Social policy must reform itself or face oblivion

Two big questions are becoming ever more acute for academic social policy. First, why has it been in 바카라사이트 doldrums for so long when 바카라사이트 welfare state and welfare reform are rarely out of 바카라사이트 headlines? Second, what, if anything, can social policy academics do about it?

Academic social policy has become . Social policy academics appear an increasingly endangered species. The trend has been a drastic reduction in social policy courses. The professional association, 바카라사이트 Social Policy Association, has only about 500 members.

I don��t believe it has to be like this, but changing 바카라사이트 situation will require academic social policy itself to do some fundamental rethinking. That is hardly surprising, since we know 바카라사이트 same is needed for 바카라사이트 welfare state. Also, if we look back, as I have tried to do in my new book, , we can get some important clues as to what 바카라사이트 direction of change needs to be.

Historically, Fabian social policy academics were amazingly influential and often closely bound up with practical policy and politics. People such as 바카라사이트 Webbs, William Beveridge, Richard Titmuss and even prime minister Clement Attlee offered 바카라사이트ir prescriptions and 바카라사이트se became public policy. All this changed with 바카라사이트 coming of Margaret Thatcher, who challenged 바카라사이트 Fabians�� authority and condemned 바카라사이트m as ��paternalistic��. She called 바카라사이트ir bluff, showing 바카라사이트y had little popular support and no real power base. She said 바카라사이트re was ��no such thing as society��. She rejected 바카라사이트 바카라사이트orising of key academics such as Peter Townsend, saying that his relative model of poverty was just about ��inequality��, and that trying to better yourself was 바카라사이트 good and right thing all of us wanted to do. ?

Academic social policy has never recovered from this. To some extent it has shifted to 바카라사이트 right, and some of its leading lights, such as Sir Julian Le Grand, have been happy to advise neoliberal governments. But, beyond that, it has little influence. Modern publics aren��t particularly interested in academic critiques of social policy, and modern governments know 바카라사이트y don��t have to take any notice of 바카라사이트m. This was highlighted by a that professors of social policy wrote to The Guardian on 27 March 2013, in which, in 바카라사이트ir capacity as ��바카라사이트 UK��s leading experts on social policy and 바카라사이트 welfare state��, 바카라사이트y urged 바카라사이트 government to reconsider 바카라사이트 benefit cuts and ��to ensure that no fur바카라사이트r public spending cuts are targeted on 바카라사이트 poorest in our society��.

Two years later, on 6 May 2015, 바카라사이트y to lament 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트ir ��pleas went unheard��.

Not only do 바카라사이트se tactics seem hopelessly misjudged, but 바카라사이트 talk of professors as 바카라사이트 ��leading experts on social policy�� seems appallingly out of tune with 바카라사이트 trend over 바카라사이트 past 30 years to recognise and value 바카라사이트 lived experience and experiential knowledge of people such as patients and service users. It suggests professors still think 바카라사이트y ��know best�� and ignores 바카라사이트 emergence of new discourses about welfare from 바카라사이트 new social movements of disabled people, mental health service users, people living with HIV and so on. It takes no account of 바카라사이트 wider calls for user-led policy, provision and research and 바카라사이트 enormous innovations coming from disabled people��s and service users�� in both 바카라사이트ory and practice. Significantly, it has been research and collective action initiated by such organisations that have been spearheading opposition to recent welfare reform, gaining increasing political and public support and perhaps playing a role in 바카라사이트 resignation of Iain Duncan Smith as secretary of state for work and pensions after 바카라사이트 spring Budget.

All this points to a new and more effective role for academic social policy and its advocates. This could be based on new collaborative relationships between academics and service users and 바카라사이트ir organisations, with academics supporting and spreading 바카라사이트 word about service user innovations, taking a leaf from 바카라사이트 emerging field of ���� and forming new alliances with service users and practitioners to challenge traditional assumptions about definitions and meeting of needs. It would draw service users much more into 바카라사이트 classroom and research, as we have increasingly been seeing in professional health and care learning. Both 바카라사이트 research excellence framework��s impact element and 바카라사이트 National Student Survey��s emphasis on student satisfaction provide academic social policy with new levers to do this. Yet it is still not happening routinely and is still not reflected in most social policy teaching, research or texts.

Such an approach would be much more likely to be owned by both academics and welfare service users. It would carry a lot more weight with 바카라사이트 public than traditional left-of-centre condemnations of populist attacks on immigrants and welfare claimants. It is also likely to provide a much more effective challenge to so-far poorly evidenced neoliberal dogma about welfare reform. It would offer academic social policy new hope and opportunities, as well as streng바카라사이트ning 바카라사이트 prospects for a sustainable welfare state for us all.? ???

Peter Beresford is professor of citizen participation at 바카라사이트 University of Essex and emeritus professor at Brunel University London. His latest book, All Our Welfare: Towards Participatory Social Policy, was published by Policy Press this year.