Annual progress report - 2003 (pdf format) - Policy Studies Institute

Detailed Progress:
(max 1 page to cover:
(i) brief résumé of the development of the research since the
start of the award
(ii) if this is not the first progress report, main developments
since the last report
(iii) any difficulties encountered e.g. in staffing, access, data
analysis
(iv) changes introduced or envisaged in the research objectives
or methodology
(v) an estimate of how far the original timetable will be met).
(i) Brief résumé
The initial research design drew heavily on the theoretical underpinnings of actor-oriented research
when applied to the hazard field. This guided the development of a hazard-response model of policy
negotiation as an adaptation of the contextual decision model produced by Penning-Rowsell (1996).
As the project developed, it soon became clear that this design failed to offer insight in two important
ways.
Firstly, the original design did not adequately address why and how actor negotiation resulted in
changes to policy. Therefore, alongside the need to undertake case study research, which directly
contributed to the key aims and objectives of the research, it was clear that an understanding of the
public policy and policy change literature was required. A broad literature base was consulted
resulting in an important concept paper which specifically addressed the impact of crises on changing
policy (Johnson et al, 2003). Central to this theoretical insight was the development of a 'new'
theoretical model of incremental and catalytic change (Johnson et al, 2003).
Having incorporated this 'new' model into the case study evaluation, this meant that the proposed
actor-analysis, which focused on changes in individual actor behaviour prior to, during, and
immediately following a major flood, would no longer be appropriate. Instead, analysis centred on the
way in which the underlying beliefs, values and attitudes of the dominant coalition of actors, in each
context, enabled certain ideas to dominate the policy agenda process. Therefore, rather than seeking to
evaluate changing attitudes and perceptions of all stakeholders, only those key actors regarded as
critical to the policy change process were evaluated.
Secondly, the original research design did not adequately address the underlying changes to flood
policy over the fifty-year period in which our four case studies were located. As the case study
analysis unfolded it soon became clear that to understand each flood in context, such a broad
understanding of policy change, as incremental change, would be necessary. Whilst a detailed
analysis of all the possible influences on this incremental change, and their causes, was beyond the
remit of our project, a basic understanding of the change in values, beliefs and attitudes towards the
flood hazard over time was conducted (Tunstall et al, 2003)
As it currently stands, all of the secondary data analysis has been completed along with seven of the
ten interviews proposed. It is our intention to conduct the final three interviews within the next three
to four weeks. We are in the process of writing the final report, which will accompany the ESRC end
of award report. There is no reason, at present, to assume that this will not be completed on time (due
31-03-04).