Paper short abstract:

Biosocial research provides unique cross-disciplinary insights into COVID-19, presenting opportunities and challenges to COVID policymaking. This study reviews biosocial studies included in COVID policy to identify comparative lessons between biosocial research and multi-source evidence for policy

Paper long abstract:

Biosocial medical anthropological research provides unique insights into the multi-dimensional nature of COVID-19, drawing in cross-disciplinary approaches to understand underlying complexities and inequalities leading to differentiated health outcomes. Alongside a suite of concepts, tools, methods and methodological designs, biosocial medical anthropological studies provide outputs that can speak to debates within and between alternative fields of study. These cross-disciplinary engagements present simultaneous opportunities and challenges to policymaking in response to COVID; as the pandemic continues, governments must continuously evaluate emerging sources of evidence to improve the design and evaluation their responses, yet their capacities to do so are constrained by experience, expertise, and resources.

This paper explores the relationships between biosocial medical anthropological research and UK policymaking for COVID-19. Starting with a case study review of how biosocial anthropological studies are included (and excluded) as evidence in policy processes, this paper develops a core argument by identifying comparative lessons between biosocial engagements with cross- and trans-disciplinary research, and the challenges of using multi-source evidence to inform policy. Building on contemporary by authors such as Bardosh et al. (2020) on the inclusion of social research in preparedness and response, this study identifies the challenges posed by ‘disciplinary primacies’ and the siloing of knowledge as common to both biosocial anthropological research and policymaking in complex health emergencies.