Advocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policy

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorJessani, Nasreen S.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorLing, Brentonen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorBabcock, Carlyen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorValmeekanathan, Aksharaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorHoltgrave, David R.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-03T12:40:39Z
dc.date.available2024-04-03T12:40:39Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-18en_ZA
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at: https://journals.plos.orgen_ZA
dc.description.abstractResearch and teaching are considered core-responsibilities for academic researchers. “Practice” activities however are viewed as ancillary, despite university emphasis on their importance. As funders, governments, and academia address the role of research in social impact, the deliberations on researcher activism, advocacy and lobbying have seen a resurgence. This study explores the perceptions of 52 faculty and 24 government decisionmakers on the roles, responsibilities, and restrictions of an academic to proactively engage in efforts that can be interpreted under these three terms. Data was coded through inductive thematic analysis using Atlas.Ti and a framework approach. We found that discordant perceptions about how much activism, advocacy and lobbying faculty should be engaging in, results from how each term is defined, interpreted, supported and reported by the individuals, the School of Public Health (SPH), and government agencies. Influential faculty factors included: seniority, previous experiences, position within the institution, and being embedded in a research center with an advocacy focus. Faculty views on support for advocacy were often divergent. We surmise therefore, that for effective and mutually beneficial collaboration to occur, academic institutions need to align rhetoric with reality with respect to encouraging modes and support for government engagement. Similarly, government agencies need to provide more flexible modes of engagement. This will contribute to alleviating confusion as well as tension leading to more effective engagement and consequently opportunity for evidence-informed decision making in public health globally.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttps://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0000034en_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher’s versionen_ZA
dc.format.extent21 pagesen_ZA
dc.identifier.citationJessani NS,et al .2022 Advocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policy. PLOS Glob Public Health 2(3):21 pages. doi.10.1371/journal.pgph.0000034en_ZA
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pgph.0000034en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn2767-3375 (online)en_ZA
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-1160-3099en_ZA
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-9927-8568en_ZA
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2519-8749en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/129580
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPLOSen_ZA
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyrighten_ZA
dc.titleAdvocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policyen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
jessani_advocacy_2022.pdf
Size:
542.81 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.02 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Collection B