Evaluation, statistics and OR

Critical Realism v Scientific Method

I have taken the opportunity of the Christmas/New Year break to start to look at critical realism, as part of a review of systems thinking and approaches.  This may brand me a somewhat sad individual, but the concepts and thinking involved really require a time of reflection and quiet rather than the daily urge to earn a crust.

In doing my doctorate in Operational Research and management methods, I used and discussed the scientific method.  This was the process to formulate an hypothesis, collect data and test it to determine if the hypothesis can be accepted or rejected, perhaps an odd feedback loop to tweak things a bit, and then once proved or not, write up and ideally use the resulting theory.

My research was undertaken in the late 80s and was academically driven so I was not aware of the newer concepts being discussed particularly around social sciences and geography that were appearing in less formal arena.  It wasn't until I was external supervisor for a geography postgraduate at Coventry University that the concepts of critical realism started to encroach on my thinking.

John Mingers has done a lot of work to see if critical realism is a valid alternative for OR to the scientific method.  Not all studies in OR are now really easy for the scientific method, particularly as the manufacturing and engineering base reduces, and messes to be looked at are far more likely to be people and services driven.

Two processes are proposed for critical realism that can be applied to an OR issue - DREI and RRREI.  DREI being Description, Retroduction, Elimination and Identification, while RRREI is Resolution, Redescription, Retroduction, Elimination and Identification.  Personally I prefer the RRREI version, but it is important to note what the phases mean.  Resolution here is not resolving the problem that you are looking at (part of the old scientific method, but a last stage), rather it is resolving the event or phenomena into its component parts and how they are related.  Retroduction is where you postulate hypotheses for mechanisms or structures that if they existed would give rise to the phenomena you are looking at.

Much of the work that I do in skills research cannot be simply explained or modelled, and it is here that often the scientific method doesn't quite help.  The critical realism approach could provide a better framework within which to work.

My main caveat to all this is that the client never really needs to see the philosophical constructs that one uses to work on their project and certainly never needs to hear phrases and words like critical realism, retroduction or transitive dimensions.  As even concepts like employer engagement can trigger long reports trying to define their meaning, the KISS principle has to be paramount outside of academia!

The Migration Paradox

For my final post in this space before 2008, I return to an old favourite topic - migration.  This is for two reasons.  Firstly there is a report looking at the effects of migrant workers on the UK economy knocking around and I always like to comment on them.  Secondly tomorrow sees the expansion of the Schengen agreement area in Europe, which the UK is not party to, but which is forecast to bring economic benefits to the European tourism industry.

The Ernst & Young ITEM Club has published an economic analysis of the impact of migration - it was reported on by the Daily Telegraph on the 18th December under the highly balanced headline "100,000 lose out to migrants in hunt for work".  In fact the report does say that potentially 100,000 young Britons may be unemployed as migrant workers have taken jobs they might have taken, but does also point out that migrant workers have gone into jobs that British people do not want to do. 

Migrant workers taking the dirty jobs have kept a number of industries going and prospering.  The report quotes and I can confirm that the Scottish fish industry is based now on migrant workers at the processing end (mainly Estonians I gather).

The report indicates that economic growth is boosted by migrant workers, which has impacted favourably on interest rates, wage inflation, and headline inflation.  In an interesting juxtaposition, the Telegraph article also advises that there will be a clamp down on entry visas for visitors.

The rest of Europe is considering the economic and social impact of the widening of the Schengen arrangement.  This removes boundary controls between currently 15 European states (not the UK and Ireland), widening to 24 European states tomorrow, and Switzerland joins the group in 2008.

The tourism industry is hailing this as a great thing, as it is perceived that the need for border controls and individual visas is a barrier for Russians in particular, who are as likely to visit Turkey, where there are no visa requirements, as the 15 old Schengen states, where one visa is required.

To be fair, there is also some consternation as to whether this will make it more difficult to combat organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.  However to watch images of EU nationals being able to go through borders without controls makes me wonder why people want to go to Britain, where even returning ex-pats are made to feel guilty as they line up to have their passports checked.

Father Christmas will have an easier time getting round the rest of Europe next week than he will getting into the UK to hand out presents to the good children.  After all, he comes in from the Norway/Finland border, so who knows, he could actually be Russian (do you really trust all his little helpers?), and aiming to steal our dirty jobs!

Seasons Greetings and see you in the New Year!

Is IT a core skill?

The Leitch report has been out for a year - happy anniversary!  Has much changed?  Possibly, but it is too early to tell from the evidence base and I prefer not to rely on press releases about nice things happening.  That is perhaps a bit unfair on the 22 colleges and providers who have just received a standard for excellence in their work with employers from the LSC, but I like to know about results!

Microsoft have done a survey looking at business skills as part of the anniversary event.  From evidence from 500 respondents - UK business leaders - they found that IT skills came 7th in a list of top business skills.  The things our giants of business and industry are looking for are team working and interpersonal skills, initiative and problem solving skills.  Microsoft feels that IT skills are undervalued.

Ho hum - where do I start with pulling this one apart?  Sometimes people make it just too easy after all!

To be of use to business leaders, there are certain automatic skills that people are assumed to have - literacy and numeracy were not on the list, in my view as they were considered to be a basic prerequisite of being employed.  Similarly the ability to speak the language of the employing business was not specifically included although could be understood as part of verbal communication (but what about understanding what you hear?), but I am pretty sure that this is also seen as necessary. 

I am pretty convinced that basic IT ability is also in there with other core skills required to function in the work place, and IT skills only really gain attention when it is something specific - web design, programming ability, the knowledge to prevent a company's systems from being attacked by viruses or spy-ware, ability to manipulate Facebook to the needs of the company.  I think that where IT skills do themselves no favours is that business leaders will see what their children do with computers - school course work and play games - rather less impressive for running a business, unless you sell gaming software.

The top 6 business skills listed are all non-measurable skills, more to do with individual motivation than anything else.  Indeed, looking at the top 6 skills shown below, I believe that they are brilliantly demonstrated by teams in Ocean's 11, the Lady-killers, The Lavender Hill Mob, Wanted and the Italian Job, not to mention The Usual Suspects.  In most of these cases, the ability to use a gun was the seventh skill required, but in some, IT skills were also required.  Perhaps putting the above listed films on Business Studies courses would be more use than studying law, accountancy or psychology?

I think that comment proves that it is too close to Christmas to write more!

Those top 6 business skills in full: 1) Team working and interpersonal skills, 2) Initiative, 3) Analysing and problem solving, 4) Verbal communication, 5) Personal planning and organising, 6) Flexibility.

Selling learning with greed

This is perhaps an unfair title for my thoughts today, but why not?  The LSC last week released the findings of a study that implied that British households spend twice as much on trips to hair and beauty salons and toiletry products than on learning a new skill.  In order to sell learning, they then pushed the idea that if you diverted that money into learning skills, you could afford more trips to the salon and classier products.

Let us put aside a few carping comments or things that would detract from this lovely bit of research, such as:

• The LSC covers England not Britain
• The sales pitch for learning is that if you have low levels of qualifications, the training would be free - so you don't actually have to give up anything, do you?
• Did they really factor in what every tax payer contributes via income tax and indirect taxes into what we all spend on learning each year?
• Do we have to continue to assume that learning a new skill is synonymous with paying to attend a training course and getting accredited qualifications?
• The wording implies a concentration on female spending (hair dressers, beauty parlours, cosmetics and toiletries) - what about spending on perceived male areas like beer, football matches, Sky subscriptions, DIY?

Put that quibbling aside - the intention is noble and something needs to be done to encourage people to invest in their own development.  I hope the marketing gurus used by the LSC have chosen a good route, but I am not so sure.  Personally I go to the beauty salon and the hairdresser to ensure that I look the part for work, and to provide an opportunity to de-stress and relax a bit.  I do personal development, related to work and non-related work challenges, and I enjoy doing it.  The last time I did a qualification, I found myself in need of more facials due to the added stress of coursework, getting to classes on time, and getting all the usual out of work stuff done in less time than I had before.

Like I say - nice intention, but if people were numerically literate enough to pull the story to pieces like I just did, it would be even better!

What price the oil economy?

The BBC and France24 both have stories today about the price of oil being near $99 per barrel, and instead of the usual downturn in barrel price at this time of year, there is indeed a concerning upward drift in oil prices.

Some things mitigate against this - oil is priced in US dollars, yet for both sterling and the Euro, the dollar is weak and therefore the worst of the price rises are ameliorated.  Consider for a moment how the UK would be faring if oil was priced in Euros, with the pound at a record low against the Euro (not one that is making headlines in the UK currently, but for a number of us, it is THE most important indicator at the moment)?

The weak dollar is therefore a good thing for the UK, even if exporters are concerned, as the UK economy is fuelled, in every sense by oil.  Power is generated using oil and gas - we closed the coal mining industry in the 80s if you recall.  People get to work and to school by car - the BCC is right to say that public transport is not fit for purpose - there aren't enough routes outside the main hub and spoke systems, trains are overcrowded and delayed, buses ditto.  From being a gas producer, the UK is now a net importer of gas, due to a somewhat misguided decision to allow power generation using natural gas in the early 90s. 

So while there is a bit of a rise in inflation (and how long until power and oil costs are taken out of the calculations?), the impact is not as great as it might be.

France is in a similar position, in that 80% of it electricity is generated by nuclear power, but benefits from having less of a commuter mentality.  Apart from Paris, which is different to the rest of France on so many levels, the average French worker assumes that they will be able to go home for lunch if they want. 

In sectors where working away from the business base is required, construction for example, the assumption is that you will get an allowance close to 10 Euros for a nice leisurely lunch.  This is why you can get an excellent four course lunch with wine and coffee, though often limited choice, across rural France for about 10 Euros a head.

Because the French don't have any oil reserves themselves, and closed their coal industry about 10 years ago, they have had to import for a while, so mains gas is more limited and options like geothermal heating, heat exchangers in wells and rivers, and site specific gas and paraffin heaters are commonplace.  They also take more interest in insulation technology than the UK, and all houses being sold now have to have an energy consumption report before being put on the market.

But future scenarios are still scary - what if the US goes to war with Iran, what if the dollar regains its strength, what if Venezuela decides to stop selling oil for a couple of months (well it has had a financial bonanza recently, so why not?)?  How will our Western, oil-based economies cope? 

My tongue in cheek predictions about this scenario!

The UK will blame it all on Labour, find the responsible civil servant, sack him and then take on a big four consultancy to find a way out of the crisis (the consultancy will offer a role to the sacked civil servant on three times his original salary).

The French will go on strike.

Evaluating Urban Regeneration Policy

The Policy Exchange has launched a report this week called Cities Unlimited - An Assessment of UK Regeneration Policy, which looks at urban regeneration over the past 10 years.  While it concedes that the Labour government has been committed to improving the prospects of deprived urban communities, it argues that it has failed, in that conditions over a number of indicators have continued to deteriorate against the national average and against high performing urban areas.

I have been involved with regeneration programmes for over 13 years now, and have seen the names change, the conditions change and have evaluated a number to see whether individuals and communities have benefited.  I would agree with the authors of the report that the number of new schemes and ways of allocating money are too numerous to allow for simplicity and would almost go so far as to say that this proliferation has been a nice job opportunity for quasi-civil servants and consultants.

I would also agree at the macro level that the areas that have received huge amounts of funding are still in need of huge amounts of funding.  I would suggest that those areas that have received funding and are now hugely prosperous (parts of Leeds and Canary Wharf spring to mind) are also now fairly devoid of the people and the industries that were there when the money started to flow in.  Sometimes regeneration funding has the perverse effect of displacing the problem, and concentrating the deprived into smaller and more difficult areas.

With most of the target areas for these regeneration funds, the cause of the problem is significant structural change - a hundred years ago that might have been the move from the land to towns, but now that change is from a manufacturing and production base to a services base.  While funds have been pumped into places like the Black Country, North Tyneside, Sheffield and Liverpool from public sources, funds have also flooded into prosperous areas like Milton Keynes, Reading, Swindon and Edinburgh from private sources.

The report might argue that the poor are getting poorer on comparisons to national averages and prosperous areas, but the rich are also getting richer, and the speed of that change is not being assessed in the same way.

If I were trying to look at this scientifically, I suspect I would have compared to the national average, but I would also have tried to compare with a deprived area that didn't receive the big pots of money, to see how they were doing.  For example when I was trying to gain regeneration funds for local areas, it was easy enough to prove that parts of Kidderminster and Bromsgrove were at levels of deprivation comparable with Hillfields in Coventry or New Town in Birmingham, just the numbers were smaller.  How have Rifle Range and Charford fared over the past 12 years?

The other aspect to this is that the causes of the need for regeneration are still there and still influencing need.  Industrial decline and the movement away from manufacturing has not stopped just because funds are being put into community and economic regeneration.  Coventry has seen some spectacular successes in urban regeneration, but at the same time, global pressures have seen the closure of the Peugeot manufacturing plant at Ryton, the collapse of Marconi, ripple effects from the closure of Longbridge and the movement of production of Jaguars away from Browns Lane.  How much worse would conditions be in Coventry if they hadn't received Single Regeneration Budget, Neighbourhood Renewal Funds, Local Economic Growth Initiative and European Regional Development Funding?

Staying on rates

I am known for being a pedant, particularly about numbers and their use or abuse.  Today's rant is about pedantry when using jargon and jargon that is highly emotive to boot.

The article on the BBC that has caused today's raised blood pressure is sadly not the brief but depressing article on GCSE languages, that would normally have me ranting for Britain (or England at least).

Today's annoying article is a supposed scoop on raising the school leaving age to 18, which will apparently feature in the Queen's speech.  If that were the case - if young people were going to be forced to stay in school until the age of 18 - it would be truly radical, I expect it would entail a fairly radical increase in school costs (particularly for those schools currently without a sixth form), and a pretty large increase in family allowances as well.  It would be expensive.

It would also be unpopular with a large part of the non-school education sector.  The unsung jewel in the crown of English education, the FE College, would lose a large part of its full time student base, the flexibility to deliver a range of qualifications to those not aged 16 to 18, and a huge wedge of its funding.  The much maligned private training provider who supports the national apprenticeship system would also find their funding cut, their market dried up and would be looking at how to close without becoming insolvent first.

I think I have made my point - it would be radical, unpopular and would have serious implications.

What Schools Secretary Ed Balls is actually looking to do, is to formalise the current objective that all young people stay in some form of education or training until they reach the age of 18.  Currently about 10% of 16 year olds do not progress into education or training, but some go into work without training, while others  fall into the NEET category (Not in Education, Employment or Training). 

For years in Coventry and Warwickshire, we ran something called the Success Index, which monitored as a shared measure of success for partners in education and training, the proportion of young people in education, training and employment WITH training.  Then when NEET became the target of choice, as being not quite so difficult and being monitored at national level for Connexions performance indicators, Coventry and Warwickshire had to lower their standards.

Mr Balls - you are now advocating what we used to monitor and strive for - about time and well done.  HOWEVER can you please get the terminology right, as at least in this case it is highly important.

Cancer and scare statistics

Well, the World Cancer Research Fund have done their best to make everyone miserable - let's raise a glass to them!  Or more precisely, let's raise a glass of filtered tap water to them as they try to scare us all into being thin and eating healthily.

As you would expect, the BBC have reported the latest research report, and have pulled out for all of us the key messages and what friendly messages they are!  Limit red meat consumption (500g per person per week maximum but burgers are OK - how will Australians survive?), limit alcohol (it will kill you with cancer but might save you from heart disease in moderation), no processed pork products, no weight gain after the age of 21 (BE REAL!), no sugary drinks (including fruit juices!) and breastfeed children (bad luck chaps and the childless).

One of the report's authors says it is all about identifying risk so that individuals are in control of what they do and therefore help to keep that risk under control.

Hmmm - what about the big reason for cancer - smoking?  What about those who suffer cancer because their work place is full of liberated asbestos or they were at a nuclear bomb test site?  What about the two thirds of cancer cases that are not lifestyle related, but are genetic?

According to medical statistics, there are 200,000 new cases of cancer per year in the UK (population c 58 million), of which two thirds will not be lifestyle related.  Readers of "The Tiger That Isn't" will know what questions to ask and what calculations to make at this point.

My issue here is not particularly with those who undertook the study - I am not a medical statistician or an epidemiologist, and that lot have their own lovely sets of stats to play with.  My issue with all this (apart from as a bon viveur - see my other blog - Rural Life) is as someone who writes research reports from time to time.  There is a certain Terry Wogan effect now with surveys, where once the results are released, you get a huge amount of scoffing, a certain amount of resentment if the findings impact on an individual's comfort zone, and then they are regarded as tomorrow's chip paper. 

The scare mongering is actually turning people off from the messages contained in the research.  There is so much conflicting advice now on lifestyle and nutrition, the average and non-average person doesn't know where to turn.  The findings may or may not be valid, but the message delivery leaves an awful lot to be desired, and people resent the nanny state.

A French School in London

Earlier this week the BBC published a report about turning a West London comprehensive school into a bi-lingual school part funded by the French government.  The thinking and offer come from the fact that the school in question is currently not performing as well as it might (only a quarter of pupils gain the benchmark 5 GCSEs at A* to C), while French nationals in London look for provision where their children can follow the French curriculum.

My instant reaction was that this was a brilliant idea.  It solves so many problems in one go.  Children whose culture and first language is French get the chance to follow their national curriculum (including learning philosophy) and take the French Bac - the opening to French higher education and jobs.  A school that is performing not as well as it might becomes the centre of attention and gets extra funding, which should generate a certain Hawthorne effect and improve results.  Hammersmith and Fulham get a showcase school.  English children get a chance to widen their language knowledge.

But thinking on it a bit further, and trying to put my mental clock back to when I was at secondary school - will the children really appreciate this development?  I imagine the French children will, but what about the others?

When I was at school at one stage my parents got really excited about a house in the Dordogne and contemplated moving to France.  That really made me miserable.  While I wasn't the most social of children, I couldn't image leaving our little cottage in Kent, and the woods behind it, and my school, and my friends.  Similarly, any thoughts out of the norm about schooling brought a fear as well - what would I do if I couldn't go to the school I had been mentally preparing myself for over the years.  Finally - being a bit different, learning different things - standing out and being different wasn't the popular thing, and if you were different, you were often miserable.

So will the children of Hammersmith and Fulham think that having a bi-lingual school is the best thing ever (my view as an adult) or will it cause fear, resentment and disaffection?  I really, really hope it works out for all concerned.

Migrant worker reports

So here's a thing - two reports have been published by the Government looking at the impact of migrant workers to the UK.  One focuses on the economic benefits (about £700,000 per day extra output) and that the workers pay more in tax to the system than they take out in services.  The other looks at the social impacts of migrant workers, and in a qualitative manner focuses on the strains that migrant workers are placing on the health, housing, education and justice systems. 

Both reports are covered by the Daily Telegraph and the BBC, but what surprised me, was that the Telegraph focused on the positive side of the argument, while the BBC hardly mentioned the economic benefits, but played up the pressures on service provision.

Neither media source is really being balanced in their reporting, but I was surprised that the BBC chose to focus on the negatives, even when they are supposed to promote social cohesion and education to the population.

The media have been reporting isolated instances where local authorities have emphasised the pressures on services caused by the influx of migrant workers - Slough was a particular cause celebre and I have worked on reports for Wychavon in Worcestershire and for Hertfordshire where there are also issues. 

In Wychavon, it was the first instance noted of the pressures on emergency medical cover, as migrant workers are not aware or face difficulties signing on with GPs.  In Hertfordshire, the key pressures that were noted were on facilities for learning English and the funding for that, with some large employers unwilling to pay for this service.

There is little doubt that migrant workers are taking jobs that we would expect home grown workers to take, however with low numbers of Job Seekers Allowance unemployed, there is a shortage of labour that migrant workers are taking.  In Worcestershire, anecdotal evidence suggests that our own home grown workers do not want to do night shifts, work in hospitality, do work that is a bit physical or is perceived to be low status.

Personally I say thank you to those migrant workers that have moved to the UK and mean that Stanstead Airport, buses, cafes and other services function well.  I would also remind readers that there is an exodus of UK nationals leaving Britain for Spain, France and Portugal, who do not contribute at all to their economies, but are happy to take advantage of the health systems and subsidised public transport.  Just a thought!