Reflections of an evaluator navigating between community development and welfare paradigms

This practical note discusses some of the challenges evaluators face when their values clash with those of their employer. A case example where the author was commissioned to complete an evaluation for a community development project within a welfare-minded NGO highlights evaluation issues for welfare-minded NGOs attempting to deliver community development programmes. A fundamental issue is the differing interpretation of key terms including evaluation, participation, and empowerment. The note discusses how the author attempted to navigate between maintaining community development principles in the evaluation process while at the same time fulfilling quantitative evaluation requirements mandated by the organisation and funders.     

Co‐parenting in a Highly Conflicted Separation/Divorce: Learning about Parents and their Experiences of Parenting Coordination,Legal, and Mental Health Interventions

Sixty high‐conflict separated/divorced co‐parents completed surveys investigating characteristics and dynamics (narcissism, empathy, conflict) that were examined in relation to co‐parenting style and parents' experiences of parenting coordination, legal, and mental health interventions. Study findings for this sample did not support common notions found in the literatures on parenting coordination and high‐conflict divorce that suggest these parents are often narcissistic or low in empathy. Findings pertaining to all high‐conflict participant experiences revealed the presence of common elements across aspects of practitioners and interventions with which they were both satisfied and dissatisfied.     

Convenient and Inconvenient Truths in Family Law: Preventing Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in the Use of Social Science Research for Public Policy

This is the second of two articles on the risks of advocacy bias in the reporting of research findings when boundaries are blurred between social science research and advocacy in the pursuit of public policy. In the first article we identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence. The first article discusses the difference between truth in social science and truth in law and identifies a range of scholar‐advocacy strategies that bias research evidence, illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. In this second article we show how biased research evidence by scholar advocates results in increased confusion and controversy that diminishes the credibility of all parties and stalemates progress in the field, using a case illustration of intimate partner violence in family court. We also show how adherence to scientific methods prevents the misuse of research and suggest a number of collaborative, integrative measures that can help transcend the adversarial stalemate. In a look to the future we consider some unbiased, standardized ways of assessing the strength and generalizability of research evidence.     

Book Review: The Conflict Paradox: Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes by Bernie Mayer

Bernie Mayer's latest book is an excellent journey into seven key dilemmas in conflict. Mayer devotes a chapter to each of the following dilemmas: Competition and Cooperation, Optimism and Realism, Avoidance and Engagement, Principle and Compromise, Emotions and Logic, Impartiality and Advocacy, and Autonomy and Community. In this review, I suggest that the book is a thorough guide through seemingly diverse and opposing conflict theories. I go through each chapter and detail how Mayer sees these concepts as interwoven instead of oppositional. He walks his readers through what have been thought of as distinctive, even opposing, approaches, theories, and concepts of conflict. The review uses points and quotes from all seven dilemmas to show the depth of Mayer's analysis and the numerous benefits to theorists and practitioners of reading and rereading his book.     

STATE URBAN POLICY: "New" Federalism In Virginia, New Jersey and Florida

The recent rediscovery of federalism has left the nation's governors with expanded responsibility and limited federal support. In return, they were promised greater fiscal flexibility, a real partnership in program design, and protection from unfunded mandates. However, states seem unwilling to offer the same guarantees to their cities that they sought from the federal government, even as they expand city responsibilities and limit state aid. This paper explores the extent to which Virginia, New Jersey and Florida have provided the fiscal flexibility and partnership, except in the area of economic development, but the diminished fiscal capacity of some distressed communities relative to their suburban counterparts render them unable to benefit from such efforts.     

Inequality and the Dynamics of Public Opinion: The Self‐Reinforcing Link Between Economic Inequality and Mass Preferences

This article assesses the influence of income inequality on the public's policy mood. Recent work has produced divergent perspectives on the relationship between inequality, public opinion, and government redistribution. One group of scholars suggests that unequal representation of different income groups reproduces inequality as politicians respond to the preferences of the rich. Another group of scholars pays relatively little attention to distributional outcomes but shows that government is generally just as responsive to the poor as to the rich. Utilizing theoretical insights from comparative political economy and time‐series data from 1952 to 2006, supplemented with cross‐sectional analysis where appropriate, we show that economic inequality is, in fact, self‐reinforcing, but that this is fully consistent with the idea that government tends to respond equally to rich and poor in its policy enactments.     

The Future of Northern Ireland: the Role of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement Institutions

Since the 2016 Brexit referendum a series of crises has gripped Northern Ireland's politics. This has had a destabilising effect across society, which has arguably been felt most acutely by political unionism. The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (B/GFA) of 1998 created a series of institutions to deal with political conflict in Northern Ireland, manage cross-border cooperation and normalise relations between the UK and Ireland. However, many aspects of it have been sparingly and ineffectually deployed, most notably the second and third strands dealing with north/south and east/west relations respectively. In this article, the authors argue that regular use of the institutional arrangements created by the Agreement would help to deal with the challenges currently facing Northern Ireland and help address unionist anxieties over the Protocol. Use of the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC), the British Irish Council (BIC) and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIGC) should be prioritised. The unresolved issues arising from Brexit require a recommitment to the intergovernmental logic at the heart of the 1998 Agreement, despite the obstacles.