Epistemic conflicts and Achilles’ heels: constraints of a university and public sector partnership to research obesity in Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the multiple tensions arising in an Australian university and public sector collaboration that aimed to investigate an obesity intervention. A key site of conflict with the external collaborators emerged when we, the researchers, focusing on the experiences of marginalized local people, presented research findings that were at odds with the dominant understanding of obesity that framed the public health intervention. From those with a range of roles in the public sector, we received claims of misrepresentation and requests to change or not publicly release certain research findings. Drawing on the ‘policy learning framework’ of Dunlop and Radaelli, we examine these epistemic conflicts and point to the Achilles’ heels of the ‘engagement and impact’ agenda. From the perspective of government, the inherent weakness stems from the lack of control in a partnership, and from the perspective of academics, it is the danger of undermining trust in universities and the knowledge academics produce, through the process of engaging with government and being party to research that is designed to shore up a position that government has already decided upon. This case study has implications for academic and government collaborators who may benefit from explicit planning about how to negotiate discord around the processes of learning that occur in and across research, policy, and practice.

KEYWORDS:

• University-public sector collaborations
• obesity
• epistemic conflicts
• policy learning
• knowledge utilisation
• research impact

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by an Australian Research Council Grant (LP 120100155) and Future Fellowship (FT140100825). South Australia Health (Government of South Australia) and the City of Playford have contributed funds and in-kind support for this project. We wish to thank Dr Tanya Zivkovic, Prof. Paul Ward, Dr Michelle Jones and Prof. Raewyn Connell, our external partners and all the research participants who so generously shared their time with us. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers of this paper, and to the continued support of Research Services at the University of Adelaide.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect South Australian Government policies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect South Australian Government Policies.

Notes

1. A Social Sciences Sub-Committee was established in 2010 to provide specific expertise to the Scientific Advisory Committee on the qualitative components of the OPAL evaluation. This committee operated briefly from August 2010 to October 2010.

2. During the research project, health promotion and prevention activities through SA Health were significantly reduced, and in 2014 funds for OPAL were withdrawn by the Australian Government.

3. Mutual obligation is an Australian government policy that requires welfare recipients to return the ‘investment’ through activities such as volunteering, job seeking, training programmes, or work experience (work for the dole).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [FT 140100825, LP 120100155]; South Australia Health (Government of South Australia); City of Playford, Adelaide, South Australia.