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

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.

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

“…Monitoring and evaluation: We need to ensure the routine monitoring of policy, partly to use evidence to evaluate success and hold policymakers to account (and monitor the success of KMP initiatives) 8. Advising policymakers: We should close the gap in expected behaviour between policymakers seeking evidence-informed recommendations and researchers trying to draw the line between the 'honest broker' and 'issue advocate' (Pielke, 2007;Cairney and Oliver, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017) contained in Annex A and published documents (JRC 2017a(JRC , 2017b.…”

Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power

“…Collaborative decision-sharing structures are, while a nice idea, still subject to the same group dynamics, personal biases and relationships as any other human interaction (Hendriks, 2009). Neither have we solved the problem of how far researchers should go to influence debates about policy and practice, without compromising their neutrality and commitment to strict empiricism (Cairney and Oliver, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017).…”

Citizens’ juries can bring public voices on overdiagnosis into policy making

“…The provision of facts, exposure to well reasoned and sometimes opposing expert opinions, and commitment to working through persistent disagreements (rather than dismissing them as deficits in understanding) can help to rebalance information gaps about overdiagnosis and the discrepancy of power between experts, decision makers, and the community affected 1819…”