Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.

Search and filter

Filter by

  • University of Newcastle upon Tyne
   None selected
  • 19 - Politics and International Studies
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
Waiting for server
Download currently selected sections for currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Download currently selected case study PDFs (zip) (generating)
Download tags for the currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Currently displaying text from case study section
Showing impact case studies 1 to 3 of 3
Submitting institution
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Unit of assessment
19 - Politics and International Studies
Summary impact type
Political
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Newcastle University’s pioneering research combines normative political theory with institutional design, and focuses on deliberative innovations to make policy-making more inclusive, reasoned, respectful and focused on the common good. Between 2016 and 2020 it had a significant impact on the quality of democracy in the UK at the national and sub-national level in three ways: (i) it enabled the Northern Ireland (NI) Assembly to reach an agreement on how the Assembly’s veto procedures would be reformed so as to reduce the risk of legislative deadlock and improve the quality of legislative deliberation; (ii) it enabled the UK and Scottish Parliaments to significantly improve the quality of deliberation and public engagement through the introduction of deliberative mini-publics into Committee inquiries, and it significantly improved the knowledge and the understanding of mini-publics among MPs, MSPs and Committee clerks in both parliaments; and (iii) it facilitated more effective campaigning by several major UK-based civil society groups, charities and public bodies for a wider use of mini-publics by parliaments and providers of public services.

2. Underpinning research

Representative democracy has been in crisis. Trust in parliaments in the UK is low and is declining further, with their legitimacy being increasingly questioned by scholars, the media and the public. Democratic theorists have stressed the importance of public deliberation to any future reforms, but there has long been a lack of clarity as to how deliberation relates to established representative institutions, such as parliaments. The impact in this case study has been underpinned by the ground-breaking research at Newcastle University (NU) that addresses precisely this gap. NU’s research findings provide clear and practical suggestions for how parliaments can promote the norms of deliberative democracy. These suggestions relate to how parliamentarians can communicate and reach decisions when there are deep ethno-national divides (O’Flynn), and how the public can meaningfully engage with parliament in an informed and considered manner to enhance executive scrutiny (Elstub). NU’s research has provided convincing evidence that the promotion of deliberative norms can enhance both the normative and perceived legitimacy of parliaments.

The key findings and normative insights of the underpinning research are:

1) Important political decisions in deeply-divided societies should be made through processes of inclusive deliberation rather than through processes of competitive bargaining; as such, decisions should be based on clearly articulated reasons that are in principle acceptable to all relevant sides (PUB1, 2).

2) In order to reduce the risk of legislative deadlock in deeply-divided societies, it is important that deliberative innovations are effectively inserted into the legislative process in ways that encourage parliamentarians to develop shared intentions, founded on a commitment to basic human rights, with respect to shared social and political problems (PUB3).

3) Deliberative mini-publics, which bring together a diverse, and sometimes representative, group of citizens, to discuss and make informed recommendations on a pertinent policy issue, are an effective format for public engagement with parliaments: (i) Elstub’s research, on three Federal citizens’ juries in Italy, showed that lay citizens can deliberate to a high quality when discussing complex policy issues making them particularly well-suited for reviewing and filtering existing arguments for and against an issue. While data was collected in 2010 and 11, it was analysed and written up for PUB4 in 2016-17. As lead author, NU’s unique contribution to the study was to use the findings to theorise how mini-publics could be used within a political system; (ii) Elstub’s research, as part of his ESRC funded Parliamentary Fellowships at the UK and Scottish Parliament (2017-19), included interviews with committee Chairs/ Conveners, Clerks and other committee staff and analysis of three pilot case studies. It showed that mini-publics can enhance the diversity and representativeness of evidence considered in the committee inquiries and enable the public to participate actively in scrutinising government. Elstub collected, analysed and wrote-up all the data regarding mini-publics for PUB5 in 2018-19 Elstub designed the data collection instruments, collected the data, led the analysis of the data and led the write-up of the findings for PUB6 in 2018-20.

4) This same underpinning research provided recommendations for how to effectively link mini-publics with parliamentary inquiries, including specific suggestions on how to choose which inquiries are suitable and how to incorporate the outcome of mini-public into committee recommendations (PUB5, 6).

5) Elstub’s research on citizens’ juries on onshore windfarms in Scotland has suggested how mini-publics should be organised (in particular, how witnesses and evidence should be incorporated to promote balance). This includes how witnesses should be selected, the types of witnesses required, the best formats for providing evidence to mini-public participants, and how to prepare participants to receive evidence critically. While data was collected in 2013-14, it was analysed and written-up for PUB7 between 2016-19 NU provided the theoretical analysis, in particular interpreting how the findings relate to mini-public design.

Note: While some of the publications appeared after the impact occurred, they disseminate the underpinning research that was initially published as reports.

3. References to the research

PUBs 1-5 and 7 are either articles published in international peer reviewed journals or contributions to major research handbooks. PUB6 is an internal report.

PUB1. O'Flynn, I. (2010) ‘Deliberative Democracy, the Public Interest and the Consociational Model’, Political Studies, 58(3), 572-589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00795.x.

PUB2. O’Flynn, I. and Caluwaerts, D. (2018) ‘Deliberation and Divided Societies’, in A. Bächtiger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge and M. Warren (eds), Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 742-754.

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.51.

PUB3. O’Flynn, I. (2017) ‘Pulling Together: Shared Intentions, Deliberative Democracy and Deeply Divided Societies’, British Journal of Political Science, 47 (1), pp. 187-202.

DOI: 10.1017/S0007123415000459.

PUB4. Elstub, S. & Pomatto, G. (2018) ‘Mini-Publics and Deliberative Constitutionalism’, in King, J., Kong, H. and Levy, R. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 295-310.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108289474.023.

PUB5. Beswick, D. and Elstub, S. (2019) ‘Between Diversity, Representation and ‘Best Evidence’: Rethinking Select Committee Evidence-Gathering Practices’, Parliamentary Affairs, 74(4): 945-964. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz035.

PUB6. Elstub, S. & Carrick, J. (2020) Comparing Mini-Publics in the Scottish Parliament, Newcastle: Newcastle University. Available on request.

PUB7. Roberts, J., Lightbody, R., Low, R. and Elstub, S. (2020) ‘Experts and Evidence: Scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics’, Policy Sciences, 53: 3–32.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09367-x

4. Details of the impact

(i) NU’s research enabled the Northern Ireland (NI) Assembly to reach an agreement on how the Assembly’s veto procedures would be reformed.

NI’s power-sharing government was suspended from 2017 to 2020. O’Flynn’s research on the importance of deliberation in deeply-divided societies (PUBS 1-3) made a distinct and material contribution to enabling the five main political parties in NI, under the auspices of the UK and Irish governments, to overcome this prolonged stalemate by developing a more effective, transparent and inclusive mechanism of decision-making in the NI Assembly. In particular, O’Flynn’s research had an impact on the Assembly’s ‘Petition of Concern’ (POC) veto mechanism, dramatically reducing its use and thus enabling government to proceed. The POC was intended to ensure that unionists and nationalists could protect their ‘vital communal interests’ by subjecting relevant decisions to a cross-community vote requiring majority support within each community. Over time, however, the POC came to be used with increasing frequency (1999-2002 n = 7; 2007-2011 n = 38; 2011-2016 n = 115), often to pursue more narrowly political concerns (e.g. to block changes to NI’s abortion law, an issue which cuts across communal lines). This led to frequent legislative deadlock and contributed to the decision to suspend in 2017. In 2020, O’Flynn’s research provided the basis for a successful proposal for reforming the POC process.

The proposal was co-produced by O’Flynn and the NI Human Rights Commission (NIHRC - an independent public body, established under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and funded by the UK government) at the NIHRC’s request. As testified by NIHRC CEO: ‘I worked closely with Dr O’Flynn over two years to develop proposals focused on the issue of institutional reform. This was inspired in part by his expertise in the subject of deliberative democracy and it shaped the Commission’s advice to political leaders who negotiated the restoration of devolved government in 2020’ (IMP1). Drawing directly on O’Flynn’s research (PUB1), the proposal suggested ‘that valid petitions should first be required to pass a justificatory test grounded in existing human-rights law’ (p. 1). This test should require political parties ‘not just to explain why a given decision should be subject to a cross-community vote, but to do so by reference to a set of universal human rights standards’ (p. 4).

The proposal directly influenced the text of the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ deal negotiated by the UK and Irish Governments and the five main NI political parties, which was published on 9 January 2020 (‘New Decade, New Approach’). According to the deal, ‘a Petition must be accompanied by a statement of the grounds and rationale upon which it is being tabled…’ (IMP2, para 2.2.1). Moreover, a ‘valid Petition of Concern shall trigger a 14-day period of consideration, including on any reports on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with equality requirements, including the ECHR/Bill of Rights…’ (IMP2, para 2.2.7). As further testified by the NIHRC CEO: ‘The content – and indeed the wording – of those proposals [developed with O’Flynn] were mirrored in the ‘New Decade, New Approach document published by the UK and Irish governments and are reflected in the amended legislative procedures of the Northern Ireland Assembly’ (IMP1). Indeed, following the restoration of the devolution in 2020, the POC has not been used (albeit the same justificatory requirement has not been extended to the use of votes within the NI Executive where deadlock remains a problem).

By enabling the NI Assembly to conclude this milestone agreement, NU’s research directly benefitted NI’s five main political parties, the UK and Irish governments. Moreover, its impact has indirectly reached the general population of NI who have benefitted from the restoration of democratic accountability in Northern Ireland.

(ii) NU’s research enabled the UK and Scottish Parliaments to significantly improve the quality of deliberation and public engagement through the introduction of deliberative mini-publics into Committee inquiries and by shaping the knowledge and the understanding of mini-publics among MPs, MSPs and Committee clerks. Elstub’s research (PUB4-7) has had a long-term impact on how Scottish and UK Parliamentary Committees conduct inquiries. His ongoing research and collaboration with the Scottish Parliament has made an essential contribution to the decision to pilot mini-publics, to their detailed design, their implementation, their evaluation and to their long-term implementation. His contributions have promoted a participatory and deliberative innovation that works in the real-world of already existing democratic representative institutions.

In Scotland, Elstub’s research (a report that was subsequently developed into PUB7) was directly cited in the 2017 report of the independent Scottish Commission on Parliamentary Reform that made a recommendation to establish a Committee Engagement Unit (CEU) at the Scottish Parliament. This recommendation proposed to task the newly-established CEU with piloting mini-public approaches ‘as part of moving towards a more participative approach to scrutiny’ (IMP3, p.65). The significance of NU’s research impact is evident in the fact that Elstub’s research was the only study of mini-publics cited in this report. NU’s further impact was facilitated by Elstub’s Fellowship at the Scottish Parliament in 2018-19. Following the establishment of the CEU, Elstub’s research had a direct and significant influence on the introduction, design and evaluation of several mini-publics at the Scottish Parliament: a Citizens’ Jury for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee on land use and the natural environment (March 2019) and a series of deliberative public panels as part of the Health & Sport Committee inquiry on the future of primary care (June 2019). As evidenced in the 2019 CEU Report on the Citizens’ Jury pilot, most organisational features of the Jury were directly influenced by Elstub’s research (PUB 7) including topic selection (IMP4, p.2), the use of a steering group (IMP4, p. 3), the role of experts (IMP4, p. 11), and the way evidence was provided (IMP4, p. 15). Again, Elstub’s work was the only research on mini-publics cited in this report.

The introduction of mini-publics noticeably improved the quality of the committee inquiries by significantly strengthening the quality of public scrutiny and by enabling the committees to produce stronger and more considered recommendations than they would have otherwise. This positive impact was documented in another CEU report (2019): ‘this process enabled us to reach people who we might not otherwise hear from’ (IMP5, p. 3). In the view of MSPs who participated in the inquiry, the Citizens’ Assembly gave “more strength to the committee” (IMP5, p. 13). The 2019 CEU Report concluded that ‘based on our trials and feedback we can see that deliberative engagement via mini-public processes has immense potential to (…) add value to our scrutiny processes’ (IMP5, p. 18), and explicitly called for embedding mini-publics in future parliamentary inquiries: ‘a Review Group should be set up that holds and administers an annual budget for parliamentary mini-publics’ (IMP5, p. 15).

Wider benefits to democracy of Elstub’s research arise from a positive impact of mini-publics on trust in Parliament and confidence in political participation. According to the 2019 CEU Report, most participants in the Scottish pilots (94%) indicated that they probably (23%) or definitely (71%) would participate in similar activities in the future, while 98% of participants also agreed “very much” (43%), “extremely” (51%), or “moderately” (4%) that the Scottish Parliament should run more deliberative engagement processes (IMP5, p. 6). As evidenced in the report, ‘there was a 26% increase in the extent participants felt “politicians care about what people like them think” (IMP5, p. 7). Thus, the CEU Report concluded that ‘deliberative engagement increases trust in Parliament and increases confidence in political participation’ (IMP5, p. 20).

By enabling the Scottish Parliament to successfully pilot mini-publics, Elstub’s research had a significant impact on the UK Parliament’s decision to trial mini-publics at the UK level. The 2019 Report on ‘The Effectiveness and Influence of the Select Committee System’, which was produced by the House of Commons Liaison Committee and recommended adopting mini-publics as part of the Select Committee work, directly refers to the experience of the Scottish Parliament: ‘We note that earlier this year the Scottish Parliament held its first citizens’ jury, on funding and advice for land management, which was designed and delivered in-house’ (IMP6, p. 61). In June 2019, six House of Commons Select Committees subsequently established a Climate Citizens’ Assembly to learn about public preferences on how the UK should address the climate emergency. Elstub is providing the official evaluation of this assembly. Thus, NU’s research has achieved a long-lasting impact on the culture of public engagement, and made it significantly more likely that the UK and Scottish parliaments continue using mini-publics in future.

(iii) NU’s research facilitated more effective campaigning by civil society groups, charities and public bodies for a wider use of mini-publics and other deliberative formats by parliaments and providers of public services. The beneficiaries of this work include NESTA (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts), the Alliance for Useful Evidence (a network, hosted by NESTA, of ‘more than 3,700 individuals from across government, universities, charities, businesses, and local authorities in the UK and internationally’ that advocates a ‘smarter use of evidence in social policy and practice’), the Involve Foundation (UK leading public participation charity) and the NI Human Rights Commission.

In 2018 Elstub co-authored a report, commissioned by NESTA, on the potential of mini-publics to promote evidence uptake in social policy. Drawing on Elstub’s work on best-practice for the incorporation of evidence (PUB7), this report directly informed the advocacy campaign of the Alliance for Useful Evidence. The significance of this impact is evidenced by a heavy reliance on the report’s findings and Elstub’s body of work more generally in the Alliance’s 2019 report on ‘How ‘mini-publics’ can traverse the gap between citizens, experts, and evidence’ (IMP7, pp. 2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 24, 25). Furthermore, Elstub’s research on the benefits of using mini-publics in Select Committee inquiries (PUB5) directly influenced the recommendations of the Involve Foundation in its written evidence to the UK House of Commons Liaison Committee in 2018 (IMP8). The effectiveness of Involve’s advocacy, underpinned by Elstub’s research, is evidenced by multiple references to Involve’s evidence in the Committee Report, particularly in the Committee’s recommendation that ‘the House should consider how knowledge and learning on citizens’ assemblies and other types of deliberative public engagement should best be captured, recorded and shared with a view to undertaking such activities more easily in the future’ (IMP6, p. 61).

By making this contribution to improving the quality of democracy, NU’s research has significantly altered parliaments’ understandings of deliberative democracy, and thus parliamentary procedures, across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and has benefitted a large population across the UK through engaging them with more rigorous parliamentary procedures and the opportunities to engage with the Parliaments and public bodies.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

IMP1. Testimonial by the CEO of the NI Human Rights Commission (NIHRC).

IMP2. Northern Ireland Office (2020) ‘ New Decade, New Approach’.

IMP3. Commission on Parliamentary Reform (2017) Report on the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh: Commission on Parliamentary Reform.

IMP4. Committee Engagement Unit (2019) Scottish Parliament Citizens’ Jury on land management and the natural environment , Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

IMP5. Committee Engagement Unit (2019) ‘Deliberative Engagement at the Scottish Parliament’, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament .

IMP6. Liaison Committee (2019) The effectiveness and influence of the select committee system, London: House of Commons.

IMP7. Breckon, J., Hopkins, A. and Rickey, B. (2019) Evidence vs Democracy, London: Alliance for Useful Evidence.

IMP8. The Involve Foundation (2018) ‘ Evidence to the Liaison Committee (Commons) Inquiry into the Effectiveness and Influence of the Select Committee System’.

Submitting institution
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Unit of assessment
19 - Politics and International Studies
Summary impact type
Societal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

In September 2015, 193 United Nations member states adopted the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at its core. Long’s normative research on universal principles of global justice (i) directly influenced and enabled the advocacy campaign of an international coalition of 3,000 civil society organisations in the run-up to and during the UN negotiations on the 2030 Agenda; (ii) influenced the interpretation of the key normative principles and of their implications for the SDG review process in the final text of the 2030 Agenda and in UN official guidelines for Voluntary National Review processes; and (iii) had a significant impact on processes of review and accountability for the SDGs in the UK by changing the ways in which the UK has implemented the SDGs and reported on their progress, and by influencing how that reporting has been interrogated by parliament and stakeholders.

2. Underpinning research

The impact claimed in this case study is underpinned by Dr Graham Long’s normative research in global justice. Since 2008 his research publications developed normative arguments related to benefits and burdens, rights and responsibilities in respect of obligations to the world’s poorest people (PUB1) and of environmental justice (PUB2). This work was significant and distinctive in focusing on the tension between universal global principles and country-level difference (PUB1, 2), and specifically addressed how environmental and social objectives might be linked or traded-off (PUB1). Since 2013 Long applied this normative work to studying the emerging ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. While much academic work concentrates on specific SDG targets, Long’s research is distinctive in developing a holistic approach to both understanding and assessing SDGs. His research publications have argued that the Agenda has a ‘justice-shaped hole’ at its core, have proposed a distinct and original interpretation of the key normative principles underpinning the Agenda, and have suggested how these normative principles should be reflected in the SDG review processes undertaken by all UN member states in order to partially fill this ‘justice-shaped-hole’ (PUB3, 4, 5).

Key normative research insights underpinning the impact:

1) The SDGs have a ‘justice-shaped hole’ at their core: universal application has not been translated into a principle of fair or equitable application and burden-sharing. Since the SDGs allow discretion in how states translate and prioritise targets in country contexts, they offer no clear set of standards for assessing country efforts at implementation (PUB3, 4).

2) The normative principle of ‘leave no one behind’ should give substance to the formal universality of the SDGs by prioritising the most vulnerable and marginalised populations on the one hand, and by ensuring the applicability of SDGs to all states (and sub-state entities) regardless of their socio-economic and political context on the other hand (PUB3).

3) This ‘justice-shaped hole’ can be rectified, in part, through the design of a robust SDGs review process that should reflect and consistently focus on three normative underpinning commitments of leave no one behind, indivisibility, and universality (PUB4, 5), with implications for the national and global processes built around the UN’s system of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs).

4) The normative principle of ‘leave no one behind’ should demand the participation of the most vulnerable and marginalised populations in such processes of review and implementation of the SDGs. The more that this normative principle becomes the focus of Voluntary National Reviews undertaken by UN member states, and the more scrutiny it will receive at state and global level, the greater potency it will have (PUB3, 4).

3. References to the research

PUB1. Long, G. (2011) ‘Disagreement and Responses to Climate Change’, Environmental Values 20(4), 503-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111X13150367351294

PUB2. Long, G. (2009) ‘Moral and Sentimental Cosmopolitanism’, Journal of Social Philosophy 40(3), 317-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01455.x

PUB3. Long, G. (2015) ‘The Idea of Universality in the Sustainable Development Goals’, Ethics and International Affairs 29(2), pp. 203-222. DOI:10.1017/S0892679415000076

PUB4. Long, G. (2018) ‘Underpinning Commitments of the Sustainable Development Goals’ in D. French and L. Kotze eds. Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation (London, UK: Edward Elgar), 91-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786438768.00011

PUB5. McGowan, P. J., Stewart, G. B., Long, G., & Grainger, M. J. (2019) ‘An Imperfect Vision of Indivisibility in the Sustainable Development Goals’, Nature Sustainability 2(1), 43-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893\-018\-0190\-1 (Long’s contribution is material and distinct in addressing the normative principle of indivisibility).

Note on quality: Publications 1-3 and 5 are articles published in international peer-reviewed journals. Publication 4 is a chapter published in a major edited volume on the SDGs.

4. Details of the impact

(i) Long’s research directly influenced the advocacy campaign of ‘Beyond 2015’ (the largest international civil society coalition working on the SDGs) in the run-up to and during the negotiations on the 2030 Agenda in 2014-15. ‘Beyond 2015’ included 3,000 civil society organisations that ranged from large global NGOs (WWF, CAFOD, Save the Children) to small local NGOs in 142 countries, with 52% in the global South. Long’s research enabled ‘Beyond 2015’ and its members to articulate a rigorous defence of their recommendations grounded in normative political philosophy, which they could not have done alone. At the coalition’s invitation (based on Long’s well-established research expertise in global justice), Long joined their advocacy campaign in 2014 as Joint Lead for their Universality Task Force, Lead for the Accountability and Follow-up Working Group, and a member of the Rapid Reaction Drafting Group and the Advocacy Working Group. This close collaboration led to Long co-producing key advocacy papers of ‘Beyond 2015’ (20 advocacy papers in total) and their accompanying statements at the UN negotiations. The advocacy papers were further used by member organisations in their local campaigns to influence the negotiating positions of their respective governments.

Long’s research directly influenced the content of the coalition’s advocacy papers. The coalition’s key positional paper in the first stage of the negotiations in April 2014 (‘Putting People and Planet First’), for example, explicitly adopts Long’s interpretation of universality as ‘leaving no one behind’. It calls for the Agenda to focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised (‘special attention should be paid to the poorest and most marginalised’, IMP1), emphasises the Agenda’s relevance for all states regardless of their socio-economic position (‘there is room for improvement in all countries, even the most developed’, IMP1) and highlights robust multi-level review of the SDGs as a way to cement national responsibilities and ensure key principles are being upheld (IMP1). Long led in developing the campaign’s proposal for a SDG review system reflecting these principles, which was launched as an input to inter-state negotiations in April 2015. The significance of this impact is evidenced in the testimonial of ‘Beyond 2015’ Advocacy Director: ‘[Long’s] analysis helped to determine the content of the positions Beyond 2015 took and how we presented them to member states. Graham also contributed specific textual recommendations for the SDGs that reflected his research, and that went forward as part of our advocacy’. Furthermore, the testimonial states, ‘[Long’s] research and support played a vital role in making these [‘Beyond 2015’s inputs into the negotiation process] as strong and rigorous as they could be’ (IMP2).

(ii) Long’s research influenced the final text of the 2030 Agenda and the UN official guidelines for Voluntary National Review (VNR), impacting on all global and national review processes of the SDGs since 2015. By directly feeding into the position papers of ‘Beyond 2015’, Long’s research influenced the coalition’s argument that the central normative commitments should be as important as individual goals and targets, and that they should be equally important in framing individual SDGs and review processes. This advocacy position of ‘Beyond 2015’ contributed to the explicit inclusion of the normative commitments in the follow up and review sections of the 2030 Agenda (paragraph 74).

Although the UN negotiations were a state-led process, ‘Beyond 2015’ influenced the outcome by targeting all Permanent Representatives and governments of UN member states, and by directly contributing to the sessions of the UN Open Working Group on SDGs, and subsequent round of interstate negotiations in 2014-15. Following the publication of the final ‘Zero Draft’ of the 2030 Agenda on 8 July 2015, the Co-Chair of the UN Negotiating Team Ambassador Donoghue (Ireland) directly asked civil society actors contributing to the final negotiations, including ‘Beyond 2015’, for their ‘red lines’ in the final text. Long’s research (PUB3) informed his co-drafting of the coalition’s ‘Reaction to the “Final Draft of the Outcome Document for the UN Summit” and the joint civil society statement on the Review section of the Outcome document. This explicitly called for the insertion of ‘leave no one behind’ as a new guiding principle in the review section of the agenda and for ‘the participation of the most marginalized’ in the VNR processes (both absent in the previous Zero Draft). The coalition’s suggestion was adopted in the final text: the adopted 2030 Agenda added new guiding principles for review in paragraph 74, explicitly calling for review processes to have ‘a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind’ (IMP3, 74e) and to be ‘open, inclusive, participatory’ and to ‘support reporting by all relevant stakeholders’ (IMP3, 74d).

The significance of this impact is evidenced in ‘The Report on the Impact of the Beyond 2015 Advocacy on the 2030 Agenda Outcome’, written by an independent consultant, for ‘Beyond 2015’: ‘Critical elements of Beyond 2015’s advocacy which made instrumental contributions to the final outcome document include (…) the principles of “leaving no one behind” and of “no target can be considered until met for all segments of society’ (IMP4, p. 9). According to an anonymous Member State Representative, ‘we [UN Open Working Group] always took into account the views of the campaign. The fact that they were already the product of an agreement among different constituencies gave them credibility’ (IMP4, p. 22). The ‘Beyond 2015’ Advocacy Director testified, ‘this significant impact would not have been possible without Graham’s work’ (IMP2).

Following the 2030 Agenda’s adoption, Long’s research further influenced national SDG review processes by impacting on the UN guidelines for VNR submissions. The first VNR guidelines were published in 2016. Long closely collaborated with ‘Together 2030’ – ‘a self-organized civil society initiative to promote national implementation and track progress of the 2030 Agenda’ – to propose improvements. In 2017, Long drew on his research to co-draft (with World Vision) an advocacy paper entitled ‘Guiding for Accountability: Together 2030 Recommendations for a Revised Set of Guidelines for Voluntary National Reviews’. This document, shared with governments of UN members and launched with the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), called for a revised set of guidelines to include a dedicated section in the VNR submissions that would ‘identify the poorest, most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in that country’s context’ and ‘address how the principle of ‘leaving no one behind’ has been incorporated into policy-making and review processes’ (p. 10). This recommendation was adopted in the updated ‘Voluntary Common Reporting Guidelines’ published by the UN in 2017: ‘The review could also assess how the principle of leaving no one behind has been mainstreamed in the implementation’ of the SDGs, ‘detail how vulnerable groups have been identified’, and clarify ‘what policies and programmes are being implemented to address their needs and support their empowerment’ (IMP5, p.3). At UN DESA’s invitation, Long contributed key paragraphs on stakeholder participation to the official VNR Handbook (UN DESA, 2019, pp. 14,17; 2021, pp. 9, 12) that ‘provides basic, practical information’ for countries undertaking VNRs. By 2021, 246 national reviews will have been conducted by member states (130 states overall).

By influencing both the final text of the 2030 Agenda and the UN official guidelines, Long’s research achieved a distinct and material impact on the implementation and the review of the SDGs by the 193 states that signed it in three ways. First, the inclusion of the normative principles urged participating governments to explicitly address how they identify the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised in their states, and how their policies benefit them. Thus, it directly influenced how governments have reported on the implementation of the SDGs, particularly after the publication of the revised VNR guidelines in 2017. An independent assessment of the 2019 VNR reports commissioned by Bond (the UK network for international development organisations) reported, ‘countries are more consistently following guidelines for VNR reports’. Moreover, ‘the most significant increase in reporting was in inclusion of a dedicated chapter or robust information on leaving no one behind – 81% in 2019 versus 61% in 2018’. Second, by influencing the explicit focus of the VNR submissions, Long’s research indirectly benefitted the most vulnerable and marginalised populations in participating states. The changed focus of the VNR submissions meant these populations have received greater visibility in their national contexts and more opportunities to influence their national SDG agendas. Finally, Long’s research has significantly benefitted civil society organisations in participating states by enabling them to publicly voice their concerns and to better advocate for policies benefitting their constituencies.

Long’s ongoing work supports civil society stakeholders across the world in capacity-building aimed at more effective involvement in VNR processes. In 2018-19 Long (in collaboration with ‘Together 2030’) led a team of Newcastle researchers (Clough, Elstub, O'Flynn, Popa, Rietig, and Routley) to undertake and disseminate among civil society actors globally a survey of ‘Stakeholder Participation in VNRs’. In 2018-19, Long was further commissioned by the UN DESA to produce a technical paper and report (together with Clough and Rietig) on stakeholder participation and SDG partnerships. The Chief of the Outreach and Partnerships Branch, UN DESA Division for SDGs, testified this work has ‘helped to inform governments’ deliberations’ and provided ‘insights to global policy dialogues’ hosted by the UN (IMP6).

(iii) Long’s research has had a significant impact on processes of review and accountability for the SDGs in the UK in three ways. First, Long’s research directly influenced the UK’s 2019 VNR submission. Long’s normative argument that the universality of the SDGs should be understood as their applicability to all states and sub-state entities regardless of their socio-economic context, and the establishment of global principles and guidelines stressing vulnerable and marginalised populations and stakeholder participation (PUB3-5), influenced the ways in which the UK Government interpreted the applicability of the SDGs to the UK. The UK’s SDG review shifted from a focus on UK overseas aid to a greater emphasis on the SDGs within the UK, notably domestic inequalities. Long’s work with UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development (UKSSD) to assess the UK’s domestic performance facilitated this impact. UKSSD’s ‘Measuring up to the SDGs’ report, based on Long’s research, is acknowledged in a letter from the Prime Minister (2018) as an important contribution to the VNR. Long’s involvement in parliamentary work on the SDGs in 2016-2019, detailed below, extended and magnified this impact. Furthermore, Long’s research also directly influenced Scotland's contribution to the 2019 UK VNR. In 2018-19, Long undertook a baseline assessment of Scotland’s SDG performance for the Scottish Government. That report on ‘The SDGs and Scotland’ (2019), produced by Long and a team of mostly Newcastle-based scholars (Clough, Molloy, Muggleton, Hardacre, Bolam, Cansino, Luxton), drew on Long’s normative insights on universality. Text and data from the report formed part of Scotland’s contribution to the 2019 UK VNR (IMP7, sections on goals 6, 10, 15, 16, 17) and it became the ‘point of reference’ for Scotland’s subsequent cross-government Supplementary National Review in July 2019 (p. 6).

Second, Long’s research significantly strengthened parliamentary scrutiny of the SDGs in the UK. From 2016-2018 Long contributed evidence arising from his research to 5 inquiries by House of Commons Select Committees: International Development Committee (IDC) inquiries into ‘The UK Implementation of the SDGs’ (2015-16) and ‘UK Progress on the SDGs’ (2018-19); the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry on ‘The Implementation of the SDG Goal 5’ (2016-17); Environmental Audit Committee inquiries on ‘The SDGs in the UK’ (2016-17) and on ‘The SDGs in the UK Follow-Up’ (2017-18). Long’s evidence prompted parliamentary questioning of ministers around disadvantage within the UK (debates in 2018 and 2020) and UK processes for stakeholder engagement.

Long’s appointment as Specialist Advisor for the IDC inquiry on the ‘UK Progress on the SDGs’ in 2018-19 meant he could shape the UK VNR critically during its construction. Long drew on his research insights (PUB3-5) to brief committee members and draft inquiry questions for officials from the UK’s Department of International Development (DFID) (IMP8). The impact of Long’s research is directly referenced in an official letter by the IDC Chair (Member of Parliament) to the Secretary of State, DFID (2 April 2019) urging that the UK VNR should include ‘a focus on those furthest behind in the UK context’ and ensure the ‘presence of stakeholder perspectives’ (IMP9, p. 5). Both recommendations were partially addressed in UK’s 2019 final VNR submission (IMP7), that included a chapter on ‘Leave No-one behind’ and referenced a programme of stakeholder engagement events led by government departments. Lastly, Long co-led the drafting of the Committee Report on the UK’s VNR process that was published on 16 July (IMP8). The report’s significance for future UK implementation of the SDGs is evident in the Government Response which agreed or partially agreed with 11 out of 14 recommendations, including the recommendation to develop a formal mechanism for stakeholder engagement on domestic implementation of the SDGs’ (IMP10).

Finally, Long’s argument that universality entails consistent inclusion of the ‘most left behind’ in the review process has benefited a large number of UK stakeholders representing the most vulnerable and marginalised populations through their voice and participation in these processes. Beyond the UK VNR report itself which acknowledges the value of a wide range of stakeholders including ‘The SDG Network Scotland’ (IMP7, p. 11) and UKSSD (IMP7, p. 13), UK CSOs (e.g. Shelter, Sightsavers, Women for Women International UK) have had new opportunities to pressure the UK government using the SDGs in national and global fora.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

IMP1. Beyond 2015 (2014) ‘Putting People and Planet First’, Position Paper.

IMP2. Testimonial by Beyond 2015 Advocacy Director.

IMP3. UN (2015) A/RES/70/1 ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted on 25 September 2015.

IMP4. Cardama, M. (2015) ‘Beyond 2015 Campaign: Final Evaluation’, Report Commissioned by Beyond 2015.

IMP5. UN (2017) ‘Voluntary Common Reporting Guidelines for Voluntary National Reviews at the High-Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development’.

IMP6. Testimonial by Chief of Outreach and Partnerships Branch, UN DESA Division for SDGs.

IMP7. Government of the UK (2019) United Kingdom Voluntary National Review.

IMP8. House of Commons International Development Committee (2019) UK progress on the Sustainable Development Goals’, 12th Report of Session 2017-19.

IMP9. Official letter by Member of Parliament, Chair of the House of Commons International Development Committee to Secretary of State, DFID from 2 April 2019.

IMP10. Government of the UK (2019) ‘ UK’s progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Voluntary National Review: Government Response to the Committee’s 12th Report’. 17 September.

Submitting institution
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Unit of assessment
19 - Politics and International Studies
Summary impact type
Political
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Recently there has been considerable concern about electoral integrity worldwide resulting in highly politicised debates, including in Britain. Alistair Clark’s research has systematically examined the drivers of high-quality electoral administration and he has conducted the first major surveys of polling station workers in the UK. Significantly, his research has influenced the methodology used by the Electoral Commission in evaluating voter identification pilots, informed the recommendations of two major reports on the 2016 EU referendum, enabled parliamentary committees and individual parliamentarians to hold government accountable for the funding of electoral administration, and contributed to political debate on voter registration and electoral fraud.

2. Underpinning research

Clark is one of the UK’s leading scholars researching the integrity of electoral processes. He has introduced new methods to election management research in the UK. First, working with T. S. James (UEA), he has conducted original surveys with election administrators, including polling station workers and counting officers. Second, he has conducted extensive quantitative analysis of administrative data to provide a national overview of performance in electoral administration, and identify the drivers of higher performance.

There are approximately 100,000 polling station workers in UK general elections. Clark and James developed an original survey of poll workers for the 2015 UK general election (n=1321) (GRANT2). They repeated this in the 2018 and 2019 local elections (n2018=2149). Analysis of the 2015 survey was the first to provide an account of the background, motivation and experience of polling station workers (PUB 1). Most importantly, it discovered that:

  • Less than 1% of poll workers surveyed suspected any cases of electoral fraud at their polling station in the 2015 election. Moreover, only 6% of poll workers had people ‘ask to vote whose identity they were unsure of’.

  • 69% of poll workers reported that at least one person was turned away from their polling station because they were not registered. The modal response (at 39%) was 2-5 people who asked to vote but were not registered.

Clark and James concluded that problems with the registration of voters were more significant than problems with electoral fraud or impersonation (PUB 1).

On the basis of their expertise in electoral administration and the success of their poll worker survey, Clark and James were commissioned by the UK Electoral Commission to evaluate electoral administration at the 2016 EU Referendum (PUB 2; GRANT1). This included a national survey of counting officers and senior election administrators (n=254) and a series of qualitative interviews (n=25). Their research found:

  • The EU Referendum was well managed by the Chief Counting Officer with few incidents on the day.

  • Low levels of concern about electoral fraud and intimidation but ‘further evidence that some citizens are turned away from polling stations thinking that they are registered but having found that they are not’ (PUB 2, p. 23).

  • Nearly half of local authorities claimed that they have insufficient funds to maintain the electoral register.

This research supported the findings of the 2015 polling station workers’ survey regarding electoral fraud and voter registration. The evidence on funding issues was also consistent with findings from the second strand of Clark’s research on electoral administration.

Clark’s second major contribution has been to conduct analysis of administrative data on returning officers’ performance standards from the UK Electoral Commission and election funding data from the UK Electoral Commission and the UK Government’s Cabinet Office. These data were integrated with census 2011 and other socio-economic and electoral data. This analysis provided the first quantitative research on the drivers of higher performance in electoral administration in the UK. The major findings included:

  • Evidence of variation in electoral administrative performance across mainland Britain (PUBs 3, 4, 5).

  • Measured in different ways (total spending, registration spending, £ per elector) and in different elections (2009 EP, 2010GE, 2014 EP) spending on election administration led to improved performance in running elections (PUBs 3, 5, 6).

  • Other administrative issues also impacted upon election quality. Running multiple constituencies led to higher performance; running different levels of elections concurrently led to lower performance (PUB 5).

Clark concluded that resources matter for the quality of electoral administration. Moreover, additional changes in the organisation and timing of elections could improve the quality of electoral administration.

3. References to the research

PUB1. Clark, A. and James, T. S. (2017) ‘Poll Workers’, in P. Norris & A. Nai (eds.) Election Watchdogs: Transparency, Accountability and Integrity, New York: Oxford University Press, pp144-164. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190677800.003.0008.

PUB2. Clark, A. and James. T. (2016) An Evaluation of Electoral Administration at the EU Referendum, London: Electoral Commission.

PUB3. Clark, A. (2014) ‘Investing in Electoral Management’ in P. Norris, R. Frank & F. Martinez I Coma (eds.) Advancing Electoral Integrity, New York: Oxford University Press, pp165-188. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199368709.003.0009.

PUB4. Clark, A. (2015) ‘Public Administration and the Integrity of the Electoral Process in British Elections’, Public Administration, 93, (1), pp86-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12106.

PUB5. Clark, A. (2017) ‘Identifying the Determinants of Electoral Integrity and Administration in Advanced Democracies: The Case of Britain’, European Political Science Review, 9, (3), pp471-492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000060.

PUB6. Clark, A. (2019) ‘The Cost of Democracy: The Determinants of Spending on the Public Administration of Elections’, International Political Science Review, 40, (3), pp354-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118824787.

Note on quality: Clark’s research on electoral administration and management has been published in leading international peer-reviewed political science journals (PUBs 4-6), and major international research collections edited by one of the most prominent global political science scholars (PUBs 1, 3). Clark’s contribution to the co-authored publications (PUB 1, 2) is material and distinct in advancing the conceptualisation of electoral integrity and developing an innovative methodological approach to assessing electoral integrity.

Grants

Grant Title Funder Period Amount
Clark (co-PI with James, UEA) GRANT1 EU Referendum Electoral Process Evaluation Electoral Commission May 2016 - August 2016 GBP12,000
Clark (Co-I; PI James, UEA) GRANT2 Election Integrity on the Frontline: Poll Workers and the Electoral Process in Britain’ SG140099 British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Small Grant January 2015 - June 2016 GBP9,297

4. Details of the impact

The main beneficiaries of Clark’s research have been the UK Electoral Commission, parliamentary committees, and parliamentarians reviewing and arguing for improved electoral administration.

Voting is a central right and duty of citizenship. Upwards of 40 million people registered to vote in the 2019 general election, while 26.8 million voted. Ensuring oversight of electoral administration are vital responsibilities of the Electoral Commission and parliamentarians. Research contributions to their evaluations, like Clark’s, are crucial in identifying best practice. This ensures that citizens entitled to vote can do so securely with government held accountable for failures in conducting elections, and informed of any necessary improvements. The significance of Clark’s research means that he is regularly invited to give in-person evidence to key committees. Such evidence informed the 2019 House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) report on electoral law (IMP5), which cites findings from Clark and James’s research on poll workers in relation to voter ID and electoral law.

Equipping the Electoral Commission with Tools to Evaluate Voter ID Pilots

In 2018, the Electoral Commission conducted evaluations of controversial voter identification pilots in five local authority areas. Polling station workers’ surveys were central to these evaluations. The Commission’s survey method and survey instrument was ‘developed from’ Clark and James’ 2015 survey of polling station workers (IMP1, p. 3, note 1). The Electoral Commission’s researchers met with Clark and James several times during 2017 and 2018 to seek their ‘input in adjusting it for the 2018 local elections’ (IMP1, p. 3, note 1). The Commission adopted Clark and James’ recommendation to use hard copies of the survey (as they had done in 2015) to maximise the completion rate. They also adopted several questions directly from Clark and James’ 2015 survey.

Informing Major Reports on EU and Scottish Referendums

Clark and James’ 2016 national evaluation of the electoral administration of the EU Referendum (PUB2) was commissioned by the Electoral Commission. At the time, there was widespread concern about electoral fraud and intimidation. Clark and James’ evaluation provided one important evidential basis for the Electoral Commission’s own report on the referendum (IMP2). The Commission’s report draws heavily on Clark and James’ evaluation (in Section 4) and summarises key findings from their counting officers’ survey (Sub-sections 4.156-4.166). Three recommendations (7, 8 and 9) on improving voter registration are adapted from Clark and James’ recommendations. Clark and James’ evaluation was also cited in the PACAC report into Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum (IMP3). PACAC noted that the independent evaluation found that ‘the Chief Counting Officer, the Electoral Commission and electoral officials across the UK managed the referendum very well’ (IMP3, p. 38). PACAC also reported Clark and James’ concerns about voter registration and difficulties with the online voter registration system (IMP3, p. 38). The Committee also adopted Clark and James’ recommendation that voters be allowed to check online whether they are registered to vote (IMP3, pp. 58-9)

Based on his expertise, Clark was appointed advisor to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee for its 2019 report on the Referendums (Scotland) Bill (IMP6). The Committee Convenor, publicly praised Clark’s ‘excellent advice’ in the plenary debate on the bill (IMP9, Col. 56). Clark’s advice that a referendum should not be held concurrently with other elections (PUB 5) forms one of the Committee’s recommendations (p.16), as does his advice that accredited electoral observers be explicitly allowed to attend polling stations, postal vote proceedings and the count (pp.19-20). The Scottish government’s response agreed that referendums should be standalone events (IMP7, p.3), something MSPs subsequently amended the Bill to include in Section 3A (1), while an Electoral Commission Code of Practice for Observers would make clear to observers which referendum events they could attend (IMP7, p.5).

Helping parliamentarians hold government accountable for funding electoral administration

Clark’s research on funding election administration has been used by parliamentarians to hold government accountable. Clark’s finding from his 2016 survey of counting officers that nearly half of local authorities claimed to have insufficient funds to maintain the electoral register (PUB2) was directly quoted in a parliamentary question by one of the MPs (IMP4) and elicited a detailed response from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. Citing the 2016 finding and Clark’s evidence that electoral services teams were small, and their capacity to deliver high quality electoral administration dependent upon staffing and resources, a strongly-worded recommendation from the House of Lords Committee examining the 2013 Electoral Registration and Administration Act urged the Government ‘to undertake a thorough review of existing funding provisions and arrangements for both electoral registration and delivery of elections. The review must ensure adequate funding is provided’ (IMP8, p.27). The Scottish parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee report on the Referendums (Scotland) Bill (IMP6) asks the Scottish government to respond to Clark’s advice that cost estimates need to take account of inflation and international best practice (p.34). The Scottish government’s response ‘notes the comments of the Committee’s advisor… The Scottish government will undertake further work to identify alternative approaches to referendum costs’ (IMP7, p.10) Clark’s recommendation to PACAC’s Coronavirus Act Inquiry that the resourcing of COVID-19 mitigations for elections be investigated, led to PACAC calling directly for evidence on this (IMP10, pp.27-28).

Clark’s underpinning research and continuous engagement with the Electoral Commission, and relevant parliamentary committees both in Edinburgh and Westminster, have helped to ensure that robust evidence regarding the integrity of British electoral systems has been taken into account and used by parliamentarians in the highly politicised debate around electoral integrity, and has had an impact on the outcomes of these debates.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

IMP1. The Electoral Commission, Bromley May 2018 Voter Identification Pilot Evaluation. London: Electoral Commission.

IMP2. The Electoral Commission (2016) The EU Referendum: Report on the 23 June 2016 Referendum on the UK’s Membership of the European Union, London: Electoral Commission.

IMP3. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2017) Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum, London: House of Commons.

IMP4. Hansard, 22 March 2017, Col. 850.

IMP5. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2019) Electoral Law: The Urgent Need for Review (HC 244), London, House of Commons.

IMP6. Scottish Parliament Finance and Constitution Committee (2019) Stage 1 report on the Referendums (Scotland) Bill, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

IMP7. Scottish Government (2019) Response to FCC Stage 1 Report on the Referendums (Scotland) Bill – Letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the FCC Convenor, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

IMP8. Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (2020) An Electoral System Fit for Today? More to be Done, London: House of Lords, HL Paper 83.

IMP9. Scottish Parliament (2019) Official Report: Meeting of the Parliament Thursday 7th November 2019, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament.

IMP10. Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2020) Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 (HC 377), London: House of Commons.

Showing impact case studies 1 to 3 of 3

Filter by higher education institution

UK regions
Select one or more of the following higher education institutions and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No higher education institutions found.
Institutions

Filter by unit of assessment

Main panels
Select one or more of the following units of assessment and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No unit of assessments found.
Units of assessment

Filter by continued case study

Select one or more of the following states and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by summary impact type

Select one or more of the following summary impact types and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by impact UK location

UK Countries
Select one or more of the following UK locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No UK locations found.
Impact UK locations

Filter by impact global location

Continents
Select one or more of the following global locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No global locations found.
Impact global locations

Filter by underpinning research subject

Subject areas
Select one or more of the following underpinning research subjects and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No subjects found.
Underpinning research subjects