IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v189y2017icp35-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academic advocacy in public health: Disciplinary ‘duty’ or political ‘propaganda’?

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, K.E.
  • Stewart, E.A.

Abstract

The role of ‘advocacy’ within public health attracts considerable debate but is rarely the subject of empirical research. This paper reviews the available literature and presents data from qualitative research (interviews and focus groups conducted in the UK in 2011–2013) involving 147 professionals (working in academia, the public sector, the third sector and policy settings) concerned with public health in the UK. It seeks to address the following questions: (i) What is public health advocacy and how does it relate to research?; (ii) What role (if any) do professionals concerned with public health feel researchers ought to play in advocacy?; and (iii) For those researchers who do engage in advocacy, what are the risks and challenges and to what extent can these be managed/mitigated? In answering these questions, we argue that two deeply contrasting conceptualisations of ‘advocacy’ exist within public health, the most dominant of which (‘representational’) centres on strategies for ‘selling’ public health goals to decision-makers and the wider public. This contrasts with an alternative (less widely employed) conceptualisation of advocacy as ‘facilitational’. This approach focuses on working with communities whose voices are often unheard/ignored in policy to enable their views to contribute to debates. We argue that these divergent ways of thinking about advocacy speak to a more fundamental challenge regarding the role of the public in research, policy and practice and the activities that connect these various strands of public health research.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, K.E. & Stewart, E.A., 2017. "Academic advocacy in public health: Disciplinary ‘duty’ or political ‘propaganda’?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 35-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:189:y:2017:i:c:p:35-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953617304471
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.07.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asbridge, Mark, 2004. "Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 13-24, January.
    2. Béhague, D.P. & Storeng, K.T., 2008. "Collapsing the vertical-horizontal divide: An ethnographic study of evidence-based policymaking in maternal health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(4), pages 644-649.
    3. Bassett, M.T., 2003. "Public Health Advocacy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(8), pages 1204-1204.
    4. J. Veerman & Marleen Bekker & Johan Mackenbach, 2006. "Health Impact Assessment and advocacy: a challenging combination," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(3), pages 151-152, June.
    5. Carey, Gemma & Crammond, Brad, 2015. "Action on the social determinants of health: Views from inside the policy process," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-141.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    7. Christoffel, K.K., 2000. "Public health advocacy: Process and product," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(5), pages 722-726.
    8. Haynes, Abby S. & Derrick, Gjemma E. & Chapman, Simon & Redman, Sally & Hall, Wayne D. & Gillespie, James & Sturk, Heidi, 2011. "From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1047-1055, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Paul Cairney & Richard Kwiatkowski, 2017. "How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-8, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    2. Han, Lu & Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias & Opsahl, Tore, 2018. "The social network of international health aid," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 67-74.
    3. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    4. Swaans, Kees & Broerse, Jacqueline & Meincke, Maylin & Mudhara, Maxwell & Bunders, Joske, 2009. "Promoting food security and well-being among poor and HIV/AIDS affected households: Lessons from an interactive and integrated approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 31-42, February.
    5. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    6. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    7. Tayebeh Abbasi & Akbar Hassanpoor, 2022. "Exploring the Factors Influencing the Success of Public Policies: Evidence from Iran’s Higher Education," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 421-435, June.
    8. Thurston, Wilfreda E. & MacKean, Gail & Vollman, Ardene & Casebeer, Ann & Weber, Myron & Maloff, Bretta & Bader, Judy, 2005. "Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 237-252, September.
    9. Bednarik, Zuzana, 2023. "The impact of health disparities on the subjective well-being in rural communities," NCR-Stat Discussion Papers 339129, North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD).
    10. Nykiforuk, Candace & Campbell, Sharon & Cameron, Roy & Brown, Stephen & Eyles, John, 2007. "Relationships between community characteristics and municipal smoke-free bylaw status and strength," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 358-368, February.
    11. Cox, Susan M. & Kazubowski-Houston, Magdalena & Nisker, Jeff, 2009. "Genetics on stage: Public engagement in health policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1472-1480, April.
    12. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    13. Suh, Siri, 2015. "“Right tool,” wrong “job”: Manual vacuum aspiration, post-abortion care and transnational population politics in Senegal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 56-66.
    14. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    15. Yunita, Sekar A.W. & Soraya, Emma & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "“We are just cheerleaders”: Youth's views on their participation in international forest-related decision-making fora," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 52-58.
    16. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    17. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    18. Susumu Ohnuma & Miki Yokoyama & Shogo Mizutori, 2022. "Procedural Fairness and Expected Outcome Evaluations in the Public Acceptance of Sustainability Policymaking: A Case Study of Multiple Stepwise Participatory Programs to Develop an Environmental Maste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-22, March.
    19. Torres, Miguel Matos & Clegg, L. Jeremy & Varum, Celeste Amorim, 2016. "The missing link between awareness and use in the uptake of pro-internationalization incentives," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 495-510.
    20. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:189:y:2017:i:c:p:35-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.