Resisting the pandemic. Better stories and innovation in times of crisis

The second chapter, Research during and about crisis for innovations to address inequalities, by Sofia Strid and Alain Denis, describes and discusses a multi-disciplinary and novel research and innovation project methodology based on co-creative and innovation driven design-thinking, deployed to generate robust, rapid, and inclusive evidence-based innovations to complex problems. Repeated in three step-by-step cycles with in-built feedback loops, this methodology combines mixed-methods research of the impacts of policies, and the translation of research results into insights in order to co-create operational tools, disseminate knowledge, develop policy recommendations and empower stakeholders and end-users to exploit project results. This methodological approach was tested in RESISTIRÉ, and while it yielded many promising results and solutions, issues related to the robustness of data and sustainable working-processes emerged. Both promises and pitfalls are discussed further in the chapter, which ends with recommendations for future research.

The third chapter, Open Studios as a methodology: Exploring challenges and opportunities in design thinking for collaborative feminist research, by Anne-Charlott Callerstig, Alain Denis, Aart Kerremans and Charikleia Tzanakou, engages with the increasing interest in collaborative research methods. It discusses the results of applying a collaborative methodology to facilitate a process of reflexivity and co-creation among multiple stakeholders. The Open Studios, twelve in total, were designed with the principles of design-thinking, involving human-centeredness, co-creation, empathetic involvement, visualisation, iteration, and experimentation. Critiques of the concept include the argument that it risks privileging designers’ ideas; that it may reinforce conservative/non-transformative solutions due to the lack of time and reflexivity; the strong focus on finding quick solutions; and the resource-intensive nature of the approach. In this chapter, the authors explore how to overcome these challenges by integrating a gender+ intersectional perspective.

The fourth chapter, Prototyping and testing social innovations to reduce gender+ inequalities: Lessons learned from the nine pilot projects implemented through RESISTIRÉ, by Alain Denis, Claudia Aglietti, and Elena Ghidoni, analyses the social innovations co-created in RESISTIRÉ to reduce gender+ inequalities in specific areas and implemented by civil society organisations. Through action-oriented analysis and co-creation methods, the knowledge generated in the research step of the project was used to identify a list of ideas for solutions to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic on intersectional vulnerabilities. Seven of these ideas were selected for further development and testing in pilot projects. As RESISTIRÉ addressed different areas, the portfolio of pilots was diverse, ranging from solutions more focused on improving care to others aimed at empowering youth to address and prevent gender-based violence. The pilots were also designed to involve civil society organisations as implementers, as they have shown great capacity to develop rapid and innovative bottom-up responses to the unmet needs of vulnerable groups during the pandemic. This chapter analyses the potential of the seven piloted social innovations, presenting the different ways in which they were implemented, depending on the context and area, and the barriers and enablers observed in the process. The lessons learnt provide insights into how successful initiatives can be scaled up and seeded. Although there are challenges in replicating and scaling up experiences, almost all projects have achieved sustainability, even with low initial funding, and will continue to have a lasting impact.

The fifth chapter, The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of using narratives in intersectional research – the experience of RESISTIRÉ, by Caitriona Delaney, Lina Sandström, Ainhoa Izaguirre Choperena, Anne-Charlott Callerstig, Usue Beloki Marañon, Marina Cacace, and Claudia Aglietti, engages with narrative methodology as a way of analysing the impact of the pandemic and its state responses on gender+ inequalities by giving voice to marginalised groups. This chapter analyses how narrative interviews were used to amplify marginal voices and, importantly, to do so in the individual’s own ‘voice’. Specifically, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of using narratives; the theoretical approach congruent with choosing narrative interviews to allow for the effects of both the meso and macro levels on individual behavioural, social and economic inequalities to be garnered, and how narratives may be used in the policy sphere and within academia are discussed. The chapter concludes with ways forward and lessons learned during RESISTIRÉ regarding narrative interviewing.

The sixth chapter, Methodological innovations and potential for intersectionality within Rapid Assessment Surveys (RAS) and collaborations, by Charikleia Tzanakou, Audrey Harroche, Alexis Still, and Maria Silvestre focuses on the meta-analysis conducted on Rapid Assessment Surveys (RAS) initiated by lobby groups, scientists, and official agencies to provide quick, research-based assessments. From May 2021 to December 2022, 30 national researchers mapped 316 RAS in EU26 countries, Iceland, Serbia, Türkiye, and the UK. The main objective was to identify and analyse national-level RAS that offered evidence on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic from a gender+ perspective. The RAS analysis revealed a significant gap in understanding the full impact of the pandemic on vulnerable groups in Europe, including young people, senior citizens, single parents, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and LGBTQ+ communities. Of particular concern is the lack of gender+ research on these groups. Intersectional analysis was limited due to the scarcity of responses from these hard-to-reach and vulnerable groups when RAS captured data on various inequality grounds. Furthermore, substantial data gaps were identified, especially in relation to race, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In summary, this meta-analysis sheds light on pandemic research and highlights the gaps that need to be addressed. This chapter plays a crucial role in establishing the groundwork for advancing research capacity in intersectional analysis.

The seventh chapter, Doing social research with a network of national researchers: the experience of RESISTIRÉ, by Claudia Aglietti, Marina Cacace, and Federico Marta, delves into the challenges and opportunities inherent in doing social research with international collaborative research teams, with a particular focus on comparative research and situations in which the team is geographically dispersed. The complex architecture of the research team of the RESISTIRÉ project provides a relevant example, as it involved a network of national researchers covering thirty European countries, engaged in a comprehensive research process that included the standardised collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative primary and secondary data. Contributing to the burgeoning literature on the Science of Team Science, which is still relatively under-researched in the social sciences, this chapter addresses the complexity of collaborative research processes in this area. Approaches and tools used to manage the research process, making the most of the team’s diversity, are presented, along with their challenges and limitations, and related suggestions for improving the collaborative experience are formulated.

The eighth chapter, Assessing the gender+ perspective in the COVID-19 recovery and resilience plans, by Elena Ghidoni, María López and Dolores Morondo engages with how the COVID-19 outbreak led policy-makers across the world to an unprecedented effort in policy responses to address the health crisis and its socio-economic impacts. The analysis of the quality of these policy responses and their impact on pre-existing gender+ inequalities has been at the core of the RESISTIRÉ research endeavour. In the post-pandemic phase, the regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility set gender equality as a cross-cutting priority for the EU member states’ recovery plans. This brought the opportunity to compare how different countries translate gender related issues into their policy agenda. Drawing on a gender+ approach, these plans were analysed in term of both content and process, as well as the reactions from civil society organisations to the measures. The chapter builds on this analysis and provides a reflection on how the National Recovery and Resilience Plans address gender+ issues in different policy domains (gender-based violence; work and labour market; economy; gender pay and pension gaps; gender care gap; decision-making and politics; environmental justice; health; education), what kind of policy solutions are presented as ways to forward gender equality, and where gender-sensitive measures are still missing among various policy areas.

Finally, the ninth chapter, ‘Better stories’ of feminist+ witnessing of co-creativity in dark times. Epilogue, by Ayşe Gül Altınay and Sofia Strid, engages with how feminist scholar Dina Georgis’ concept of the ‘better story’ was used in REISTIRÉ to make visible inspiring examples of inclusive policies and civic response to the pandemic, with the aim of empowering the creators of such actions and of inspiring others to take creative and effective action in the face of ongoing crises, including the pandemic. Dina Georgis (2013) invites us to explore the ‘better story’ of each moment, each context, with the understanding that ‘there is always a better story than the better story’. In the context of RESISTIRÉ, this has entailed an invitation to identify, highlight and learn from the better stories of policy and civic responses to the pandemic, as well as an invitation to imagine even better stories of response and transformation with regard to social inequalities. This chapter, which takes the form of an epilogue, provides a self-reflective analysis of working with gender+ ‘better stories’ as a methodology that values, encourages and makes visible creativity and collective wisdom emerging from different contexts. It also explores the (transformative) significance of such a methodology, especially when it incorporates a gender+ intersectional lens, for democratising knowledge production towards greater inclusion, participation, social engagement and solution development.

Taken together, the nine chapters in this volume contribute to ongoing academic discussions, research and innovation on crisis management, inequality, and social justice. We are convinced that they will prove to be an essential reference material for understanding the social impacts of crises and an important source of knowledge and ‘know-how’ for policy-makers, civil society organisations and social scientists. With a focus oriented towards innovative methodologies for political and social actors, policy-makers at various levels of government will gain a deeper understanding of social innovation tools and their uses in developing targeted and effective responses in future crises. Our ambition is that the book will help inform policy decisions related to healthcare, employment, social welfare, and gender equality with an intersectionality lens. Civil society organisations working on gender equality, women’s rights, and social justice issues will find the book relevant to their advocacy efforts and program planning, as it will offer evidence and insights to support their work in addressing the impact of current and future crises on marginalised communities.