Covert research is research which is not declared to the research participants or subjects. This is often muddled with deception, and condemned as intrinsically unethical. The basis of that condemnation is a legitimate concern with the rights of research subjects. It is, however, over-generalized. Research subjects do have rights, but they are not the only people with rights. They may have some say about the use of information, but not all information is under their control. They are entitled to privacy, but not everything is private. Undeclared, undisclosed research in informal settings has to be accepted as a normal part of academic enquiry.

No abstract

A mode of operation defines a pattern of policy-making or approach to policy. This paper attempts to deconstruct the relationship between certain modes of operation, political ideology and specific techniques, using the main example of targeting. Targeting is commonly related to a number of other concepts, including selectivity, meanstesting, conditionality, residual welfare, and rationing. The inter-connectedness of the issues is often taken for granted: residualism implies selectivity, selectivity is undertaken by means-testing, selectivity and means-testing are a form of targeting, targeting and conditionality substantially overlap, and all of them have played an important role in the development of arguments for the limitations on expenditure and the restriction of welfare provision. But the methods can be used in different systems, for different purposes. Means-testing is not the same thing as selectivity; selectivity is not the same thing as conditionality or targeting; rationing can take place in any kind of service; and none of these options is necessarily residualist. Modes of operation are often compounded with political aims, the structural context of policy, discussions of implementation and the application of specific policies. When the concepts are unravelled, it becomes possible to think of the methods and approaches involved in different ways.

This version may not include final proof corrections and does not include published layout or pagination.

PurposeDespite the vast amount of literature covering the concept of leadership, it remains contentious, under‐conceptualised and often uncritical. The purpose of this paper is to question the validity of the concept and dispute its application.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews what the idea of leadership means, how it relates to competing accounts of management in the public services, and what value it adds.FindingsThere is no evident reason why the supposed roles, tasks, or qualities of “leadership” either need to be or should be concentrated in the person of a leader; the tasks involved in “leading” an organisation are not in fact the tasks of motivation, influence or direction of others which are at the core of the literature; and there is no reason to suppose that leadership is a primary influence on the behaviour of most organisations.Practical implicationsIn the context of the public services, there is no set of skills, behaviours or roles that could be applied across the public services; the emphasis in leadership theory on personal relationships may be inconsistent with the objectives and character of the service; and the arrogation to a public service manager of a leadership role may be illegitimate.Originality/valueThe argument here represents a fundamental challenge to the concept of leadership, its relevance and its application to public services.