Most academics are interested in how their research is used outside the academy. For some, this means trying to understand how research is measured and evaluated. For others, it means trying to understand how decision-makers from different backgrounds and sectors find and use evidence when making decisions. For others still, this interest takes the form of studying how knowledge itself is generated, and what types of knowledge are considered valuable and credible. Ultimately, within most academic disciplines - in one form or another - there are a group of researchers who are studying how evidence is made and used. Often this plays out like this: scientists have discovered a problem; perhaps that many studies cannot be reproduced; perhaps that women are underrepresented in research as scientists and participants; or that they are struggling to get policymakers and decision-makers to pay them any attention. The scientists are excited – they have realised that many of these problems are to do with how research is done and used, rather than what is being researched. In fact, of course, the funding, practices and outputs of scientific research have been the subject of research studies and indeed entire disciplines for decades, if not centuries. STS scholars, for example, debate what the role of science in society is, should be, or could be. Many disciplines and professional / practice sectors contribute to our understanding of what knowledge is, what it is for, and how it influences decision-making in the world. In this chapter, we discuss this history of this broader field of inquiry, asking what the main themes are which we find in different disciplines and sectors. We draw on a large-scale bibliometrics study which mapped the field of evidence production and use. We use this study to identify key communities and to map the terms and concepts used by different academic groups to talk about evidence production and use, and examine what this means for the study of meta-research.