There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of research about charities. In the last month alone, we’ve learned that charities are likely to see their income slow, but not drop
in the current economic downturn; that awareness of the Compact among Government departments has significantly improved over the past decade; that one in three voluntary
sector staff works with children and young people; and that women are 20 per cent more likely than men to support good causes – to take just a few of the findings.

And it’s never been more popular with policy makers. Millions is being spent by the government into two new research centres – the £10.25 million Third Sector Research Centre, which was announced last month and will be led by the universities of Birmingham and Southampton, and the £ 2.2 million Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, which has already begun work.

Not everyone is convinced about the usefulness of the research coming out of the sector, though. Adam Rothwell, features editor at donor-advice website Intelligent Giving recently caused a stir by bemoaning the quality of some of the work. He was particularly rude about the 2007 edition of one of the sector’s key publications, CAF’s Charity Trends, which tracks the fortunes of the top 500 fundraising charities and donation levels.

“It’s a disgrace,” he says. “You can’t really trust anything you read in it.” Not only is there little guidance and inconsistency in how many of the figures are collected, but it is also “appallingly badly put together”, he argues. Errors can be found throughout. And while it is the worst offender, he says, the methodologies used to arrive at many of the headline-grabbing figures commentators take for granted are suspect.

This is reflected in the continual discrepancies between different surveys. Take the recent work on trust in the sector: nfpSynergy’s research in March suggested a significant slide, with less than half the population left trusting charities; little more than a month later, though, Ipsos MORI’s poll for the Charity Commission suggested trust was on the up.

And what about volunteering? Whether you believe the government’s various initiatives to boost it have had any effect largely depends on who you ask. nfpSynergy reckons not; Volunteering England and the Government’s Citizenship Survey say it has. It may all be academic anyway since research in April suggested many groups already have all the volunteers they can manage.

“You have to be very careful making any argument that relies on these figures,” suggests Rothwell. “They’re just not good enough.”

Others question the significance of much of the research, even if it is accurate. Ben Wittenberg, head of policy and research at the Directory of Social Change, for instance, says it’s important to remember that only a few hundred people talk about the “voluntary”, “charity” or “third sector”.

“No one else cares,” he says. “Almost everyone working in it is only concerned with their organisation or the particular sub-sector they’re working in.” Much of the work that goes into investigating trends over the entire sector, therefore, is so general as to be of little relevance. “It’s actually useless to most people,” he maintains.

Who wants to know

These criticisms may not be entirely fair, though. For a start, there’s no real evidence
to suggest that much of the work on the voluntary sector is any worse than elsewhere. Research is, in general, beset with problems.

“I don’t claim research in the third sector is perfect, but data on anything throws up such issues,” says Richard Harrison, director of research at CAF. Just look at the squabbles over the accuracy of crime figures, for instance. Inconsistencies, too, are to be expected since no two researchers will ever come up with exactly the same methodology.

“In fact, conflicting results are a perfectly natural and fairly healthy consequence of a vibrant charity research sector,” says Harrison. Indeed, at the Centre for Giving and Philanthropy, principle investigator Jenny Harrow says one of the benefits it should bring is to boost understanding among policy markers, the public and charities that no one set of findings isever likely to give you a true definitive picture.

“You should really put the hyphen back into ‘re-search’,” she says. “It’s all about looking at things over again.” As for whether it’s any use, just look at the benefits, says Harrison: It certainly drives government policy – Giving Nation, the government drive to promote a culture of giving in schools, was heavily influenced by CAF’s research; or take the recent decision to maintain the current level charities can claim on gift aid, despite the lowering of the basic rate for taxpayers – a policy in no small way influenced by CAF’s sums on how much the sector would lose otherwise.

It also helps charities looking to boost their fundraising – witness the work by Philanthropy UK on the importance of women philanthropists. And it drives synergies, as can be seen in the studies NCVO has done on collaboration between large and small charities.
“Research brings a whole range of benefits,” says Harrison.

What is true, however, is that there is a limited range of data when it comes to the type of studies done in the charity sector. Money is a big issue and funding for research isn’t that readily available. The result is that – in contrast to the US and to other sectors – there is a lack of academic, long-term studies.

This, in part, is something that the new research centres will be addressing.
“We’ll be trying to rectify the relatively weak research base,” explains Peter Alcock, who from September will take up the directorship of the Third Sector Research Centre at Birmingham, alongside John Mohan, who will lead from Southampton.

“That’s not to say there isn’t good research, but quite often at the moment we don’t know nearly enough or have enough detail to answer all the questions we have,” he continues. In particular, there is a lack of longitudinal research, tracking the sector over time to make it possible to chart the impact of policies and practice.

But what difference will Alcock’s centre really make? Harrison is hopeful. He reckons giving research in the sector a home with real credibility can only be a good thing (as well as £5 million over five years from the Office of the Third Sector, the general centre is also supported by £5 million from ESRC, the £200 million funder for research on social and economic issues).

Not only will it be in a position to produce thorough and long-term research of its own, it will give policymakers and journalists a central point of contact, and help draw together the knowledge already to be found in the sector, making it easier to access and reducing duplication.

“A lot can happen when you bring things under one roof,” he says. At nfpSynergy, though, Joe Saxton is less enthusiastic. He can see the advantages of a centre to signpost the research that’s already out there, but he’s less convinced the work either centre does itself will have a great impact.

“The real issue is what use this will be for people on the front line,” he says. “My worry is that by and large, academics don’t have a great track record producing research that’s of genuine help to practitioners.” For examples, ask fundraisers which academics have produced useful stuff for them, he suggests, and you’ll find it’s a fairly short list. “I really hope they turn out to be useful, because a lot of money is being spent on them, but I’m not holding my breath,” he concludes.

Those heading up the centres are well aware of the dangers, and are at pains to stress that while their work is also aimed at policymakers and the general public, they will aim to support those in the sector.

“We’re academics, but we’re aware that we shouldn’t just be producing academic outputs, because they can go over people’s heads,” says Alcock. Harrow, meanwhile, says that part of the reason the giving centre is operating a co-directorship with Cathy Pharoah, who has years of experience in the charity sector, is to ensure a balance between academia and practice.

“We want to strike that correctly,” she says. Ultimately, they know that getting this right will determine whether they keep the support of the sector they’re studying. After the millions being spent, if they fail there will be no point disputing the results.

Top

To return to the August/September 08 features list click here