ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

The Thinkhouse review: how do we ensure research has an impact?

Professor Peter Williams assesses the latest housing research papers in this month’s Thinkhouse review

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

This month’s @thinkhouseinfo review features reports by @housingevidence @HousingLIN @RLA_News @Shelter @LSEnews @csjthinktank @bankofengland @edgehill @InstituteGC #ukhousing

“This is a useful corrective to the argument that more supply alone will deliver the solution to the housing crisis” In the latest @Thinkhouseinfo review @ProfPWilliams discusses a controversial @housingevidence report and more #ukhousing

"In looking at this month’s output I was left with many questions as to what was being achieved” @ProfPWilliams discusses recent housing research in the @ThinkhouseInfo review #ukhousing

The Thinkhouse review: how do we ensure research has an impact?

Thinkhouse is a website set up to be repository of housing research. Its editorial panel of economists, chief executives, consultants and academics critiques and collates the best of the most recent housing research (scroll down for more information).

 

Writing this blog prompted me to think back over the many years I have been engaged in housing research (47 to be precise!) and how the output, scope and content have changed.

When I began in 1972 the UK was the leading country for housing research. The government/Ford Foundation funded Centre for Environmental Studies, established in 1967 by the Wilson administration, was in full swing as was the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham (established in 1966). W

Working papers, reports and more flowed from them in quantity (and with quality) alongside output from the Rowntree Trust and the Department of the Environment which itself had a strong housing research focus.

By the 1980s this had been joined by the School for Advanced Urban Studies at Bristol and entities such as Shelter, the NHF or NFHA as it was and the CIH were active. Overall, output was significant (and of quality) but certainly more limited than today.

“This is a useful corrective to the argument/policy stance that more supply alone will deliver the solution to the housing crisis”

There was a sense that evidence influenced policy in significant ways – government embraced research and housing policy attempted to be coherent and comprehensive – we had the Housing Policy Review in 1977 –a green paper for England and Wales supported by three technical volumes and a separate volume on Scotland. Of course by 1980 the government had changed and John Stanley the housing minister was clear research was not needed - the priority was action!

And so to today. That landscape has changed fundamentally. Some of the earlier organisations have ceased to exist or have refocussed, the government’s research capacity and some might say appetite has been reduced though to be fair it is supporting the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CACHE),

However the outpouring of work remains prodigious with all manner of entities putting arguments and evidence into the public domain and Thinkhouse provides a much needed platform for capturing this.


READ MORE

Housing crisis not caused by lack of supply, says Tony Blair InstituteHousing crisis not caused by lack of supply, says Tony Blair Institute
Peabody to halt purchase of ‘large site’ following shared ownership announcementPeabody to halt purchase of ‘large site’ following shared ownership announcement
The Tony Blair Institute is wrong – we do need to build more homes to solve the housing crisisThe Tony Blair Institute is wrong – we do need to build more homes to solve the housing crisis

This month’s list of 12 publications selected by Thinkhouse gives a good sense of the current landscape. The Centre for London has now published its remaining 3 reports (on land and planning, finance and delivery and tenure and affordability) of the quartet produced to stimulate thinking around London’s housing challenges – all are short and focussed.

CACHE is also well represented with 3 reports – on alternative housing tenures, the aspirations of private renters and the role of housing supply – I shall return to these last.

Then we have an interesting scatter – the Children’s Commissioner, Housing LIN, the Residential Landlords Association, Shelter, LSE and the Centre for Social Justice ranging across topics such as employer housing, the social value of regeneration and the impact of welfare reform.

For me the most powerful are the CaCHE report on housing supply and two reports on the PRS.

In the CACHE report, Ian Mulheirn of the Tony Blair institute offers up his views of the housing supply debate, asking whether there is actually a shortage. This is balanced by responses by Professors Geoff Meen and Glen Bramley – taken together this is a useful corrective to the argument/policy stance that more supply alone will deliver the solution to the housing crisis.

Indeed most recently John Lewis and Fergus Cumming from the Bank of England added to this , highlighting the importance of factors other than supply. Clearly it is a complex debate – supply is important but other factors are too!

The two papers on the PRS are also timely.

In the ‘State of the PRS: A survey of private landlords and the impact of welfare reforms’ Tom Simcock and Axel Kaehne, of Edge Hill University, offer up some very helpful empirical evidence on landlord behaviour in the light of welfare reforms.

Meanwhile in Beyond Generation Rent, Tim McKee of the University of Stirling and colleagues do the same on the aspirations of older private renters aged 35-54.

With such dramatic change working through our housing arrangements in the UK we need to know more about what actual people are thinking and doing – evidence is needed upon which to base policy and strategy.

“The risk is that this work is under –resourced and not well targeted and thus fails to secure the impact all desire”

However while the former was based on over 2200 responses the latter drew on 17. Inevitably this poses questions about the latter but it must be viewed as a can opener to further work.

With the volumes of work emerging we cannot ignore the questions of quality and impact.

There is a real danger that the absence of core research by government and other key agencies and the somewhat fragmented and limited nature of policy interventions alongside the real sense of crisis that pervades housing agencies and organisations working not least with the most disadvantaged forces has meant that many have sought to add their voices and argue their cases.

The risk is that this work is under –resourced and not well targeted and thus fails to secure the impact all desire. Most have policy recommendations but do we ever think who is meant to receive and use these?

I am as guilty as anyone else in this but in looking at this month’s output I was left with many questions as to what was being achieved. In the old days it was all paper based and typically with launch events.

Now it is electronic and immediate – but even more easily overlooked. We must be on our guard here.

We are lucky to have the commendable House of Commons Library team constantly scanning the horizon to feed knowledge and ideas to Parliament and Thinkhouse also helps us in the journey. But we housing researchers also have to play a part working to ensure impact and effectiveness.

Professor Peter Williams, researcher and departmental fellow, department of land economy, University of Cambridge

 

What is Thinkhouse?

What is Thinkhouse?

Thinkhouse was formally launched in spring 2018, and aims to “provide a single location and summary of the best and most innovative research pieces, policy publications and case studies”.

It specifically looks at reports that propose ways to boost the amount and quality of housing and the economic, social and community issues of not doing this.

The Thinkhouse editorial panel highlights the ‘must-read’ reports, blogs about them and runs the annual Early Career Researcher’s Prize.

The panel includes current and former housing association chief executives, academics, lawyers, economists and consultants. It is chaired by Richard Hyde, chief executive of a business that sells construction hand tools.

Who is on the panel?

Richard Hyde

Chair of Editorial Panel, CEO of HYDE

Gemma Duggan

Head of Compliance and Performance at Extracare

Chris Walker

Economist

Brendan Sarsfield

CEO, Peabody

Mick Laverty

CEO, Extracare Charitable Trust

Martin Wheatley

Senior Fellow, Institute for Government,

Kerri Farnsworth

Founder & MD, Kerri Farnsworth Associates

Suzanne Benson

Head of Real Estate for the Manchester office of Trowers.

Burcu Borysik

Policy Manager at Revolving Doors Agency,

Ken Gibb

Professor in housing economics at the University of Glasgow, Director of CaCHE

Peter Williams

Departmental Fellow, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge

Brian Robson

Executive Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Northern Housing Consortium

Francesca Albanese

Head of Research and Evaluation at Crisis

Jules Birch

Journalist and blogger

Susan Emmett

Head of Engagement for Homes England

Mark Farmer

Founder and CEO Cast Consultancy

Steve Moseley

Group Director of Governance, Strategy & Communications at L&Q

Jennifer Rolison

Head of marketing at Aquila Services Group

Philip Brown

Professor of Housing and Communities at the University of Huddersfield

Anya Martin

Senior researcher at the National Housing Federation

Emily Pumford

Policy & strategy advisor, Riverside

Anthony Breach

Analyst, Centre for Cities

Shahina Begum

Customer Insight Office, Peabody

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.