Another implementation science is possible: engaging an ‘intelligent public’ in knowledge translation

9Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

As the world contends with the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise has permeated political discourse and the phrase ‘following the science’ is being used to build trust and justify government decision-making. This phrase reflects a problematic assumption that there is one objective science to follow and that the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making is inherently neutral. In this article, we examine more closely the dense and intricate relationships, values, politics, and interests that determine whose knowledge counts, who gets to speak, who is spoken for, and with what consequences, in the translation of scientific knowledge. Drawing key insights from Stengers’ Manifesto for Slow Science, we argue that implementation science has a central role to play in problematising the historic dominance of certain voices and institutional structures that have come to symbolise trust, rigour, and knowledge. Yet to date, implementation science has tended to overlook these economic, social, historical, and political forces. Fraser’s conception of social justice and Jasanoff’s ‘technologies of humility’ are introduced as useful frameworks to extend the capacity of implementation science to engage the broader public as an ‘intelligent public’ in the translation of knowledge, during and beyond the pandemic.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Heinsch, M., Cootes, H., & Tickner, C. (2023). Another implementation science is possible: engaging an ‘intelligent public’ in knowledge translation. Health Sociology Review, 32(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2023.2174897

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free