Research impact

Rethinking retirement

Policy reform can sometimes act as a catalyst for research. Studying the far-reaching implications of new approaches is profoundly important. No more so than when considering changes relating to age-related retirement – a topic which will affect us all.

A key finding of our rethinking retirement research is that abolishing mandatory retirement helps the poorest least, because of health and educational barriers to work. Nevertheless, the research suggests that older people in the UK will have increased opportunities to work. Not only has our research in this area been widely published in journals, books and broadsheet newspapers, but we have presented our findings, including the implications for policy and the management of retirement transitions, to a number of key audiences.

As a result of his research in this area, Dr David Lain was the invited presenter at the private policy debate ‘Working longer: an EU perspective’, in Brussels at the European Economic and Social Committee of the European Parliament and at the ‘Expert Workshop on Income from Work after Retirement', at the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Brussels. He presented to European Commission officials, EU and US researchers, and to groups representing older people, trade unions and businesses.

Through our Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Rethinking Retirement Series, we brought together around 150 people from academia, business, trade unions, policy making, service delivery, NGOs and the general public to consider the changing context of retirement.

We strive to ensure that our research in this area helps policymakers take decisions to ensure fairer futures.

Human rights: Four schools of thought

Professor Marie-Bénédicte Dembour’s groundbreaking work challenges the human rights orthodoxy by proposing that there are four schools of thought. First published in her monograph, Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006), she asserts that ‘natural scholars’ conceive of human rights as given; ‘deliberative scholars’ as agreed upon; ‘protest scholars’ as fought for; and ‘discourse scholars’ as talked about.

Her model allows differing positions on the foundation, universality, possible realisation and legal embodiment of human rights to be explored. Through mapping the different schools, she gives greater clarity to debate within the human rights field.

Widely published, the model has provided structure for subsequent research into the problematic access to human rights experienced by irregular migrants and was in the top 10 most downloaded articles when published in Human Rights Quarterly.

The model was the subject of the prestigious Torkel Opashl Memorial Lecture given at the University of Oslo in 2009 and keynote addresses in 2011 at both the symposium organised by the Dutch branch of Amnesty International to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary and the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) conference on rights and education in Finland.

In addition, Professor Dembour lectured on her model at the Institut Universitaire Kurt Bösch in Switzerland and was invited by Clingendeal, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, to present her findings in courses developed for diplomats from the Arab region in 2013.

By introducing new, theoretical mapping of human rights scholarship, Dembour has managed to reframe approaches and debate within the field.

Examining management consultant impact in Higher Education

The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) has exerted important influence on higher education (HE) colleges over recent years; annual evaluations can affect the type of funding and resources made available to colleges which fail to meet targets. Ofsted encourages colleges to appoint management consultants to act as an external and intermediate party and assist them with the realisation of the required improvements and changes.

Dr Stephanos Avakian and Dr Jenny Knight examined the nature of institutional pressure exercised by government on educational establishments to improve performance and the impact on student learning. A pilot study with Sussex Downs College revealed that such external intervention has an important effect on how client members identify themselves with change. This finding led to the study of client identity and the process by which perceptions of homogeneity and diversity are influenced through the involvement of consultants.

Avakian and Knight were given in-depth access for collecting more extensive empirical data through interviews and participant observation in a second phase of the research project. They were invited to make proposals to the senior management team about the best use of consultants and how to understand the changes required for accomplishing improvement initiatives.

The research project strengthened the relationship between our researchers and Sussex Downs College, identified opportunities for reflection and improved education and generated debate. A working paper will be presented at the European Group of Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference in 2014. Moreover, it has led to the development of a website that examines the government’s funding role but also encourages the use of external consultants for the implementation of improvement initiatives across higher education institutions.

ESRC – Fairness at Work Seminar Series

Together with the University of Manchester and Leeds Business School, researchers at Brighton Business School (BBS) and the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) have been involved in organising this ESRC funded seminar series, 2010-12.

The aims of the series were to advance understanding of 'fairness' and related concepts such as 'organisational justice' and 'corporate social responsibility', across academic disciplines and in practice. We explored potential tensions and synergies in relation to 'fairness' across different interest groups (employers, employees, customers/service users) differences within the workforce (such as those with and without care responsibilities) and between households, firms and state public policy.