Contested Boundaries: Evaluating Institutional and Government Authority in Academia and Public Health

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Contested Boundaries: Evaluating Institutional and Government Authority in Academia and Public Health

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Contested Boundaries: Evaluating Institutional and Government Authority in Academia and Public Health
Author: Morain, Stephanie
Citation: Morain, Stephanie. 2014. Contested Boundaries: Evaluating Institutional and Government Authority in Academia and Public Health. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: This dissertation explores tensions between individual freedom and institutional authority. Chapter one examines public perceptions of the legitimacy of "new frontier" public health measures. I present results from a national survey of 1,817 adults concerning the acceptability of public health interventions for noncommunicable diseases. We found that support for these interventions is high overall; strongly associated with race and political orientation; and tied to perceptions of democratic representation in policy making. There was much support for strategies that enable people to exercise healthful choices, but considerably less for more coercive measures. These findings suggest that the least coercive path will be the smoothest. Additionally, the findings underscore the need for policy makers to involve the public in decision making, understand the public's values, and communicate how policy decisions reflect this understanding.
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11744444
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters