Search

Abstract While vaccine-critical activism has been widely documented and discussed, comparatively little has been said about the concerted response of pro-vaccine activists defending the majority view. This paper explores two case studies of pro-vaccine activism in Australia and the United States (US). It shows how pro-vaccine views and behaviours can take varying forms due to different aims and methods of engagement – oppositional counteractivities in favour of vaccination in Australia, and issue-based advocacy as part of a political alliance in the US. The focus in Australia comes from a pro-science stance and includes 'skeptics' against pseudoscience directly opposing vaccine-critical groups. In the US, the focus takes the form of an issue-specific campaign that has arisen from existing pro-vaccine parent blogs and discussion groups pushing for policy change rather than public confrontation. These case studies exemplify how pro-vaccine activism can take varying forms of either reinforcing the mainstream view or countering digression from it. Drawing on qualitative research, this paper aims to examine the types of practices and strategies employed by activists to voice their support of vaccination, and discusses the means, messages, and motivations of pro-vaccine activism. It ends with an argument for why a study – of public support for in addition to studying public opposition to vaccination – can help to better understand vaccination views and behaviours. These findings have wider implications for the study of counter-activism and the polarisation of civil society groups. Highlights • Pro-vaccine views and behaviours are understudied. • Case studies on pro-vaccine activist groups in Australia and the United States. • Pro-vaccine activism reinforces the mainstream or counters digression from it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aboriginal health policy in Australia represents a unique policy subsystem comprising a diverse network of Aboriginal-specific and “mainstream” organisations, often with competing interests. This paper describes the network structure of organisations attempting to influence national Aboriginal health policy and examines how the different subgroups within the network approached the policy discourse. Public submissions made as part of a policy development process for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan were analysed using a novel combination of network analysis and qualitative framing analysis. Other organisational actors in the network in each submission were identified, and relationships between them determined; these were used to generate a network map depicting the ties between actors. A qualitative framing analysis was undertaken, using inductive coding of the policy discourses in the submissions. The frames were overlaid with the network map to identify the relationship between the structure of the network and the way in which organisations framed Aboriginal health problems. Aboriginal organisations were central to the network and strongly connected with each other. The network consisted of several densely connected subgroups, whose central nodes were closely connected to one another. Each subgroup deployed a particular policy frame, with a frame of “system dysfunction” also adopted by all but one subgroup. Analysis of submissions revealed that many of the stakeholders in Aboriginal health policy actors are connected to one another. These connections help to drive the policy discourse. The combination of network and framing analysis illuminates competing interests within a network, and can assist advocacy organisations to identify which network members are most influential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]