How do we balance policy critique with constructive policy recommendations? How do we navigate power relations between policy makers and (disadvantaged) communities, without estranging either? And what are particularly productive methods for translating our medical anthropological insights into policy?
Medical anthropology has a lot to bring to policy, whether on local, national or international levels. The engaged efforts of our Leiden University Medical Anthropology network members show that we are sensitive to both the possibilities and the ethical boundaries that policy engagement brings. They also show that for health policy makers, there is a lot to be gained from engaging with medical anthropologists. The long-term investment in building relationships and communities of trust, will pay off when it leads to policy that effectively engages with what matters most to the people whom it seeks to help.
Including policy makers from the start
On July 1st, 2025, LUMAN members gathered in The Hague to discuss how these questions resonate with the work of medical anthropologists. Nienke Slagboom kicked off with a presentation about various methods for policy engagement. She showed that rather than 'translating' insights at the end of a project it is often far more productive to bring in policy makers from the start of a research project. Discussing the method of 'learning networks', she pointed at the effectivity of taking policy makers along in the methodology of medical anthropological action research, and introducing them to the lived experiences of the communities whose health and wellbeing their policies seek to address.
Learn to dance with stakeholders
Doing so, we discussed, requires not only considerable time, but also careful navigation of social relations, and sometimes dealing with ethical dilemmas. One such dilemma may occur when we feel pressed to balance our critical scientific perspective with the practical needs of policy. Can we, for example, at once critically analyse a government's biopolitical agenda and give recommendations for improving specific policies within that agenda? Sometimes, we have to be a 'polyglot', the room concluded. Or, as we have discussed in one of our earlier meetings, learn to 'dance' with different stakeholders.
Dilemma's in action research
Another issue of concern is how our insights are used by policymakers. It may be very worthwhile to ask to see and comment on draft versions of policy reports. How to make sure that our work, or communities we work with, are not misrepresented? In preparation for our meeting we read the article Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemma's by Setha M. Low and Sally Engle Merry. The article distinguishes several forms of anthropological engagement, such as education, advocacy and activism. Often, anthropologists engage in activism and advocacy in, for and with communities they work with. And yet, calling oneself 'activist' may not help in a policy conversation. In our discussion, the question was raised whether we need to identify with such categories of engagement to do action research. We concluded that it depends on our aims. When the aim is to engage policy makers it may be helpful to approach the process with an open mind.
Translations to policy
Participants shared experiences of successful and less successful translations to policy. And sometimes communities we work with may want to stay away from policy altogether, for example by creating informal health and support structures. In our research processes - which in the categorization of Low and Merry is by definition already a form of 'engagement' - we may want to be careful to not only focus on policy change which takes a long time to translate into on-the-ground effects. Alongside longer-term change, we can try to create some tangible results for and with the people we work with more directly during the research.
