No abstract

We explore if there is potential to embed psychosocial well-being impact in global challenges research where the primary aims are not mental health related. We are interested in the use of material practices to deliver impact through routine project activities of working with concrete things together. The UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) gateway to research was searched for information on Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) grants from 2015 to May 2020. Analysis shows that only 3 per cent of projects self-categorise as engaging with mental health. Thirty-six non-mental health GCRF grants were purposefully sampled for diversity, and each was coded independently by two researchers for relevant information. Findings suggest that 50-70 per cent of non-mental health GCRF projects already engage implicitly, but nonstrategically, with psychosocial well-being impact; opportunities for psychosocial well-being impact, from most to least frequent, are community mobilisation, community building, skills development, positive sense of self, positive emotions and sociocultural identity; the presence of material practice from most to least frequent is as follows:(i) interactions between or enactments upon people,

This article critically reflects on the methodological approach developed for a recent project based in Jinja, Uganda, that sought to generate new forms of environmental knowledge and action utilizing diverse forms of creative intergenerational practice embedded within a broader framework of communitybased participatory research. This approach provided new opportunities for intergenerational dialogue in Jinja, generated increased civic environmental engagement, and resulted in a participant-led campaign to share knowledge regarding sustainable biomass consumption. We term this approach intergenerational community-based research and creative practice. We discuss the advantages of this model while also reflecting throughout on the challenges of the approach. KEYWORDS

This article explores the postcolonial history of Theatre for Development in Africa. It argues that a form that had been gradually developing as a socialist-inspired means of enabling people in Africa to discuss politics and social issues they saw as important was transformed from the mid-1980s into a largely instrumentalist tool for conveying information and messages determined by Western donor and African governments and international non-governmental organizations. The article discusses who currently controls the majority of cultural output related to Theatre for Development and some of the methodologies used. It deplores the widespread lack of skilled facilitators, the lack of evaluation of process, practice or impact, and the common practice of using Theatre for Development to tell people what outside agencies determine is good for them rather than engaging in dialogue or promoting the use of the arts to enable ordinary people to ‘speak to power’.

No abstract