Reconsidering ‘What Works’ in Welfare-to-Work with the Vulnerable Unemployed: The Potential of Relational Causality as an Alternative Approach

Abstract

There is growing interest in research that informs more effective practices in employment services across Europe, Australia and the USA. However, despite the ever-expanding amount of research on the implementation and efficacy of various policy programmes in practice, the knowledge on how to bring unemployed individuals closer to the labour market remains ambiguous and inconclusive. This is especially so in the context of the more vulnerable unemployed, who face physical, mental and social challenges in addition to unemployment. In this article, we examine the existing literature in terms of its potential to inform (the development of) effective employment policies. On this basis, we outline an alternative approach based on the concept of relational causality, and discuss the implications of such an approach for applied policy research.

Fluid Enquiry, Complex Causality, Policy Processes: Making a Difference with Qualitative Longitudinal Research

“…A related challenge concerns the common misconception that only statistically based, or more theoretically driven studies have the capacity to generalise and 'scale up' their findings (Anderson and Scott, 2012;Donmoyer, 2012;Dall and Danneris, 2019). In fact, qualitative forms of generalisation are well established (Gobo, 2004;Neale, 2021), although they could be more effectively utilised, packaged and promoted.…”

“…With each new addition to the analytical 'pot', the conceptual picture is enhanced or transformed. In this mosaic approach to evidence building, insights about patterns and processes of change are given added credence through the extent, variety and weight of the evidence base, and the strategic manner in which comparisons and connections are drawn out (Halford and Savage, 2017;Anderson and Scott, 2012;Donmoyer, 2012;Monaghan and Boaz, 2018;Dall and Danneris, 2019;Wright and Patrick, 2019;Middlemiss et al, 2019). For busy policy makers, such evidence has the potential to create conceptual impacts, to raise new questions and to change perceptions of how things work, as a necessary precursor to creating instrumental changes in policy and professional practice (Neale and Morton, 2012;Monaghan and Boaz, 2018).…”

“…It was not possible to predict when a client might enter into a downward spiral, or reach a tipping point into derailment. But these patterns were most often linked to the punitive sanctions of the programme, or the 'quick fix', 'one-size-fits-all' nature of the work placements, which were commonly tenuous, unsuitable, unsustainable and demoralising (Dall and Danneris, 2019).…”

“…In part, the issue arises within the academy. The preference is for 'hard' economic or statistical evidence, such as randomised controlled trials, meta-evaluation, quasi-experiments and quantitative statistical testing, along with systematic reviews of such research (Dall and Danneris, 2019;Monaghan and Ingold, 2019). Such evidence is placed at the top of an evidence 'hierarchy' on the grounds that it is scientifically robust, while 'soft' qualitative and case study evidence, which forms the bulk of the research canon, is relegated to the bottom, where it can be effectively side-lined.…”

“…Working with complexity is often anathema to the clear-cut needs of policy makers. This is the case despite the fact that evidence rooted in simple causal models is consistently reported to be ambiguous and inconclusive in meeting real-world policy objectives, or in identifying what actually works (Pawson, 2006;Byrne et al, 2009;Donmoyer, 2012;Millar and Bennett, 2017;Dall and Danneris, 2019;Monaghan and Ingold, 2019). As the discussion above shows, the ambiguity of such evidence is hardly surprising if it is based on the tenets of simple causality i.e.…”