A critical discourse analysis of how public participants and their evidence are presented in health impact assessment reports in Wales

Abstract Background Health impact assessment (HIA) involves assessing in advance how projects affect the health of particular populations. In many countries, HIA has become central to attempts to better integrate health and public participation into policy and decision making. In 2017, HIA gained st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chris Emmerson (Author), Fiona Wood (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Wiley, 2019-06-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_b9f1c7ed162c4aecb48a0b35e19f32f4
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Chris Emmerson  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Fiona Wood  |e author 
245 0 0 |a A critical discourse analysis of how public participants and their evidence are presented in health impact assessment reports in Wales 
260 |b Wiley,   |c 2019-06-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 1369-7625 
500 |a 1369-6513 
500 |a 10.1111/hex.12889 
520 |a Abstract Background Health impact assessment (HIA) involves assessing in advance how projects affect the health of particular populations. In many countries, HIA has become central to attempts to better integrate health and public participation into policy and decision making. In 2017, HIA gained statutory status in Wales. This study considers how the public and their evidence are presented within HIA reports and what insights this offers into how public participation is constructed within public health. Methods Critical discourse analysis, as described by Fairclough (2003), to analyse seven HIA reports produced in Wales. Results Discourses were grouped under four headings. "Consensus and polyphony" relates to the tendency to produce consensus. "Authors and authority" is concerned with how participants and their evidence are shaped by different authorial stances. "Discussions, decisions and planes of action" brings together material on how decision makers are (or are not) brought into contact with evidence in the reports. "Evidence: fragmentation and compression" analyses strategies of abstracting. Conclusions This analysis suggests that participants and their evidence are presented in specific ways within HIA reports and that these are particularly shaped by genre, authorial stances and approaches to abstracting and re‐ordering texts. Acknowledging these issues may create opportunities to develop HIA in new directions. Further research to test these conclusions and contribute to a wider "sociology of public health documents" would be of value. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a community participation 
690 |a discourse analysis 
690 |a Health impact assessment 
690 |a Public Health 
690 |a qualitative research 
690 |a sociology 
690 |a Medicine (General) 
690 |a R5-920 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Health Expectations, Vol 22, Iss 3, Pp 585-593 (2019) 
787 0 |n https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12889 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1369-6513 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1369-7625 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/b9f1c7ed162c4aecb48a0b35e19f32f4  |z Connect to this object online.