The catalogue contains study descriptions in various languages. The system searches with your search terms from study descriptions available in the language you have selected. The catalogue does not have ‘All languages’ option as due to linguistic differences this would give incomplete results. See the User Guide for more detailed information.
Collaborative governance under austerity: An eight-case comparison study, qualitative data 2015-2018
Creator
Davies, J, De Montfort University
Study number / PID
853322 (UKDA)
10.5255/UKDA-SN-853322 (DOI)
Data access
Restricted
Series
Not available
Abstract
Qualitative data (interview, focus group and observation) collected for the Leicester case study of the "Collaborative Governance Under Austerity and Eight-Case Comparison" project.
The purpose was to compare the role of collaboration in governing austerity in eight cities: Athens, Baltimore, Barcelona, Dublin, Leicester, Melbourne, Montreal and Nantes. The primary objective was to understand whether, and if so how, collaboration among public officials, citizens, business leaders and other actors contributes to austerity governance. Austerity governance, defined as a sustained agenda for reducing public spending, poses new challenges for the organisation of relationships between government, business and citizens in many parts of the world. This project compares how these challenges are addressed in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Ireland, Spain, the UK and the USA. Governments have long sought effective ways of engaging citizen activists and business leaders in decision making, through many formal and informal mechanisms - what we term collaborative governance. The focus of our research is how collaboration contributes to the governance of austerity. Governments and public service leaders argue that collaboration with businesses, voluntary organisations and active citizens is essential for addressing the many challenges posed by austerity. The challenges include transforming public services to cope with cuts, changing citizen expectations and managing demand for services and enhancing the legitimacy of difficult policy decisions by involving people outside government in making them. But at the same time, collaboration can be exclusionary. For example, if there are high levels of protest, governmental and business elites may collaborate in ways that marginalise ordinary citizens to push through unpopular policies. Our challenge is to explore different ways in which collaboration works or fails in governing austerity and whether it is becoming...
Terminology used is generally based on DDI controlled vocabularies: Time Method, Analysis Unit, Sampling Procedure and Mode of Collection, available at CESSDA Vocabulary Service.
Methodology
Data collection period
01/04/2015 - 31/07/2018
Country
United Kingdom
Time dimension
Not available
Analysis unit
Individual
Organization
Event/process
Group
Universe
Not available
Sampling procedure
Not available
Kind of data
Text
Still image
Data collection mode
Qualitative - interviews, focus groups and observations. A combination of purposive and snowball sampling was used, which proceeded in iteration with analysis. Phase one of the research focused on the design and implementation of social welfare policy in Leicester. Initial respondents were identified through desk based research, and snowball sampling was used to gather suggestions for further respondents during interviews. Following analysis of phase one material and the development of preliminary findings, the research focused on the broader approach to the governance of austerity in Leicester - complemented by a more specific focus on neighbourhood governance and the governance of multi-culturalism. A generic template was used for each phase which was sometimes adapted for the specific experience and expertise of respondents.Focus group participants for phase one (recipients of welfare services) were recruited through a local voluntary organisation providing welfare advice services. Focus groups participants for phase two were carried out with three stakeholder groups (councillors, council officers and representatives from civil society groups working on ethnic and cultural issues in the city of Leicester). Observation points were identified during interviews and desk research. Access to observations was secured through stakeholders taking part in the research who formed of the groups whose meetings and events were observed by researchers in Leicester. The sample for interviews and focus groups was made of up welfare service users; representatives of civil society organisations; activists from trade unions and other pressure groups; local politicians and councillors and council officers.
Funding information
Grant number
ES/L012898/1
Access
Publisher
UK Data Service
Publication year
2018
Terms of data access
The Data Collection is available for download to users registered with the UK Data Service. All requests are subject to the permission of the data owner or his/her nominee. Please email the contact person for this data collection (cc'ing in the ReShare inbox) to request permission to access the data, explaining your reason for wanting access to the data.