The Contemporary Implementation of Traditional Knowledge and Evidence (CITE) framework is a groundbreaking guide designed to integrate traditional medicine (TM) with modern healthcare systems. Developed through expert consensus, with the results published in Evidence & Policy, this framework provides essential principles and criteria for evaluating and applying traditional knowledge in clinical practice, research, education and policy. As global health initiatives and institutions increasingly recognise the value of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Healthcare (TCIH), the CITE Framework offers a timely, practical solution for ensuring the quality, safety, and efficacy of these practices in contemporary health contexts.
The Editorial Management Board of the journal Evidence & Policy invites applications for Associate Editors. Evidence & Policy is the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to comprehensive and critical assessment of the relationship between research evidence and the concerns of policy makers and practitioners, as well as researchers.
We are pleased to introduce the new Editors in Chief of Evidence & Policy: Dr Mariah Kornbluh, University of Oregon, and Dr Dan Mallinson, Penn State Harrisburg.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we wanted to use our skills to help with the eventual vaccine rollout. Chris was already well-placed to do so. As Chair of Australia’s Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), he had years of experience in aspects of vaccine policymaking. Katie was an emerging leader in vaccination social science and policy, and, like Chris, she had strong connections in the Western Australian Department of Health. They knew that the team focused on administering Australia’s National Immunisation Program would have their hands full with supporting the existing programme during COVID-19 times. How could they also prepare for a pandemic vaccine rollout?
The equitable use of social science is a persistent governance challenge, particularly in applied social science and psychosocial treatment research. A common approach in applied social science is testing learning tools such as checklists, guides, manuals and trainings. These tools are developed to support behavior change at multiple levels and can be aimed at individuals, organisations or systems. To become evidence-based, these tools are tested against a control, ‘as usual’, or equivalent group. If effective in comparison, the package is then purveyed with the coveted ‘evidence-based’ moniker. Governments eager for tested approaches, as part of responsible governance, are then motivated to buy these tools and they are typically delivered by purveyor organisations as completed packages.
Some previous efforts focused on addressing both evidence-informed and community-engaged values have resorted to ‘list selection’ approaches in which community is involved in selecting a package from a pre-assembled list of programs. This approach engages community choice but limits the opportunity for community to contribute to more substantive design in the framing and content of these programs.
Working across sectoral boundaries offers exciting prospects for academics and municipal policymakers to develop innovative solutions to local issues through exploring shared concerns from their distinct professional perspectives. Yet organisational boundaries present well-recognised impediments to research-policy interaction. Drawing on findings from a Review of Collaboration between academics and local government officers in Leeds, we propose that active cultivation of civic ‘communities of practice’ offers a promising approach for connecting research evidence with social, environmental and economic challenges that confront local authorities and their citizens.
Crucially, we argue that boundary crossing relationships between professionals are key facilitators of effective civic collaboration that need to be nurtured and supported organisationally. This means putting inter-sectoral mechanisms in place that help ‘bridge’ institutional divides, without stifling the enthusiasm and dynamism that underpins meaningful knowledge exchange.
Special Issue Editors: Mariah Kornbluh and Jennifer Renick
“It is a fundamental right of youth and young adults to participate in designing the programs and policies aiming to serve them.” (United Nations, 1989).
In recent years, there have been growing calls for the ‘democratization’ of research evidence, which argues for broadening the kinds of evidence that is considered legitimate in informing practice and policy (Doucet, 2019; Kirkland, 2019; Wegemer & Renick, 2021). Within youth-led participatory action research (YPAR), youth conduct systematic research and generate evidence to draw on to advocate for policy and/or programmatic changes (Kornbluh, 2023; Ozer et al., 2020). Such an approach aligns with the push for the democratization of evidence in broadening who are considered legitimate producers of knowledge (Fine & Torre, 2021; Ozer et al., 2020).
This special issue will explore the intersections between the use of research evidence to inform policy and YPAR, with the broad goals of studying and strengthening models for impact. In this special issue, we seek scholarship in theoretical frameworks, methodologies, presentations, and case studies that embrace YPAR as a vehicle for youth-led policy change.
Submission for this issue might address the following topics:
Descriptive case studies of YPAR informing (or attempting to push for) policy change
Theoretical models and approaches to YPAR-initiated policy change
An examination of the role of power and politics in relation to youth-led policy change
Examples of strategizing for scaling-up action from YPAR projects into policy change
Practices or procedures for addressing adultism and/or preparing adults to accept and implement youth-led policy change
Empirical explorations of the impact of YPAR-initiated policy change
We imagine this special issue to function as a way to explore the research to practice gap within policy change, and whose perspectives are missing. Furthermore, we hope this issue will highlight ways in which policy makers can more critically accept or invite the voices of young people.
Deadline: Interested authors should send a 300-word abstract to Special Issue Editors Dr Mariah Kornbluh at the University of Oregon (mkornbl2@uoregon.edu) and Dr Jennifer Renick at the University of Memphis (jrenick@memphis.edu) by 30 November 2024. Invitations for full paper submissions will be sent in mid-January, and full papers will be due by end of May 2025.
On 6th January 2021, thousands of people descended upon the US Capitol to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in the US presidential election. Televised acts of physical violence were broadcast across the nation and many children were watching. Within hours of the attack, educators were ‘floundering’, trying to figure out if and how they would discuss what happened with their students the next day. Take for example, a Social Studies Subject Coordinator in Florida:
Kids come into school looking for answers. What does that mean? I’m like, ‘alright, what do we got?’ Because teachers were going to come to me, and I feel it was important that as a district person, we provide support. My superintendent said, ‘we’re not mentioning it.’ I was like, ‘We gotta do something, we gotta do something. If we just put out a statement. What is, what is the role of the Vice President? And why did we do that on January sixth?’ It was a teachable moment.
Special Issue Editors: Joel Malin and Chris Lubienski
Mis- and dis-information are growing problems world-wide, corrupting trust and engagement in consumer markets, media, politics, and other institutions. This issue is particularly concerning for research-driven areas that involve public policy. Education is a prime area. Not only do education policymakers seek ‘research-based’ policy, but schools themselves, while subjected to false information campaigns, are also uniquely suited as institutions that have the capacity to counter misinformation by providing fact-based learning and critical thinking skills.
There is great potential for research to inform adult social care practice. However, a gap remains between this potential and its actual use by those who plan, commission or deliver care. In our recently published paper in Evidence & Policy we consider this gap. We also reflect on the implications of the continuing need to ensure that research is there – relevant, accessible, usable and used.
In 2022 we interviewed people in three local authorities. When asked what they thought research was for, most emphasised the belief that it should improve the lives of people using services. Some mentioned improving their own practice. Others talked about its value in helping them ‘fight their corner’ when a difficult decision had to be made or course of action justified.
Evidence & Policy Blog 