The courage to advocate: How two professions approach public advocacy work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While health advocacy is an established physician role, most of the educational attention to advocacy has been at the individual patient level. Public advocacy-efforts to effect change at the level of communities, populations or society-remains a poorly defined concept whose educational foundation is underdeveloped. To enrich our understanding of public advocacy, we explored how professionals in two disciplines-medicine and law-have approached its tasks and experienced its challenges. METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory, we interviewed 18 professionals (nine physicians, eight lawyers and one qualified in both disciplines) who engage in public advocacy. We used constant comparison throughout an iterative process of data collection and analysis to develop an understanding of what it means to be a professional in the public domain. RESULTS: Public advocacy work occurs at the intersection of personal and professional identities. Lawyers perceived public advocacy as an embedded element of their professional identity, while physicians more often viewed it as outside their core professional scope. Nonetheless, professional identity influenced how both groups conducted their work. Physicians were more likely to draw on professional attitudes (e.g. their orientation towards evidence and their trusted social position), while lawyers were more likely to draw on professional skills (e.g. building an argument and litigating test cases). The work requires courage and often demands that individuals tolerate personal and professional risk. CONCLUSION: While medicine has enshrined advocacy in its competency frameworks, it is the legal profession whose practitioners more fully embrace advocacy as intrinsic to professional identity, suggesting that roles are difficult to engineer or impose. Collaboration across public-facing professions like medicine and law creates opportunities to reimagine public advocacy, to identify the skills required to do it well and to refresh educational strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".