When the demand for ‘evidence’ is unscientific: An example from HIV/AIDS

The holy grail of evidence has become all pervasive in the global HIV response. The drive for universalising knowledge on what works, derived from the emergence of ‘high quality’ evidence for biomedical prevention technologies, is now so entrenched in policy that sensitive appraisals of the ways in which interventions are engaged with and made to work in different contexts are being overlooked

Thinking about our research partnerships as part of our method

I have become increasingly interested in the social and institutional relations through which research takes place – and in thinking about those relations methodologically. By thinking methodologically, I mean thinking about how the particular relationships with partner organisations, colleagues, and research participants have really powerful influences on the data and interpretations yielded by our projects. It seems to me, that just as much as the choice of interview or focus group, narrative or discourse analysis, are constitutive of one’s data and interpretation, so too are the partnership relations through which the research is made possible

Evidence synthesis in international development: a critique of systematic reviews and a pragmatist alternative

Systematic reviews are an instrument of Evidence-Based Policy designed to produce comprehensive, unbiased, transparent and clear assessments of interventions’ effectiveness. From their origins in medical fields, systematic reviews have recently been promoted as offering important advances in a range of applied social science fields, including international development. Drawing on a case study of a systematic review of the effectiveness of community mobilisation as an intervention to tackle HIV/AIDS, this article problematizes the use of systematic reviews to summarise complex and context-specific bodies of evidence. Social development interventions, such as ‘community mobilisation’ often take different forms in different interventions; are made successful by their situation in particular contexts, rather than being successful or unsuccessful universally; and have a rhetorical value that leads to the over-application of positively valued terms (e.g. ‘community mobilisation’), invalidating the key-word search process of a systematic review. The article suggests that the policy interest in definitive summary statements of ‘the evidence’ is at odds with academic assessments that evidence takes multiple, contradictory and complex forms, and with practitioner experience of the variability of practice in context. A pragmatist philosophy of evidence is explored as an alternative. Taking this approach implies expanding the definition of forms of research considered to be ‘useful evidence’ for evidence-based policy-making; decentralising decisions about ‘what works’ to allow for the use of local practical wisdom; and prioritising the establishment of good processes for the critical use of evidence, rather than producing context-insensitive summaries of ‘the evidence’

Constructing an actionable environment: collective action for HIV prevention among Kolkata sex workers

How can marginalised communities organise a project to yield significant social change? This thesis theorises the resources which enable such community organisation to work. Participation, empowerment and conscientisation are understood, not through a logic of quantity which creates linear dimensions, but through a logic of concrete qualities. A pragmatist approach is taken, to define our constructs in terms of the actions being undertaken by participants, within specific, qualitatively distinctive domains. Activity theory is used to theorise participation as a process of collective activity, which is supported by shared rules, a division of labour and shared goals, and which is challenged by divergences of interest. A community case study of the Sonagachi Project, a successful HIV prevention project run by sex workers in Kolkata (India), is used to investigate participation. The case study is based on interviews and group discussions with sex workers and Project workers (sex workers employed by the Project), and observation of the daily activities of the Project. Sex workers relate to the Project as a source of support in solving their individual problems, gaining new powers, but not acting as collectivity members. Project workers are constituted as collectivity members, whose action interlocks with that of their colleagues, through participating in the politicising discourse of the Project, which states that sex workers should be granted “workers’ rights”, and through learning the rules of participation in meetings and the hierarchical division of labour. To be allowed to operate, the Project has to carefully adjust to local power relations, with madams, political parties, and funding agencies, in collaborative-adversarial relationships. In conclusion, the scope of participation is defined as producing significant, yet circumscribed, local change. To intervene in a fractured community is a political process in which the provision of new resources is both necessary and potentially divisive

Communicative generalisation: dialogical means of advancing knowledge through a case study of an ‘unprecedented’ disaster

In the interest of learning from a unique and devastating disaster, this paper develops a conceptualisation of generalisation as a communicative process. Growing from the author’s experience of conducting and communicating an ethnographic case study of the community response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, a tower block fire which traumatised a West London community, and has been widely labelled an ‘unprecedented’ event, the paper considers ways of developing knowledge with wider application from this unique case. ‘Communicative generalisation’ is concerned with the significance of knowledge to epistemic communities rather than abstract universal truth. Four modes of communicative generalisation are explored. By elaborating the multi-perspectival nature of a case and its relation to its context, case studies may enrich readers’ generalised other. Case studies may address an epistemic community by problematising a taken-for-granted situation or theory. A case study can extend the situations to which it may transfer by multiplying its audiences, and thus forcing its authors to take multiple perspectives. It can also extend its meaningfulness by multiplying speakers, facilitating expressions of diverse perspectives on the case. ‘Communicative generalisation’ distributes the agency of generalisation among authors, cases and audiences. This redistribution has implications for the politics and temporality of generalisation

Towards a dialogical methodology for single case studies

This special issue has explored a range of means of ‘generalising’ or ‘re-situating knowledge’ through the intensive, dialogical, examination of single cases. The papers elaborate aspects of the methodology of dialogical case studies without asking the traditional question: ‘of what is this a case?’ In this concluding article, we look across the papers to draw out methodological considerations for dialogical single case studies, comparing how the papers deal with four key dialogically informed methodological concerns: the primacy of self-other interdependencies; dynamics; ethics; and modes of writing. We then turn to the question of generalising, or re-situating, knowledge. Across the papers, three different, but overlapping, approaches to re-situating knowledge are taken, implying alternative possible questions: (i) How does the case participate in epistemic or narrative genres? (ii) How does the case contribute to a genealogy? (iii) In what ways is the case generative? We offer these concepts and questions as methodological prompts for case study researchers to conceptualise their knowledge-making as a dialogical endeavour

Grenfell changes everything? Activism beyond hope and despair

The horror of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire, and the shock that ‘it could happen here’, in 21st century Britain, led politicians, professionals, and community workers to proclaim that ‘Grenfell changes everything’. Affected people, turned into activists by the disaster, committed to ensuring that such a disaster could never happen again, by demanding changes to regulations and policy. Whereas public health literature addressing activism focuses on strategies and conditions for ‘successful’ collective action, the experience of activism after Grenfell has been characterised by frustrating partial wins, inertia, delay, and setback. This paper seeks to theorise the activist condition of seeking change that is refused and to do so in a way that values the agency and care of (thwarted) activism. Inspired by Haraway’s ‘staying with the trouble’ and critical scholarship on hope, and drawing on three years of knowledge exchange and ethnographic engagement with the community response after Grenfell, I explore the trajectories of six activist change efforts: a fire safety campaign, engagements with a Public Inquiry, campaigns to preserve community assets, community gardening, silent walks, and provision of support to children at a community centre, each addressing social determinants of health and ‘staying with the trouble’ in different ways. I argue that setbacks do not invalidate a struggle or warrant despair, but that in insisting on caring for others’ lives, activism succeeds in instantiating a caring world. Beyond hope and despair is the staying power of communities who value human life and solidarity and keep fighting for them

Front‐line perspectives on ‘joined‐up’ working relationships: a qualitative study of social prescribing in the west of Scotland

Cross-sector collaboration has been promoted by government policies in the United Kingdom and many western welfare states for decades. Literature on joint working has focused predominantly on the strategic level, neglecting the role of individual practitioners in putting ‘joined-up working’ into practice. This paper takes the case of ‘social prescribing’ in the West of Scotland as an instance of joined-up working, in which primary healthcare professionals are encouraged to refer patients to non-medical sources of support in the third sector. This study draws on social capital theory to analyse the quality of the relationships between primary healthcare professionals and third sector practitioners. Eighteen health professionals and 15 representatives of third sector organisations participated in a qualitative interview study. Significant barriers to collaborative working were evident. The two stakeholder groups expressed different understandings of health, with few primary healthcare professionals considering non-medical sources of support to be useful or relevant. Health professionals were mistrustful of unknown third sector organisations, and concerned about their accountability for referrals that were not successful or positive for the patient. Third sector practitioners sought to build trust through face-to-face interactions with health professionals. However, primary healthcare professionals and third sector practitioners were not connected in effective networks. We highlight the on-going imbalance of power between primary healthcare professionals and third sector organisations. Strategic collaborations should be complemented by efforts to build shared understandings, trust and connections between the diverse frontline workers whose mutual co-operation is necessary to achieve effective joined-up working

Qualitative research for development: a guide for practitioners

How do we know whether our development programmes are reducing poverty and empowering the most vulnerable people? What evidence do we have to support our theory of change? Qualitative research for development aims to build the research capacity of development practitioners so that their work benefits from the significant contributions offered by solid qualitative research. The book guides development practitioners through the process of planning, conducting and reporting on a qualitative study, whilst simultaneously highlighting the role of qualitative research in improving the impact, quality and accountability of development programmes. It covers in detail data collection methods such as Participatory Learning and Action, Photovoice, Individual Interviews, Focus Group Discussions and Observations. It demystifies qualitative research and builds the skills and confidence of development practitioners to use qualitative methods authoritatively, and to communicate findings to different audiences. The book draws on considerable hands-on experience and incorporates case studies from Save the Children and other international organizations to illustrate 'good practice'. To facilitate learning, all the chapters include a series of practical activities that can help the reader to engage actively with the material. This book is an indispensable learning tool for all development practitioners within NGOs and government departments, as well as researchers and students engaged with applied qualitative research in the context of development

Qualitative research for development: a guide for practitioners

How do we know whether our development programmes are reducing poverty and empowering the most vulnerable people? What evidence do we have to support our theory of change? Qualitative research for development aims to build the research capacity of development practitioners so that their work benefits from the significant contributions offered by solid qualitative research. The book guides development practitioners through the process of planning, conducting and reporting on a qualitative study, whilst simultaneously highlighting the role of qualitative research in improving the impact, quality and accountability of development programmes. It covers in detail data collection methods such as Participatory Learning and Action, Photovoice, Individual Interviews, Focus Group Discussions and Observations. It demystifies qualitative research and builds the skills and confidence of development practitioners to use qualitative methods authoritatively, and to communicate findings to different audiences. The book draws on considerable hands-on experience and incorporates case studies from Save the Children and other international organizations to illustrate 'good practice'. To facilitate learning, all the chapters include a series of practical activities that can help the reader to engage actively with the material. This book is an indispensable learning tool for all development practitioners within NGOs and government departments, as well as researchers and students engaged with applied qualitative research in the context of development