Steve Connelly

Oral health is one of the necessary preludes to the overall quality of life. Several medical procedures and therapies are available to treat oral diseases in general and periodontal diseases in particular, yet caries, periodontitis, oral cancer, and oral infections remain a global concern. Natural molecules, with their anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-microbic properties, are one of the main sources of oral health and dental health care, and should be supplemented to exploit their beneficial effects. A possible way to improve the intake of these molecules is adhering to a diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, and probiotics, which has many beneficial properties and can improve overall health and wellbeing. The Mediterranean diet, in particular, provides several beneficial natural molecules, mainly because of the precious nutrients contained in its typical ingredients, mainly plant-based (olives, wine, citrus fruits, and many more). Its beneficial effects on several diseases and in increasing the overall wellbeing of the population are currently being studied by physicians. Among its nutrients, polyphenols (including, among other molecules, lignans, tannins, and flavonoids) seem to be of outmost importance: several studies showed their anticariogenic properties, as well as their effects in decreasing the incidence of non-communicable diseases. Therefore, plant-derived molecules – such as polyphenols – and probiotics – such as Lactobacillus reuteri – have shown a significant potential in treating and curing oral diseases, either alone or in combination, owing to their antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, respectively.

The question of how to make academic research more useful to government, and frustration over its lack of obvious use, have long been the subject of policy makers’ and scholars’ attention. These have driven the global development of institutionalised links between the two communities, while also leading to a broad consensus as to why the goal is often not realised. In order to better explain the barriers, this paper takes the concept of “translation” very literally, and proposes an innovative approach, which analyses academic and policy practices using ideas from the humanities-based discipline of Translation Studies. This enables an exploration of what constitutes good translation, and in particular of the tension between keeping faith with the original material and users’ understandable emphasis on functionality. The conclusion is that while some aspect of original research content must be maintained, what this is cannot be prescribed: the appropriate equivalence between original and translation is always context-dependent. This throws the emphasis on the relational aspects of translatorial action for promoting “good translation”. The argument follows Christiane Nord in seeing the core issue as the moral one of a translator’s loyalty to original author and user, and so also of mutual trust between academics and civil servants. This raises important questions about how such trust can be cultivated, and so finally leads to an emphasis on the importance of an endeavour shared by researchers and policy makers, which recognises and respects their different environments and the work involved in creating useful meaning from scholarly research.

Leibniz’s New Method of Teaching and Learning the Law is examined in light of his combinatorial investigations and his theory of the suppositum as activity, and will as driven by claims to existence. A new reading is offered which emphasises the different levels played by the New and Old Law in his thinking about how lawyers should think.

Citizen-led initiatives raise practical and theoretical questions about the criteria by which their democratic legitimacy should be judged. While existing analytical and normative frameworks are problematically based on a `state'/`citizen' binary, a network ontology which sees these as strategically-deployed constructs is more practically adequate for analysis. We demonstrate this through a case of a successful citizen initiative, and conclude that such analysis should examine processes of strategic networking, along with claims and constructions of representation and identity. This means not taking participants' categories, identities, and evaluations for granted, and privileging the possibility of challenge as a fundamental democratic criterion.

Research into the barriers of getting evidence produced by academics into policymaking processes has often highlighted the lack of research on academics and what they do, as compared to what policymakers do. This was most recently highlighted in a systematic review of the literature (Oliver et al, 2014). This paper reports on research carried out with academics who were tasked with producing evidence reviews for the UK Department for Communities and Local Government based on research funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. Using a novel co-produced methodology the academics were interviewed by an academic and a UK civil servant, with the analysis carried out by both. Using an interpretive approach, the findings identify specific meaning-making stories or practices that were enablers or barriers to producing evidence suitable for policymakers. The paper identifies three areas that affect academic behaviour at the nexus with policymaking: career biographies; disciplinary background; and the contradictory institutional pressures on academics. We conclude by arguing for a more collaborative approach between academics and policymakers. The co-produced approach also allowed us to identify the need for policymakers and civil servants to learn more about the different drivers of academics and the ways in which they work.

This chapter examines the theory available to practitioners to assist the analysis and suggest that it is inadequate from the perspective of those interested in promoting social justice. It explores how insights from participation, community development and policy literature can help make some tentative steps towards a more useful theory about public involvement. The requirement that theory should be empirically fitting is one which has always been required in science. The chapter describes the theories which are most commonly drawn upon in accounts of public involvement. The theories are applied to XYZ community group, and J. Forester’s criteria enable a critique to be generated. S. Arnstein’s original ladder clearly fulfils Forester’s requirement that theory should be ethically illuminating. Ethical illumination is achieved because the analysis enables such comparisons to take place. Specific participation processes can be compared through examining the “degree of danger” they pose.

Evaluations of complex interventions are likely to encounter tensions between different methodological principles, and between the inherent causal rationality of evaluation and the messy complexity of real institutional contexts. Conceptualizing evaluation as producing putatively authoritative evidence, we show how ‘legitimacy’ is a useful concept for unpacking evaluation design in practice. A case study of service integration shows how different approaches may have unpredictable levels of legitimacy, based in contrasting assessments of their methodological acceptability and actual utility. Through showing how practitioners resolved the tensions, we suggest that crafting a patchwork of different methodologies may be legitimate and effective, and can be seen as underpinned by its own pragmatic rationality. However, we also conclude that the explanatory power of theory-driven evaluation can be embedded in such an approach, both in elements of the patchwork and as an overarching guiding principle for the crafting process.