Cargando…
Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter?
It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response—and other public health initiatives before it—to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36948532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011182 |
_version_ | 1784910789165973504 |
---|---|
author | Williams, Jane H Hooker, Claire Gilbert, Gwendolyn L Hor, Suyin Degeling, Chris |
author_facet | Williams, Jane H Hooker, Claire Gilbert, Gwendolyn L Hor, Suyin Degeling, Chris |
author_sort | Williams, Jane H |
collection | PubMed |
description | It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response—and other public health initiatives before it—to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over how it should be interpreted are often the product of differing choices between competing values. We propose a definition of polarisation for the context of public health expertise that acknowledges and accounts for epistemic and social values as part of evidence generation and its application to public health practice. The ‘polarised’ label should be used judiciously because the descriptor risks generating or exacerbating the problem by oversimplifying complex issues and positions and creating groups that seem dichotomous. ‘Independence’ as a one-size-fits-all answer to expert polarisation is insufficient; this solution is premised on a scientistic account of the role of evidence in decision making and does not make room for the value difference that is at the heart of both polarisation and evidence-based decision making. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10032394 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100323942023-03-23 Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? Williams, Jane H Hooker, Claire Gilbert, Gwendolyn L Hor, Suyin Degeling, Chris BMJ Glob Health Analysis It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response—and other public health initiatives before it—to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as ‘evidence’ is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over how it should be interpreted are often the product of differing choices between competing values. We propose a definition of polarisation for the context of public health expertise that acknowledges and accounts for epistemic and social values as part of evidence generation and its application to public health practice. The ‘polarised’ label should be used judiciously because the descriptor risks generating or exacerbating the problem by oversimplifying complex issues and positions and creating groups that seem dichotomous. ‘Independence’ as a one-size-fits-all answer to expert polarisation is insufficient; this solution is premised on a scientistic account of the role of evidence in decision making and does not make room for the value difference that is at the heart of both polarisation and evidence-based decision making. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10032394/ /pubmed/36948532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011182 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Analysis Williams, Jane H Hooker, Claire Gilbert, Gwendolyn L Hor, Suyin Degeling, Chris Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title | Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title_full | Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title_fullStr | Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title_full_unstemmed | Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title_short | Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
title_sort | disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter? |
topic | Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10032394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36948532 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011182 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT williamsjaneh disagreementamongexpertsaboutpublichealthdecisionmakingisitpolarisationanddoesitmatter AT hookerclaire disagreementamongexpertsaboutpublichealthdecisionmakingisitpolarisationanddoesitmatter AT gilbertgwendolynl disagreementamongexpertsaboutpublichealthdecisionmakingisitpolarisationanddoesitmatter AT horsuyin disagreementamongexpertsaboutpublichealthdecisionmakingisitpolarisationanddoesitmatter AT degelingchris disagreementamongexpertsaboutpublichealthdecisionmakingisitpolarisationanddoesitmatter |