Dissemination and integrating PHR activities in the process of policy making Sample Clauses

Dissemination and integrating PHR activities in the process of policy making. To realise a policy impact findings from PHR activities have to be disseminated and “marketed”. Attracting interest is a major issue, and it has positive effects if already existing questions are answered. Defining questions to be answered and the aims of a report can contribute to an environment which is comfortable for the chance to realise a policy impact. But even if the expectations should be well defined, it has to be reconsidered that PHR activities are not always routine. They are sometimes of a project character, linked with a certain degree of uncertainty and ambiguity which is typical for a cooperation between practitioners / policy makers and scientists. It has been said that “[...] successful community/university research collaboration demands from all partners a patience with and tolerance for the uncertainty and ambiguity of a necessarily emergent research project.” (Xxxxxxxxxx et al. 2002: 1202) The same holds for PHR activities until they have established themselves as a regular routine monitoring and information management system. Following Stone/Xxxxxxx/Xxxxxxx (2001: 13) “[...] for researchers interested in policy impact, ‘do nothing’ is not an option. ‘Better dissemination’ is better but still only a partial answer. ‘Policy entrepreneurship’ seems to be the way forward.” But it is questionable if scientists and those writing reports should become “policy entrepreneurs” and thereby policy makers by themselves. There might be conflicts with the delivery of reliable information and conflicts with those commissioning reports. For political reasons, decision makers are maybe more interested in a neutral scientific information tool which supports their own “policy entrepreneurship”. The gap between the providence of scientific, reliable and neutral information and policy entrepreneurship can be closed if policy counselling is seen as an intermediary step. Public health professionals, heads of public health services and other stakeholders like associations of health providers, health insurances, charity organisations, self help groups etc., scientific staff of parliamentarians or political parties can play a decisive role in picking up findings from PHR activities and interpreting as well translating them for policy making. In this process, PHR professionals could take care that findings are not communicated incorrect, e.g. for political reasons. They can deliver and defend a reliable and neutral information base which can serve as the fundam...