Search

Ethnic diversity and racism have not featured strongly in English research, policy or practice centred on understanding and addressing health inequalities. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement have shone fresh light on deep-rooted ethnic inequalities and mobilised large segments of the population into anti-racist demonstration. These recent developments suggest that, despite strong counterforces within national government and the mainstream media, there could be a shift towards greater public awareness of racism and potentially a willingness to take individual and collective action. This paper addresses these developments, and specifically engages with the contested notion of 'allyship'. We bring together the experiences of 25 young adults living across England and prior literature to raise questions about whether and how racialized White individuals can play a role in dismantling systemic racism and reducing ethnic inequalities in health. Our analysis reveals a variety of complexities and obstacles to effective and widespread allyship. Findings suggest the need to nurture contingent, responsive and reflexive forms of allyship that can attend to the harms inflicted upon racially minoritized people as well as push for systemic transformation. White allyship will need to take a variety of forms, but it must be underpinned by an understanding of racism as institutional and systemic and a commitment to tackling interlocking systems of oppression through solidarity. The issues addressed are relevant to those occupying public health research, policy and practice roles, as well as members of the public, in England and other multi-racial settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now widely accepted that context matters in evaluations of the health inequalities impact of community-based social initiatives. Systems thinking offers a lens for uncovering the dynamic relationship between such initiatives and their social contexts. However, there are very few examples that show how a systems approach can be applied in practice and what kinds of evidence are produced when this happens. In this paper, we use data from ethnographic fieldwork embedded within a multi-site mixed method evaluation to demonstrate how a systems approach can be applied in practice to evaluate the early stages of an area-based empowerment initiative – Big Local (funded by the Big Lottery Fund and delivered by Local Trust). Taking place in 150 different local areas in England and underpinned by an ethos of resident-led collective action, Big Local offers an illustration of the applicability of a systems approach to better understand the change processes that emerge as social initiatives embed and co-evolve within a series of local contexts. Findings reveal which parts of the social system are likely to be changed, by what mechanisms, and with what implications. They also raise some salient considerations for knowledge generation and methods development in public health evaluation, particularly for the evaluation of social initiatives where change does not necessarily happen in linear or predictable ways. We suggest future evaluations of such initiatives require the use of more flexible designs, encompassing qualitative approaches capable of capturing the complexity of relational systems processes, alongside more traditional quantitative methods. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A group from Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom undertook country-specific scoping reviews and stakeholder consultations before joining to holistically compare migration and maternity in all three countries. We examined four interlinking dimensions to understand how international migrant/minority maternal health might be improved upon using transnational research: (a) wider sociopolitical context, (b) health policy arena, (c) constellation, outcomes, and experiences of maternity services, and (d) existing research contexts. There was clear evidence that the constellation and delivery of services may undermine good experiences and outcomes. Interventions to improve access and quality of care remain small scale, short term, and lacking in rigorous evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the volume of UK social research addressing ethnicity grows, so too do concerns regarding the ethical and scientific rigour of this research domain and its potential to do more harm than good. The establishment of standards and principles and the introduction of guidance documents at critical points within the research cycle might be one way to enhance the quality of such research. This article reports the findings from the piloting of a guidance document within the research commissioning process of a major funder of UK social research. The guidance document was positively received by researchers, the majority of whom reported it to be comprehensible, relevant and potentially useful in improving the quality of research proposals. However, a review of the submitted proposals suggested the guidance had had little impact on practice. While guidance may have a role to play, it will need to be strongly promoted by commissioners and other gatekeepers. Findings also suggest the possibility that guidance may discourage some researchers from engaging with ethnicity if it raises problems without solutions; highlighting the need for complementary investments in research capacity development in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing recognition in the UK that social science research should generate an evidence base that reflects the ethnic diversity of the population and informs positive developments in public policy and programmes for all. However, describing and understanding ethnic diversity, and associated disadvantage, is far from straightforward. In practice, the ethical and scientific arguments around whether and how to incorporate ethnicity into policy-relevant social research are complex and contentious. In particular, untheorised or insensitive inclusion of data on ethnic 'groups' can have negative consequences. The present investigation begins to explore the extent to which social scientists have access to advice and guidance in this area of research. Specifically, the paper examines how ethnic diversity is explicitly or implicitly considered within the research ethics and scientific standard guidance provided by UK social science Learned Societies to their members. The review found little in the way of explicit attention to ethnic diversity in the guidance documents, but nevertheless identified a number of pertinent themes. The paper compiles and extrapolates these themes to present a tentative set of principles for social scientists to debate and further develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detailed qualitative data are used to explore the processes perpetuating labour market disadvantage among young UK-Bangladeshi men living in central London. Strong forces of inclusion within the Bangladeshi community are found to interact with forces of exclusion from 'mainstream' society to constrain aspirations and limit opportunities. Though diverse forms of young Bangladeshi masculinity are found, a common pattern is heavy dependency on intra-ethnic networks. Negative experiences of and isolation from 'mainstream' society further reinforce reliance on 'our own people'. However, acute ambivalence towards belonging to a dense Bangladeshi community exists, exemplified in the widespread denigration of the restaurant trade. Many respondents express the desire to 'break out' and access new experiences. The findings support current policy emphasis on 'connecting people to work' but highlight the more fundamental need to connect people across ethnic boundaries. The paper urges researchers to 'unpack' ethnicity - to consider carefully what ethnic identity implies in terms of access to resources and opportunities for different individuals in different contexts - in order better to understand the diversity of labour market outcomes and the persistence of disadvantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss various risks facing clinical research on complex and structural problems associated with public health. They state many bodies of relevant theory that could usefully guide system analysis are overlooked, which supposedly creates problems in analysis of complex systems, and mention that the large body of systems-informed and ongoing public health practice as another risk. They highlight the risk that the system boundaries are mis-specified, and key elements are left out.