Researchers working on government-commissioned projects have reported feeling pressured into making their findings chime with Whitehall¡¯s political objectives.

A report by researchers at the London School of Economics ¨C based on a survey of 205 who worked on such projects between 2005 and 2011 ¨C found ¡°sufficient evidence¡± to suggest that governments lean on academics in these scenarios.

¡°We had to fight continually to maintain the integrity of the research design,¡± says one of several respondents who express concern about the influence that government employees exert from the outset of the projects.

¡°I was shocked at the level of interference of civil servants at certain points in the progress of the research,¡± says another.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Specifically, they intervened at the sampling stage, changing entirely the case-study sample, [meaning] that those most sympathetic to government values and most closely aligned with the thinking behind the policy were more likely to be represented.¡±

The report, titled ¡°Evaluation Under Contract: Government Pressure and the Production of Policy Research¡±, was published online in the journal Public Administration.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Another researcher questioned for the report explains how their team was ¡°pretty much told¡± at the outset that the purpose of the report was to show that the programme under scrutiny was cost-effective.

A fourth complains that civil servants ¡°kept a very close eye on the research and the research process¡±, pointing to the ¡°real risk that academic freedom would be compromised as a result¡±.

Some 33 per cent of respondents say they had been asked by the government to make ¡°one or two¡± changes to their draft reports, with a further 19?per cent reporting requests to make more substantial alterations.

Around half say they had not been asked to make any changes, the report finds.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°We have been able to pin down a range of mechanisms through which governments might seek to influence the outcome of evaluations for what might be described as the provision of ¡®political ammunition¡¯, some obvious, some less so, and to assess their importance,¡± it says.

However, despite the numerous attempts to influence findings reported, such interference appears to have ¡°little systematic importance¡± in shaping the nature of the conclusions that the researchers reach, the study concludes.

One of the report¡¯s authors, Edward Page, Sidney and Beatrice Webb professor of public policy at the LSE, told ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ that there was ¡°no doubt¡± that the government was ¡°trying it on¡± and that researchers had either to stand up to the pressure or find a way to meet the state halfway.

¡°It is to be expected that, at some stage, the government will apply pressure on researchers,¡± he said, adding that there would always be a trade-off between the research produced and the political will to commission it.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°If an academic says they can make the report less astringent in terms of some of the comments included, is that necessarily a bad thing? I don¡¯t think so.¡±

A government spokesman said: ¡°Successive governments have commissioned research to inform the development of policy. In the Civil Service Reform Plan, this government committed to an open policymaking agenda.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°We have been clear that Whitehall does not always know best and that we will draw on external or independent advice when necessary.¡±

chris.parr@tsleducation.com