IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v51y2000i12p1755-1769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Impact? What impact?" Epidemiological research findings in the public domain: a case study from north-east England

Author

Listed:
  • Moffatt, S.
  • Phillimore, P.
  • Hudson, E.
  • Downey, D.

Abstract

This paper reflects on the dissemination of potentially controversial research evidence about industrial air pollution and health in north-east England. It draws on a participant observation study of the local impact of a four-year epidemiological research programme in Teesside. The difficulties in and obstacles to disseminating research findings are explored. It may thus be described as a study of the impact of a study. We look at institutional resistance (including from the funders of the research) to any evidence indicating adverse health effects from industrial pollution. We also look at the failure of researchers to surmount such resistance and to communicate effectively with those who lived in the vicinity of the major industrial operations. This leads us to consider how conflicting notions of accountability coloured dissemination strategies as well as researchers' judgements. We offer a critique of fashionable and unduly consensual notions of a 'user community', in a context where different 'user communities' had incompatible expectations about the purpose of a piece of research and the significance of the data to emerge from it. The study also highlights the difficulties of disseminating research findings when the topic has the potential to affect economic interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Moffatt, S. & Phillimore, P. & Hudson, E. & Downey, D., 2000. ""Impact? What impact?" Epidemiological research findings in the public domain: a case study from north-east England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 1755-1769, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:12:p:1755-1769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00108-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Helen Prince & Judith Bush & Christine E Dunn, 2002. "Urban Air Quality in North‐East England: Exploring the Influences on Local Views and Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 121-130, February.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2012. "Experience with Urban Air Pollution in Paterson, New Jersey and Implications for Air Pollution Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 39-53, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:12:p:1755-1769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.