University ranking as social exclusion

In this article we explore the dual role of global university rankings in the creation of a new, knowledge-identified, transnational capitalist class and in facilitating new forms of social exclusion.We examine how and why the practice of ranking universities has become widely defined by national and international organisations as an important instrument of political and economic policy. We consider how the development of university rankings into a global business combining social research, marketing and public relations, as a tangible policy tool that narrowly redefines the social purposes of higher education itself. Finally, it looks at how the influence of rankings on national funding for teaching and research constrains wider public debate about the meaning of ‘good’ and meaningful education in the UK and other national contexts, particularly by shifting the debate away from democratic publics upward into the elite networked institutions of global capital. We conclude by arguing that, rather than regarding world university rankings as a means to establish criteria of educational value, the practice may be understood as an exclusionary one that furthers the alignment of higher education with neoliberal rationalities at both national and global levels.

Families 'at risk' and the family nurse partnership:the intrusion of risk into social exclusion policy

This article considers why the family nurse partnership (FNP) has been promoted as a means of tackling social exclusion in the UK. The FNP consists in a programme of visits by nurses to low-income first-time mothers, both while the mothers are pregnant and for the first two years following birth. The FNP is focused on both teaching parenthood and encouraging mothers back into education and/or into employment. Although the FNP marks a considerable discontinuity with previous approaches to family health, it is congruent with an emerging new approach to social exclusion. This new approach maintains that the most important task of social policy is to identify quickly the most 'at-risk' households, individuals and children so that interventions can be targeted more effectively at those 'at risk', either to themselves or to others. The article illustrates this new approach by analysing a succession of reports by the Social Exclusion Unit. It indicates that there is a considerable amount of ambiguity about the relationship between specific risk-factors and being 'at risk of social exclusion'. Nonetheless, this new approach helps to explain why British policy-makers may have chosen to promote the new FNP now. © 2009 Cambridge University Press.

Top-down or bottom-up: the real choice for public services

This article considers two contrasting approaches to reforming public services in order to meet the needs of people living in poverty. The first approach is top-down, involves categorising individuals (as 'hard to help', 'at risk', etc) and invokes scientific backing for justification. The second approach is bottom-up, emancipatory, relates to people as individuals and treats people who have experience of poverty and social exclusion as experts. The article examines each approach through providing brief examples in the fields of unemployment and parenting policy - two fields that have been central to theories of 'cycles of deprivation'. It is suggested here that the two approaches differ in terms of their scale, type of user involvement and type of evidence that is used for their legitimation. While the article suggests that direct comparison between the two approaches is difficult, it highlights the prevalence of top-down approaches towards services for people living in poverty, despite increasing support for bottom-up approaches in other policy areas.

Place, ethnicity and poverty in England’

Examination of the relationship between ethnicity, poverty and place has tended to focus on the spatial distribution of minority ethnic groups. This summary paper reviews some key themes in this literature, in order to review the following key questions: •Where are different ethnic groups located, and how does this location relate to their experience of poverty? •Is clustering a good or bad thing, and what is the role of location – regardless of concentration – in terms of impacts on access to housing, employment, and other resources? However, it is notable that existing research in this area continues to present ethnicity as a factor that shapes outcomes only for minority ethnic groups. A wider discussion increasingly recognises the working of ethnicity in the lives of majority communities. Some of the most consistently impoverished areas in Britain, for example, are in regions with relatively small minority ethnic communities. For example, examinations of poverty in Cornwall (Cemlyn, et al., 2002) and Wales (Kenway and Palmer, 2007) identify longstanding concentrations of poverty and social exclusion among relatively static populations. Instead of assuming that ethnic identity influences propensity to poverty when concentrated in particular places, the experiences of Cornwall and Wales encourage us to consider the manner in which places of poverty also have an ethnic character and the impact of this in the wider experience of poverty. In what follows, and in order to reflect the existing literature, we review key points in the debate about the spatial concentration of minority ethnic groups and the impact of this concentration on experiences of poverty. Where possible, we seek to extend these ideas to consider possible implications for spaces of poverty characterised by concentrations of majority ethnic groups.

Patient involvement in primary care mental health:a focus group study

Background: Patient involvement in health care is a strong political driver in the NHS. However in spite of policy prominence, there has been only limited previous work exploring patient involvement for people with serious mental illness. Aim: To describe the views on, potential for, and types of patient involvement in primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness. Design of study: Qualitative study consisting of six patient, six health professional and six combined focus groups between May 2002 and January 2003. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands, England. Method: Forty-five patients with serious mental illness, 39 GPs, and eight practice nurses participated in a series of 18 focus groups. All focus groups were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Nvivo was used to manage data more effectively. Results: Most patients felt that only other people with lived experience of mental illness could understand what they were going through. This experience could be used to help others navigate the health- and social-care systems, give advice about medication, and offer support at times of crisis. Many patients also saw paid employment within primary care as a way of addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion. Health professionals were, however, more reluctant to see patients as partners, be it in the consultation or in service delivery. Conclusions: Meaningful change in patient involvement requires commitment and belief from primary care practitioners that the views and experiences of people with serious mental illness are valid and valuable.