Our Philosophy

CoLab for Community and Behavioral Health Policy is a social policy design group. We adhere to a view of social science as public problem-solving (for the public and by the public) within the complexity of diverse cultures, knowledge, and values. We see social science as inherently active and bound up in the practice of doing. This view of social science was held by the earliest founders of the field and can be seen in contemporary pragmatist and participatory approaches across many social science disciplines.

Practically, this means our work at CoLab is aimed at facilitating the development of social policy solutions alongside communities, both large (states) or small (neighborhoods) that aim to:

1. redress power imbalances in traditional policymaking;

2. account for differences in values within communities;

3. apply creative synthesis to blend existing strengths with new ideas; and

4. apply research evidence in equitable and ethical ways.

Core Tenets

The importance of embracing and engaging diverse views.

Communities, whether characterized by geography or culture, are made up of individuals with shared and different values. Values describe what people care about and what motivates them to action. In other words, an individual’s vision of the good. Modern day societies are characterized by values fragmentation in which no single authority (religious, cultural) can be assumed to guide the actions of all the individuals in the community. 

Any attempt to solve a shared social problem, e.g., housing or mental health, will engage differences in values and worldviews. As these worldviews precede all other types of knowledge (e.g., scientific, religious), they must be brought into respectful consideration on their own terms. We believe that to engage in effective public problem-solving, diverse communities must find and develop areas of shared belief and practice.

Social and health service infrastructure involves relationships and ideas. 

We view social science as a shared, creative endeavor within a community. Design thinking is a method that gives structure to this creative process with insight and inspiration as essential processes for effective public problem-solving.

When designing for social policy and social services, much of the needed infrastructure for implementation is less visible than other types of civic infrastructure (e.g., roads, pipes). In social policy, infrastructure includes agreements, relationships, and services between and among government, service providers, and the community. When looking to tackle new problems, understanding the existing social “relational and ideas” infrastructure and how to strengthen it is critical.

The appropriate use of research evidence is determined by local values.

The appropriate use of research evidence in social policymaking is a fraught question for social science and continues to be debated. We view research evidence as a type of knowledge characterized by a systematic attempt to answer a question framed by the scientists’ (or community’s) own values and interests. Because a scientist or community frames a question of interest to them that implicitly reflects their values does not mean that their inquiry cannot be seen as critical or disinterested or that it will not be relevant to those who hold different values. In many cases, the research evidence will be significantly helpful to the problem at hand. However, the relevance of the question to the local problem is something that is determined by the community engaged in the design (creative) process, never in advance.

Research evidence insights are distinct from service packages and programs.

Dominant views of what constitutes the evidence in evidence-based practice have changed over the last few decades.  The “traditional” or older view sees best practice as the selection of tested policies or packaged programs developed by social and behavioral scientists.

In contrast, a newer consensus is emerging that the product of social (and behavioral) science research to be ideas, not products.  Social science research enables us to make statements of fact, for example, “this youth substance misuse prevention program, when compared to no program in 2005, led to a 30% lower rate of problematic use among 12–15-year-olds in two multiracial cohorts at one year.” 

What this statement of fact is NOT is,  “This program will outperform any other ideas we could come up with in preventing youth substance misuse.”

Accordingly, CoLab approaches the literature of evidence-based treatments and programs as providing insights (ideas) into what elements of programs, treatments, or policies appear to be helpful when tacking specific problems. In this way, the evidence can be considered separately from the potential vendors (sellers) of approaches. When the community has landed on an approach, the group can then consider the potential packages and vendors best suited to meet their needs.

Good social policy design engages democratic process, effective strategies, and a strengthened learning community.

From a knowledge and ethics perspective, good social policy reflects the perspectives of those who are most impacted by the public problem and any proposed solutions. From a political accountability perspective, good social policy reflects a good faith effort to develop a solution that has a reasonable chance of succeeding at its goals. From an effectiveness perspective, good social policy conceptualizes and projects out the service, relational and political infrastructure needed for successful implementation.

Further Reading

The philosophies, theories and methods used at CoLab are influenced by a number of thinkers and doers. Below is a starting list for the curious.

Selected papers and writings from Sarah Walker, PhD (founder of CoLab) on evidence-based practice, policy, and social/health policy design (codesign) with collaborators:

• Designing better mental health policy. Stanford Social Innovation Review

• Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

• The Consistencies and Vagaries of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based Practice: The Definition of "Evidence-Based" in a Policy Context

• Recovery and Renewal of Co-Design Approaches in Health: Protocol for a Realist Synthesis

Notable scholars working on codesign and collaborative methods in the field of public policy/political science:

• Theorizing human-centered design doing in public administration – Jodi Sandfort

• Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design – Christopher Ansell

• The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy – Emma Blomkamp

• Governing the Commons – Elinor Ostrom

Notable scholars working on codesign methods in health services:

• Collective making’ as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare – Joe Langley

• Recovery and Renewal of Co-design Approaches in Health through a Pandemic: a realist synthesis – Kate Sellen

• Co-creation and the new landscapes of design – Elizabeth B.N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers

Notable scholars and writers on knowledge in the human and social sciences:

• The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy – Peter Winch

• The Idea of History – R.G. Collingwood

• Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature – Richard Rorty

• Gadamer, Habermas and Ricoeur: Toward a Hermeneutic Philosophy of Care - José Ricardo C. M. Ayres

Notable scholars in evidence use and policy:

• The Circuitry of Enlightenment: Diffusion of Social Science Research to Policymakers – Carol Weiss

• Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations – Annette Boaz and Kathryn Oliver

• Why National eHealth Programs Need Dead Philosophers: Wittgensteinian Reflections on Policymakers’ Reluctance to Learn from History – Trisha Greenhalgh

• Reframing Evidence-Based Policy to Align with the Evidence – Kim Dumont

• Decolonizing Evidence-Informed Policy and Development Interventions: A Diversity of Knowledge Sources as a Hallmark of Effective Development Initiatives and Healthy Policymaking – Kharisma Nugroho, Fred Carden, Hans Antlov