Healthy Parent Carers Programme

I am really excited and proud to be working - as an Assistant Facilitator - on the Healthy Parent Carer Programme, which is run by PenCRU at Exeter University. The parent carers of children with additional needs are often vulnerable to poor health and wellbeing and are often marginalised. Through a series of six workshops, the programme aims to improve health and wellbeing among this group. During the first half of 2019, the programme is being run in six locations in Devon and Cornwall.

My own role on the project is as an Assistant Facilitator. I will be working in Dawlish in Devon and the first workshop is on May 1, 2019. I am looking forward to further developing my workshop and participatory facilitation skills that I have developed through my own participatory research. At the same time, I really keen to learn new skills, especially working on such potentially challenging issues, and I am excited about the very direct positive benefit that the programme has for parent carers. I am looking forward to contributing to the programme in 2019 and - hopefully - as it grows in the future.

You can read more about the programme and associated research here.

Public understandings of UV exposure

In May 2019, I will be starting a new project with atmospheric science researchers - led by Professor Ann Webb - at University of Manchester. More than a decade of interdisciplinary research at University of Manchester has explored the relationship between UV exposure (sunlight), diet and vitamin D status (with sun exposure being a major determinant of vitamin D status). However, the over-riding public health message of previous decades has been that exposure to UV radiation is detrimental to health, resulting in sunburn and skin cancer. The project has two key elements to it. 

The first is to conduct new quantitative research into current public understandings of the interplay of benefits (e.g. vitamin D) and risks (e.g. cancer) associated with UV exposure. The research will also explore changes in these understandings. My role in this part of the project will focus on research design, questionnaire development and data analysis (the survey will be delivered by a local agency).

The second element of the project is to support the development of an 'impact' case study for the 2021 Research Excellence Framework. On this part of the project, I will be further developing and implementing an emerging 'impact' strategy, and supporting development of the 'impact' case study itself.

I am excited by this project because - after many years of studying public understanding of science research and other science and society issues - it is great to experience such research from within a scientific team and to hone my large-scale survey skills. I am also pleased to have the chance to draw on and further develop my 'impact' skills and knowledge.

Breaking the Barrier evaluation published

I am really excited that the Breaking the Barrier evaluation was published this week.

Breaking the Barrier (BtB) is a Lifeworks programme. The aim of BtB is to provide opportunities for children and young people with learning disabilities – and, crucially, their families and carers – to participate in adventure sports. 

BtB 2018 consisted of three events: surfing at Saunton, cycling at Torbay Velopark and surfing at Bigbury-on-Sea. Across the three events, BtB 2018 provided adventure sport opportunities for 139 young people, 37 siblings and 30 parents, a total of 206 experiences.

The key objectives of the BtB 2018 evaluation were – employing quantitative survey data, qualitative interview data and a draft report review workshop with the BtB team – to understand the extent to which BtB 2018 achieved its objectives and the role of the partners in that. Lifeworks will use material from the evaluation in its work on programme development.

The key findings of the evaluation are that the BtB programme achieves its objectives to a very high degree. Two key reasons are identified: the BtB team and its partner organisations create a safe, comfortable and inclusive space that facilitates participation, and the event explicitly caters for young people with learning disabilities and their families. Recommendations for learning and development are also made in the report.

You can read the evaluation report here (just scroll down a bit).

I am very grateful to all the parents who participated in the evaluation and to Sarah-Jane Lowson and Tracey Hubbard at Lifeworks for fantastic support and input.

Public Attitudes to Science at the Engage conference

It was great to visit the Engage conference, which focuses on university public engagement, in Edinburgh last week (29-30 November, 2018). This year, the conference themes focused on looking forward to public engagement futures and looking back over the ten years since the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement was established. You can find out more here.

I have a longstanding interest in public engagement.

However, this time, I was primarily at Engage as part of a session on the 2018-9 Public Attitudes to Science research, which is funded by BEIS. The session was kicked off with an introduction by Tony Whitney in the Science, Research and Innovation team in BEIS. I then talked about the findings of the international literature review that I have undertaken as part of the research. I was followed by Amy Busby, of Kantar Public (who are leading the research), who talked about a digital dialogue that Kantar has run on trust in science and scientists. 

A common theme in my talk and Amy's talk was a distinction between trust in scientists and science as a profession (which is very strong) and trust in what happens when science is employed in technologies (which is more mixed). The session was well-attended and there were some interesting questions after the talks.

The literature review is currently in review by the project Advisory Group and it is expected that it will be published in early 2019. The new research will be published later in 2019.

Previous UK PAS research is available here.

Healthy Parent Carer Programme

I am really excited and proud to be working - as an Assistant Facilitator - on the Healthy Parent Carer Programme, which is run by PenCRU at Exeter University. The parent carers of children with additional needs are vulnerable to poor health and wellbeing and are often marginalised. Through a series of six workshops, the programme aims to improve health and wellbeing among this group. During the first half of 2019, the programme will be run in six locations in Devon and Cornwall.

My own role on the project is as an Assistant Facilitator. I am looking forward to further develop my workshop and participatory facilitation skills that I have developed through my own participatory research. On Thursday 22 and Friday 23 November 2018, I attended excellent and inspiring facilitator training workshops at Exeter University. I am looking forward to contributing to the programme in 2019 and - hopefully - as it grows in the future.

You can read more about the programme and associated research here.

Public attitudes to science 2018

I am very pleased to be working on the latest iteration of the UK Government's series of research projects on Public Attitudes to Science. The project is funded by BEIS and I am working with social research company, Kantar Public. The project consists of a large-scale survey, qualitative digital focus groups, social media analysis and an international literature review. 

My own work - which I will complete by the end of October 2018 - focuses particularly on the literature review, and I will be supporting Kantar on the other work through to early 2019. Kantar and I worked successfully in this way on the Factors Affecting Public Engagement with Research project a couple of years ago. This work complements my longstanding work on Science and Society issues.

University of Oxford Public Engagement with Research conference

It was a pleasure to attend and present at the University of Oxford Public Engagement with Research conference on Thursday 5th July 2018. Aimed primarily at University of Oxford researchers and support staff (along with some external guests), the conference was billed as, 'an opportunity to be inspired, to learn, to be challenged and keep up to date with the cutting-edge of Public Engagement with Research (PER) practice and policy'. The event was very informative and entertaining (it was the first time I heard real live ancient Greek music!).

I was very pleased to be invited to participate in a session called 'Public Engagement with Research: past, present and future', along with Dr Jenni Chambers, Head of Public Engagement at UK Research and Innovation. My own presentation was called 'A brief history of UK public engagement with research'. In particular, focusing on 1985 to the present, I emphasised: the sometimes uneasy bringing together of the public understanding of science (PUS) agenda with very different agendas in the arts, humanities and social social sciences; the ongoing institutionalisation and - more recently - professionalisation of PER; the notable ambition of the 'culture change' that is envisaged by the UK funders of research; and the (social science) critiques of the PER agenda. To considerable extent, the presentation drew on work that I did a couple of years ago on the Factors Affecting Public Engagement with Research project. As part of the session, Dr Chambers discussed the current PER landscape and we finished off with a discussion of the future potential of PER.

You can see the conference programme here.

You can see my slides here.

You can see more of my work on public engagement here.

Breaking the Barrier evaluation

I am really excited to be supporting Lifeworks - as a volunteer - by evaluating the Breaking the Barrier 2018 (BtB) programme. Lifeworks is a Devon-based charity that works to make a difference to the lives of families with learning disabled children. BtB focuses on supporting young people with learning disabilities and their families to pursue outdoor sports; this year, surfing and cycling are on the programme.

The evaluation will focus on understanding the experiences of the young participants and their families (as well as their needs in terms of future BtB programmes). It will consist of quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the individual BtB 2018 events and of the programme as a whole. We are also hoping to evaluate the the experiences of the many volunteers - specialist instructors, enthusiasts and others - who make BtB possible.

Breaking the Barrier is a wonderful programme that has supported my son - he's nine and has Down's Syndrome - with his cycling, and started him on what I hope will be a lifelong and enjoyable surfing career. Here is a video of my son at the Bigbury-on-Sea BtB surfing event in June 2018. The video shows him going from sitting to standing for the first time (to the applause of the spectators)! Feeling proud 😃

Heat networks report published

This week saw the publication of the BEIS evaluation of the Heat Networks Investment Project (HNIP) pilot scheme, on which I played a leading role. Heat networks convey hot water from a central heat source to meet demand for space and water heating distributed across a number of buildings. Heat networks, also known as district heating systems, are a potentially important element in future energy systems because they can offer significant carbon savings. 

The objective of the pilot evaluation was to provide insight and learning - relating to: the scheme design; the application, assessment and award process; and a snapshot of the current heat networks industry - to maximise the potential of the main scheme. On the basis of this, the report made a number of significant recommendations for the implementation of the main scheme. 

My role on the project was to direct the rapid implementation of a cohort of around 45 in-depth interviews across the heat networks industry, and to lead on the analysis and writing of the report (not Chapter 3).

You can access the full report and recommendations here.

From the blog vaults: the two policy worlds of domestic energy demand reduction policy

This was originally published as a Policy Studies Institute blog in March 2016 

Smart Energy GB and DECC: the two policy worlds of domestic energy demand reduction policy

I spent Tuesday 22 March, 2016 at two policy events. Ostensibly, these were related meetings, both held in support of the UK government’s objectives relating to the role of energy consumption feedback – presented on the in-home displays provided with smart meters – in domestic energy consumption reduction. However, this is where the similarity between the two events begins and ends. In fact, the two events couldn’t have been more different. Given the importance of energy demand reduction and the huge amounts of money that are being spent on smart meters, I found this lack of integration very frustrating, so I thought I would write a very short paper in the hope of prompting some integrative and collaborative action.

In the morning, I was in the company of Smart Energy GB – set up by the government to manage the communications and engagement around the roll meter rollout – at their large-scale and glitzy event on behaviour change. This event featured talks by economist Tim Harford and behavioural scientist David Halpern, about the ways in which behavioural science and economics can deliver behaviour change in the context of smart meters and domestic energy demand reduction. Here the talk was of automation, data, incentives, cues, defaults, testing and randomised-controlled trials (RCTs). In disciplinary terms, we were in the territory of behavioural science and behavioural economics; since the audience’s questions were mediated by the Smart Energy GB hosts, even these remained firmly within the behavioural frame.

A couple of hours later, I was with DECC’s [now BEIS] smart meter implementation team, researchers from Ipsos MORI and others, at a workshop to hear about and contribute to progress on the development of materials to support smart meter installers in providing in-home energy efficiency advice to householders. By contrast, the discussion here was all about relationships, trust, know-how, information, householders and their needs, qualitative research and even ethnography. The disciplinary setting for this meeting was much more sociological and – due to the emphasis on information – social psychological. Given that I have had quite a bit of success with this in-home energy efficiency advice approach in my own research and that DECC is actively pursuing it, it was pretty dismaying to hear David Halpern dismiss it earlier in the day on the basis of a single RCT in Newcastle a couple of years ago.

As someone who has been working on domestic energy consumption reduction since 2009, these contrasts were but the latest manifestation of a long-standing (if rather one-sided) debate between approaches from behavioural science, social psychology and sociology. Not much of the relevant material is open-access, but Elizabeth Shove has presented a pretty combative sociological view (to which Lorraine Whitmarsh has responded from a social psychology perspective). Meanwhile, Charlie Wilson, Tim Chatterton and Yolande Strengers have all presented perspectives – to which I would largely subscribe – which are certainly sociological but also recognise the value of other approaches, and that the distinctions between approaches can become blurred the closer you get to interventions in the home. It is notable that behavioural scientists have not entered into these debates.

At its heart, and this is a gross over-simplification, the sociological critique of the behavioural approach has two elements to it. The first is that the challenge of climate change is so profound that it requires systemic or structural societal change, and behaviour change not only represents a relatively small part of this, but also obscures and depoliticises the broader challenge. The second is that, even within the more limited remit of changing how things are done in the home, the behavioural approach is relatively narrow in scope and is determinedly overlooking many of the valuable insights that sociologists are producing. For instance, it is surely curious that behavioural science is relatively incurious about: how patterns of energy consumption have come to be the way they are (might this offer some clues about how they can be changed?); what happens in people’s homes in general, how do they live their lives, and what is the place of energy in their lives?; and, more specifically, what actually happens in people’s homes (beyond changes or not in consumption) in the context of interventions designed to reduce consumption (this might help us to improve and refine interventions, for example)? Sociologists – using qualitative and ethnographic methods that are a million miles from the superficial works/doesn’t work binaries of RCTs – are producing varied and valuable insights into these issues. It struck me as particularly ironic that a discussion between Tim Harford and David Halpern concluded with a call for research on energy consumption reduction to be funded by government! I suppose they specifically meant their beloved RCTs, but this comment made me wonder what I have been doing for the past seven years (and others have been doing for longer), and it made me worry at the apparent influence of people who appear to know little or nothing of this research.

In the remainder of this paper, I’d like to comment on a couple of insights from my own work that are relevant to the behavioural approach. Behavioural scientists in the UK are keen to highlight areas of success – for example, enrolment in pensions, payment of income tax, vehicle tax and court fines and simplification of application processes – and they should be congratulated. However, on the basis of talking to many householders about energy and energy demand reduction, my own research and that of others suggests that energy consumption is very different to these issues. Two key aspects to this can be readily identified.

What are we trying to change?

First, these areas of success might be described as single and one-off (or, typically, infrequent) actions, and as actions that are relatively discrete from other aspects of our lives. For example, once you enrol in a pension you stay enrolled, and enrolling in a pension is not overly tied up with other aspects of everyday life. By contrast, energy consumption is the outcome of many or even most actions around the home, and these actions are both interlinked and endlessly repeated in the daily patterns of people’s lives. This is why I would suggest that, when it comes to energy, it is not behaviour or even behaviours (or even practices!) that we need to act on – but instead a rather more complex thing, that we might call everyday life.

Hard work?

In addition, the actions in these areas of success are relatively easy to take. To put this another way, people typically know how to, for example, pay their road tax. By contrast, in my own research, people typically tell us that they do not know how to reduce their energy consumption, and that the advice they are given is typically unhelpful because it is not relevant to specifics of them and their home. This means that they have to spend a lot of time researching and experimenting before they hit upon what works for them in their home. This is one of the reasons I refer to energy consumption reduction as ‘hard work’ that is time-consuming for householders (and a key reason why in-home advice is so helpful). Another reason that energy consumption reduction is hard work is that, while one person in a household can decide and act on paying their road tax, my own research and others’ shows that energy consumption is the social outcome of actions that are negotiated among household members. In this context, energy consumption reduction often becomes a matter of conflict within households, and this is understandably a constraint on change. ‘Thermostat wars’, as described by a participant in one of my workshops, are a good example of this phenomenon.

My intention here is not to dismiss behavioural science and its methods, but rather to ask behavioural scientists: are your insights and methods alone equal to this rather different and challenging task. I would appeal to behavioural scientists to try to take a broader perspective and to appreciate the value of other approaches and methods. I think it would be extremely valuable if DECC and Smart Energy GB could collaborate on a major event designed – in its content, form and conduct – to promote greater understanding and collaboration between proponents of behavioural, social psychological and sociological approaches to energy demand and demand reduction. It’ll require a lot of energy, but I think it would be worth it.

Contact Kevin at: kevinwburchell@gmail.com

Community resilience strategy for London

On 9 March 2018, I attended a workshop - at the London Guildhall - to inform a community resilience strategy for London. The London Community Resilience Workshop was run by the London Resilience Partnership, in collaboration with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Public Health England (London). The workshop was attended by resilience and community engagement people from London boroughs, lots of voluntary and community sector (VCS) groups (including many faith groups), and government departments (such as the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office).

The aim of the workshop was to inform the developmental work on community resilience of the London Resilience Partnership, and especially its Community Resilience Steering Group. In particular, there were workshop sessions on the meaning or definition of community resilience, examples of good practice and immediate opportunities for greater collaborative working.

From my perspective, it is fantastic that these London authorities are working together on community resilience. My own work on Urban Heat shows that there is great potential in statutory bodies working on community resilience (and resilience) with the voluntary and community sector (VCS), local retailers and businesses, and local residents and workers. I am keen to stay involved with this process to help maximise the potential of the London community resilience strategy.

Contacts and resources

For more information about the community resilience strategy for London, you can contact Tom Brady at the London Resilience Partnership:    LondonResilience@london-fire.gov.uk.

What is community resilience?: You can read more about what I think community resilience should or could mean here.

You can read more about Urban Heat, an action research project on community resilience that I ran, here.

You can read the Cabinet Office materials on community resilience here.