Search

While governments and academic institutions urge researchers to engage with news media, traditional academic values of public disengagement have inhibited many from giving high priority to media activity. In this interview-based study, we report on the views about news media engagement and strategies used by 36 peer-voted leading Australian public health researchers in six fields. We consider their views about the role and importance of media in influencing policy; their reflections on effective or ineffective media communicators; and strategies used by these researchers about how to best retain their credibility and influence while engaging with the news media. A willingness and capacity to engage with the mass media was seen as an essential attribute of influential public health researchers. NHMRC

Public health researchers make a limited but important contribution to policy development. Some engage with policy directly through committees, advisory boards, advocacy coalitions, ministerial briefings, intervention design consultation, and research partnerships with government, as well as by championing research-informed policy in the media. Nevertheless, the research utilization literature has paid little attention to these diverse roles and the ways that policymakers use them. This article describes how policymakers use researchers in policymaking and examines how these activities relate to models of research utilization. It also explores the extent to which policymakers' accounts of using researchers concur with the experiences of "policy-engaged" public health researchers.We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-two Australian civil servants, parliamentary ministers, and ministerial advisers identified as "research-engaged" by public health researchers. We used structured and inductive coding to generate categories that we then compared with some of the major research utilization models.Policymakers were sophisticated and multifaceted users of researchers for purposes that we describe as Galvanizing Ideas, Clarification and Advice, Persuasion, and Defense. These categories overlapped but did not wholly fit with research utilization models. Despite the negative connotation, "being used" was reported as reciprocal and uncompromising, although researchers and policymakers were likely to categorize these uses differently. Policymakers countered views expressed by some researchers. That is, they sought robust dialogue and creative thinking rather than compliance, and they valued expert opinion when research was insufficient for decision making. The technical/political character of policy development shaped the ways in which researchers were used.Elucidating the diverse roles that public health researchers play in policymaking, and the multiple ways that policymakers use these roles, provides researchers and policymakers with a framework for negotiating and reflecting on activities that may advance the public health goals shared by both.

Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated “highly influential” Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers’ ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy, a fundamental strategy for some, was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research.

The development of frameworks to effectively measure both the scientific and social impact of research is a topic of international debate. This paper examines how Australian public health researchers in six fields (alcohol, drugs, injury, obesity, skin cancer and tobacco) classified the scientific and social impact of what they judged to be their five most influential papers. We compared classifications of researchers rated as most influential by their peers with those not as highly ranked. Highly ranked researchers more often indicated social impact characteristics (Χ2 = 8.13; P = 0.004) than their less influential colleagues. Traditional measures of scientific impact (publication in high impact journals and high citations) were nominated by all researchers regardless of peer-nominated research influence status. There was strong consensus on who were the most influential researchers in five of the six research fields examined. This would appear to provide a sound platform on which to base more qualitative, interview or portfolio-based investigations into the complexities of wider conceptions of research and researcher influence.