Call for papers: Evidence & Policy special issue – Creativity and Co-production

This special issue uses the lens of Creativity and Co-production to explore the meaning of ‘evidence’ and whose meaning counts. It considers what the terms ‘creating’, ‘making’ and ‘production’ mean with regards knowledge creation, sharing and putting into action. It examines the potential role that created artefacts play. For example, what are the values embodied and represented in ‘knowledge artefacts’ and what affordance and agency might they give to human actors?

Areas for discussion include:

  • What evidence is valid, who produces it, and how was it produced?
  • What is the process by which ‘evidence’ can be interrogated by others, made sense of, and acted upon?
  • Not acting on evidence is commonly described as the ‘evidence gap’. Could this be broken down into a series of ‘micro’ gaps between Evidence and Knowledge, Knowledge and Knowing, Knowing and Action?
  • What role do creative practices, tangible objects, and visual language play in bridging each of these micro gaps?
Continue reading

Call for papers: Evidence & Policy special issue -The many faces of disability in evidence for policy and practice

By Carol Rivas, David Gough and Ikuko Tomomatsu

This special issue examines the relationship between disability, evidence, and policy. It considers the extent to which the demand for, production, and use of evidence in policy and practice takes account of disability perspectives.  For example, disabled populations, already vulnerable, have been made more so throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlights their disenfranchisement and marginalisation in relevant policy decisions. This outcome has sparked calls to action by disability advocacy groups and coalitions in the Global North and the Global South. These current events and responses provide a window of opportunity to reassess and change some of the entrenched systems that consistently exclude vulnerable groups such as disabled populations.

Continue reading

Opening the doors of the Machine Room

This blog post is the forth in a series of posts linked to the Evidence & Policy special issue (Volume 16, Issue 2) on Opening up evidence-based policy: exploring citizen and service user expertise. Guest Edited by Ellen Stewart, Jennifer Smith-Merry, and Marc Geddes.

Sarah Carr

Seventeen years ago, Diana Rose wrote that in mental health, user involvement was becoming ‘a technology of legitimation’[1] for reinforcing established powers. Seventeen years later, in examining some of the circuits and processors, Mazanderani and colleagues reveal how complex this ‘technology’ or machinery has become, and is still becoming. As though opening the doors of the machine room, the authors offer us a wealth of important insights and ideas. I’d like to share some thoughts on just a couple of them here.

Continue reading