011 Queen’s University Belfast Belfast, U.K.
    • Qualitative Research for Policy Making 2011Welcome from Merlien InstituteWe would like to welcome you to today’s event. This international conference isdesigned to bring together academics and practitioners to discuss best practices fordelivering and interpreting qualitative research for policy makingYour contact persons at this conferenceConference Director: Jasper LimConference Chair: Robert MillerConference Assistants: Wendy Scott, Francesca MorosiBelow you will find a few administrative details for your information. Should youhave any queries or problems during the conference, please speak with the contactpersons.PRESENTATIONSThe presentation slides and papers of this event can be viewed or downloaded for alimited period of time from slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/event/qrpm2011BADGESBadges have been provided to help you identify fellow participants and the speakers.Easy identification also helps the conference staff when delivering messages. Pleasereturn your badge to the registration desk at the end of the conference.QUESTIONSIf you have any questions during the conference, please raise your hand and wait forthe speaker to address you. It would be helpful if you could announce yourself byname and organisation before asking your question.EVALUATION FORMTowards the end of the conference, you will be provided with an Evaluation Form.We would be grateful if you would take time to complete the form and return it to theregistration desk before you leave the conference. 2
    • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR POLICY MAKING 2011 THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2011, Auditorium, McClay Library08:15 Registration @ McClay Library Foyer08:45 Opening words by Merlien Institute & ChairProf Robert Miller - Professor of Sociology - Queen’s University Belfast & ARK (UK)Keynote Presentation 09:30 “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law: challenges in09:00 Big machines and tangled knots: asking delivering qualitative findings to senior level policythe right questions about social problems makers in the US Department of Defense• Discussing how to make qualitative research • Looking at the anticipated impact on US military attractive and relevant to policy makers service members and their families of repeal of the• Identifying the comparative advantage of qualitative "don’t ask, don’t tell” law data in identifying the processes behind social • Analysing a massive amount of qualitative data from a problems variety of sources (town hall meetings, focus groups,• Using the “big machine” and “tangled knot” in-box comments, on line dialogues) metaphors to identify the most useful research • Developing a strategy to explain and deliver the questions in generating actionable information findings to senior level policy makers in the PentagonTimothy Nelson - Lecturer in Social Policy, Harvard Susan G. Berkowitz - Senior Study DirectorKennedy School - Harvard University (US) Westat (US) 10:00 - 10:15 Joint Q&A Session10:15 Money matters in low/moderate income 10:45 The key to policy advocacy: demonstratingfamilies and the gender implications of UK the power of collaborative qualitative research towelfare reform deliver welfare benefits• Drawing on research with low/moderate income • Discussion of longitudinal community-based PAR couples to examine the UK government’s proposals project with lone mothers on social assistance and the on welfare reform from a gender perspective policy challenges• Discussing the value of qualitative research to • Demonstrating the power of qualitative research for policy design and debates policy advocacy• Evaluating the UK government’s performance in • Discussion of the multiple outcomes and their long relation to gender assessment term policy implicationsFran Bennett - Senior Research Fellow Lea Caragata - Associate Professor, Faculty of SocialUniversity of Oxford (UK) Work - Wilfrid Laurier University (Canada)Sirin Sung - University LecturerQueens University Belfast (UK) 11:15 - 11:30 Joint Q&A Session 11:30 - 12:00 Coffee Break12:00 Undertaking high quality and relevant 12:30 Archiving qualitative data for policyqualitative research at a time of rapid healthcare research: meeting challenges and establishing bestreforms practices• Addressing the significant challenges of keeping • Reporting findings from demonstrator project on qualitative research relevant in times intense archiving qualitative data generated in the evaluation change in the National Health Service in England of a complex community intervention initiative• Describing our action research approach within a 2 • Discussing benefits and challenges of archiving year ethnographic study of healthcare identified by researchers, funders and policy makers commissioning in the course of the project• Evaluating the tensions between study sites and • Describing the development and implementation of policy environments that need to be identified and best practices in qualitative data archiving managed within such an action research study Aileen OCarroll - Manager - IQDA (Ireland)Sara Shaw - Senior Fellow - Nuffield Trust (UK) 13:00 - 13:15 Joint Q&A Session 13:15 - 14:15 Lunch Break 3
    • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR POLICY MAKING 2011 THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2011, Auditorium, McClay Library Brainstorming workshop14:15 Building acceptance of qualitative methodologies: developing strategies to build academicrigor and enhance methodological validityIn this workshop, delegates divided into teams will brainstorm strategies to mitigate effects of challenges andbuild acceptance of qualitative methodologies among those who influence and make policy. At the end of theworkshop, team leaders will present their solutions to the audience.Facilitated by Meena Chary - Assistant Professor - University of South Florida (US) 15:30 - 16:00 Coffee Break16:00 Evidence-based policy in Eastern 16:30 Qualitative research and policy making inEuropean countries: how can qualitative research Northern Ireland: barriers arising from lack ofbecome more legitimate for the policy makers? capacity, conceptualisation and consensus• Discussing the significant overlap between the • Describing a multi-levelled policy process with little policy makers and the academic community in joined up or collective decision-making Romania • Identifying the lack of policy capacity in governance• Assessing the impact of this overlap that could system with existing outputs reflecting little use or dilute professional boundaries and gives birth to understanding of qualitative research inappropriate “intimacy” between science and policy • Discussing how the absence of political consensus, making flexibility and adoption of modernisation agendas has• Discussing the unwillingness of policy makers in imposed constraints on use of qualitative research Romania to get their decisions scrutinised by Derek Birrell - Professor of Social Administration and science Policy - University of Ulster (UK)Lavinia Maria Andrei - PhD CandidateUniversity of Bucharest (Romania) 17:00 - 17:15 Joint Q&A Session17:15 Qualitative evidence of municipal service delivery protests: implications for South Africa• Reflecting critically on the factors that contributed to the violent service delivery-related protests in 3 different provinces in South Africa• Discussing the socio-economic impact and long-term development challenges of these protests• Illustrating the importance of registering early warnings signals and institutionalising mediation at municipal level.Sethulego Matebesi - Senior Lecturer and Department ChairUniversity of the Free State (South Africa) 17:45 - 18:00 Q&A Session 18:00 Closing remarks of day 1 from chair 19:45 Optional Networking Dinner @ Nick’s Warehouse, 35-39 Hill Street, Central Belfast 4
    • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR POLICY MAKING 2011 FRIDAY, 27 MAY 2011, The Canada Room & Council Chamber, Lanyon Building08:15 Morning coffee08:45 Opening words by Merlien Institute & ChairSue Ziebland, Research Director, Department of Primary Healthcare - University of Oxford (UK)Keynote Presentation09:00 Delivering effective qualitative research 09:30 Research based knowledge for policyfor policy making in times of austerity decision making rounds: practical implications• Discussing how qualitative research can make a • Evaluating research studies within the period of 2007- distinctive contribution to different stages of policy 2009 ordered by Ministry of Education and Science making and Ministry of Economy in Lithuania• Utilising qualitative method to complement • Discussing coupling between research knowledge information derived from quantitative methods creation process and policy rounds• Arguing that in the age of austerity, it is important • Evaluating the research based knowledge in terms of that all instruments should be used to avoid ill- transformation scenario content advised policies Birut Mikulskien - Head of Department ofGiuseppe A. Veltri - Scientific Fellow, JRC, IPTS Management - Mykolas Romeris UniversityEuropean Commission (Lithuania) 10:00 - 10:15 Joint Q&A Session10:15 Timing is everything: balancing topicality, 10:45 Anticipating hot issues and producingrelevance and precision in delivering evidence- timely reports for policy makers to report to newbased policy-making developments• Discussing the implications of selecting the right • Discussing recent experience in anticipating hot timing for both data collection and research issues and developing research agenda around it dissemination • Developing methods to make research reports timely• Exploring the relationship between topicality, timing and accessible and academic rigour • Implementing successful engagement strategy with• Discussing the ethics concerning researcher and the media and policy makers in research results policy maker relationships Susan J. Popkin - Director, Program onGráinne Kelly - Policy/Practice Coordinator, Neighbourhoods and Youth DevelopmentINCORE The Urban Institute (US)University of Ulster (UK) 11:15 - 11:30 Joint Q&A Session 11:30 - 12:00 Coffee Break12:00 The science-policy interface for 12:30 Seeing it from the other side: reflections onbiodiversity and ecosystem services: a knowledge transfer placementopportunities for science to enter in policy • Discussing how academic research evidence fits intoenvironments the broader range of evidence that policy-makers• Presenting research results of the analysis of have available to them; science-policy interfacing in the area of biodiversity • Exploring how qualitative research evidence is governance understood and evaluated by policy-makers• Discussing an appraisal approaches that were • Identifying how best to present and communicate the developed through interviews with policy-makers outcomes of qualitative research to a policy audience and scientists in the field of biodiversity Natalie Armstrong - Lecturer in Social Science• Evaluating the success of these approaches for use University of Leicester (UK) in supporting policy-makersAlice B. M. Vadrot - Research FellowRonald J. Pohoryles - DirectorICCR (Austria) 13:00 - 13:15 Joint Q&A Session 13:15 - 14:15 Lunch Break 5
    • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR POLICY MAKING 2011 FRIDAY, 27 MAY 2011, The Canada Room & Council Chamber, Lanyon BuildingSponsored Presentation:14:15 ATLAS.ti: A powerful workbench for analysing large bodies of textual, graphical, audio andvideo data - Jörg Hecker - Director Business Operations - ATLAS.ti (Germany) Brainstorming workshop:14:30 Developing indicators of study quality in systematic reviews of qualitative research to informpublic health policy makingThis workshop will use systematic reviews undertaken for the National Institute for Health and ClinicalExcellence (NICE) to illustrate the features that policy makers may wish to be appraised. It will use this as thestarting point for a discussion about the importance of distinguishing between the quality of research reportingand the quality of research conduct and aim to establish agreement on some key reporting standards thatmight be acceptable to authors, editors, reviewers and policy makers.Facilitated by Ruth Garside - Senior Research Fellow - PenTAG, University of Exeter (UK) 15:45 - 16:15 Coffee Break16:15 Policy and history: discussing a typology 16:45 Supporting the application of Groundedof qualitative approaches for policy making Theory qualitative studies for policy making• Discussing what historians can add to mainstream • Identifying and discussing unique contributions policy analyses Grounded Theory can offer to social policy• Presenting a typology of approaches to history and development policy • What are the challenges and opportunities of using• Illustrating these approaches with examples from Grounded Theory for policy research and policy historical work on health care policy, in particular development? cancer and palliative care policy • Discussing future considerations for the application ofEllen van Reuler - PhD Researcher qualitative research for social policy developmentUniversity of Manchester (UK) Anita Vaillancourt - Assistant Professor Algoma University (Canada) 17:15 - 17:30 Joint Q&A Session 17:30 Closing remarks of Day 2 by chair and close of conference This conference is proudly supported by: 6
    • Thursday 26 May - 08:45From our chairpersonOpening remarks and speaker introductionsRobert L. MillerProfessor of SociologyQueen’s University Belfast, UKAbout Robert…Robert Miller a Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University Belfast. Hestudied at Duke University and the University of Florida and completed hisPh.D. at the Queens University of Belfast. His main sociological work hasbeen in the areas of social stratification & mobility and gender & politicalparticipation. He has contributed to the social policy debate surrounding equalopportunity issues in Northern Ireland - most notably with a highlycontroversial study of religious discrimination in the Northern Irish CivilService that led directly to major reforms in that body. He presently hasreturned to his long-standing interest in social mobility, only employing thequalitative methods of family history and(auto)biographical research.He has been involved with the European Sociological Association since itsfounding having been its General Secretary 1997-99 and Chair of the ESAResearch Network Biographical Perspectives on European Societies. RobertMiller is Convenor of the Masters in Social Research Methods and is DeputyDirector of ARK, a joint initiative of Queens University and the University ofUlster dedicated to making social science information more accessible to thegeneral public http://www.ark.ac.uk. 7
    • Thursday 26 May - 09:00Timothy NelsonLecturer in Social PolicyHarvard Kennedy School, Harvard University (US)Keynote Presentation:Big Machines and Tangled Knots: Asking the Right Questions aboutSocial Problems• Discussing how to make qualitative research attractive and relevant to policy makers• Identifying the comparative advantage of qualitative data in identifying the processes behind social problems• Using the “big machine” and “tangled knot” metaphors to identify the most useful research questions in generating actionable informationPresentation abstract:Policy makers are often eager to utilize research to tackle some of the mostintractable challenges facing society. Yet often academics, even those whostudy social problems, do not formulate their research in ways which might bemost useful for policy interventions. Following Sparrow (2008), socialproblems like father absence, early school leaving, gang violence, and ghettopoverty can be thought of as “knots,” which in order to be undone must beexamined in all of their specificity. In a similar vein, following Becker (1988),undesired outcomes can be conceived of as the result of the confluence ofregular social processes (the Big Machine) which produces them. Byidentifying all of the necessary contributing components of the problem, socialscientists can pinpoint the ones most amenable to policy intervention.Qualitative methods are uniquely equipped to address these tough challengesbecause of their ability to get at complexity, understand context and overturnfalse assumptions which often underlie existing programs and policies. I willillustrate these points through several qualitative policy-relevant projects in theUnited States.About Tim…Timothy Nelson is Lecturer in Social Policy. His research focuses on low-income, non-custodial fathers, as well as congregational studies and AfricanAmerican religion. His most recent publication is Every Time I Feel the Spirit:Religious Experience and Ritual in an African American Congregation. Hisnext book is tentatively titled Marginal Men: Fatherhood in the Lives of LowIncome Unmarried Men (with Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein). Nelson receivedhis PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago in 1997 and has alsotaught at Northwestern University and the University of Pennsylvania. 8
    • Thursday 26 May - 09:30Susan G. BerkowitzSenior Study DirectorWestat, US“Don’t ask, don’t tell” law: Challenges in delivering qualitative findingsto senior level policy makers in the US Department of Defense• Looking at the anticipated impact on US military Service members and their families of repeal of the "don’t ask, don’t tell” law• Analysing a massive amount of qualitative data from a variety of sources (town hall meetings, focus groups, in-box comments, on line dialogues)• Developing a strategy to explain and deliver the findings to senior level policy makers in the PentagonPresentation abstract:In May, 2010 Westat was awarded a contract to support the activities of theComprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) established by the USSecretary of Defense to examine the potential impact of repeal of the “don’task don’t tell” law in effect since 1993. Along with conducting two large-scalesurveys, Westat researchers collected and analyzed a large amount ofqualitative data on Service member and spouse’s views on repeal fromsources including: town hall meetings, focus groups, in-box comments,confidential on-line dialogues and open-ended survey comments. At theoutset, these were viewed less as “real” data collection efforts than asopportunities to engage the force. Over time this view changed as Westat’squalitative analysis team, working with the CRWG, made a convincingargument that these data were being subject to a rigorous, systematic, team-based analytic process yielding unique, policy-relevant insights not availablefrom the survey results alone. This presentation will “tell the story” of thequalitative component of this time-pressured, highly politically visible effort,offering “lessons learned” for persuading policy makers of the importance andutility of these often powerful qualitative data both for understanding thepotential impact of repeal and planning for its implementation.About Susan…Dr. Susan Berkowitz, a Senior Study Director at Westat in Rockville, MD, is anexpert in qualitative and mixed methods research. She has led several high-profile qualitative studies whose results have informed policy-making for theUS Census Bureau, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and, most recently,the Comprehensive Review Working Group. Dr. Berkowitz holds a Ph.D. inAnthropology from the University of Michigan and a Postdoctoral Certificate inHealth Policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. She is afrequent presenter at national and international conferences, has publishedwidely and gives professional development workshops to varied audiences. 9
    • Thursday 26 May - 10:15Fran BennettSenior Research FellowUniversity of Oxford, UKSirin SungUniversity LecturerQueen’s University Belfast, UKMoney matters in low/moderate income families and the genderimplications of UK welfare reform• Drawing on research with low/moderate income couples to examine the UK government’s proposals on welfare reform from a gender perspective• Discussing the value of qualitative research to policy design and debates• Evaluating the UK government’s performance in relation to gender assessmentPresentation abstract:By law the UK coalition government must have regard to the impact of itspolicies on women. This paper investigates to what extent this is influencingdebates about proposals for welfare reform, especially the ‘universal credit’. Itdraws on one author’s experience of aiming to draw policy makers’ attentionto relevant findings from qualitative research (about how low-income couplesmanage money and negotiate gender roles) - in particular those from a studyby both authors involving separate semi-structured interviews in 2006 withmen and women in 30 low/moderate income couples in Britain.A major aim of this study - part of the Within Household Inequalities andPublic Policy research in the ESRC-funded Gender Equality Network(www.genet.ac.uk) - was to facilitate analysis of welfare reform taking accountof gender roles and relationships within the household. The paper thereforedemonstrates how these and other similar findings can be used to examineuniversal credit from a gender perspective.The authors use this to explore two broader issues: the value of qualitativeresearch to policy design and debates, in particular as a supplement toeconomic modelling; and the essential elements of a comprehensive genderassessment of welfare reform to fully meet the equalities duty.About Fran & Sirin…Fran Bennett is a part-time Senior Research Fellow, doing teaching andresearch at Oxford University. Her interests include gender, social security,poverty and participation. She is also an independent consultant and writesfor the UK government and NGOs. She is joint editor of the on-line SocialPolicy Digest for the Journal of Social Policy, and also of the Journal ofPoverty and Social Justice. Sirin Sung is Lecturer in Social Policy at Queen’sUniversity Belfast. Her main research interests include gender and socialpolicy, gender and employment, work-life balance policies, and gender andbenefits in East Asian countries and the UK. She is currently researchinggender and the welfare state in Korea; and work-family balance policies in theUK and US, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. 10
    • Thursday 26 May - 10:45Lea CaragataAssociate Professor, Faculty of Social WorkWilfrid Laurier University, CanadaThe key to policy advocacy: demonstrating the power of collaborativequalitative research to deliver welfare benefits• Discussion of longitudinal community-based PAR project with lone mothers on social assistance and the policy challenges• Demonstrating the power of qualitative research for policy advocacy• Discussion of the multiple outcomes and their long term policy implicationsPresentation abstract:“Lone Mothers: Building Social Inclusion” is a community university researchalliance (CURA) that involves academic researchers with community partnersincluding advocacy and service delivery organizations serving marginalizedand minoritized women as well as Toronto Employment and Social Services(TESS), the fourth largest welfare delivery body in Canada and part of the Cityof Toronto. This Canada-wide longitudinal study examines lone mother’sexperiences with work-for-welfare systems and the growing precarious labourmarket with a combined focus on research and advocacy. The grounding ofthe work in a feminist, participatory methodology is reflected in the recruitmentof lone mothers on social assistance hired and trained to work as ResearchAssistants. These women brought their own experiences with poverty andwelfare systems to the project both through serving as an ongoing referencegroup and through their additional participation as research participants andas active participants in policy dialogues.This paper describes how these multiple partners have been key to policyadvocacy directed to facilitating lone mothers’ access to post secondaryeducation, removal of punitive welfare provisions, gendering welfare deliveryand more general advocacy for improved welfare benefits and the needs ofthese families for sustainable employment.Also discussed are the effects of these collaborations on project partners asfeminist and participatory action research designs explicitly challenge thepower relations between researcher and participant which in itself hasimportant implications for policy research.About Lea…Dr. Lea Caragata teaches in the areas of social policy and communitydevelopment. Areas of research and specialization include marginalizationand oppression, most recently focused on labour market changes and welfarestate retrenchment. Dr. Caragatas academic work follows extensive practiceexperience, including grassroots community organizing, social housingdevelopment, public policy coordination, and public administration. 11
    • Thursday 26 May - 12:00Sara ShawSenior FellowNuffield Trust, UKUndertaking high quality and relevant qualitative research at a time ofrapid healthcare reforms• Addressing the significant challenges of keeping qualitative research relevant in times intense change in the National Health Service in England• Describing our action research approach within a 2 year ethnographic study of healthcare commissioning• Evaluating the tensions between study sites and policy environments that need to be identified and managed within such an action research studyPresentation abstract:The NHS is going through a period of rapid and intense change. We explorehow an action research model has enabled us to address the twin challengesof keeping qualitative research relevant and working with evolvingorganisations. We draw on data from a two-year ethnographic studyinvestigating the process of commissioning high quality care for people withlong-term conditions.The decision to establish a senior team combined with the location of theproject – at an independent health policy foundation – enabled team membersto act as ‘boundary spanners’, simultaneously engaging with the three studysites and the policy environment. A ‘Chinese Wall’ allowed ‘researchers’ tofocus on data collection and analysis and ‘actioners’ to focus on working withsites to address specific areas of healthcare commissioning (e.g. diabeticpodiatry).Successfully enabling an action research approach has involved: (1)balancing contributions to policy at the national and local levels; (2)responding to action requests whilst offering action that we believe will bemost beneficial; and (3) keeping a clear analytical focus to the researchelements of the study while offering useful action. In doing so, our intention isto convert the conclusions drawn from qualitative research into relevant andactionable policy recommendations.About Sara…Sara Shaw is a Senior Fellow at the Nuffield Trust. Her background is inmedical sociology and policy studies. She has published widely on topicsincluding shaping national health research policy, critical approaches to policyanalysis and the organisation of primary care. Her current research interestsfocus on healthcare commissioning and integrated care. In addition to her roleat The Nuffield Trust, Sara is also Senior Lecturer in Health Policy Researchat Queen Mary, University of London. 12
    • Thursday 26 May - 12:30Aileen O’CarrollManagerIQDA, IrelandArchiving qualitative data for policy research: meeting challenges andestablishing best practices• Reporting findings from demonstrator project on archiving qualitative data generated in the evaluation of a complex community intervention initiative• Discussing benefits and challenges of archiving identified by researchers, funders and policy makers in the course of the project• Describing the development and implementation of best practices in qualitative data archivingPresentation abstract:Applied social, economic and evaluation research projects often generatesignificant amounts of qualitative data. Yet, compared to quantitative data, theconventions and requirements relating to archiving qualitative data, andmaking it available for re-use, are less likely to be formalised at commissioner,faculty or University level. This is despite qualitative data being considered anindicator of methodological innovation and advancement. There are severalbenefits to archiving both quantitative and qualitative data, including: avoidingunnecessary duplication of research projects; permitting comparative studies;tracking trends over time; improving methods for undertaking similar research;and investigating new research questions. Archiving also permits the use ofdata beyond the lifetime of a project. Archived data represents a valuableresource for the advancement of scientific inquiry and promotes the use ofappropriate data in policy making at local and national levels.This paper will report on the findings from a major demonstrator project onarchiving qualitative data generated in the evaluation of a complex communityintervention initiative. The paper will provide an overview of findings andoutput from two strands of the project: (1) a consultation process thatidentified concerns, perceived challenges and orientations towards qualitativedata archiving amongst researchers, policy specialists and datacommissioners; (2) the development of best practice guidelines for qualitativedata archiving in Ireland.About Aileen…Aileen OCarroll is manager of IQDA. She liaises with researchers at thebeginning and end of the research process as to how best conduct qualitativeresearch with to a view to archiving the data produced. She has created acatalogue of Irish Qualitative Research which can be accessed at thewww.iqda.ie. She lectured on research methods at University College Dublin.Her own research work has involved the use of qualitative research methods,time diaries, in analysing the organisation of working time. 13
    • Thursday 26 May - 14:15Meena CharyAssistant Professor, Government and InternationalAffairsUniversity of South Florida, USBrainstorming workshop:Building acceptance of qualitative methodologies: developing strategiesto build academic rigor and enhance methodological validityIn this workshop, delegates divided into teams will brainstorm to mitigateeffects of challenges and build acceptance of qualitative methodologiesamong those who influence and make policy. Delegates may want to includeissues such as academic rigor and methodological validity in theirdiscussions. At the end of the workshop, team leaders will present theirsolutions to the audience.About Meena …Meena Chary holds a Ph.D. in Public Administration, as well as degrees inElectrical Engineering, Economics and Management. She is a methodologistand a public policy scholar researching in the areas of human rights andinformation technology. She is part of the faculty of the Public AdministrationProgram within the Department of Government and International Affairs at theUniversity of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, USA. 14
    • Thursday 26 May - 16:00Lavinia Maria AndreiPhD Candidate, Faculty of Sociology and SocialAssistanceUniversity of Bucharest, RomaniaEvidence-based policy in Eastern European countries: how canqualitative research become more legitimate for the policy makers?• Discussing the significant overlap between the policy makers and the academic community in Romania• Assessing the impact of this overlap that could dilute professional boundaries and gives birth to inappropriate “intimacy” between science and policy making• Discussing the unwillingness of policy makers in Romania to get their decisions scrutinised by sciencePresentation abstract:The article presents a general perspective upon the use of social research inthe policy process in Romania and tries to underline the regional similaritiesacross some Eastern European countries. What particularizes Romaniansocial research and policy communities? How can research and especially thequalitative and quasi-experimental methods become more legitimate for thepolicy makers? The paper gives a few interesting answers in what regardswhy the lack of legitimacy and cooperation between the two communities, andtries to propose some solutions to overcome this situation and encourageevidence based policy and practice in Romania and in the region. Policy andresearch are, from a certain point of view, entangled, intimate even, andprofessional turfs seem to be overlapping. Legitimacy of research is thus lostin the process and social research becomes a mere argument in the politicaldebate. The primacy of quantitative over qualitative is also observed, thoughdifferent explanations come from different experts.All in all, the paper concludes that better use of research into the policymaking process could lead to better governance and less arbitrary in thedecision making process. Democratic institutions are now expected to reformtheir procedures and to move towards expert advice and scientific knowledgegathering in support of their normative power. Romania could represent agood example of how policy can shape into a functional process, but it couldalso accept only the form, without acknowledging the content.About Lavinia…Lavinia is currently a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Sociology and SocialAssistance at the University of Bucharest. In 2005 she was appointed as civilservant in the Ministry of Economy. In 2006, she joined the YoungProfessional Scheme, a one year intensive training program in publicmanagement. She was later appointed as a Public Manager in the Ministry ofEconomy and Finance. Since 2008, she teaches Public Policy at BucharestUniversity in Romania. 15
    • Thursday 26 May - 16:30Derek BirrellProfessor of Social Administration & PolicyUniversity of Ulster, UKQualitative research and policy making in Northern Ireland: barriersarising from lack of capacity, conceptualisation and consensus• Describing a multi-levelled policy process with little joined up or collective decision-making• Identifying the lack of policy capacity in governance system with existing outputs reflecting little use or understanding of qualitative research• Discussing how the absence of political consensus, flexibility and adoption of modernisation agendas has imposed constraints on use of qualitative researchPresentation abstract:The paper argues that the formal policy making processes have made littleuse of or taken cognisance of qualitative research. This can be evidencedthrough the examination of consultation papers, commissioned reports,equality impact assessments and Assembly committee reports. Three mainexplanations can be suggested for the limited use of qualitative evidence inthe policy process. Firstly, the lack of policy making capacity in the CivilService and other public bodies and the limited presence and operation ofresearch institutes, policy units and networks. Secondly, the low level ofconceptual analysis and understanding displayed in government narrativesand discourses. Examples are quoted from the policy areas of health delivery,integration of health and social care, educational achievement, social work,user and public participation, and public sector reform Thirdly, the lack ofpolitical consensus on many issues of social and public policy amongministers and politicians. This has presented obstacles to change, to theadoption of new and modernised agendas and promoted a lowest commondenominator approach to policy making. Northern Ireland experiencesuggests that a range of political, ideological, communal and vested interestshas lead to the limited impact of qualitative research and also the non-promotion of qualitative research.About Derek…Derek Birrell is a Professor of Social Administration and Policy in the Schoolof Criminology, Politics and Social Policy at the University of Ulster. He is theauthor of the several books: ‘The impact of devolution on social policy’ and‘Direct rule and the governance of Northern Ireland’. He is also the co-authorof the book ‘Social Work in Northern Ireland, Conflict and Change’ that ispublished in 2011. His new books: ‘Comparing Devolved Governance’(Palgrave Macmillan) and with Ann-Marie Gray ‘Adult Social Care’ (PolicyPress) will be published in early 2012. 16
    • Thursday 26 May - 17:15Sethulego MatebesiSenior Lecturer & Department ChairUniversity of the Free State, South AfricaQualitative evidence of municipal service delivery protests: implicationsfor South Africa• Reflecting critically on the factors that contributed to the violent service delivery-related protests in 3 different provinces in South Africa• Discussing the socio-economic impact and long-term development challenges of these protests• Illustrating the importance of registering early warnings signals and institutionalising mediation at municipal level.Presentation abstract:Social protests in South Africa were to a large degree responsible for makingthe former black townships ungovernable. In 2004, a decade since the adventof the new political dispensation, South Africa witnessed unrest of significantproportions at local government level. This occurred despite the emphasis ongood municipal governance by the national government. The lack of capacityto deliver on mandates, together with factors such as individual politicalstruggles, poor communication and ineffective client interface, are keycontributors to the surge in violent protests.This study was conducted in four cities from three different provinces in SouthAfrica. The main aim of the study was to identify the reasons for the violentprotests and policy implications. Methodologically, this entailed 100 in-depthinterviews with community leaders, councillors and municipal and provincialgovernment officials. More than 300 community members (both protestorsand non-protestors) were interviewed by means of focus groups discussions.This qualitative study is useful to policy makers and planners at all spheres ofgovernment, including security services because it not only identified thereasons for the protests, but also identified early warning signals and variouslessons on how to prevent or manage these events in future.About Sethulego…Sethulego is currently the Chairperson and Senior Lecturer in the Departmentof Sociology and Research Associate at the Centre for Development Support,both at the University of the Free State. He also serves as Council Member ofthe South African Sociological Association and Editorial Associate for theJournal for Development Studies. In general terms, his research has strongfocus on two areas: health systems research (tuberculosis and HIV and AIDS)and developmental issues (community-based worker systems, and povertyalleviation strategies). His recent empirical work has focuses on the servicedelivery-related protests in South Africa. 17
    • Friday 27 May - 08:45From our chairpersonOpening remarks and speaker introductionsSue ZieblandResearch Director, Department of Primary HealthcareUniversity of Oxford, UKAbout Sue…Sue Ziebland is a University Reader in Qualitative Health Research andresearch director of the Health Experiences Research Group, based in theDepartment of Primary Health Care. She is also a research fellow at GreenTempleton College.Sue’s background is in medical sociology, with increasing focus on qualitativeresearch approaches. Since completing her MSc in Social Research MethodsSue has worked as a researcher in the academic, NHS and voluntary sectorsand has published over 100 papers and chapters in social science and healthpublications. Sue was invited (by Ann McPherson) to be involved in the DIPEx(now Healthtalkonline) projects when it was still at the kitchen table stage –back in 1999. She spent a considerable (and perhaps not surprising) amountof 1999 getting the projects through a national research ethics committee.Since then Sue has worked closely with colleagues in the research group, onthe steering group and DIPEx charity to develop the methods used in theprojects and raise funding for the research.Sue’s other research interests include people’s use of the internet for healthinformation and qualitative research methods (which she teaches at variouslevels).In 2010 she has started a 5 year NIHR programme on the use of patients’experiences on the internet, working with some splendid colleagues inWarwick, Northumbria, Sheffield and Stirling as well as Oxford. 18
    • Friday 27 May - 09:00Giuseppe A. VeltriScientific Fellow, JRC, IPTSEuropean CommissionKeynote Presentation:Delivering effective qualitative research for policy making in times ofausterity• Discussing how qualitative research can make a distinctive contribution to different stages of policy making• Utilising qualitative method to complement information derived from quantitative methods• Arguing that in the age of austerity, it is important that all instruments should be used to avoid ill-advised policiesPresentation abstract:Qualitative research seeks to provide a better understanding of theprocesses, context, rationales and motivations underlying social andeconomic activity. Hence, qualitative research can make a distinctivecontribution to policy-making at all stages. It can help identify priority areas,design policy interventions (examining what can be effective and successful),and foresee unintended consequences. Insights from qualitative research arealso important for fine-tuning policy implementation and monitoring. In time ofpublic sector cuts, all available instruments should be used to avoid ill-advisedpolicies that fail to deliver or produce unintended negative results.In policy-making, qualitative methodology is complementary to informationderived from quantitative methods. For example, qualitative methods are avaluable tool against the outcome of Campbell’s law that affects quantitativeindicators used in policy-making. In other words, qualitative research cancomplement quantitative indicators, monitoring their ‘health status’ andshowing when they have ceased to ‘measure’ what they were designed to do(as proxies). In order to be effective, qualitative research should stress thiscomplementarily with quantitative research rather than oppose it, ensuretransparency and rigour in its procedures, and take into account policymakers needs and the context in which they must make their decisions.About Giuseppe…Giuseppe holds an MSc in Social Research Methods from the MethodologyInstitute of the London School of Economics (LSE) and a PhD in SocialPsychology from the LSE. He is currently a scientific fellow at the EuropeanCommission JRC Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).Before joining the IPTS, he has been a research associate at the Institut JeanNicod (Ecole Normale Supérieure) in Paris. He has taught extensively in thefields of methodology of social research and social psychology. His researchinterests focus on public opinion research, social representations, behaviouraleconomics and social psychology of economic life, and public understandingof science. 19
    • Friday 27 May - 09:30Birut MikulskienHead of Department of ManagementMykolas Romeris University, LithuaniaResearch based knowledge for policy decision making rounds: practicalimplications• Evaluating research studies within the period of 2007-2009 ordered by Ministry of Education and Science and Ministry of Economy in Lithuania• Discussing coupling between research knowledge creation process and policy rounds• Evaluating the research based knowledge in terms of transformation scenario contentPresentation abstract:Effectiveness of research-based knowledge transfer in to public decisionmaking is not self-oriented or spontaneous action. The aim of this researchwas to outline the managerial practical implications for the potential use ofresearch-based knowledge with the purpose to improve public policy decisionmaking. The investigation let us draw the main managerial framework, whichis based on threefold aspect, such as:a.) The research content quality including transformation scenarios. Researchcontent must be shaped up in the form directly usable for policy decisionmaking without additional efforts and could be recognized as organicprolongation of policy process or detached to policy round.b.) The research process interaction with policy making rounds. If we considerpolicy decision making process as round models, the research-basedknowledge could be created either during research own round with attributesof policy decision rounds or being integrated in to policy issue decisionmaking round.c.) Alignment of policy modelling actors with researchers. The policy decisionmaking and research-based knowledge generation rounds need to be alignedwhen the researcher is converted to the policy actor with the stake torecognise the hidden phenomena.About Birut …Birut Mikulskien holds a PhD in Physics. She has worked and gainedpractical experience in Agency of International R&D programmes and in theLithuania Ministry of Education and Science for 8 years. She joined MykolasRomeris University in 2006 and in 2010, she was appointed as a Head ofDepartment of Management. Her main research interests include decisionmaking methods for policy processes development, R&D policy management,public policy choice, participatory policy based on social network analysis.She gives lectures at the master level courses on “The Decision MakingTheory” and “R&D projects management”. 20
    • Friday 27 May - 10:15Gráinne KellyPolicy/Practice Coordinator, INCOREUniversity of Ulster, UKTiming is everything: balancing topicality, relevance and precision indelivering evidence-based policy-making• Discussing the implications of selecting the right timing for both data collection and research dissemination• Exploring the relationship between topicality, timing and academic rigour• Discussing the ethics concerning researcher and policy maker relationshipsPresentation abstract:Accepting a research grant from a government department comes with bothadvantages and drawbacks. You have their attention and they havedemonstrated an interest in what you have to say. But to what extent haveyou relinquished control by accepting public monies? Any good researcherwill say - not at all. But how can we be sure that this true, particularly if youare working to the time schedule of the policymaker?Evidence-based policymaking is now at the heart of civil service-speak. Couldit be that their anxiety to substantiate their decision-making with a limitedtimeframe impacts on the researcher’s autonomy in any way? Drawing on theexperience of conducting publicly-funded qualitative research on conflict andreconciliation in Northern Ireland, this paper sets out to identify some of thechallenges of aligning the timing of research undertaken with the wideragendas of policymakers and to critically reflect on the relationship formedbetween researcher and policymaker, to ensure appropriate critical distance ismaintained.About Gráinne …Gráinne Kelly is Policy/Practice Coordinator of INCORE (International ConflictResearch Institute), based at the University of Ulster. She has conductedqualitative research on a range of conflict-related themes in Northern Ireland,Cambodia and Sierra Leone. She has published widely on conflict resolution,reconciliation and victims/survivors of conflict and has maintains a researchinterest in the role of grantmakers in conflict-affected societies. She wasawarded a research fellowship at the Center for Philanthropy and Civil Societyin City University, New York in 2005. She teaches on a Master’s Programmeon Peace and Conflict Studies and contributes to a postgraduate course onResearching Peace and Conflict in Divided Societies. She has recentlycompleted qualitative research on reconciliation theory and practice inNorthern Ireland. 21
    • Friday 27 May - 10:45Susan J. PopkinDirector, Program on Neighbourhoods and YouthDevelopmentThe Urban Institute, USAnticipating hot issues and producing timely reports for policy makersto report to new developments• Discussing recent experience in anticipating hot issues and developing research agenda around it• Developing methods to make research reports timely and accessible• Implementing successful engagement strategy with the media and policy makers in research resultsPresentation abstract:This presentation will describe my experience in anticipating a “hot issue” -the problem of housing “hard to house” families living in public/social housingdevelopments slated for redevelopment as part of community regenerationinitiatives.I will discuss how this issue grew out of my research on resident relocationand how we used a combination of qualitative and quantitative researchmethods to illuminate the problems, develop a research demonstration, andconduct a formative and outcome evaluation.I will also describe how we developed a dissemination strategy, includingaccessible policy briefs instead of reports, presentations, media outreach, andoutreach to policy makers. In particular, I will focus on how we used data fromour qualitative research to paint portraits of the families and engage policymakers in discussion about how to best meet their service needs.About Susan…Susan J. Popkin, Ph.D. is a Director of The Urban Institute’s Program onNeighborhoods and Youth Development and Senior Fellow in the MetropolitanHousing and Communities Policy Center. Dr. Popkin is an expert onqualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews, focus groups,ethnography, and administrative interviews. Her particular expertise is inintegrating these methods into large, multi-method projects. She is leadauthor for the book The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of PublicHousing in Chicago; and co-author of Public Housing Transformation: TheLegacy of Segregation and Moving To Opportunity: The Story of an AmericanExperiment to Fight Ghetto Poverty. 22
    • Friday 27 May - 12:00Alice B. M. VadrotResearch FellowRonald J. PohorylesDirectorInterdisciplinary Centre for ComparativeResearch in the Social Sciences (ICCR), AustriaThe science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services:opportunities for science to enter in policy environments• Presenting research results of the analysis of science-policy interfacing in the area of biodiversity governance• Discussing an appraisal approaches that were developed through interviews with policy-makers and scientists in the field of biodiversity• Evaluating the success of these approaches for use in supporting policy- makersPresentation abstract:Significant problems surround efforts to tackle the loss of biodiversity and thedegradation of ecosystem services. Implementation of current biodiversitypolicy has resulted in regulatory discontent, a cycle crisis, and controversy.One factor relating to the conflicting views on the value assigned tobiodiversity is its conservation and sustainable use. Current efforts todemonstrate biodiversity’s value rest primarily on the concept of ecosystemservices and the benefits for society deriving from biodiversity, assuming thatan anthropocentric and economy-based starting point is likely to motivateeffective policy-making, integration, and implementation. We argue that suchan approach potentially challenges the governance of biodiversity,considering that this solution to environmental problems blurs our vision of theecological, political, social and economic complexities. Qualitativeinterdisciplinary research might help to overcome the shortcomings derivingfrom quantitative research and approaches such as the concept ecosystemservices , especially in the case of the rather fuzzy field of biological diversityand the political conflicts surrounding this issue. In this respect the paperaddresses the process of science and research entering Policy Environmentsand the institutionalisation of the science-policy interface on biodiversity andecosystem services that tends to be seen as important instrument to enhanceinternational compliance and implementation of multilateral policies.About Alice & Ronald…Alice Vadrot is a Research Fellow at the ICCR. She has an MA in PoliticalScience and studied Philosophy at the Université Panthéon Sorbonne. Thesubject of her PhD is Scientization and Politicization of Biological Diversity:The Transition from Knowledge Politics to Epistemic Governance. Recently,she became a member of the Austrian National Biodiversity Commission.Ronald Pohoryles is the Director of the ICCR and Associate Professor at theUniversity of Innsbruck. His research expertise covers European integrationemphasising public policy analysis, science and technology with an emphasison internationalisation, and environmental sociology. 23
    • Friday 27 May - 12:30Natalie ArmstrongLecturer in Social ScienceUniversity of Leicester, UKSeeing it from the other side: reflections on a knowledge transferplacement• Discussing how academic research evidence fits into the broader range of evidence that policy-makers have available to them;• Exploring how qualitative research evidence is understood and evaluated by policy-makers• Identifying how best to present and communicate the outcomes of qualitative research to a policy audiencePresentation abstract:Dr Natalie Armstrong was recently awarded an ESRC Knowledge TransferPlacement Fellowship and spent nine months working full-time with theStrategy Unit of the UK Cabinet Office (April to December 2009). She is amedical sociologist experienced in applying social science theory andqualitative methods to the area of health, and worked with the Strategy Unit’sHealth Team. In the course of this presentation, she will reflect on herexperiences of working at the very heart of government (the Strategy Unitreported ultimately to the Prime Minister), and particularly on the insightsgained about the relationship between academic research evidence andpolicy-making. Key topics to be discussed will include:• How academic research evidence fits into the broader range of evidence that policy-makers have available to them;• How qualitative research evidence is understood and evaluated by policy- makers;• How best to present and communicate the outcomes of qualitative research for a policy audience, including common pitfalls and how to avoid them;• The value and limitations of this type of Placement Fellowship in building bridges between academic research and policy-makers.About Natalie…Dr Natalie Armstrong is a Lecturer in Social Science applied to health at theDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester. A medical sociologist,she has previously held research posts at the University of Warwick and theLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Her main researchinterests lie in exploring the interface between health services and the public,in particular: lay and professional understandings and experiences of health,illness and health care; interactions between lay and professional groups; thedevelopment of innovative methods of health care delivery (including e-health); and issues of policy, governance and regulation. 24
    • Friday 27 May - 14:30Ruth GarsideSenior Research FellowPenTAG, University of Exeter, UKBrainstorming workshop:Developing indicators of study quality in systematic reviews ofqualitative research to inform public health policy making• Presenting two alternative tools to assess the quality of studies included in systematic reviews and syntheses of qualitative research for NICE in England• Discussing the utility, meaning and facility of use for these tools• Facilitating a discussion about key elements of qualitative research conduct and reportingMethods for appraising the “quality” of qualitative research remaincontentious. Different research traditions value aspects as disparate asliterary merit, scientific rigour, utility of the findings, integrity of the researcheror fidelity of the report to participants’ concerns.Health policy makers are increasingly aware that qualitative research mayoffer valuable insights that enhance services through, for example,understanding the opinions and expectations of those at whom services areaimed or uncovering the organisational factors that may help or hinder theirsuccessful delivery. Concerns remain, however, about the reliability andvalidity of qualitative research findings. In systematic reviews, althoughquality appraisal of included studies is standard practice, there is littleconsensus about the key features of a “good” or “poor” qualitative study.This workshop will use systematic reviews undertaken for the NationalInstitute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to illustrate the featuresthat policy makers may wish to be appraised. It will use this as the startingpoint for a discussion about the importance of distinguishing between thequality of research reporting and the quality of research conduct and aim toestablish agreement on some key reporting standards that might beacceptable to authors, editors, reviewers and policy makers.About Ruth…I have worked for PenTAG since 2001 producing technology assessmentreports for NICE appraisal and public health guidance programmes, as well asfor the UK HTA Programme. My PhD critically reviewed methods for thesystematic review and synthesis of qualitative research, and producedexamples using meta-ethnography and meta-study. I lead systematic reviewsof qualitative research, including those which inform policy making at NICE’sCentre for Public Health Excellence. The reviews focus on examining theways in which, for example, the attitudes of the targeted population,mechanisms of implementing health interventions, or structures through whichthese services are delivered, may help or hinder their success. 25
    • Friday 27 May - 16:15Ellen van ReulerPhD ResearcherUniversity of Manchester, UKPolicy and history: discussing a typology of qualitative approaches forpolicy making• Discussing what historians can add to mainstream policy analyses• Presenting a typology of approaches to history and policy• Illustrating these approaches with examples from historical work on health care policy, in particular cancer and palliative care policyPresentation abstract:The relevance of historical investigations for policy making is a topic that hasbecome increasingly debated. Two approaches dominate these discussions:the analogy and the ‘search for roots of issues under debate’. Thoughperfectly valid, these approaches are rather limited and do not utilise the fullpotential of historical analyses in a policy context. In this paper, I develop atypology of approaches that helps us to classify and utilise approaches to thestudy of history in a policy context.Firstly, I discuss what historical studies can add to mainstream policyanalyses. Secondly, a typology of approaches to history and policy isdeveloped drawing on the continuums of the concept of history applied (pastor method) and the aim of the history and policy study (solve a problem orenhance understanding). Finally, I position various approaches to history andpolicy within this framework. In addition to relatively well-known approaches,several innovative approaches, such as the evaluation of long-term policyoutcomes and the combination of an analogy with a force field analysis, arediscussed. I illustrate these approaches with examples from my historicalwork on health care policy, in particular cancer and palliative care policy.About Ellen…I am working as a PhD researcher at The University of Manchester. I initiallyobtained MSc degrees in Public Administration, Industrial Engineering &Management, and History of Medicine. I pursued research projects in differentareas, including international management, funding of palliative care, supportnetworks of the elderly, and development of cancer policies. My current workinvestigates which approaches might be helpful in bridging the divide betweenhistory and policy. The cases that I use to illustrate these approaches are thehistories of palliative and cancer care policies in England and the Netherlandsduring the post war era. 26
    • Friday 27 May - 16:45Anita VaillancourtAssistant ProfessorAlgoma University, CanadaSupporting the application of Grounded Theory qualitative studies forpolicy making• Identifying and discussing unique contributions Grounded Theory can offer to social policy development• What are the challenges and opportunities of using Grounded Theory for policy research and policy development?• Discussing future considerations for the application of qualitative research for social policy developmentPresentation abstract:Grounded Theory as an increasingly popular qualitative researchmethodology offers many advantages for exploring new and existing domainsof research that may aid policy development. Key advantages of using agrounded theory methodology within qualitative research include its emphasison beginning with the data rather than with specific research questions(Charmaz, 2006) which in turn, may provide improved opportunities forresearch to be interpreted using a policy lens; it’s changing focus throughouttime which permits an ability of the researcher to focus on areas of emergingimportance (Charmaz, 2006); and the researcher’s ability to construct theoryfrom the research findings offers an element of rigour unavailable when usingother qualitative research methdologies and methods (Creswell, 1998).However, not unlike other qualitative methodologies, persistent challengesassociated with a growing number of interpretations of Grounded Theoryapplication in terms of study design, implementation, analysis, and its growingadoption as hybrid methodology may present challenges to its perceivedcredibility and functionality as a viable and rigorous research methodology forpolicy research and decision making. This presentation will discuss thepossibilities and challenges of Grounded Theory for policy making.About Anita…Anita Vaillancourt, MSW, PhD (cand) is currently an Assistant Professor atAlgoma University. She has worked as a clinical social worker and policyresearcher for over 12 years and currently teaches and conducts research inthe areas of poverty policy, addictions, precarious work, family violence, andcritical pedagogy. 27
    • Attendee ListFIRST NAME LAST NAME JOB TITLE ORGANISATION COUNTRYAdam Fusheini Researcher University of Ulster UKAileen OCarroll Manager IQDA IrelandAlex Hekelaar Researcher Social Affairs Rotterdam The NetherlandsAlice B. M. Vadrot Research Fellow ICCR AustriaAnita Vaillancourt Assistant Professor Algoma University CanadaAnn Higgins Senior Facilitator Mary Immaculate college IrelandAnne-Marie Doherty Postgraduate Research Queens University Belfast UK StudentAvril Craig Research Officer Patient and Client Council UKBirut Mikulskien Head of Department of Mykolas Romeris Lithuania Management UniversityBrenda Roche Director of Research Wellesley Institute CanadaChristine Irvine Policy and Information Volunteer Now UK OfficerDerek Birrell Professor of Social University of Ulster UK Administration and PolicyDirk Schubotz YLT Director Queens University Belfast UKEileen Martin Manager, The Science Queens University Belfast UK ShopEllen van Reuler PhD researcher University of Manchester UKEva Jansova Statistical officer European Training Italy FoundationFran Bennett Senior Research Fellow University of Oxford UKFrancesca Morosi PhD Student Nottingham Trent UK UniversityGillian Robinson ARK Director University of Ulster UKGiuseppe Veltri Scientific Officer European Commission SpainGoretti Horgan Research Associate University of Ulster UKGrainne Kelly Policy/Practice INCORE UK CoordinatorHelena Tuite PhD Student University of Ulster UKOonagh Corrigan Associate Professor in Peninsual College of UK Clinical Education Medicine & Dentistry Research 28
    • Attendee ListFIRST NAME LAST NAME JOB TITLE ORGANISATION COUNTRYJoerg Hecker Director Business ATLAS.ti Germany OperationsJytte Kaltoft Bendixen Union Advisor Danish Artist Union DenmarkLavinia Maria Andrei PhD Candidate University of Bucharest RomaniaLea Caragata Associate Professor Wilfrid Laurier University CanadaMarina Roseman Lecturer Queens University Belfast UKMeena Chary Assistant Professor University of South Florida USNatalie Armstrong Lecturer in Social University of Leicester UK ScienceNeil Coulson Associate Professor in University of Nottingham UK Health PsychologyRobert Miller Professor of Sociology Queens University of UK BelfastRoberta Bonini Senior Researcher IReR - Lombardy Regional Italy Institute for ResearchRonald J. Pohoryles Director ICCR AustriaRuth Garside Senior Research Fellow PenTAG UKSara Shaw Senior Fellow Nuffield Trust UKSarah Riley Senior Lecturer Aberystwyth University UKSethulego Matebesi Senior Lecturer and University of The Free South Africa Department Chair StateSharon Redmond Policy and Research RNID UK OfficerSimon OHare Research and Change Makers UK Publications OfficerSirin Sung Lecturer in Social Policy Queens University of UK BelfastSue Ziebland Research Director University of Oxford UKSusan Popkin Director, Program on The Urban Institute US Neighbourhoods and Youth DevelopmentSusan Berkowitz Senior Study Director Westat USTim Nelson Lecturer in Social Policy Harvard University USWendy Scott PhD Candidate Queens University of UK Belfast 29
    • Message from our sponsors:Making social and politicalinformation on NorthernIreland available to allARK is a resource dedicated to making social and political information onNorthern Ireland available to all. The ARK website holds information on a widerange of social and political topics. With research summaries, survey results,visual material, facts and figures, it is an essential starting point for anyonewho needs to gather information on Northern Ireland quickly and easily. Go towww.ark.ac.uk, and search across all the ARK materials or go directly to oneof the specialist sections.ARK also provides a number of services, including technical support forpeople who want to carry out analyses of large-scale survey datasets, but donot have the resources or expertise to do this themselves. To promote easyaccess to research information ARK produces briefing papers and otherpublications, and runs regular seminars and currently is developing a newPolicy Unit. The ARK team is always interested in hearing from users abouthow we can improve or expand our service.A powerful workbench foranalysing large bodies oftextual, graphical, audio andvideo dataThe purpose of ATLAS.ti is to help researchers uncover and systematicallyanalyze complex phenomena hidden in text and multimedia data. Theprogram provides tools that let the user locate, code, and annotate findings inprimary data material, to weigh and evaluate their importance, and to visualizecomplex relations between them.ATLAS.ti consolidates large volumes of documents and keeps track of allnotes, annotations, codes and memos in all fields that require close study andanalysis of primary material consisting of text, images, audio, video, and geodata. In addition, it provides analytical and visualization tools designed toopen new interpretative views on the material.Source: Wikipedia 30
    • Upcoming Events Market Research in the Mobile World 2011 2nd International Conference 19-20 July 2011, Atlanta (USA) Computer-Aided Qualitative Research Europe 4th Annual Conference 1-2 September 2011, Locarno (Switzerland) Online Qualitative Research Congress 2011 14-15 December 2011, Milan (Italy) Technology-Aided Qualitative Research Asia 3rd Annual Conference 21-22 February 2012, Singapore Qualitative Research for Policy Making Asia 3rd International conference 23-24 February 2012, Singapore Asia Mobile Market Research World 2012 1st International conference 25-26 April 2012, Singapore For more information about our upcoming events, please visit our website at http://www.merlien.orgMerlien Institute is an independent organisation dedicated to providingtimely and critical information to the qualitative research community. Ourmission is to provide researchers and practitioners a unique platform tobrainstorm new ideas and learn best practices in a highly interactiveconference environment. Merlien Institute, with its 4 staff and 26 AdvisoryBoard Members now host more than 10 annual meetings around theglobe. Our events have consistently resulted in new collaborations andprojects among delegates. 31
    • Organised by:Venue Sponsor: Silver Sponsor: © 2011 by Merlien Institute All rights reserved. Printed in The NetherlandsNo part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed,stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language, in any form or by any means without written authorisation from Merlien Institute. This booklet is printed on recycled paper, please recycle. 32