Independent commissions as a venue for science-society dialogues: the case of migrant integration policy in the UK

This paper examines how science-society dialogues on the topic of migrant integration in the UK are organised. It will focus in particular on the role of independent experts appointed to government-sponsored commissions. Commissions have long been a venue of choice for dialogues about migrant integration and race relations policy in Britain. We compare three commissions which reported in the period 2000-2007: the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (Parekh Report); the Community Cohesion Review Team (Cantle Report); and the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. These commissions varied considerably in terms of their instrumental impact on policy-making, and this paper will seek to account for this variation. In particular, we will focus on the explanatory potential of two sets of variables which are important structural elements in science-society dialogues: the role of the mass media, and the role of government actors in setting terms for the deployment and production of expertise and knowledge. Finally, the paper will engage with broader debates about the political function of independent commissions. Conventionally the policy studies literature has emphasised their ‘consensus-generating’ and ‘prevaricating’ functions: we aim to capture the conditions under which commissions sometimes function as catalysts for major shifts in policy framing.