Energizing partnerships in research‐to‐policy projects

Abstract

On the ground, how can research initiatives unfold to make meaningful contributions to real-world practice and real-time policy? This article draws on a case study evaluating an innovative program to alleviate toxic stress, boost resilience, and promote social inclusion among Syrian refugee and Jordanian nonrefugee youth. I describe the kind of project design and community engagement that animates research on stress biology and lived experiences, connecting people with humanitarian practice and policy. I highlight why and how biocultural work generates fluency in multiple forms of evidence to guide mental health interventions, reflecting on ways to anchor research in shared humanity and shared scientific purpose. I clarify what types of added value, pursued during intersectoral collaborations, help achieve plural, sustained, and inclusive contributions. This article shows how "creative relationality" can energize research-to-policy initiatives to bring about transformational change.

Pearl Memorial Lecture. Humans at the extremes: Exploring human adaptation to ecological and social stressors

“…These findings suggest that stress‐induced poor sleep quality may have contributed to the dramatic rise in mental health issues observed during the COVID‐19 lockdowns. Moreover, this work showcases the critical role that human biologists can play in addressing disparities in global mental health outcomes (Kim, 2020; Panter‐Brick, 2022; Patel et al, 2018).…”

A mixed-methods analysis to understand the implementation of a multistakeholder research consortium: Environmental influences on child health outcomes (ECHO)

“…Our findings also offer an in-depth understanding of why and how stakeholders collaborate, and what works to produce impactful science. Previous analysis of research stakeholder engagement has offered a classification of four types of impact: (1) conceptual (changing knowledge, understanding, and attitudes); (2) instrumental (changing policy and practice, given research findings); (3) capacity-building (changing researchers’ ability to conduct future work), and (4) connectivity (shaping the existence and strengths of networks of people and organizations using the research) [ 37 , 38 ]. In this context, our qualitative and quantitative data provide insight into how the infrastructure and contextual factors of a large longitudinal research consortium produces impact for its stakeholders.…”

Pathways to resilience and pathways to flourishing: Examining the added-value of multisystem research and intervention in contexts of war and forced displacement

“…Regionally, it informed approaches to peace and conflict programingthe mindfulness and social inclusion model was folded into broader community-based interventions aimed at preventing violent extremism in youth. In brief, Mercy Corps officers reported that our research had increased their confidence in an empathy-type of youth programing (Elrha, 2023a, Panter-Brick, 2022. The study was selected as a case analysis of humanitarian health research in a collection of Research in Practice articles commissioned by the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (Mistry et al, 2021).…”

“…Approaches to network humanitarianism are still relatively new, partly because humanitarian funding priorities are largely focused on addressing emergency needs. Yet calls have been made to secure more dedicated funding for the purpose of enhancing agency, connectivity and social inclusion in crisis settings (see Panter-Brick, 2021). In recent years, new forms of humanitarian action have championed a ‘whole-of-society approach’ to work in contexts of forced displacement.…”