Exploring professional orientations to community voice in professional practice settings: The IMAP process

The tension between technical experts and the populations they seek to serve is well established in the literature examining professional social problem solving. In this piece, I examine this tension as one between the distinct discursive worlds of technical expertise and community voice. I develop an analytic process, IMAP, for exploring this tension by looking at a wide variety of professional orientations around a relatively fixed concept of community voice. IMAP involves I&barbelow;dentifying social problem solvers, M&barbelow;apping social problem solvers' claims, A&barbelow;nalyzing professional orientations that arise from this mapping, and P&barbelow;redicting, diagnosing, and remediating conflicts. IMAP can be used by analysts external to social problem solving settings or by social problem solvers themselves. The use of IMAP by external experts poses questions of expert alignment with either of the discursive worlds. I examine two cases in public health practice settings: a mobile immunization service and the efforts of a foundation to improve health in an inner-city neighborhood. I develop four modal types that can be anticipated in social problem solving settings or, more specifically, in public health practice. Understanding of these “world views” can enhance mutual understanding between public health professionals and between public health professionals and the communities they seek to serve. IMAP might also address ongoing conflicts to clarify differences in unspoken normative commitments and the impact of these on social problem solving. I discuss implications of the research for public health practice and further research in the area. ^

Campaign contributions to congressional candidates by the healthcare sector from 1990 to 2008

Stakeholder groups with special interests as donors to finance congressional campaigns have been a controversial issue in the United Sates. While previous studies concentrated on whether a connection existed between the campaign contributions provided by stakeholder groups and the voting behavior of congressional members, there is little evidence to show the trend of allocation of their campaign contributions to their favorite candidates during the elections. This issue has become increasingly important in the health sector since the health care reform bill was passed in early 2010.^ This study examined the long-term trend of campaign contributions offered by various top healthcare stakeholder groups to particular political parties (i.e. Democrat and Republican). The main focus of this paper was to observe and describe the financial donations provided by these healthcare stakeholder groups in the congressional election cycles from 1990 to 2008 in order to obtain an overview of their patterns of campaign contributions. Their contributing behaviors were characterized based on the campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Specifically, I answered the questions: (1) to which political party did specific healthcare stakeholder groups give money and (2) what was the pattern of their campaign contributions from 1990 to 2008?^ The findings of my study revealed that the healthcare stakeholder groups had different political party preferences and partisanship orientations regarding the Democratic or Republican Party. These differences were obvious throughout the election cycles from 1990 to 2008 and their distinct patterns of financial contribution were evident across industries in the health sector as well. Among all the healthcare stakeholder groups in this study, physicians were the top contributors in the congressional election. The pharmaceutical industry was the only group where the majority of contribution funds were allocated to Republicans in every election period studied. This study found that no interest group has succeeded in electing the preferred congressional candidate by giving the majority of its financial support to the winning party in every election. Chiropractors, hospitals/nursing homes, and health services/HMOs performed better than other healthcare stakeholder groups by supporting the electoral winner 8 out of 9 election cycles.^