Search results

The purpose of this paper is to address the following research question: What are the perceptions of professionals and consumers regarding the antecedents of client referrals in the financial advice sector?

A total of 61 qualitative interviews were conducted, with the following three key groups: independent financial advisers (IFAs; 20 interviews), clients of IFAs (26 interviews) and consumers who manage their own financial affairs and do not use the services of an IFA (15 interviews).

The financial advisers interviewed believe that client referrals are important to their business success, that they can influence clients to become ambassadors who will consciously seek out new clients and that excellent service will motivate clients to provide referrals. However, the interviews with the clients painted a different picture. While advisers believe that they can influence client referral behavior, the clients did not believe that they were influenced by the adviser to make referrals.

The sampling method was non-random and relied on the professional contacts of the principal researcher as a starting point, from which a network of contacts was established to identify interviewees. The study casts doubt on the ability of professional service providers to influence client referral behavior. This novel finding deserves further research investigation.

There is clearly scope for greater measurement in connection with referrals in professional service businesses. The propensity for clients to refer should be included as a metric in the performance measurement of professional service providers, in addition to standard financial measures. This would encourage the service provider to consider referrals during client interactions.

The study reports on a substantial qualitative study involving both professional service providers and their clients. While the providers believe that client referrals are critical to their business success, the evidence collected provides little or no support for this belief. Clients report they are not motivated to refer. Advisers do not explicitly measure referrals. The reality of referrals seems not to match the mythology.

The film approach to history in this paper I want to consider the film as source material for history in the sense that palimpsest and parchment, hieroglyph and rune, clay tablet and manorial roll are source materials—fragments, sometimes fragments of fragments, often defaced by time, and applied to purposes of historical reconstruction rarely contemplated by the original authors. For the most part I shall not be particularly concerned with the various philosophies of history—whether it is the job of the historian to lay material dispassionately before the student so that he can make up his own mind about what happened in the past, or to digest source material in order to arrive at the truth—that is, what the historian may hope is the whole incontrovertible real truth, or to digest source material, as Macaulay and Carlyle digested it, in order to justify something in contemporary life or thought. All that need be said here for the moment is that films can be used, as other historical source material can be used, for various and different historical purposes.

In June 2016, a clear majority of English voters chose to unilaterally take the United Kingdom out of the European Union (EU). According to many of the post-Brexit vote analyses, the single strongest motivating factor driving this vote was “immigration” in Britain, an issue which had long been the central mobilizing force of the United Kingdom Independence Party. The chapter focuses on how – following the bitter demise of multiculturalism – these Brexit related developments may now signal the end of Britain's postcolonial settlement on migration and race, the other parts of a progressive philosophy which had long been marked out as a proud British distinction from its neighbors. In successfully racializing, lumping together, and relabeling as “immigrants” three anomalous non-“immigrant” groups – asylum seekers, EU nationals, and British Muslims – UKIP leader Nigel Farage made explicit an insidious recasting of ideas of “immigration” and “integration,” emergent since the year 2000, which exhumed the ideas of Enoch Powell and threatened the status of even the most settled British minority ethnic populations – as has been seen in the Windrush scandal. Central to this has been the rejection of the postnational principle of non-discrimination by nationality, which had seen its fullest European expression in Britain during the 1990s and 2000s. The referendum on Brexit enabled an extraordinary democratic vote on the notion of “national” population and membership, in which “the People” might openly roll back the various diasporic, multinational, cosmopolitan, or human rights–based conceptions of global society which had taken root during those decades. This chapter unpacks the toxic cocktail that lays behind the forces propelling Boris Johnson to power. It also raises the question of whether Britain will provide a negative examplar to the rest of Europe on issues concerning the future of multiethnic societies.

Inquiries, commissions, reviews and the promise of broader data collection about racial and gender disparities are now the reflex defensive responses from state institutions charged with grievous social harm, particularly in the UK. Recommendations from these exercises are rarely implemented. As criminologists, our ability to produce and analyse data that evidences or better illuminates social harm has long been a key offer of the discipline to activism.

How are we to respond to the very institutions activist criminologists seek to challenge immediately offering this very activity, invariably protracted and ineffectual, as a reflex response to activist challenge? This chapter explores this tension. Grounded in the work of groups struggling to end police stop and search, it considers the strategy impasse around research and data production that faces grassroots activists and their accomplice researchers. The chapter proposes new routes for collaboration and action across activist and criminologist communities that may help move past the ‘data trap’. In short, it seeks to answer: do activists need more evidence?

Since January 1997, the UK has imposed sanctions on employers found to be employing irregular workers. Coercing employers into conducting immigration status checks makes it increasingly difficult for irregular migrants to secure employment opportunities, thus restricting their ability to sustain a tolerable life in the UK. The deputisation of employers, as well as other private entities, such as landlords, has become a pivotal element of what is commonly known as the ‘hostile environment’, an attempt to make UK life unbearable for irregular migrants. This chapter uses the social science critique of ethnocentrism to explore different forms of bias and discrimination embedded in the deputisation of employers. Dehumanisation and exclusion are the two manifestations of ethnocentrism focussed on: examples of these recurring issues are drawn from the justifications for implementation, and effects of the employer sanctions regime.