10259 research outputs found
Sort by
Quarterly Labour Force Survey, July - September, 2025
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.BackgroundThe Labour Force Survey (LFS) is a unique source of information using international definitions of employment and unemployment and economic inactivity, together with a wide range of related topics such as occupation, training, hours of work and personal characteristics of household members aged 16 years and over. It is used to inform social, economic and employment policy. The Annual Population Survey, also held at the UK Data Archive, is derived from the LFS.The LFS was first conducted biennially from 1973-1983, then annually between 1984 and 1991, comprising a quarterly survey conducted throughout the year and a 'boost' survey in the spring quarter. From 1992 it moved to a quarterly cycle with a sample size approximately equivalent to that of the previous annual data. Northern Ireland was also included in the survey from December 1994. Further information on the background to the QLFS may be found in the documentation.The UK Data Service also holds a Secure Access version of the QLFS (see below); household datasets; two-quarter and five-quarter longitudinal datasets; LFS datasets compiled for Eurostat; and some additional annual Northern Ireland datasets.LFS DocumentationThe documentation available from the Archive to accompany LFS datasets largely consists of the latest version of each user guide volume alongside the appropriate questionnaire for the year concerned (the latest questionnaire available covers July-September 2022). Volumes are updated periodically, so users are advised to check the latest documents on the ONS Labour Force Survey - User Guidance pages before commencing analysis. This is especially important for users of older QLFS studies, where information and guidance in the user guide documents may have changed over time.LFS response to COVID-19From April 2020 to May 2022, additional non-calendar quarter LFS microdata were made available to cover the pandemic period. The first additional microdata to be released covered February to April 2020 and the final non-calendar dataset covered March-May 2022. Publication then returned to calendar quarters only. Within the additional non-calendar COVID-19 quarters, pseudonymised variables Casenop and Hserialp may contain a significant number of missing cases (set as -9). These variables may not be available in full for the additional COVID-19 datasets until the next standard calendar quarter is produced. The income weight variable, PIWT, is not available in the non-calendar quarters, although the person weight (PWT) is included. Please consult the documentation for full details.Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data filesThe ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022.2024 ReweightingIn February 2024, reweighted person-level data from July-September 2022 onwards were released. Up to July-September 2023, only the person weight was updated (PWT23); the income weight remains at 2022 (PIWT22). The 2023 income weight (PIWT23) was included from the October-December 2023 quarter. Users are encouraged to read the ONS methodological note of 5 February, Impact of reweighting on Labour Force Survey key indicators: 2024, which includes important information on the 2024 reweighting exercise.End User Licence and Secure Access QLFS dataTwo versions of the QLFS are available from UKDS. One is available under the standard End User Licence (EUL) agreement, and the other is a Secure Access version. The EUL version includes country and Government Office Region geography, 3-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) and 3-digit industry group for main, second and last job (from July-September 2015, 4-digit industry class is available for main job only).The Secure Access version contains more detailed variables relating to:age: single year of age, year and month of birth, age completed full-time education and age obtained highest qualification, age of oldest dependent child and age of youngest dependent childfamily unit and household: including a number of variables concerning the number of dependent children in the family according to their ages, relationship to head of household and relationship to head of familynationality and country of originfiner detail geography: including county, unitary/local authority, place of work, Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2 (NUTS2) and NUTS3 regions, and whether lives and works in same local authority district, and other categories;health: including main health problem, and current and past health problemseducation and apprenticeship: including numbers and subjects of various qualifications and variables concerning apprenticeshipsindustry: including industry, industry class and industry group for main, second and last job, and industry made redundant fromoccupation: including 5-digit industry subclass and 4-digit SOC for main, second and last job and job made redundant fromsystem variables: including week number when interview took place and number of households at addressother additional detailed variables may also be included.The Secure Access datasets (SNs 6727 and 7674) have more restrictive access conditions than those made available under the standard EUL. Prospective users will need to gain ONS Accredited Researcher status, complete an extra application form and demonstrate to the data owners exactly why they need access to the additional variables. Users are strongly advised to first obtain the standard EUL version of the data to see if they are sufficient for their research requirements.Main Topics:The QLFS questionnaire comprises a 'core' of questions which are included in every survey, together with some 'non-core' questions which vary from quarter to quarter.The questionnaire can be split into two main parts. The first part contains questions on the respondent's household, family structure, basic housing information and demographic details of household members. The second part contains questions covering economic activity, education and health, and also may include a few questions asked on behalf of other government departments (for example the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office). Until 1997, the questions on health covered mainly problems which affected the respondent's work. From that quarter onwards, the questions cover all health problems. Detailed questions on income have also been included in each quarter since 1993. The basic questionnaire is revised each year, and a new version published, along with a transitional version that details changes from the previous year's questionnaire.</div
The Impact of Food Systems Research Network for Africa on Fellows Professional Development at Midline, 2023
No full textA dataset was created from responses to a fellows midline survey conducted to assess changes in professional development of Food Systems Research Network for Africa (FSNet-Africa) fellows since completion of the Baseline survey at the start of the FSNet-Africa Fellowship, which is part of an early career researcher development program. The survey specifically targeted 20 FSNet-Africa fellows from higher education institutions in Africa. Its objective was to assess fellows' professional development in the following areas: networks and visibility, potential, skills development, performance improvement, and personal growth across eight dimensions of professional development. These dimensions include conducting integrated research, research data management, integrating gender in research, research ethics, monitoring and evaluation, disseminating research findings, and stakeholder engagement.The Food Systems Research Network for Africa (FSNet-Africa) will strengthen food systems research and its translation into implementable interventions in support of interrelated Sustainable Development Goals related to food systems in Africa (focusing on SDG2 - Zero Hunger).
The network partners - University of Pretoria (UP) (ARUA-CoE in Food Security host), University of Leeds (UoL) (GCRF-AFRICAP host) and the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) (GCRF-AFRICAP partner) have been selected based on their track record of working together, strengths in food systems research and existing partnerships with food systems stakeholders.
The major contribution of FSNet-Africa to addressing the challenge of SDG2 will be its focus on developing a new understanding of the African food systems through developing the FSNet-Africa Food Systems Framework and utilising systems-based methodologies to conduct research that enhances understanding of the components of the framework, the interactions between these components, and ultimately the leverage points for food system transformation. The latter will be implemented by an interdisciplinary cohort of early career research fellows (ECRF) who are supported in their research to identify (in dialogue with food systems stakeholders) and evaluate climate-smart, nutrition-sensitive, poverty-reducing interventions.
FSNet-Africa will collaboratively produce context-relevant, interdisciplinary research through creating 2-year long structured opportunities for up to 30 ECRF, majority female, who obtained their PhD's less than 10 years ago to (i) conduct impact-focused, gender sensitive, interdisciplinary research related to African food systems, (ii) build lasting research networks, and (iii) develop their skills to translate their research impactfully. ECRF will be selected from 10 academic partner institutions in six countries - Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia.
The three formal components of the fellowships (science, mentorship and leadership development) will ensure that the ECRF are positioned in the necessary enabling environment and are provided with the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to produce excellent research, achieve the project objectives and significantly advance their academic careers. During the fellowship, each fellow will be assigned at least two mentors - one from an African university and the other from the UK. These research-triads will be carefully matched to ensure that the triad is an interdisciplinary team, enabling the ECRF to receive the support they need to develop and implement quality interdisciplinary research projects. The Science Component of the fellowship will be comprised of a fellowship orientation workshop, funding for research, participation in a split-site winter/summer school and a write-shop. After attending an Orientation Workshop with their mentors, ECRF will be expected to develop their research proposals that focus on climate-smart, nutrition-sensitive and poverty-reducing food systems solutions. Six months later, a 10-week split-site winter/summer school (at UP's Future Africa Campus and at the University of Leeds) will provide the ECRF with the opportunity to finalise their research proposals for implementation and to participate in various capacity development workshops. The Leadership Component will give ECRF the opportunity to develop skills the skills they need to be future food systems science leaders - such as managing research teams and leadership in science-policy communication.
As a mechanism to facilitate research uptake and impact, every project undertaken by the ECRF will be co-designed and implemented in partnership with relevant policymakers, private sector role players or grassroots level organisations who will engage directly with the research teams at the Orientation Workshop, during the Winter School and in-country to implement the research.</p
Experts, Expertise and Citizen Science: A Case Study of Air Quality Monitoring, 2021-2024
No full textEnvironmental controversies are often about knowledge and expertise as much as they are about politics, rights and life chances. The reason is that the evidence produced by the different groups involved is often part of the controversy, with disputes over what is known and not known, by whom, and with what degree of accuracy being a source of tension rather than consensus.
Community groups are responding to these challenges through new forms of citizen science in which they collect new data that can be used to contest decisions that affect their lives and communities. In this project, we worked with one such group to monitor air quality and to improve their local environment. This involved supporting, and reporting on, their work to deploy monitoring equipment and build community networks as well as examining how these efforts are received by others. Interviews were conducted with a cross-section of actors and groups with a stake in the project. These included the local civil society group, policy makers and representatives of other relevant organisations.
These interviews allowed participants to articulate their own perspective and experience and enable the project team to understand how different kinds of expertise are – and/or should be – valued within decision-making activities.WISERD celebrates its 10th anniversary this year. Over time it has grown into an international research institute that develops the next generation of research leaders. Our research brings together different disciplines (geographers, economists, sociologists, data scientists, political scientists) to address important issues for civil society at national and international levels. Our social science core provides a strong foundation for working with other disciplines including environmental science, engineering and medicine to transform our understanding and approaches to key areas of public concern. Our aim is to provide evidence that informs and changes policy and practice. This Centre will build on all previous WISERD research activities to undertake an ambitious new research programme. Our focus will be on the concept of civic stratification. This is a way of looking at divisions in society by focusing on the rights and obligations and practices of citizens and the role of civil society organisations in addressing inequalities in those rights and obligations. We will examine and analyse instances where people do not have the same rights as others (for example people who are migrants or refugees). We will also look at examples of people and groups working together within civil society to win new rights; this is referred to as civic expansion. Examples might include campaigns for animal rights or concerns about robots and Artificial Intelligence. We will investigate situations where people have the same rights but experience differences in their ability to access those rights; sometimes referred to as civic gain and civic loss (for example some people are better able to access legal services than others). Lastly, we will explore how individuals and groups come together to overcome deficits in their rights and citizenship; sometimes referred to as forms of civil repair. This might include ways in which people are looking at alternative forms of economic organisation, at local sustainability and at using new technologies (platforms and software) to organise and campaign for their rights. Our centre will deliver across four key areas of activity. First our research programme will focus on themes that address the different aspects of civic stratification. We will examine trends in polarization of economic, political and social rights, looking at how campaigns for rights are changing and undertaking case studies of attempts to repair the fabric of civil life. Second, we will extend and deepen our international and civil society research partnerships and networks and by doing so strengthen our foundations for developing further joint research in the future. Third, we will implement an exciting and accessible 'knowledge exchange' programme to enable our research and evidence to reach, involve and influence as many people as possible. Fourth, we will expand the capacity of social science research and nurture future research leaders. All our research projects will be jointly undertaken with key partners including civil society organisations, such as charities, and local communities. The research programme is broad and will include the collection of new data, the exploitation of existing data sources and linking existing sets of data. The data will range from local detailed studies to large cross-national comparisons. We will make the most of our skills and abilities to work with major RCUK research investments. We have an outstanding track record in maximising research impact, in applying a wide range of research methods to real world problems. This exciting and challenging research programme is based on a unique, long standing and supportive relationship between five core universities in Wales and our partnerships with universities and research institutes in the UK and internationally. It addresses priority areas identified by the ESRC and by governments and is informed by our continued close links with civil society organisations.</p
How Good is my Job: Waves 1-3, 2018-2024
No full textThis data provides evidence on non-pecuniary job quality in the United Kingdom. It is based on quiz data collected from almost 150 thousand individuals via the online job quiz: www.howgoodismyjob.com. The data was collected during 3 Waves. Wave 1 was undertaken between July 2018–January 2020 during which approximately 49,600 people responded to the quiz. Wave 2 was undertaken between May–August 2022 during which time approximately 50,800 responded. A third Wave was undertaken between July and September 2024 when approximately 43,800 responded. The development of the job quality quiz and Wave 1 of data collection was funded by Cardiff University’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (ES/M500422/1). Wave 2 of the quiz was supported by the ESRC's PrOPEL Hub (ES/T001771/1). Wave 3 was supported by WISERD's Civil Society Research Programme funded by the ESRC (ES/S012435/1).This data collection was funded by three separate grants. The development of the job quality quiz and Wave 1 of data collection was funded by Cardiff University’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (ES/M500422/1). Wave 2 of the quiz was supported by the ESRC's PrOPEL Hub (ES/T001771/1). Wave 3 was supported by WISERD's Civil Society Research Programme funded by the ESRC (ES/S012435/1).</p
Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence: Ethiopia Round 3, 2021-2022
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE) is a ten-year (2015-2025) research programme, funded by UK Aid from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), that seeks to combine longitudinal data collection and a mixed-methods approach to understand the lives of adolescents in particularly marginalized regions of the Global South, and to uncover 'what works' to support the development of their capabilities over the course of the second decade of life, when many of these individuals will go through key transitions such as finishing their education, starting to work, getting married and starting to have children.GAGE undertakes longitudinal research in seven countries in Africa (Ethiopia, Rwanda), Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal) and the Middle East (Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine). Sampling adolescent girls and boys aged between 10‐19‐year olds, the quantitative survey follows a global total of 18,000 adolescent girls and boys, and their caregivers and explores the effects that programme have on their lives. This is substantiated by in‐depth qualitative and participatory research with adolescents and their peers. Its policy and legal analysis work stream studies the processes of policy change that influence the investment in and effectiveness of adolescent programming.Further information, including publications, can be found on the Overseas Development Institute GAGE website. Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence: Ethiopia Round 3, 2021-2022 extends the GAGE quantitative research in Ethiopia for a third round. A sample of more than 8,500 adolescent boys and girls was sought, including nearly 6,200 adolescents surveyed in an earlier round as well as approximately 2,300 new adolescents. The main purpose of this survey was to gather information on the lives of Ethiopian adolescents living in urban and rural locations in the Amhara and Oromiya regions, to understand their changing lives and challenges. At the time of data collection, adolescents were primarily aged 11-20. The sample includes both randomly and purposefully sampled adolescents. The current data release includes information for the subset of individuals who are not part of an ongoing randomised evaluation of adolescent-centric programming. A total of 2,770 adolescent surveys are included in the current release.Main Topics:The Core Respondent (CR) dataset contains information on the focal adolescent's household, including information about key household members, household assets, and dwelling characteristics, as well as information about the focal adolescent her/himself.</div
Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography, 2018-2019
No full textImportance
Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can lead to problems of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasonography might overcome these limitations.
Objective
To compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at 7 primary care practices and 2 imaging centers in the United Kingdom. Men 50 to 69 years of age were invited for prostate cancer screening from October 10, 2018, to May 15, 2019.
Interventions
All participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2 weighted and diffusion), and ultrasonography (B-mode and shear wave elastography). The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test result was positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image fusion–targeted biopsies were performed if the MRI or ultrasonography results were positive.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The main outcome was the proportion of men with positive MRI or ultrasonography (defined as a score of 3-5 or 4-5) or PSA test (defined as PSA ≥3 μg/L) results. Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score of 3+4 or higher.
Results
A total of 2034 men were invited to participate; of 411 who attended screening, 408 consented to receive all screening tests. The proportion with positive MRI results (score, 3-5) was higher than the proportion with positive PSA test results (72 [17.7%; 95% CI, 14.3%-21.8%] vs 40 [9.9%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.2%]; P < .001). The proportion with positive ultrasonography results (score, 3-5) was also higher than the proportion of those with positive PSA test results (96 [23.7%; 95% CI, 19.8%-28.1%]; P < .001). For an imaging threshold of score 4 to 5, the proportion with positive MRI results was similar to the proportion with positive PSA test results (43 [10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9%-14.0%]; P = .71), as was the proportion with positive ultrasonography results (52 [12.8%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.5%]; P = .15). The PSA test (≥3 ng/mL) detected 7 clinically significant cancers, an MRI score of 3 to 5 detected 14 cancers, an MRI score of 4 to 5 detected 11 cancers, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 detected 9 cancer, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 detected 4 cancers. Clinically insignificant cancers were diagnosed by PSA testing in 6 cases, by an MRI score of 3 to 5 in 7 cases, an MRI score of 4 to 5 in 5 cases, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 in 13 cases, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 in 7 cases.
Conclusions and Relevance
In this cohort study, when screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4 or 5 to define a positive test result compared with PSA alone at 3 ng/mL or higher was associated with more men diagnosed with clinically significant cancer, without an increase in the number of men advised to undergo biopsy or overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer. There was no evidence that ultrasonography would have better performance compared with PSA testing alone.IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a population-based screening study evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer.
In this cohort study in which 408 men underwent 3 screening tests, an MRI score of 4 or 5 was associated with improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer without an increase in the number of men who underwent biopsy or were overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant prostate cancer if prostate-specific antigen testing alone was used. Ultrasonography was not associated with improved screening performance.
Making the dataset open access, including image files from the screening tests, will facilitate future advancement and discovery in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment.
The trial was sponsored by Imperial College London and funded by grant 204998/Z/16/Z from the Wellcome Trust Programme, a BMA Foundation for Medical Research grant, grant RESCH18 from a Urology Foundation Research Scholarship, a Royal College of Surgeons of England Research Fellowship, and a grant from UK National Institute of Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.</p
Health Survey Northern Ireland, 2020-2021
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Health Survey Northern Ireland (HSNI) was commissioned by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Central Survey Unit (CSU) of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) carried out the survey on their behalf. This survey series has been running on a continuous basis since April 2010 with separate modules for different policy areas included in different financial years. It covers a range of health topics that are important to the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The HSNI replaces the previous Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey (available under SNs 4589, 4590 and 5710).Adult BMI, height and weight measurements, accompanying demographic and derived variables, geography, and a BMI weighting variable, are available in separate datasets for each survey year.
Further information is available from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency and the Department of Health (Northern Ireland) survey webpages.
The Health Survey Northern Ireland, 2020-2021 provides a source of information on a wide range of health issues relevant to Northern Ireland. The information collected is pursuing the development of policies aimed at improving the health and well-being of the Northern Ireland population.
Main Topics:Topics covered included: general health, long-term conditions, smoking, e-cigarettes, alcohol consumption, physical activity, mental health (including GHQ12), wellbeing, loneliness, social support and stress.</p
Mediation of Medical Treatment Disputes: A Therapeutic Justice Model, Interview Data, 2023-2025
No full textThis study collected empirical data regarding the use of mediation in medical treatment disputes concerning adults and children. 30 semi-structured interviews were carried out with a range of participants. Key findings included:
- that mediation could be a therapeutic process where it was designed to be flexible, participatory, less adversarial, voluntary, collaborative and enhance participant communication and understanding and we suggest that mediation’s use in health and care disputes should ensure these features are protected and promoted through mediation design;
- that some participants were closed to mediation and resolution, cynical about mediation and mediators (sometimes family members who distrusted the mediator’s independence of the HCPs), and felt process coercion to participate (usually paediatric HCPs who saw it as a requirement from the court), attitudes which could be seen as anti-therapeutic;
- that mediation can cause delay in resolution, but that there was no evidence that mediation led to agreements that undermined the patient’s best interests;
- that religious views of the parties were not a barrier to mediation and that, rather, religious support in mediation can be beneficial for parties.The core aim of this research is to understand whether and, if so, the extent to which, mediation can and should be viewed as a form of Therapeutic Justice in medical treatment disputes. My research will develop a model of Therapeutic Justice which will then be tested and refined through the collection and analysis of original empirical data.
Mediation, which is a form of alternative dispute resolution, is generally more informal and flexible than court proceedings, but often takes place alongside or in parallel with court cases. Facilitative mediation, which is the type most commonly practised in this area, is meant to be a confidential process whereby a third party, independent person helps the parties to resolve part or all of the dispute themselves. The mediator facilitates the parties to reach agreement, rather than directing them in particular ways. This is because mainstream mediation theory suggests that it is beneficial for the parties themselves to guide the process, rather than an external third party. When discussing 'medical treatment disputes' I mean disagreements that arise between patients, health professionals, family members and others regarding the provision of health and care to the patient herself. Usually the patient will be an adult with impaired mental capacity or be a child below the age of 16, such that they are legally incapable of making their own decision about medical treatment, hence the involvement of healthcare professionals, family members and the courts. The disputes most commonly arise between family members of the patient and healthcare professionals, but in some cases may involve the patient herself. The research will consider whether there are any therapeutic, or healing, benefits of using non-court based methods of resolution, such as mediation, to resolve disputes that arise from healthcare contexts, as well as considering the ways in which mediation could become more therapeutic as an intervention. For example, through improved communication between parties, improved voice or participation in the process of dispute resolution and speed of resolution. This project builds on existing research on mediation and Therapeutic Justice to consider mediation's value in often challenging healthcare environments, while also considering that mediation comes with a number of risks which may make it is less than ideally therapeutic. For example, mediation can reflect or reinforce existing power imbalances between parties, it can limit the participation of the subject of proceedings and it may be seen as a cost saving, rather than therapeutic, exercise. As the use of mediation has not yet been tested through empirical research in the medical treatment disputes context, nor has a model of Therapeutic Justice been developed or applied to this field, this project seeks to test those claims empirically through qualitative analysis of mediation in medical treatment disputes.
The PI and Project Consultants have all conducted research in relation to potentially vulnerable participants' experiences of the law and mediation. Further, we have researched the role of mediation in relation to the Court of Protection, judicial review and Special Educational Needs disputes. By carrying out this research now we expect to benefit potential users of mediation to resolve such disputes by identifying ways in which mediation can be used in therapeutic ways, while acknowledging the potential risks of mediation in this area. For example, we hypothesise that certain approaches to mediation (including, style and process), times at which to mediate and the participation of lay participants may all impact upon the extent to which therapeutic justice can be achieved. We will also consider whether there is anything specific to the healthcare environment that makes it particularly amenable to, or challenging for, the therapeutic benefits of mediation.</p
Post-Brexit Governance Norther Ireland: Testing the Temperature Opinion Polling Aggregate Data and Stakeholder Workshop Reports, 2021-2024
No full textThis collection documented how the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland placed Northern Ireland at the interface of UK and EU governance. Motivated by concerns about legitimacy, implementation challenges and policy uncertainty, particularly around the Protocol’s democratic consent mechanism, the study aimed to map and track the region’s emergent, ‘perched’ multilevel governance after Brexit. It assembled original qualitative and quantitative materials to describe how EU-aligned rules operated in NI despite its formal position outside the EU, and how this affected policy-making across UK, EU and devolved institutions.
The collection contains reports and datasets for: (a) 13 'Testing the Temperature' opinion polls on public attitudes to the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland and related issues carried out by LucidTalk; (b) reports from nine stakeholder workshops.Brexit means that Northern Ireland (NI) is located at the interface of the UK and the EU. This is not just in geographical terms; the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and its Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland place NI in a position of being outside the EU but subject to EU rules. This small region, although formally outside the EU, will actually be partly in the EU governance system - and in a way never seen before by any other region or state.
The WA and Protocol thus raise enormously significant challenges for policy-making and for governance in and of NI, as well as for the UK and the EU. It also raises big questions about legitimacy. The Protocol is contested by all sides in NI and devolved government in NI remains fragile (Brexit being still a divisive subject). Uncertainty is worsened by the fact that the democratic consent mechanism in the Protocol means that a vote by members of the NI Assembly (from as early as November 2024) could result in core elements of the Protocol being dropped.
Implementing the Protocol will give rise to a new form of what we define as 'perched' multilevel governance for NI. Given the evolving nature of the post-Brexit UK-EU relationship and UK trade policy (which will affect the impact of the Protocol in real terms in NI), these dynamic arrangements need to be mapped and tracked. This project will do this, as well as explaining the implications and identifying problems. It will also create the means by which informed key stakeholders can together find solutions to those problems.
This ambitious project will make a weighty contribution to scholarship on multilevel governance, but it will also test a hypothesis about ways to improve legitimacy through problem-solving. In addition, it will produce original and comparative qualitative and quantitative data to inform policymakers at all levels of governance affecting NI. This research and case study has major importance for the quality of post-Brexit governance across the whole UK.</p
Interviews on Trials Transparency at Public Research Institutions in the UK, 2020-2021
No full textEnsuring the reporting of clinical research is essential to informed evidence generation in medicine. The UK has seen politicians, funders, and other stakeholder focus on transparency which has translated to pressure on sponsors to ensure greater transparency of their research. This study aimed to collect the institutional perspective to transparency issues in clinical research. Past research on publication bias has largely focused on investigators, however the institutions that house these investigators create the environments which can promote more open and transparent research, including ensuring the reporting of results. In this study, I conducted structured interviews with professionals working in research governance, trial management, and administrative leadership positions to understand how their practice and policies have changed in recent years. This includes understanding motivations for change, how best practices are developed and shared, and barriers to improvement.
This collection includes 12 interviews with 14 participants across 11 research institutions. All participants agreed to the sharing on anonymised transcripts on the ReShare service during the informed consent process.This study aimed to gain a better understanding of how UK public research institutions (Universities and NHS Trusts) manage the registration and reporting of clinical trials. Parliamentary committees, EU rules and Brexit, and COVID have all impacted transparency practice in the UK. Understanding the response to these pressures offers valuable insights into transparency at public research institutions. Documenting and analysing these experiences can help identify best practices and barriers as the UK prepares to reform its newly independent regulatory infrastructure.</p