IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i14p6402-d1197671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transforming Intractable Policy Conflicts: A Qualitative Study Examining the Novel Application of Facilitated Discourse (Track Two Diplomacy) to Community Water Fluoridation in Calgary, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Aleem Bharwani

    (UCalgary Pluralism Initiative and O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
    Ward of the 21st Century, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
    Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada
    Ottawa Dialogue, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 5Y3, Canada)

  • Jessica Van Dyke

    (Ward of the 21st Century, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada)

  • Cristina Santamaria-Plaza

    (Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada)

  • Julia Palmiano Federer

    (Ottawa Dialogue, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 5Y3, Canada)

  • Peter Jones

    (Ottawa Dialogue, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 5Y3, Canada)

Abstract

Governments face challenges in resolving complex health and social policy conflicts, such as the community water fluoridation (CWF) impasse in Calgary. Track Two diplomacy, informal dialogues facilitated by an impartial third party, is proposed to address these issues amid epistemic conflict and declining public trust in fellow citizens, science, and government. This study examined Track Two diplomacy’s application in Calgary’s CWF policy conflict. Collaborating with policymakers and community partners, the research team explored a Track Two–CWF process and conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, scholars, practitioners, observers, and civil society representatives. Data interpretation explored contextual factors, conflict transformation potential, and design features for a Track Two process. A conflict map revealed factors contributing to impasse: the polarizing nature of a binary policy question on fluoridation; disciplinary silos; failed public engagement; societal populism; societal lack of disposition to dialogue; individual factors (adverse impact of conflict on stakeholders, adherence to extreme positions, issue fatigue, apathy, and lack of humility); together with policy-making factors (perceived lack of leadership, lack of forum to dialogue, polarization and silos). Participants suggested reframing the issue as nonbinary, involving a skilled facilitator, convening academics, and considering multiple dialogue tracks for a Track Two process. The first theory of change would focus on personal attitudes, relationships, and culture. Participants expressed cautious optimism about Track Two diplomacy’s potential. Track Two diplomacy offers a promising approach to reframe intractable public health policy conflicts by moving stakeholders from adversarial positions to jointly assessing and solving problems. Further empirical evidence is needed to test the suggested process.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleem Bharwani & Jessica Van Dyke & Cristina Santamaria-Plaza & Julia Palmiano Federer & Peter Jones, 2023. "Transforming Intractable Policy Conflicts: A Qualitative Study Examining the Novel Application of Facilitated Discourse (Track Two Diplomacy) to Community Water Fluoridation in Calgary, Canada," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(14), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:14:p:6402-:d:1197671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/14/6402/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/14/6402/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    2. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    3. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    5. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    7. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    8. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    9. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    11. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    12. Bruce B. Svare, 2020. "A Cautionary Tale for Psychology and Higher Education in Asia: Following Western Practices of Incentivising Scholarship May Have Negative Outcomes," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 32(1), pages 94-121, March.
    13. Harrison, Mark, 2009. "Forging Success : Soviet Managers and False Accounting, 1943 to 1962," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 909, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    14. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Harrison, Mark, 2011. "Forging success: Soviet managers and accounting fraud, 1943-1962," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 43-64, March.
    16. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    17. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    18. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    19. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    20. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:14:p:6402-:d:1197671. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.