On Friday 23 November 2018 the Money, Security and Social Policy academic network held a presentation and feedback event for early career researchers from across the UK. Held at the University of Edinburgh, over 30 participants from 10 institutions were in attendance.
Some of the attendees at the MSSP event (credit: Ellie Suh)
Please read the report below for highlights and key points from the day. You can also contact MSSP if you’d like to be sent a copy of the presentations or find out more about the network. All MSc, PhD and early career academics conducting research which connects to the themes of money, social security and social policy are welcome to get involved!
(The Chrystal Macmillan Building, George Square, University of Edinburgh. Twitter @mssp_uk)
Overview
The event was made up of three parts. The morning seminar examined the recent devolution of social security powers to the Scottish Parliament, with three expert speakers providing different angles on this topic. Meanwhile the afternoon session provided an opportunity for early career academics to present any aspect of their work and receive feedback from their peers in an informal and supportive environment. In the final section of the day, those present discussed ‘What Next’ for MSSP, i.e. actions and initiatives that would be useful for MSSP members and could help develop the network going forward.
(Morning networking. Twitter @mssp_uk)
Morning Session: Social Security Devolution in Scotland
After networking over morning coffee, the event was formally opened by Evan Williams, MSSP member and PhD candidate at the University of Glasgow. He thanked all for coming along, and the Social Policy Association for its financial support of the MSSP network this year, which has made such events possible.
Following this, the seminar on social security devolution began, chaired by Ewan Robertson (MSSP member and PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh). Ewan mentioned that the topic of social security devolution had been chosen as a timely focus for this event, and that the process in Scotland may hold comparative lessons and lines of investigation for many of those involved in UK social policy research. Attendees then welcomed and heard from each invited speaker.
The first talk was given by Ann McVie (Deputy Director of the Social Security Directorate, Scottish Government). Ann leads the Social Security Policy Division which is responsible for setting out the Scottish Government’s approach to disability benefits, carers allowance, funeral payments and the new maternity Best Start Grant. The division is also working on establishing a Job Grant for young people who take up a job after being unemployed for 6 months and working with the DWP to implement the Scottish flexibilities in Universal Credit.
Ann described the journey leading to the devolution of new responsibilities in social security to the Scottish Parliament and the unanimous passage of the Social Security (Scotland) Act earlier in this year. She emphasised that while the Scottish Government aims for a ‘safe and secure’ transition in the delivery of devolved benefits, a new rights-based approach had been pursued which is focused on assisting and supporting clients, and engaging with users to inform the design of the system. Some concrete changes compared with the administration of UK-level benefits include an increase of 13% in Carers’ Allowance, increased generosity of the Best Start Grant, and allowing for fortnightly rather than monthly payment of Universal Credit.
The second talk was given by Adrian Sinfield, Professor Emeritus of Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh. Over his career Adrian has worked on social security, unemployment, poverty, inequality and the social division of welfare, and is also a past chair and president of the Social Policy Association.
Adrian began by stating that while Scotland had long had a distinctive social policy approach in certain areas (such as education), this had only begun to be taken seriously in wider academia more recently. He welcomed the approach being taken in Scotland – particularly that the language of ‘social security’ was at the heart of policy, and that this was recognised as a right, an investment and a public service. While the current wave of social security devolution only comprises 11 benefits and 15% of the welfare budget, it was also argued that these changes will be very important for recipients affected, and could be the beginning of a more significant transition in this policy area. Finally, Adrian suggested that the new direction to social security taken in Scotland presented many angles for potential comparative research, including on the differential rollout of Universal Credit.
The final talk provided a third sector view on social security devolution, and was given by Rob Gowans, Policy Officer at Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). Specialising in social security issues that cause detriment to CAB clients in Scotland, Rob’s work has focussed on the devolution of social security powers to Scotland, the rollout of Universal Credit, and ongoing changes to the benefits system.
Rob began by describing how as part of the development of the Social Security (Scotland) Act, CAS had engaged in a major consultation of its clients. The top issues where a need for improvement was requested or identified included: to reduce face to face assessment for disability benefits, improve administration & communication, expand access to carer’s benefits, improve the appeals process, and ensure access to independent advice. Rob then stated that from CAS’ perspective, the new system developed by the Scottish Government had delivered, or was heading in the right direction, on many of the priorities identified in the consultation. However, there are additional changes which CAS will continue to advocate. Meanwhile, moving forward it would be important to manage expectations, be aware that mistakes could be made, and for government and partners not to lose sight of the chance to make a lasting difference to the system and people’s lives.
(Morning panel from left to right: Ewan Robertson (Chair), Prof. Adrian Sinfield, Ann McVie, and Rob Gowans. Twitter @KatyJones88)
After audience members thanked speakers, a lively discussion took place with attendees asking the panel members diverse questions about the topic. Questions included: why the approach to social security was different in Scotland, what type of evidence was used by Scottish Government in designing the system, and the possibility for Scotland’s experience to influence other parts of the UK. See the MSSP Twitter feed for more.
Following the close of the seminar, attendees went on to enjoy a networking lunch.
Afternoon Presentations
In two parallel sessions following lunch, various attendees – existing MSSP members as well as PGRs and ECRs attending for the first time – presented their work.
The oral presentation session followed the tradition established in previous MSSP events, by providing presenters the opportunity to discuss their work – at whatever stage in the research process – in an informal and supportive environment. The session benefitted from great presentations by five presenters: Katy Jones, Andrew Pulford, Ceri Hughes, James Kaufman and Jennifer Glinski. The topics for the talks tackled various aspects of social policy, including in-work conditionality, low wage and precarious employment, activation at the street level of employment services as well as the relationship between social security and domestic abuse. The presenters – as well as those in the audience – were at various points along their research, from beginning PhDs to entering academic employment, and so the session generated a good level of discussion and opportunities for sharing advice. Importantly, the breadth of interests encouraged links to be made between talks – most notably the on-going spectre of Universal Credit – as well as knowledge sharing between quantitative and qualitative researchers.
(Ceri Hughes presenting at the MSSP event in Edinburgh. Twitter @mssp_uk)
The written presentation session was something of a departure from previous MSSP events, and also represented a contrast with the conventional focus on oral presentation at academic conferences and events. The session consisted of those in attendance offering feedback on the written work that had been distributed to all in advance of the session. The three presentations – one each from Kate Summers and Duncan Fisher, and a joint one from Joan Abbas and Joe Chrisp – were comprised of writing at varying stages of editing and drafting. Although it would have been beneficial if those participating had been given longer to read over each other’s presentations (they were sent out in the days leading up to the event), there were a number of clear pluses to what was, in essence, a feedback experiment.
The change from convention was refreshing in itself, and the generous amount of time available for each presentation allowed for feedback on various aspects of content, structure, and purpose. Although a strength of the oral presentation format is that it creates the space for substantive focus, this session enabled discussion of many aspects of the writing process, including article submission and publication more broadly. In addition – and again this was also partly as a result of the amount of time available – there was nuanced dialogue and discussion taking place. All of those present were able to contribute and further stimulate the conversation beyond the levels of a generic Q and A, for example. The format undoubtedly offered the chance to engage with others’ work on a deep, critical level. Knowing about colleagues’ work in this sense opens up possibilities for collaboration, and conversations started during the session have continued on after the event.
What next for MSSP?
The final session of the day was the “What Next for MSSP?” meeting. At previous events discussions about the future direction of the network took place in open, informal ways, and this is an ongoing topic across the network’s communication channels. As a testament to the collective health of the network and the enthusiasm of its members, much of the meeting this time was based around an agenda of existing opportunities. There were a number of external collaborative possibilities discussed, and points for action around raising funds and contributing towards journal outputs were also raised. The optimistic tone of the meeting was a fitting end to what was a successful and enriching day.
Some of the attendees at the MSSP event (credit: Evan Williams)
Money, Security and Social Policy 