10th (or is it 30th) Anniversary reflections

It may seem odd to reflect on a 10th anniversary by wondering whether it ought to be celebrating a 30th instead.  Setting IVAR in this longer context illuminates both its origins and the enduring validity of its focus and methodology.

The use of action research to focus on voluntary sector issues was first pioneered by David Billis and Margaret Harris at Brunel University.  David established a research unit with the snappy acronym of PORTVAC (Programme of Research and Training in Voluntary Action) in 1978 and was quickly joined there by Margaret in 1981.  It was the first university-based programme of study focused on the voluntary sector.

At that time the sector was significantly smaller and less self-assured.  David and Margaret were the early champions of the view that the sector has distinctive features, distinctive challenges and needs its own research and problem solving capability.  At that time it was popular to assert that private sector solutions and disciplines were sufficient to tackle any organisational problems in the voluntary sector.

The unit moved to LSE in 1987 and became the Centre for Voluntary Organisation.  It prospered for over ten years.  But when David Billis retired LSE decided to take the Centre in a different direction and its name and focus were changed.  The core concept of using action research to address practical issues within the voluntary sector was soon reborn.  In 2001, Margaret Harris and Ben Cairns (a CVO alumnus) established the Aston Centre for Voluntary Action Research in 2001.  This was a further successful iteration of the PORTVAC and CVO concept and flourished for the next five years. 

As the time approached for Margaret’s retirement, the issue of succession rose again.  Within a voluntary organisation, succession is an issue that is owned and resolved by the organisation itself.  But a research unit located within a university has remarkably little influence in this crucial leadership area.  Academic appointments are made by those who are external to the unit and who may have little empathy with it.  Appointments can also be influenced by factors outside of the department in which the unit may be located.

Faced with this uncertainty, a core group of those who valued this distinctive tradition of action research focused on the voluntary sector looked for a more certain outcome.  We concluded that only an independent body could control its own destiny.  We needed to become what we study – a voluntary organisation.  With generous core funding from three charitable trusts, IVAR was established with Ben Cairns as its first Director and Margaret Harris as its Academic Advisor.  This was supported by a core group of researchers, most of whom were alumni of either PORTVAC, CVO or ACVAR.

An independent charitable research institute is a very different business model from a research unit within a university.  There are no posts (tenured or otherwise) paid by the university and no continuing stream of students to contribute as well as be taught.   There is no tithe on research income but, at the end of the day, all expenditure has to be covered by fees or charitable donations.

It is not a consultancy model. Having co-founded a public/voluntary sector consultancy that eventually become a PLC with turnover of some £12m per year, I know the consultancy business model well.  It has a relentless focus on fee income and growth in order to drive up shareholder value.

IVAR’s business model is something of a hybrid.  The time it spends on academic articles, internally funded research, papers for conferences and publication etc are typical of a university research unit.  Some of its studies for individual organisations have an organisational consultancy flavour while some of its partnership building programmes are closer to the social enterprise model of contracting. 

The driver of the organisation is ‘relevance’ rather than ‘profit’.  The theories developed through our research have to have practical application and be valued.  Problems have to be resolved or explained.  The organisations we work with have to see tangible benefits from their collaboration with us.  Charitable funders will often take a wider or longer view of what is relevant than an individual organisation commissioning a particular study.  But unless we continue to deliver for both we will not cover our costs.

Most voluntary and community sector organisations are also hybrids.  They are no strangers to balancing roles, resolving competing priorities, sustaining collaborations and living with ambiguity. It helps that we are like those with whom we research.

Julian Ashby – April 2010