Evidence & Policy
A journal of research, debate and practice

Evidence, objectivity and welfare reform: a qualitative study of disability benefit assessments

Authors:
Tom PorterUniversity of East Anglia, UK

Search for other papers by Tom Porter in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Charlotte PearsonUniversity of Glasgow, UK

Search for other papers by Charlotte Pearson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Nick WatsonUniversity of Glasgow, UK

Search for other papers by Nick Watson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
Restricted access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article

Background:

Anti-welfare narratives depict welfare systems as overly-permissive, open to fraud, and fundamentally unfair. Countering these supposed ills have been political appeals to evidence and reforms made to disability benefit assessments under the banner of objectivity. But objectivity is a complex construct, which entails philosophical and political choices that tend to oppress, exclude and symbolically disqualify alternative perspectives.

Aims and objectives:

To examine reforms made to UK disability benefits assessments in the name of objectivity.

Methods:

Thematic analysis of 50 in-depth qualitative interviews with UK disability benefit claimants.

Findings:

Reforms made in pursuit of procedural objectivity reproduce existing social order, meaning claimants without personal, social and economic resources are less likely to succeed. Data reveal an increasingly detached and impersonal assessment process, set against a broader welfare landscape in which advocacy and support have been retrenched. In this context, attaining a valid and reliable assessment was, for many, contingent upon personal, social and economic resources.

Discussion and conclusions:

Political appeals to evidence helped establish an impetus and a legitimising logic for welfare reform. Procedural objectivity offers superficially plausible, but ultimately specious, remedies to longstanding anti-welfare tropes. Despite connotations of methodological neutrality, procedural objectivity is not a politically neutral epistemological standpoint. To know disability in a genuinely valid and reliable way, knowledge-making practices must respect dignity and proactively counter exclusory social order. These latter principles promise outcomes that are more trustworthy by virtue of their being more just.

  • Baumberg Geiger, B. (2018) A Better Work Capability Assessment is Possible: Disability Assessment, Public Opinion and the Benefits System, London: Demos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baumberg Geiger, B., Garthwaite, K., Warren, J. and Bambra, C. (2018) Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity, Disability and Rehabilitation, 40(24): 296270. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1366556

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baumberg, B., Warren, J., Garthwaite, K. and Bambra, C. (2015) Rethinking the Work Capability Assessment, https://demosuk.wpengine.com/files/Rethinking_-_web_1_.pdf?1426175121, (Accessed 29 March 2021)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bickenbach, J., Posarac, A., Cieza, A. and Kostanjsek, N. (2015) Assessing disability in working age population: a paradigm shift from impairment and functional limitation to the disability approach, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22353, (Accessed 27 February 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2): 77101.

  • Daston, L. (1992) Objectivity and the escape from perspective, Social Studies of Science, 22(4): 597618. doi: 10.1177/030631292022004002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Wolfe, P. (2012) Reaping the benefits of sickness? Long-term illness and the experience of welfare claims, Disability and Society, 27(5): 61730. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.669107

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Drake, R.F. (2000) Disabled people, new labour, benefits and work, Critical Social Policy, 20(4): 42139. doi: 10.1177/026101830002000401

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) (2006) A new deal for welfare: empowering people to work, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272235/6730.pdf, (Accessed 14 May 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DWP (2010a) Public consultation: Disability Living Allowance reform, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181633/dla-reform-consultation.pdf (Accessed 29 March 2021)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DWP (2010b) Ad-hoc analysis of Incapacity Benefits face-to-face assessments, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223237/Adhoc_analysis_of_face_to_face_assessments.pdf, (Accessed 30 June 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fine, A. (1998) The viewpoint of no-one in particular, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72(2): 720. doi: 10.2307/3130879

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Garthwaite, K. (2011) ‘The language of shirkers and scroungers?’ Talking about illness, disability and coalition welfare reform, Disability and Society, 26(3): 36972. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2011.560420

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gray, P. (2017) The second independent review of the Personal Independence Payment assessment, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604097/pip-assessment-second-independent-review.pdf, (Accessed 7 July 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harding, S. (1995) ‘Strong objectivity’: a response to the new objectivity question, Synthese, 104(3): 33149. doi: 10.1007/BF01064504

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrington, M. (2010) An independent review of the Work Capability Assessment, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/70071/wca-review-2010.pdf, (Accessed 7 July 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrington, M. (2011) An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment – year two, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/70102/wca-review-2011.pdf, (Accessed 29 March 2021)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harrington, M. (2012) An Independent Review of the Work Capability Assessment - year three, https://meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/wca-review-2012.pdf, (Accessed 29 March 2021)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Heldke, L.M. and Kellert, S.H. (1995) Objectivity as responsibility, Metaphilosophy, 26(4): 36078. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1995.tb00582.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holler, R. (2020) Material, stigmatic, and agentic dimensions in the experience of claiming disability benefits: the Israeli case, Social Policy and Administration, 54(5): 77791.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jensen, T. and Tyler, I. (2015) ‘Benefits broods’: the cultural and political crafting of anti-welfare commonsense, Critical Social Policy, 35(4): 47091. doi: 10.1177/0261018315600835

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Litchfield, P. (2013) An independent review of the Work Capability Assessment – year four, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265351/work-capability-assessment-year-4-paul-litchfield.pdf, (Accessed 7 July 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Longino, H.E. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Machin, R. (2017) Made to measure? An analysis of the transition from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payment, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(4): 43553. doi: 10.1080/09649069.2017.1390291

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newton, S. (2018) Personal Independence Payment: medical examinations: written question – 125263, https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-01-29/125263/, (Accessed 30 June 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers, https://www.oecd.org/publications/sickness-disability-and-work-breaking-the-barriers-9789264088856-en.htm, (Accessed 14 May 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Porter, T. (2019) Claiming benefits in the face of epistemological sabotage, British Sociological Association, Annual Medical Sociology Conference, York. Available: https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/25109/medsoc19_abstracts_book.pdf, (Accessed 29 March 2021).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roulstone, A. (2015) Personal Independence Payments, welfare reform and the shrinking disability category, Disability and Society, 30(5): 67388. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2015.1021759

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shakespeare, T., Watson, N. and Alghaib, O.A. (2017) Blaming the victim, all over again: Waddell and Aylward’s biopsychosocial (BPS) model of disability, Critical Social Policy, 37(1): 2241. doi: 10.1177/0261018316649120

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SMF (Social Market Foundation) (2005) The Incapacity Trap: Report of the Social Market Foundation Commission on Incapacity Benefit, https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/the-incapacity-trap-report-of-the-smf-commission-on-incapacity-benefit-reform/, (Accessed 1 July 2020)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stone, D. (1984) The Disabled State, London: Macmillan.

  • Tannoch‐Bland, J. (1997) From aperspectival objectivity to strong objectivity: the quest for moral objectivity, Hypatia, 12(1): 155178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Waddell, G. and Aylward, M. (2005) The Scientific and Conceptual Basis of Incapacity Benefits, London: The Stationery Office.

  • Wright, S., Fletcher, D.R. and Stewart, A.B. (2020) Punitive benefit sanctions, welfare conditionality, and the social abuse of unemployed people in Britain: transforming claimants into offenders?, Social Policy and Administration, 54(2): 27894. doi: 10.1111/spol.12577

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Tom PorterUniversity of East Anglia, UK

Search for other papers by Tom Porter in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Charlotte PearsonUniversity of Glasgow, UK

Search for other papers by Charlotte Pearson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Nick WatsonUniversity of Glasgow, UK

Search for other papers by Nick Watson in
Current site
Google Scholar
Close

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 154 154 35
Full Text Views 113 113 3
PDF Downloads 103 103 9

Altmetrics

Dimensions