Sean Kippin

Bio: Sean Kippin is an academic researcher from University of Stirling. The author has contributed to research in topics: Politics & Democracy. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 16 publications receiving 39 citations. Previous affiliations of Sean Kippin include University of the West of Scotland.

The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking

Abstract: Background : COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between expectations and outcomes, and inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish, from education research, how policymakers seek equitable outcomes. Our study emulates its partner review of ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) to ask: How does education equity research use policy theory to understand policymaking? Methods : A qualitative systematic review (from 2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results : 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. The comparison with HIAP highlights distinctive elements of education research. First, educational equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although countries like the US, and organisations like the World Bank, have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique the narrow equity definitions – focusing on performance – that dominate policymaking. Third, more studies provide ‘bottom-up’ analysis of ‘implementation gaps’. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions : Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar task. Compared to HIAP research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on delivering top-down aims. Most studies criticise current educational equity aims and expect them to fail.

Policy learning to reduce inequalities: the search for a coherent Scottish gender mainstreaming policy in a multilevel UK

Abstract: Policy ‘incoherence’ describes a lack of joined-up government that contributes to a confusing mix of policy instruments. It is an inevitable feature of multilevel policy-making, in which many actor...

The COVID-19 exams fiasco across the UK: four nations and two windows of opportunity

Abstract: All four UK and devolved governments performed a ‘U-turn’ on their COVID-19 school exams replacement policies. After cancelling exams, they sought teacher estimates on their grades, but supported an algorithm to standardise the results. When the results produced a public outcry over unfair consequences, they initially defended their decision but reverted quickly to teacher assessment. We explain these developments by comparing two ‘windows of opportunity’ overseen by four separate governments, in which the definition of the problem, feasibility of each solution, and motive of policymakers to select one over the other lurched dramatically within a week of the exams results. These experiences highlight the confluence of events and choices and the timing and order of choice. A policy solution that had been rejected during the first window, and would have been criticised heavily if chosen first, became a lifeline during the second. As such, while it is important to understand why the standardisation process went so wrong, we focus on why the policymaking process went so wrong.

Public Policy to Reduce Inequalities across Europe

Abstract: There is a broad consensus across European states and the EU that social and economic inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet inequality policy is notoriously complex and contested. This book approaches the issue from two linked perspectives. First, a focus on functional requirements highlights what policymakers think they need to deliver policy successfully, and the gap between their requirements and reality. We identify this gap in relation to the theory and practice of policy learning, and to multiple sectors, to show how it manifests in health, education, and gender equity policies. Second, a focus on territorial politics highlights how the problem is interpreted at different scales, subject to competing demands to take responsibility. This contestation and spread of responsibilities contributes to different policy approaches across spatial scales. We conclude that governments promote many separate equity initiatives, across territories and sectors, without knowing if they are complementary or contradictory. This outcome could reflect the fact that ambiguous policy problems and complex policymaking processes are beyond the full knowledge or control of governments. It could also be part of a strategy to make a rhetorically radical case while knowing that they will translate into safer policies. It allows them to replace debates on values, regarding whose definition of equity matters and which inequalities to tolerate, with more technical discussions of policy processes. Governments may be offering new perspectives on spatial justice or new ways to reduce political attention to inequalities.

Parliamentary select committees: who gives evidence?

Abstract: Parliamentary select committees are an increasingly important part of the democratic process in the UK. Their impact has grown in recent years, as has their media profile. The latter is partly due to the appearance of high-profile witnesses as committee hearings. The calling of witnesses is, in fact, a vital part of a select committee’s role, as it allows MPs and peers to hold government ministers and officials to account, as well as gather evidence from experts and stakeholders outside government. This new research from Democratic Audit’s Richard Berry and Sean Kippin explored who exactly gives evidence to select committees, based on analysis of the nearly 600 witnesses appearing in Parliament in a one-month period in late 2013. We considered the organisational affiliations of witnesses and the gender balance.

How is our work

Abstract: Epilepsy Action aims to improve the quality of life and promote the interests of people living with epilepsy. • We BLOCKINprovide BLOCKINinformation BLOCKINto BLOCKINanyone BLOCKINwith BLOCKINan BLOCKINinterest BLOCKINin BLOCKINepilepsy. • We BLOCKINimprove BLOCKINthe BLOCKINunderstanding BLOCKINof BLOCKINepilepsy BLOCKINin BLOCKINschools BLOCKINand raise educational standards. • We BLOCKINwork BLOCKINto BLOCKINgive BLOCKINpeople BLOCKINwith BLOCKINepilepsy BLOCKINa BLOCKINfair BLOCKINchance BLOCKINof BLOCKINfinding and keeping a job. • We BLOCKINraise BLOCKINstandards BLOCKINof BLOCKINcare BLOCKINthrough BLOCKINcontact BLOCKINwith BLOCKINdoctors, nurses, BLOCKINsocial BLOCKINworkers, BLOCKINgovernment BLOCKINand BLOCKINother BLOCKINorganisations. • We BLOCKINpromote BLOCKINequality BLOCKINof BLOCKINaccess BLOCKINto BLOCKINquality BLOCKINcare. Epilepsy Action has local branches in most parts of the UK. Each branch offers support to local people and raises money to help ensure our work can continue.

Committee Hearings of the UK Parliament: Who gives Evidence and does this Matter?

Abstract: While evidence hearings by House of Commons select committees have received increasing attention by the public and the media in recent years, academic research on this topic has remained rather thin. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative methods, this article examines this topic. It begins by explaining why evidence is important: (i) it is fundamental to sustain detailed scrutiny; (ii) it builds individual-level and institutional-level expertise; and (iii) the range of evidence gathered is used by committees to engage with the public. The article then presents empirical data of the pool of witnesses on which committees rely, which arguably does not reflect the UK population, which raises important further questions over the representative claims of committees.