Introduction

The existing secondary accounts of the Research Programme, by Richard Berthoud (1983a) and Alan Deacon (2003), are based on the three published progress reports by the Working Party and on studies from the Programme itself, notably the final report by Muriel Brown and Nicola Madge (1982a). Berthoud has argued, for instance, that at the time of the cycle speech, the SSRC operated entirely in ‘responsive’ mode. It publicised its presence to the research community, and waited for social scientists to come up with projects. The SSRC had little experience of commissioning research, demand for funding was weak, and the nature of the Programme was relatively unclear. This meant that promoting a pre-planned multidisciplinary research programme was something of an uphill struggle. He alleges that the SSRC in 1972 had ‘never been asked an important question by an outsider’ (Berthoud, 1983a, pp 156-7, 162). In their overview of the Research Programme, Muriel Brown and Nicola Madge give a brief and arguably misleading summary of its general direction (Brown and Madge, 1982a). If there is a gap in knowledge between the cycle speech and the First Report of the Joint Working Party (SSRC–DHSS, 1974), even less is known about the Research Programme and the applications that were received, not least those that were unsuccessful, or projects that went ahead but did not lead to publications.

This chapter traces early attempts to commission research, some of the applications that were received, and reports by referees. While it is not possible to give a flavour of all the projects that were funded, it looks at one in particular, that by the team led by Frank Coffield at Keele University. The chapter looks in particular at the efforts that were made to correct the perceived imbalance of the Research Programme, away from the emphasis on familial processes, to take more account of socioeconomic factors. Here the appointment of new members to the Joint Working Party, along with the approach of Brian Abel-Smith and David Owen as Minister for Health, seemed to be critical. One section offers a different perspective on the Research Programme, by exploring those involved with the RCDIW, and in particular its report on low incomes (RCDIW, 1978).