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

Research 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.

Approach and avoidant coping among black transgender women who have experienced violence: A qualitative analysis.

Black transgender women face nearly universal exposure to violence. Coping behaviors among cisgender women who have survived violence are well delineated; however, there are relatively few studies examining coping strategies for transgender women. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and characterize coping behaviors employed by Black transgender women (from Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas) following an experience of violence. Secondary qualitative data analysis was conducted using framework analysis to explore narratives of 19 Black transgender women. Themes regarding avoidant and approach coping behaviors were developed within the context of existing literature. Approach coping behavior themes included: Help-Seeking, Seeking Guidance and Support, Self-Protecting Behavior, Positive Reappraisal, Self-Affirmation, Self-Care, Connection to a Higher Power, and Acceptance. Avoidant coping behavior themes included: Cognitive Avoidance, Substance, Alcohol, and Tobacco Use, Emotional Discharge, and Seeking Alternative Rewards. Participants employed similar coping behaviors as seen among cisgender women survivors of violence. However, several unique applications of approach coping mechanisms were identified including self-protecting behavior and self-affirming behavior. Culturally informed application of the identified coping behaviors can be taught and integrated into trauma-informed mental health interventions to promote strength and resilience among Black transgender women. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution.

CONTEXT: Relationships between researchers and decision-makers have demonstrated positive potential to influence research, policy and practice. Over time, interest in better understanding the relationships between the two parties has grown as demonstrated by a plethora of studies globally. However, what remains elusive is the evolution of these vital relationships and what can be learned from them with respect to advancing evidence-informed decision-making. We therefore explored the nuances around the initiation, maintenance and dissolution of academic-government relationships. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 faculty at one school of public health and 24 government decision-makers at city, state, federal and global levels. Interviews were transcribed and coded deductively and inductively using Atlas.Ti. Responses across codes and respondents were extracted into an Excel matrix and compared in order to identify key themes. FINDINGS: Eight key drivers to engagement were identified, namely (1) decision-maker research needs, (2) learning, (3) access to resources, (4) student opportunities, (5) capacity strengthening, (6) strategic positioning, (7) institutional conditionalities, and (8) funder conditionalities. There were several elements that enabled initiation of relationships, including the role of faculty members in the decision-making process, individual attributes and reputation, institutional reputation, social capital, and the role of funders. Maintenance of partnerships was dependent on factors such as synergistic collaboration (i.e. both benefit), mutual trust, contractual issues and funding. Dissolution of relationships resulted from champions changing/leaving positions, engagement in transactional relationships, or limited mutual trust and respect. CONCLUSIONS: As universities and government agencies establish relationships and utilise opportunities to share ideas, envision change together, and leverage their collaborations to use evidence to inform decision-making, a new modus operandi becomes possible. Embracing the individual, institutional, networked and systems dynamics of relationships can lead to new practices, alternate approaches and transformative change. Government agencies, schools of public health and higher education institutions more broadly, should pay deliberate attention to identifying and managing the various drivers, enablers and disablers for relationship initiation and resilience in order to promote more evidence-informed decision-making.