‘What are we doing here?’: Implementation science and the politics of research as context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55016/0d9ptq41Keywords:
Implementation science, Politics of Research, Intervention Science, Social Determinants, Ethnographies of ScienceAbstract
The medical-scientific enterprise has benefited from implementation science’s (IS) fundamental insight: that contextual factors contribute to the success or failure of evidence-based interventions. Yet, IS often fails to account for the institutional commitments of research as an essential element of ‘context.’ In doing so, it may fail to acknowledge that its own institutional commitments to scientific research are themselves key power dynamics affecting how social change is thought of or how interventions are designed. This paper leverages two long-term ethnographic projects studying behavioral interventions to examine how structural conditions shape service delivery. We draw from two intervention projects: e-mental health research in Australia, and an overdose prevention clinical trial in the US. We demonstrate how the prioritization of funders’ interests, the political economy of evidence-based interventions, and the epistemic commitments of intervention research dictate what seems feasible or possible, conflicting with the moral and ethical values of intervention researchers themselves. This paper contributes to critical public health scholarship by demonstrating how IS risks legitimizing structural inequities by absorbing institutional logics rather than challenging them. The disconnect between researchers’ private critiques and the field’s focus on intervention adoption merits ongoing research that examines how IS knowledge production itself reinforces systemic injustice.
References
Adsul, P., Shelton, R. C., Oh, A., Moise, N., Iwelunmor, J., & Griffith, D. M. (2024) Challenges and opportunities for paving the road to global health equity through Implementation Science. Annual Review of Public Health, 45(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060922-034822
Aljuwaiser, S., Brazzelli, M., Arain, I., & Poobalan, A. (2024) Common mental health problems in medical students and junior doctors – an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Mental Health, 33(6), 779–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2023.2278095
Bauer, M. S., & Kirchner, J. (2020) Implementation science: What is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Research, 283, 112376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025
Baumann, A. A., & Cabassa, L. J. (2020) Reframing implementation science to address inequities in healthcare delivery. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4975-3
Boulton, R., Sandall, J., & Sevdalis, N. (2020) The cultural politics of ‘implementation science’.
The Journal of Medical Humanities, 41(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09607-9
Brownson, R. C., Kumanyika, S. K., Kreuter, M. W., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2021) Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implementation Science, 16(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01097-0
Brownson, R. C., Shelton, R. C., Geng, E. H., & Glasgow, R. E. (2022) Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science. Implementation Science, 17(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y
Claypool, E. (in press) The double bind of evidence: Harm reduction, structural change and the institutional constraints of randomized controlled trials in criminal-legal settings. Social Service Review
Corman, M. K. (2021) Using composites to craft institutional ethnographic accounts. In P. C. Luken & S. Vaughan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of institutional ethnography (pp. 465–482). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54222-1_24
Dourish, P. (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8
Dryden-Palmer, K. D., Parshuram, C. S., & Berta, W. B. (2020) Context, complexity and process in the implementation of evidence-based innovation: A realist informed review. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4935-y
Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006) Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1
Emmons, K. M., & Chambers, D. A. (2021) Policy implementation science – an unexplored strategy to address social determinants of health. Ethnicity & Disease, 31(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.31.1.133
Finley, E. P., Huynh, A. K., Farmer, M. M., Bean-Mayberry, B., Moin, T., Oishi, S. M.,…& Hamilton, A. B. (2018) Periodic reflections: A method of guided discussions for documenting implementation phenomena. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0610-y
Franklin, S. (1995) Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001115
Fullwiley, D. (2011) The enculturated gene: Sickle cell health politics and biological difference in West Africa. Princeton University Press.
Geertz, C. (1998, October 22nd) Deep hanging out. The New York Review. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/10/22/deep-hanging-out/ Available at http://hypergeertz.jku.at/GeertzTexts/Deep_Hanging.htm
Geissler, P. W. (2013) Public secrets in public health: Knowing not to know while making scientific knowledge. American Ethnologist, 40(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12002
Hamilton, A. (2013) Bridging anthropology and health services research. Anthropology News, 54(3), e1–e14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-3502.2013.54301.x
Haraway, D. (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), . 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004) States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
Kislov, R., Pope, C., Martin, G. P., & Wilson, P. M. (2019) Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implementation Science, 14, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0957-4
Lakoff, A. (2006) Pharmaceutical reason: Knowledge and value in global psychiatry. Cambridge University Press.
May, C. R., Johnson, M., & Finch, T. (2016) Implementation, context and complexity. Implementation Science, 11, 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3
Montoya, M. (2011) Making the Mexican diabetic: Race, science, and the genetics of inequality. University of California Press.
Murdoch, J., Paparini, S., Papoutsi, C., James, H., Greenhalgh, T., & Shaw, S. E. (2023) Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions. BMC Health Services Research, 23(1), 1430. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10354-5
Nader, L. (1972) Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up. Available from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED065375
Osseo-Asare, A. D. (2019) Atomic junction: Nuclear power in Africa after independence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108557955
Purtle, J., Moucheraud, C., Yang, L. H., & Shelley, D. (2023) Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science. Implementation Science Communications, 4, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00497-1
Rabinow, P. (2002) French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. University of Chicago Press.
Rhodes, T., Closson, E. F., Paparini, S., Guise, A., & Strathdee, S. (2016) Towards ‘evidence-making intervention’ approaches in the social science of implementation science: The making of methadone in East Africa. International Journal of Drug Policy, Drug Use and Drug Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa, 30, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.002
Rhodes, T., & Lancaster, K. (2019) Evidence-making interventions in health: A conceptual framing. Social Science & Medicine, 238, 112488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112488
Shelton, R. C., Adsul, P., & Oh, A. (2021) Recommendations for addressing structural racism in implementation science: A call to the field. Ethnicity & Disease, 31(Suppl 1),357–364
Snell-Rood, C., Jaramillo, E. T., Hamilton, A. B., Raskin, S. E., Nicosia, F. M., & Willging, C. (2021) Advancing health equity through a theoretically critical implementation science. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(8), 1617–1625. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibab008
Stanton, M. C., Ali, S. B., & The Sustain Center Team (2022) A typology of power in implementation: Building on the exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainment (EPIS) framework to advance mental health and HIV health equity. Implementation Research and Practice, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211064250
Taussig, M. (1999) Defacement: Public secrecy and the labor of the negative. Stanford University Press.
Taylor, J. S. (2003) Confronting ‘culture’ in medicine’s ‘culture of no culture’. Academic Medicine, 78(6), 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489521106425
Wang, J. (2018) Carceral capitalism. Semiotext(e).
Warner, E. T., Huguet, N., Fredericks, M., Gundersen, D., Nederveld, A., Brown, M. C., … & Emmons, K. M. (2023) Advancing health equity through implementation science: Identifying and examining measures of the outer setting. Social Science & Medicine, 331, 116095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116095
Wensing, M., & Wilson, P. (2023) Making implementation science more efficient: Capitalizing on opportunities beyond the field. Implementation Science, 18(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01298-9
Woodward, E. N., Singh, R. S., Ndebele-Ngwenya, P., Melgar Castillo, A., Dickson, K. S., & Kirchner, J. E. (2021) A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks. Implementation Science Communications, 2(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00146-5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Emily Claypool, Aaron Neiman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles in the Journal of Critical Public Health are published under a CC-BY-NC-ND license, or a CC-BY license if authors or their funders require this. The default CC-BY-NC-ND license means that authors and users may copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in un-adapted form only, for non-commercial purposes only, and only so long as proper credit is given (as is customary in academic work). Authors retain copyright of their work published in Journal of Critical Public Health and full publishing rights without restrictions
