How does scrutiny actually make a difference?

What are the exact mechanisms through which scrutiny influences the executive?

It’s a tricky topic but here are ten suggestions. See if they ring true for you.

I’m looking at this from a realist perspective. This is an approach that encourages us to identify the social mechanisms that might explain how a particular programme might achieve its outcomes.

Take the example of CCTV in car parks, discussed by Pawson and Tilley in their book Realistic Evaluation (1997). They set out a range of different mechanisms that might be used as the starting point for theory building. So, for example, potential offenders may reason that they will be ‘caught in the act’, be faced with video evidence later on or face increased risk of surveillance as CCTV covered car parks are used more etc etc.

The key is to understand how a particular programme might instigate ‘a chain of reasoning and reaction’ in the mind of participants who might then do something different as a result.

Of course, the ‘participants’ we are interested in here are the executives (cabinet member or ministers) and those who advise them. And the ‘programme’ is, of course, scrutiny.

In other words, we might say that scrutiny has been influential if executives find themselves thinking and acting differently as a result of their experience of scrutiny. They might consider a new way of doing things, for example, pay attention to a new concern or have increased confidence that things are working as they should. Hopefully the end result will be improved governance and positive difference for citizens.

So, drawing from research and experience, here are ten possible mechanisms, in no particular order, through which scrutiny might influence the executive:

1. Compelling recommendations - the executive reads and considers proposals from scrutiny and thinks differently as a result
2. Challenging questions - the executive cannot reply to these questions automatically and must reflect before replying
3. Reasoned debate in meetings - the executive presents proposals that are tested by scrutiny, leading to modifications
4. Productive dialogue in meetings - back-and-forth exchanges, relating to unsolved challenges, lead to new understandings
5. Giving account in public - the process of justifying an approach in public causes deeper reflection and new understandings
6. Anticipating challenge - the knowledge that scrutiny is likely to contest a particular approach in public causes reflection and changes early in the process
7. Spotlighting issues - when scrutiny brings attention to an issue and fosters wider debate, so the executive considers something they would not have responded to otherwise
8. Informal conversations - conversations with scrutiny members outside of formal meetings are able to influence thinking away from the ‘political theatre’ of committees
9. New evidence - hearing new evidence from scrutiny causes executives to reflect and act differently
10. Credible reprimand - following perceived inappropriate behaviour, a public rebuke from scrutiny causes the executive to respond and then act differently

So, as a scrutineer, which of these makes sense to you? Which, if any, have you noticed impacting the thinking of executives?

​

If you would like to see/add comments to a version of this reflection on LinkedIn, you can find it here.