Projects

Collaborators:

• Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
• Tiziano Zgaga, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

What are the goals of the project?

The goals of the project are to understand and explain the varying levels of perceived public sector corruption within the European Union by employing the novel "Corruption Hexagon" framework, and to evaluate this framework empirically through a comparative analysis of 26 EU member states. 

What are our research questions?

The project has the following research question: 

What explains different levels of perceived public sector corruption in the context of the European Union (EU)?

How does the project answer these research questions?

Based on the novel “Corruption Hexagon” framework, we argue that corruption always involves a specific context and a rationalization process. Whereas the circumstances (opportunity or supply) enable and incentivise corruption, their interplay with personal characteristics (capacity or motivation) triggers corruption. This argument is evaluated by comparing 26 EU member states using secondary data from various sources from 2018-2020 and two-step fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. As the first comparative empirical test of the Corruption Hexagon, the results move corruption research forward and help us understand its complex determinants in a European context.

Why is it an important project?

Public sector corruption is a problem that challenges democracies around the world. However, corruption research often focuses on developing countries and models corruption primarily as an institutional and cultural problem. Beyond discipline-specific long lists of variables at micro, meso, or macro level, there is little theorizing of the mechanisms and processes underlying corruption, accounting for its inherent complexity. Moreover, research shows that corruption is also prevalent in a high-capacity context such as Europe, that there is significant variation within Europe in this regard, and that the events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 may have triggered corruption in very “unexpected” places.

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz

What are the goals of the project?

The project aims at developing the notion of scope in empirical social research and presenting a protocol for empirical social research to formulate sound scope statements.

What are our research questions?

The project has the following research question:

Which general framework and step-wise recipe should quantitative and qualitative researchers follow in order to formulate scope statements of their findings?

How does the project answer these research questions?

First, the project argues that all empirical social research should formulate scope statements in order to a) specify the extent to which empirical results can “travel”, and b) connect findings with the existing body of conceptual and theoretical knowledge. Second, it defines the closely interrelated notions of empirical, conceptual, and theoretical scope. Third, the project proposes a hands-on protocol for social researchers to formulate scope statements. Such protocol involves:

1. the identification of the potentially relevant empirical, conceptual, and theoretical scope for the case(s)
2. the use of counterfactual reasoning to successively assess and, where suitable, expand scope statements, from empirical to conceptual and theoretical scope; and
3. for those scope statements that are found to be relevant, the evaluation of the goodness of the counterfactual scope statements.

Why is it an important project?

Because:

• formulating empirical, conceptual, and causal scope statements encourages researchers to reflect on the extent to which a given finding can inform existing and future social research empirically, conceptually, and theoretically
• in turn, this is arguably a fundamental prerequisite for cumulative social research that draws valid inferences.

Collaborator:

• Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

Research purpose/Goals of the project:

This paper aims to examine and understand the impact of complex and informal accountability relations on the behavior and compliance of regulatory intermediaries. It aims to shed light on how these accountability relations influence the reporting behaviors required by the anti-terrorism Prevent Duty policy in the UK, thereby contributing to the broader understanding of regulatory governance, especially in contexts where traditional hierarchical models give way to more hybrid arrangements. Through this examination, the study seeks to enhance theoretical models such as the Regulatory Intermediary Theory (RIT) and the Accountability Regimes Framework (ARF), providing insights into the dynamics of policy implementation and the critical role of intermediaries in making regulation effective.

How do we answer these research questions?

To evaluate these propositions, the paper analyses university lecturers as intermediaries in the implementation of the politically contested anti-terrorism Prevent Duty policy in the United Kingdom, who are legally required to report students at risk of radicalization. Applying a convergent parallel mixed methods design, the paper draws on an online survey of UK social science lecturers (N = 809), combined with 35 qualitative follow-up interviews, conducted in late 2020/early 2021. To model the consequences of complex accountability relations for compliance, the paper applies fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) separately on both datasets, compares the robustness of the results, and complements them with targeted in-depth qualitative case studies of typical and deviant cases to trace underlying causal mechanisms.

Why is it an important project?

Regulatory Intermediary Theory (RIT) acknowledges the importance of complex actor relations in regulatory governance. This relational turn facilitates an integration of political and regulatory perspectives. At the same time, RIT lacks a model of how these relationships may affect the realization of regulatory intentions during policy implementation. These questions become ever more important as hierarchical settings increasingly give way to hybrid arrangements where intermediaries, without strong formal accountability to regulators, become key for making regulation happen.  This article bridges this gap by deriving propositions about the link between complex, informal accountability relations, accountability dilemmas, and compliance based on the Accountability Regimes Framework (ARF), and test these propositions with a convergent parallel mixed methods design.

Collaborators:

• Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz
• Carolin Hjort Rapp, University of Kopenhagen
• Katharina Ziegler, University of Konstanz
• Gabriela Lotta, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

What are the goals of the project?

We aim to understand the impacts of intersectionality on perceived bureaucratic discrimination.

What is our research question?

How does intersectionality in passive representation affect perceived bureaucratic discrimination?

How do we answer these research questions?

To explore this research question, we combine theories of intersectionality, representative bureaucracy, and deservingness. This allows us theorize the effects of multiple overlapping identities in passive representation of students by teachers at schools from different perspectives. By combining different strands of literature into empirically testable hypotheses, our study makes an important contribution to the study of intersectionality in representative bureaucracy. We test these hypotheses empirically through an online survey conducted in 2021 among social science students enrolled at the Southern German University of Konstanz, containing retrospective questions about their teachers’ identity and different possible experiences of discrimination at schools. By including questions about both student and teacher gender, migration background, and sexual identity, our survey allows us to empirically analyze complex intersectional patterns of representation, while accounting for the quality of the student-teacher relationship. Moreover, we differentiate between different areas of experiences of discrimination at school, as subjectively experienced by students: general perceptions of unfair treatment, but also the unfair punishment, assessment, and support of students. The data collection is currently extended to include a representative sample of students at Brazilian universities.

Why is it an important project?

Theories of representative bureaucracy conclude that public bureaucracies can become more equitable if their staff reflects the diversity of the population and increase the share of minority identities among street-level bureaucrats. However, little research has been done to account for the issue of intersectionality. Intersectionality highlights the fact that any given individual is a member of multiple social groups at once. Theories of intersectionality conclude that “human experience is jointly shaped by multiple social positions (e.g. race, gender), and cannot be adequately understood by considering social positions independently”. Different identities can mutually reinforce each other, or cancel each other out, or moderate each other’s effects, when it comes to equitable public administration. However, these intersectional dynamics are rarely theorized in a systematic fashion, or analyzed empirically especially in quantitative research. As a result, little is known about how intersectionality affects the link between passive representation and bureaucratic discrimination in practice. This project theoretically and methodologically contributes to the above stated gaps.

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz
• Dr. Tiziano Zgaga, University of Konstanz

What are the goals of the project?

The project aims at understanding how and why European member states (MS) engage in what we argue is a rather unlikely scenario, especially in times of crisis: ‘exactly’ (literally) complying with EU fiscal policy, i.e. implementing it with no substantial changes.

What are our research questions?

Our project has the following research question:

Under which conditions do MS literally comply with EU fiscal policy in times of crisis—and under which conditions do they not?

How do we answer these research questions?

First, we perform an in-depth analysis of those measures that MS adopted for transposing the Fiscal Compact Treaty. Literal compliance indicates an outcome in which MS transpose both the same number of rules (no change of density) and grant the same degree of stringency (no change of restrictiveness) as the original EU rules foresee.

We then run a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to shed light on the combination of factors (conditions) that explain the outcome of literal compliance for the six most important rules of the Fiscal Compact Treaty in the three MS (France, Germany, and Italy) studied (N=18). Factors considered pertain to the nature of the EU policies, the (mis)fit between national and European policies, and the willingness as well as the capacity of MS to comply.

Why is it an important project?

Because:

• no research thus far has explicitly addressed the question of literal compliance
• our project is the first to analyse customisation of an international treaty, thus moving beyond the usually studied customisation of EU directives

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz
• Prof. Dr. R. Kent Weaver, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University

Goals of the project:

This project presents a unifying framework of policy dynamics to explain how much convergence versus variation exists in domestic policy outputs across member-states of the European Union (EU).

Research purpose/research question

Various “siloes” of EU research have proposed diverse frameworks on this question. We advance these literatures by incorporating both policymaking where EU institutions dominate policymaking, those where member-states dominate, and those where their interaction is critical.

How do we answer these research questions?

Drawing on multi-level governance, federalism and EU literatures, we develop a non-exhaustive typology of ten policy dynamics in the “EU policymaking space”. We outline facilitating and limiting conditions that make it more or less likely that policy dynamics will emerge or decline.

Why is it an important project?

Sector-specific policy dynamics will only have an impact if powerful, boundedly-rational actors (governments, interests, NGOs) who have incentives, capacity and leverage are able to employ one or more of those policy dynamics as a vehicle for building coalitions to achieve their political, policy and institutional objectives.

Collaborators:

• Jieqiong Wu, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
• Prof. Dr. Fritz Sager, KPM Center for Public Management, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Goals of the project:

This paper systematically reviews empirical studies that applied McConnell and colleagues’ Policy Success Framework (PSF) to understand how policy success and failure are conceptualized, measured, and explained. Besidesm we seek to understand the “goodness” of this framework.

What are our research questions?
This paper asks the following research question:

• How have scholars conceptualized and measured policy success and failure using the PSF?
• What factors explain policy success and failure?
• How useful is the PSF in empirical research?

How do we answer these research questions?

We answer the research questions through the first systematic review of the empirical research applying the PSF since its publication in 2010, using Gerring’s criteria for judging the strength of concepts.

Why is it an important project?

The PSF provide important contribution to the study of policy success. It has been widely used in public policy research its publication. On the other hand, the PSF also receives critiques. This first systematic review provides insights in the usefulness of the PSF.

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz
• Dr. Tiziano Zgaga, University of Konstanz

Funding:

Blue Sky Research Endeavours, University of Konstanz

What are the goals of the project?

The project aims at better understanding both the unintended consequences of crisis policy responses and the causes of unethical as well as dysfunctional administrative behaviour in times of crisis.

What are our research questions?

Our project has the following four, interrelated research questions:

1. What mask scandals occurred in the 27 EU member states in the first year of the pandemic, and how did they unfold?
2. Why did mask scandals occur in some EU countries, but not in others?
3. How did the regulatory crisis response affect the risk of mask scandals?
4. Do we see systematic regional patterns in the occurrence of mask scandals, and what explains them?

How do we answer these research questions?

We combine qualitative within-case study methods to map mask scandals (RQ1) and underlying mechanisms with innovative techniques for cross-case comparison of small case numbers. We use set-theoretic configurational analysis to explore the necessary and sufficient combinations of conditions that explain the occurrence or non-occurrence of mask scandals (RQ2). To analyse RQs 3 and 4, we complement this approach with a nested comparative case study design and causal process tracing.

Why is it an important project?

Because:

• the link between COVID crisis, its management, and corruption in public procurement has not been analysed systematically yet; this is a significant research gap if one considers that procurement contracts constitute breeding ground for corruption
• in turn, corruption implies a waste of public resources that are direly needed in order to ensure effective crisis responses and public safety; as a result, effective crisis response can be undermined

Further information about the COVICORR project is available here

Collaborator:

Dr. Daniel Herfurth

Funding:

Funding line „Transferplattform B“ of the Excellence Strategy at the University of Konstanz

What are the goals of the project?

The aim of the transfer platform is to systematically record progress and setbacks in the development of short-distance rail services (German abbreviation: SPNV), and to derive recommendations for action to shape the mobility of the future.

How does it work?

The description of the status quo is linked to the organisational structure and political responsibility of SPNV. The SPNV-Monitor is established to create transparency around the consequences of political action in a technical field. It is intended to serve as a point of contact for a large number of stakeholders in SPNV (municipalities, companies, operators, interested public).

Why is this important?

Mobility is a concern for all of us. Transport is a sector with one of the least contributions to climate protection so far. Precise knowledge of both, the state of development and the political-administrative aspects of environment-friendly mobility, such as SPNV, is therefore a key element in shaping the mobility of the future.

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Thomann, E., James, O. and T. Deruelle. 2024. Interventions to Reduce Bureaucratic Discrimination: a Systematic Review of Empirical Behavioural Research. Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2024.2322163 

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz
• Prof. Dr. Oliver James, University of Exeter
• Thibaud Deruelle, University of Lausanne

Goals of the project:

This project reviews existing evidence from empirical behavioural research about the effects of interventions that seek to reduce bureaucratic discrimination at street level.

What are our research questions?

This paper asks the following research question:

What do we know about the effects of interventions to reduce street-level discrimination?

How do we answer these research questions?

This paper reviews empirical behavioural research studies (N=65) on the effects of interventions to reduce bureaucratic discrimination. We find evidence that five types of interventions can be effective: passive and active representation, accountability mechanisms, training, engagement with clients, and implementing inclusive policies.

Why is it an important project?

Street-level bureaucrats’ use of discretion can lead to discrimination against people based on their identifiable characteristics. However, there has been surprisingly little systematic assessment of empirical evidence about what can be done to reduce the problem. This paper addresses this gap.

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Lotta, G., Thomann, E., Fernandez, M., Leandro, A. and M. Garcia Corrêa. 2024. Populist government support and frontline workers' self-efficacy during crisis. Governance, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12851

Collaborators:

• Gabriela Lotta, Department of Public Administration, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil
• Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
• Michelle Fernandez, University of Brasília, Brazil
• Arthur L. A. da Silva, Tribunal de Contas de Pernambuco
• Marcela Correa, Department of Public Administration, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil

Goals of the project:

The paper makes three contributions. First, results demonstrate how frontline work changes during crises, as an important contribution to the public management theory and practice. Second, we find that the context of populism affected frontline workers' self-efficacy. The lack of political support was important to explain how frontline workers experienced the pandemic. However, managerial support and organizational resources as well as individual perceptions of demands also matter—but these elements may buffer the political effects of populism on self-efficacy only to a limited extent.

Research purpose/research question:

This paper asks the following research questions:

• How did the pandemic change the work of frontline workers in a populist context?
• How did support by government affect their self-efficacy?

How do we answer these research questions?

Based on an online survey of 3229 Brazilian frontline workers during the pandemic, we use automated text analysis to identify changes in frontline work, and logistic regression for testing effects of government support, demands and resources on frontline workers' perceived self-efficacy.

Why is it an important project?

Frontline workers are crucial actors during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which demand enormous resilience from them. Particularly when institutional and political crisis responses are inadequate, frontline workers are often left to cope with crises without sufficient support, facing stressful and unpredictable situations. Simultaneously, populist leaders may jeopardize frontline work for political reasons. Little is known about about what happens when the management of crisis operates under populist governments in politically polarized contexts, as happened in many countries around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to shed light on this knowledge gap.

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Thomann, E., Marconi, F. and A. Zhelyazkova. 2023. Did pandemic responses trigger corruption in public procurement? Comparing Italy and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy , DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2241879.

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, Professor of Public Administration, University of Konstanz
• Prof. Dr. Asya Zhelyazkova, Assistant Professor in European Politics and Public Policy, Erasmus University Rotterdam
• Federica Marconi, Ph.D. candidate in Theory of contracts, services and markets, University of Rome Tor Vergata

What are the goals of the project?

This project aims at analyzing how the European Union (EU)’s regulatory response to COVID-19 pandemic affected risks and perceptions of corruption, comparing the two cases of Italy and Germany.

Since the COVID-19 has severely challenged the capacity of EU Governments and public health systems, the public procurement sector has been called upon to play a fundamental role as an instrument for managing the crisis. To ensure a swift provision of medical supplies, the European Commission (EC) released a guidance on the use of the public procurement framework in the emergency situation, in April 2020. It urged member states (MS) to allow public buyers to rely on exceptional tools, with a general favor for flexibility and discretional powers. Considering that generally public procurement poses one of the greatest risks for corruption among all the government’s functions, we argue that during the early stages of the pandemic it was a likely case for corruption to occur, due to the changed public-private interactions and regulatory environment

What are the research questions?

The project asks one main research question:

How did the regulatory crisis responses affect corruption in public procurement, by changing the public-private interactions as well as the regulatory environment for public procurement?

What do we do?

We compare the two contrasting cases of Italy, with a high perception of corruption, and Germany, traditionally with lower levels of perceived corruption. In doing so, the project analyzes the regulatory changes introduced in the public procurement sector due to the EC Guidance and the practical implications for perceived corruption in both countries. We model the effects of the crisis and the regulatory response as being the result of a changed frequency, competitiveness, and nature of public private procurement interactions, on the one hand, and a changed regulatory environment, on the other.

How do we do it?

The research triangulates legal analyses, contract data, and an online survey. First, we conduct a legal analysis to scrutinize how the two selected MS implemented the EU’s non-binding guidance into national rules. Secondly, we study how this resulted in corruption risks based on contract data. Lastly, we empirically study the practical implications for perceived corruption through an online survey of bureaucrats working in public procurement (N=454), as well as people working in enterprises that compete for public tenders (N=175), that ran for eight weeks in May and June 2022.

Why is it an important project?

The project studies the link between COVID crisis, its management by the EU and MS, and corruption in public procurement, which has not been analyzed systematically yet. By analyzing the unintended implications of necessary policies designed to help the public sector use public procurement as an effective tool for tackling the crisis, our research highlights the complexity of crisis management and its potentially adverse side effects. It contributes to a better understanding of the factors enabling corruption under such circumstances, thus paving the way for insights into how these can be avoided in the future.

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Zgaga, T. Thomann, E. and M. Goubier. 2023. European Union versus core state powers: the customization of EU fiscal policy. Journal of European Public Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2217234

Collaborators

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, University of Konstanz
• Dr. Tiziano Zgaga, University of Konstanz and Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome
• Mathieu Goubier, University of Konstanz

What are the goals of the project?

The project aims at understanding how and why European member states (MS) as policy implementers react to the EU expanding its competences regarding fiscal policy—a crucial core state power—in a crisis situation.

What are our research questions?

Our project has the following two research questions:

1. How do MS change (customise) EU fiscal policy when implementing it during a crisis and without engaging in outright non-compliance?
2. What explains MS’ choices of customisation?

How do we answer these research questions?

First, we perform an in-depth analysis of those measures that MS adopted for transposing the Fiscal Compact Treaty. This allows us to assess different customisation outcomes: national rules not more or not less restrictive than the corresponding European rules.

Then we run a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to shed light on the combination of factors (conditions) that explain different customisation outcomes for the six most important rules of the Fiscal Compact in the three MS (France, Germany, and Italy) studied (N=18). Factors considered pertain to EU integration (‘uploading’ stage) and to national implementation (‘downloading’ stage).

Why is it an important project?

Because it is the first project that:

• tackles the important issue of the extent to which MS during an extraordinary moment of crisis allow an expanded EU policy to constrain their sovereignty in a policy area—the fiscal domain—which is the quintessence of that sovereignty; as such, the project offers broader lessons for the role of customisation in areas of core state powers
• extends the study of customisation to an international treaty (the Fiscal Compact), thus moving beyond the usually studied EU directives

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Brendler, V. and E. Thomann. 2023. Does institutional misfit trigger customization instead of non-compliance? West European Politics, DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2023.2166734

Collaborators:

• Prof. Dr. Eva Thomann, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Konstanz
• Dr. Viktoria Brendler, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Osnabrück

Goals of the project:

This paper analyses the role of institutional misfit in explaining why member states customize European Union (EU) renewable energy (RE) policies when implementing them.

What are our research questions?

Institutional misfit theory posits that member states only adjust to EU policies when the adaptation pressure remains moderate and policy preferences of key national actors align. Conversely, we test the argument that institutional misfit can lead members states to adjust – i.e. customize – EU policies, rather than domestic arrangements. Therefore, the research question of this project reads:

How the institutional misfit hypothesis helps in explaining member states’ customization of European Union (EU) renewable energy (RE) policies during implementation.

How do we answer these research questions?

Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis, we compare the customization of EU Directive 2009/28/EC in Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Why is it an important project?

Determining the conditions under which EU member states change national policies and institutions to comply with EU legislation is key for understanding the EU’s problem-solving capacity.

This research has been published and can be cited as follows:

Thomann, E., Maxia, J. and Ege, J. 2023. How street-level dilemmas and politics shape divergence: The accountability regimes framework. Policy Studies Journal. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12504

What are the goals of the project?

In 2015, the UK government introduced the ‘Prevent Duty’, which made it mandatory for university lecturers to report on students who they believe have radicalised. Since being rolled out, the policy has received extensive political backlash due to concerns about its effect on freedom of speech and discriminatory profiling. As well as being highly contested, the need for individual lecturers to make ad hoc judgments on what constitutes ‘extremist’ speech has made its application very ambiguous. From a scholarly point of view, the implementation of the Prevent Duty should in large part be shaped by the lecturers on the ground.

Our goal is to shed light on the implementation processes to understand when and why lecturers deviate from the policy. Further, we introduce a political-ideological dimension to the existing theory that can influence a lecturer’s decision.

What are our research questions?

To analyse how lecturers implement the policy use the multiple accountability regimes framework. It states that street level bureaucrats (SLBs) balance the implementation of a policy with other incentives stemming from professional networks, societal expectations, and marketised performance objectives. When these different priorities conflict with each other, SLBs will face a ‘dilemma’ between prioritising the implementation of policy or other pressures. Our research project aims to answer two main questions:

1. What pressures and dilemmas do lecturers experience when implementing the Prevent Duty?
2. Do these experiences have an impact on how the policy is implemented?

In answering these questions, our research project provides two novel contributions. First, we identify a ‘political-ideological’ form of accountability which makes SLBs act in accordance with their own political values. In the case of the Prevent Duty, we therefore suggest that lecturers with conflicting political attitudes face a dilemma between implementing the policy and acting in accordance with their values. Second, we argue that these accountabilities are important in shaping implementation outcomes on the ground. Specifically, when SLBs are confronted with greater competing pressures and more dilemmas, we contend that they will become less willing to implement a given policy and more likely to diverge from its stated goals.

What do we do?

Our theory assumes two mechanisms that affect the implementation willingness and divergence. As described above, street level bureaucrats adhere in their behaviour to different accountability regimes. If the lecturer faces dilemmas between accountability regimes, he is less willing to implement the policy and more likely to diverge. These dilemmas can stem from two factors: political-ideological attitudes of the lecturer and references to accountability regimes (societal, market, and professional). The second mechanism departs from the causal assumption underlying the Prevent Duty: the more threatening the lecturer perceives the ideology underlying the potential radicalisation of a student, the more likely they are to implement the Prevent Duty.

How do we do it?

The research design includes quantitative as well as qualitative approaches in a two-stage sequential mixed method design. In a first step, we fielded an anonymous online survey to Social Science lecturers in the UK. The sampling frame consisted of 24,309 contacts. We received 1,005 survey respondents in total, with an adjusted response rate of approximately 4.8%. The survey included a survey vignette presenting a fictional scenario of a student engaging in threatening behaviour that should be reported under the Prevent Duty. From this, we could examine if the relationship with the student or the ideology expressed makes a difference in the implementation. Further, lecturers’ political values and knowledge about as well as prior experience with the Prevent Duty were collected. Respondents who have experienced a situation (potentially) requiring action under the policy are invited to a qualitative, semi-structured telephone interview.

In the second stage of our research, we conducted 35 semi-structured interviews. These interviews allowed us to qualitatively examine whether the pressures, dilemmas, and consequent implementation outcomes that we posit are borne out in the real-life experiences of lecturers with the Prevent Duty. In other words, it allows us to complement our quantitative findings by qualitatively assessing the mechanisms underlying our theory.

Why is it an important project?

Preliminary results from the survey data reveal several insightful findings. For one, the ambiguity of the policy is reflected in the levels of knowledge and familiarity with the Prevent Duty reported. Most lecturers stated not receiving any formal guidance on how to implement the policy. Further, we find that lecturers that hold opposing political values to the Prevent Duty were less willing and less likely to implement the policy. Professional and societal dilemmas were also found to have similar impacts on the implementation process. When combining these findings with initial analysis of the interview transcripts, we find that the lecturers are unclear regarding the aims of the Prevent Duty and sometimes opposed to its objectives, leading the policy to lack widespread acceptance on the ground. This hints to unachieved policy goals and we therefore find significant scope for revision.

For a more detailed report and preliminary descriptive statistics from our survey, please visit the University of Exeter blog.