Reflections from using ‘WPR’ to study the politics of ‘race’ in English policy on Green Social Prescribing

This paper reflects on the use of poststructural policy analysis as it engages with the politics of ‘race’ in Green Social Prescribing (GSP) policy in England. Health and environmental policy have formally produced GSP as a solution to a range of racialised ‘problems’, such as inequalities in access to ‘nature’, and health inequalities. Using Bacchi & Goodwin’s (2016) ‘What’s The Problem Represented to be’ (WPR) framework, my research analyses the production of these ‘problems’ and the role of ‘race’ in policy-discourse. I offer a novel expansion on the WPR method by bringing perspectives from Critical Race Theory and Science and Technology Studies into the analysis. This convergence enables the making-visible of certain discursive formations that obscure or legitimise how knowledge production is racialised, and in turn how this constitutes practice. By unpacking the ways in which ‘problems’ are framed, and people and spaces become fixed, GSP policy discourse can be seen to re-enact the very ‘problems’ it claims to solve. I emphasise how WPR has potential to be a tool for intervening in and challenging the reproduction of ‘race’ and racialised inequalities, while being aware of the tension that poststructural policy analysis inherently offers a partial view of this issue. At this point, I reflect on the limitations of the WPR method. As a method concerned with the structuring power of language, how is the researcher to engage with materiality? Considering my theoretical grounding, I offer thoughts on the opportunities provided through theoretical enrichment, while also reflecting on the epistemological tensions I have faced. I offer other reflections on the method, including the non-linear nature of WPR analyses and questions on the appropriate scale for data selection.