The British Journal of Sociology 2004 Volume 55 Issue 1

Debate
Policy and sociology

Paul Wiles

I welcome Lauder, Brown and Halsey’s article (2004) if for no other reason
than, as the Chief Scientific Advisor and Director of Research to the Home
Office, I have a vested interest in the question of whether sociology can use-
fully play a part in public policy. Raising the question is particularly impor-
tant since, as I am sure the readers of this Journal are aware, the reputation
of sociology for practical utility is at an historical low and sociology is regarded
as the least developed of the social sciences in terms of the rigour of its
methods. I do not doubt the preference of the authors for a policy-focused
sociology. Indeed, Professor Halsey has a distinguished track record in
working for such an end. However, the article claims more than preference
and offers a methodology for a new policy science.
The authors begin their exploration of this theme by stating that policy
makers ‘. . . prefer research that is free of theoretical baggage precisely
because it enables them to model policies according to their own ideological
and political constraints’. True enough in that the one defining characteristic
of politicians is that they find their own politics and, where sociology is
attempting to empirically test out the assumptions behind such politics (in so
far as they are contingent) or the consequences, then that takes place within
a determined policy framework. However, social theory, as the second cousin
of ideology, undoubtedly does influence how politicians find their politics.
Sometimes this is quite overt, such as the Prime Minister’s use of third way
theorists. But more often the influence of social theory is less direct and more
opaque. Politicians, by the nature of their vocation, are listeners and absorb
all sort of ideas, often second hand. I frequently observe how the Ministers I
come into contact with propound ideas, the intellectual origins of which I can
sometimes trace, but of which they may not always be aware. Some of this is
mediated through groups such as think tanks or the network of special advi-
sors, but much comes through a broader public dialogue in the course of which
theories can be transformed into ideas sometimes unrecognizable to their orig-
inal authors. In this way sociology theory does have an influence but rarely in
a direct manner and often not under the control of the sociologist.

Paul Wiles (The Home Office)

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004 ISSN 0007-1315 print/1468-4446 online.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00004.x
32 Paul Wiles

The paper’s second point is that by developing the concepts of agency and
self-reflexivity sociology is now much more able to help the public(s) in
debates about social policy because it allows people to understand how their
social position relates to the definition of behaviour as socially problematic.
True enough in principle but the probability of such influence has been
reduced by the specialist vocabulary of modern sociological debates and the
fact that they almost entirely take place in a self-referring voice. Ironically, 50
years ago when there were few sociologists they had to speak to a broader
public – there simply weren’t enough just to talk to each other. That meant
they had to express their ideas in a language that others could understand and
in widely read publications. Today sociology has turned inwards and this
Journal is hardly written in everyday language. Indeed, although the sentiment
of Lauder, Brown and Halsey’s paper is admirable, it is difficult to imagine it
being translated into a popular article because the focus is on the activity of
sociologists. A glance at the syllabus of some sociology degrees even suggests
that students are taught how to be sociologists rather than how to do sociol-
ogy – witness the obsessive teaching of the history of sociology rather than
how answers to sociological questions are best arrived at.
The paper’s main point is that sociology is more open than the other social
sciences and therefore more suited to open democratic public debate. At the
same time the authors argue that openness must not be confused with episte-
mological relativism because that simply produces argument without any basis
for closure except by exhaustion. Yet it was post-modernist sociology, it seems
to me, more than any other of the social sciences that wandered into that
reductio ad absurdum. The authors seem to recognize this by pointing out that
their desired new policy science will need to have a new conception of objec-
tivity and the role of the sociologist in politics. Their answers to these difficult
questions are less clear. Objectivity is to be achieved by ‘. . . judgments based
on sound reasons and principles’ (Lauder, Brown and Halsey 2004: 12). Well
yes, but what exactly does that mean? The answer is provided via an account
of a theoretical dispute in economics, which is settled by empirical reference.
The lesson we should draw? Such debate and arbitration by empirical refer-
ence depends on ‘. . . an open and critical community of social scientists that
can challenge orthodoxy’ (p. 13). But economists and psychologists have
managed this by exploring alternative models of human action, both theoret-
ically and empirically, but always with a rigour that has led to further devel-
opment and insight. The sociologist’s role in political debate, it is argued, is to
represent the diversity of structurally determined social opinion in their work
(‘positionality’) so that the scientific debates about the objectivity of knowl-
edge reflect the political debate about the exercise of power. The sociologist
gains a popular voice (and thereby a role in political debate) by reflecting back
to the wider society the voices of different social positions within a structure
of power. There is a danger that this position suffers from that of class
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
 Policy and sociology 33

sociology in Marxism – namely, how can the sociologist escape from position-
ality in order to comprehend the social structure within which he/she sits?
Having, in this manner, stated the pre-eminence of sociology, the authors
then provide examples of how in fact the most effective answers to social prob-
lems may be found in inter-disciplinary work. This includes work that crosses
between the social and natural sciences, because disciplines represent their
own limited view of reality (positionality) that must be overcome to find truth.
I think the line here is that other disciplines must become as open and struc-
turally sensitive as sociology – an amusing conceit!
For those practically engaged in policy debates (whether as politician or
citizen) what should we learn from all this? First, that disciplines capture a
partial reality and the answers to new problems may have to be found by inter-
disciplinary research and argument. That strikes me as obvious since disci-
plines are simply the social organization of the knowledge produced in
response to yesterday’s problems (usually for the purpose of teaching that
knowledge to neophytes). There is a lesson for universities who, because they
are usually organized structurally by disciplines, can impede inter-disciplinary
work. The Home Office has often to act as midwife in bringing disciplines
together in order to get research done: I sometimes feel as if universities are
a conspiracy to prevent such work. Secondly, in response to new problems such
partial views have to be brought together in a way that allows for empirical
arbitration. I don’t wish to be thought rude but only post-modernist sociology
ever thought otherwise. Useful to have these points re-stated but lurking in
the argument is a less welcome reference to social determinism (positionality)
notwithstanding many references to Karl Popper and a stated rejection of
relativism.
What is welcome is the argument that such debates need to engage the wider
public. The author’s ideal of ‘political arithmetic’ has a democratic pedigree
that can hardly be gainsaid. Who would argue with the idea that governments
should be held accountable by public discussion of the basis for their policies
and the evidence as to the consequences of those policies? The present gov-
ernment has itself propounded such a political arithmetic with its desire for
evidence-based policy and the publication of targets against which to assess
policy delivery. For present purposes I want to leave aside how well all that
has been done and simply note the shared purpose. The contemporary period
would seem then propitious for sociologists to engage in public policy debates.
Yet for all that my perception is not of a recent flourishing of sociological
engagement in public debates about policy. Indeed, compared to at least some
past times – for example, the mid to late 60s – such engagement seems far less.
Some of the reasons for this are little to do with sociology. The more directly
popularist nature of contemporary politics, together with a polycentric mass
media, have speeded up political debate and made it more difficult for spe-
cialist and nuanced voices to be heard. To say nothing of the similar
© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004
34 Paul Wiles

fragmentation of authoritative academic voices with the rapid growth of the

universities. The days of a cross-party governing elite engaging with their ana-
logues in the universities have gone, to be replaced by political groupings who
must compete for power by the support they can attract for alternative social
visions and policies. The landscape for sociology to engage in public policy
debate has changed but that leaves the question of whether sociology is up to
the new task? By all means sociology needs inward reflection to think about
how to engage in such debate but then it needs to find a way of engaging and
helping citizens so that they can effectively hold government accountable.
Only reflecting back variation in the social reality of people’s lives is not
enough, novelists and many other already do that. The sociologist has to
demonstrate some specialist expertise as the basis for a claim for attention
amongst many competing voices.
(Date accepted: November 2003)

Biography note

Paul Wiles, prior to his present position as formerly Dean of the Faculty of Law at the
Chief Scientific Advisor to the Home Office University of Sheffield. He previously
and Director of Research, Development and taught at the University of Cambridge and
Statistics, was Professor of Criminology and the LSE.

Bibliography

Lauder, H., Brown, P. and Halsey, A.H. 2004 principles of a new policy science’, British
‘Sociology and political arithmetic: some Journal of Sociology 55(1): 3–22.

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2004