In the last decade ‘dual level’ evaluation, where evaluation is carried out at both a national and local level, has become increasingly common. It is often used as a way of evaluating complex government initiatives that operate across agency boundaries. Using ‘dual level’ evaluation is one way to address the complexity of such wide-ranging initiatives, by evaluating both for local development and national accountability. Yet the design of these evaluations has varied widely in the UK and the effectiveness of the different designs, and of the model itself, has not been examined. Using Sure Start as a case study, the article highlights some of the difficulties that can arise in dual level evaluations. It is argued that there is a need for a high level of integration between national and local evaluators and that dual models of evaluation should utilize the knowledge of local evaluators in the collection and interpretation of data.

ME/CFS is a medically contested illness and its understanding, framing and treatment has been the subject of heated debate. This paper specifically examines why framing the condition as a psychiatric issue-what we refer to as 'psychiatrisation'-has been so heavily contested by patients and activists. We argue that this contestation isn't simply about stigmatising mental health conditions, as some have suggested, but relates to how people diagnosed with mental illness are treated in society, psychiatry and the law. We highlight the potentially harmful consequences of psychiatrisation which can lead to people's experiential knowledge being discredited. This stems, in part, from a psychiatric-specific form of epistemic injustice which can result in unhelpful, unwanted and forced treatments. This understanding helps explain why the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS has become the focus of such bitter debate and why psychiatry itself has become such a significant 'field of contention', for both ME/CFS patients and mental health service users/survivors. Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings, and therefore share a collective struggle for justice and legitimation. Reasons why this shared struggle has not resulted in alliances between ME and mental health activists are noted.

No abstract

This article uses a case study to illustrate how science fair projects-which traditionally focus on "hard science" topics-can contribute to political science education. One of the authors, a high school student, conducted an experimental study of politics for her science fair project. The other author, a faculty member, was asked to advise the student on the project to allay initial skepticism about its focus on a "soft science" topic. The results of the experiment indicated that exposure to a televised comedy sketch about the 2008 presidential campaign yielded learning effects and fostered political interest among high school students. The authors recommend political science fair projects as tools for introducing precollegiate students to the political science research process and offering political scientists opportunities to educate students beyond the university setting.