As the Chair of the HEFCE QAA Committee that drafted the first version
of the Benchmark Statement, can I add my endorsement of Julia's views
below. The original statement was written by a committee - but hopefully
looked more 'like a horse than a camel'! Nick and the others have done
an excellent job in updating this. To seek to revise it again through a
mail list could lead to a complete loss of design. And our key aim
should be to avoid too much prescription...
Pete
Professor Pete Alcock
Head of School of Social Sciences
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT
Tel. (0)121 414 6630
Fax. (0)121 414 3971
email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julia Twigg
Sent: 07 November 2006 09:31
To:
Subject: Re: Social Policy and Administration
I have read the benchmark and I think it is a good document that has
been
carefully crafted. Can I suggest that we avoid the pitfall of adding
new
themes and subjects to it. The suggestions make by Paul Spicker and Roy
Greenhalgh are interesting, and we could fruitfully discuss them as part
of
the wider activity of reflecting on the development of our subject. But
that
is another enterprise. The political task of the benchmark is to prevent
educational bureaucracy stifling our work and our courses. For this
reason
we need to avoid any more prescription.
Julia Twigg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Greenhalgh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: Social Policy and Administration
>I would like to support Paul's proposal. I would also like to see a
solid
>strand that looks at not just the delivery of social services derived
from
>policy, but delivery from the receiver's viewpoint. For too long
policy
>makers have imposed a policy, frequently with little piloting and with
even
>less volume or stress testing (my background is in IT software
development
>and delivery). Whether or not the delivery form meets the demands of
the
>consumer, and how it matches the value placed on it by the consumer are
>hardly considered. But an examination of the change in delivery of, for
>example, domestic housing benefits caused by policy changes in turn
caused
>by adoption of front-office/back-office or the use of electronic
document
>management systems will illustrate well that these changes have hardly
>benefited the customer, nor have they done much to reduce costs of
>delivery.
>
> Roy Greenhalgh
> University of Bath
>
> Paul Spicker wrote:
>
>> There is scope for rather more emphasis on the analysis of social
>> administration. The title of the paper is "Social Policy and
>> Administration". In relation to the detailed description of content,
>> however, there is only one mention of "administration", in the line
>> referring to the "Organisation, administration, governance and
management
>> of welfare institutions." There should be reference to
>>
>> * public sector management,
>> * service delivery, and * Social Administration, as the study of
the
>> institutions,
>> mechanisms and processes by which social services are provided.
>> I've argued elsewhere that the benchmarks, and our current
presentation
>> of the subject, makes too little of the vocational aspects of Social
>> Policy and Administration, which was initially conceived as a
preparation
>> for work in public service and the voluntary sector. It's in our
>> interests to re-assert that position. Paul Spicker
>
|