Public Engagement & Intervention Discussion Hub

Facilitators

Dr. Becky Kuehl, South Dakota State University (Thursday, September 9, 3:00 – 4:00 pm CST)

Dr. Cynthia Ryan, University of Alabama Birmingham (Friday, September 10, 1:00 – 2:00 pm CST)

Notetakers 

Danielle Stambler, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Jacqueline James, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 

Hub Description

RHM has been hallmarked by research innovation when it comes to the kinds of projects we develop, the questions our research asks, and the kind of insights and interventions our studies generate. Despite an increasing commitment to method/ological transparency in RHM research, the backstage work of research often becomes invisible in our publications. That is, the process of identifying a fruitful research site or topic, manifesting productive questions, and building a rich study are challenging practices that have a direct impact on the kinds of findings RHM generates. Thus, this hub is dedicated to embracing and developing the research invention process by giving space for RHM researchers to discuss best practices, challenges, and questions that arise at the intersection of research and (re-)invention.

Generative questions

  • RHM has much to offer pressing issues that meet at the intersection of the public and medical spheres — how might RHM scholars effectively contribute to, intervene in, and navigate public engagement? What challenges come with this kind of engagement and how might we manage those? 
  • If/when RHM scholars are invited to or seek opportunities to engage in the public sphere (be it through press interviews, developing interventions, participating in advocacy organizations, etc.), what are best practices and challenges? What questions or concerns arise?
  • What method/ologies, theories, or other strategies might RHM leverage to effectively and ethically intervene in the issues/topics/communities we study? 
  • What resources do we have to describe and promote the work we can be doing to outside stakeholders we want to be working with and for?
  • What are RHM’s ethical obligations/orientations to the communities in which we work or for whom we might intervene or advocate? 
  • How might we foster relationships with communities — other researchers, public partners, government officials, organizations, etc. —  to successfully intervene or engage in the public sphere? What are the challenges and strengths of such collaborations? 

Discussion Hub Synthesis

Keywords: ethics, collaboration, intervention, dialogue, community, advocacy,  vulnerability

Main Takeaways

  • Public-facing work is messy and can take longer but is valuable in making our work connect and matter to stakeholders 
  • Public-facing work should be collaborative, in direct dialogue with the communities we are aiming to study, reach, and/or intervene with. 
  • Ethics (should) play an critical role in public-facing research 
    • Be mindful of bi-directionality — this kind of research should benefit the communities we engage, not just our scholarly/research agendas 
    • We need to be mindful of the extractive risks of this kind of work, especially in online communities in which the research occurring might be less visible 
  • Public-facing work can take many forms — supporting patient communities, critically engaging/transforming dominant narratives within medicine, helping to better connect public and medical communities, writing in public spaces, showing up for protests/activist events
  • We shouldn’t forget about provider communities as an important community to engage with in our research and to support with rhetorical interventions — though, this community can be difficult to reach 

Getting Started 

  • Our individual passions and commitments can be excellent guides for public engagement work, e.g. personal experience with disease. These passions and experiences can help us find meaningful ways to intervene, engage, and figure out the “so what?” 
    • You don’t necessarily need to have personal experience in order to engage a particular community, issue, or space, but you should always be authentic and transparent. 
  • Grants can be a way to reach out and connect to colleagues in other disciplines or community partners to do public-facing/engaged work. Many grants require collaborations, so they can offer a pathway for connection. 
  • Having an “in” can be an important first step in doing public-facing or community-engaged work. Finding a point of contact that can help you build your network is useful. One connection can often quickly lead to many additional points of contact. 
  • Ethics (should) play a critical role in public-facing research 
    • Be mindful of bi-directionality — this kind of research should benefit the communities we engage, not just our scholarly/research agendas 
  • Cold contacting editors at public-facing venues is often a first step in publishing in these kinds of places. 
    • Sometimes you need to have a full draft complete at the outset; other times they ask for a pitch. 
    • Include your credentials. 
  • Networking is very important as is being resilient. Rejections are common and often unkind, but keep moving forward. 

Collaborating 

  • Building multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teams can also help give our work traction. Though, we should be mindful of repeatedly reaching out to the same collaborators or points of contact; this can unintentionally be exclusive. 
  • Have conversations early and often with collaborative teams about outcomes in terms of scholarly outcomes as well as community/public outcomes 
  • Scholarly: What kind of resources are necessary to support everyone on the team? What kinds of publications might come of this work? Where will they get published? How will author order be determined? 
    • Public: Who should lead or be involved in identifying meaningful solutions or interventions? How can we pay/support/acknowledge time and labor?

Valuing the Work 

  • How can we make alternative outcomes of this kind of work “count” for the job market, tenure reviews, etc.? 
  • Find mentors in the field or in your department who can support you in crafting narratives about different kinds of work or outcomes 
  • Look institutionally for offices of public engagement or related resources that may be able to support you in translating your community-engaged work into the language/criteria at your institution 
  • Public-facing writing does not need to replace our academic publications — the rhetorical invention process can simultaneously lend itself to both. 
  • Incorporating scholarly threads in public-facing writing can help that work translate to institutional reviews/demands/criteria. E.g. you might include content that advocates for RHM as a valuable discipline 
  • Include it in your CV! Different institutions will use different language for these kinds of sections such as “Publicly Engaged Work,” “Public Writing,” “Public Engagement & Media Appearances.” 
  • Document your processes because not all outcomes of publicly engaged work are deliverables. 
  • Attaching work you are doing to an institutional initiative  can be helpful, especially when the deliverables or outcomes are more abstract

Key Resources 

  • The OpEdProject — workshop that can help teach you how to craft a pitch for public types of writing.