Integration of Theory and Practice in Health Communication
Hairong Feng, Purdue University
Abstract: This paper discusses theory and practice integration in health communication. It starts from addressing the significance of integrating theory and practice from both practical necessities and theoretical supports. Then, this paper addresses current existing problems including research is hardly problem-based, unwilling to share research results, difficult to connect to research, and practitioners seldom use formulated theory and research results. Following this, corresponding possible solutions are discussed most from scholars’ side. Finally, the paper calls attention to some relevant issues that deserve further exploration: practitioners’ efforts, potentiality of a theory, and development of applied health communication research. [China Media Research. 2006;2(3):1-8].
Keywords: Health communication; theory and practice integration; applied research
Over a decade ago, scholars from communication and public health advocated a close collaboration between theories and practices (e.g., Burdine & McLeroy, 1992; Scherer & Juanillo, 1992). Since then the discussions about integrating health communication scholarship and health practices have been continually intriguing health communication scholars.
Through reading work on this topic and talking to scholars and practitioners, I attempt to address three issues: (a) the significance of integrating theory and practice in health communication by relating it to the practical nature of the communication field in general, (b) the current problems of collaboration between health communication scholars and health professionals and practitioners, and (c) possible solutions to the problems.
Significance of Integrating Theory and Practice
When talking about integration of theory and practice, in order to have a clear idea what do I refer to as “theory” and “practice,” it is helpful to define them at outset.
Theory and Practice Defined
Theory. In common senses, a theory is an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and guide behaviors. Kerlinger (1986) defined a theory as “a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena” (p. 51). This definition highlighted two major functions of a theory: explanation and prediction. Babrow and Mattson (2003) defined a theory as a consciously elaborated, justified, and uncertain understanding. “Understanding” was underscored in this definition. In short, explanation, prediction, and understanding are critical features of a theory.
The concept of a theory, in this paper, is used in a very broad sense which not only embraces different formulated theories but also encompasses empirical research productions guided by theoretical framework.
Practice. Simply put, practice is an application of knowledge to influence outcomes. With regard to health communication practice, it may include health care deliveries (e.g., health care information transmission, communicating bad news) doctor-patient interactions, health campaign message designs, conveying health information effectively to the public and other health-related activities from health professionals and practitioners.
Having these in mind, when addressing theory and practice integration, I focus on health communication theories and research which could be helpful for health professionals and practitioners when they communicate with patients/clients or designing and transmitting health messages to the general public.
Health Communication and Health Care/Health Promotion
Health communication addresses how communication could inform and influence individual and community decisions about health knowledge and practices. It links the domains of communication and health and is increasingly recognized as a necessary element of efforts to improve personal and public health (Jackson & Duffy, 1998). Specifically, health communication make contributions to all aspects of disease prevention and health promotion and is related
to a number of contexts, such as professional-patient relations, individuals’ exposure to, search for, and use
of health information, individuals’ adherence to clinical recommendations and regimens, and the design and construction of public health messages and campaigns, (see Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992; Freimuth, Stein,
& Kean, 1989; Harris, 1995; Maiback & Parrott, 1995; Ray & Donohew, 1990).
The centrality of communication to public health suggests that health communication scholars have great opportunities to help shape public health policies and
practices that facilitate to optimize strategic and effective use of communication.
Health organizations and institutions have also
recognized this necessity; hence they invite health communication scholars to conduct funded research (Kreps, 2003). For example, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) recently initiates quite a few programs intended to enhance health communication research. The center issues different funded research programs with emphasis on health communication (more information can be found at https://www.doczj.com/doc/ed14602815.html,/hcirb/about.html ).
Besides these practical needs of health communication research and theories, scholars (e.g., Babrow & Mattson, 2003; Craig, 1989) also provided persuasive theoretical support for theory and practice integration from both the field of communication in general and health communication as an area in
particular.
Communication as a Practical Discipline
Craig (1989) contends that communication is a practical discipline ontologically. He argues that the practical nature is root firmly in the history of the field. Craig states that: “as a practical discipline, our essential purpose is to cultivate communication praxis, or practical art, through critical study. All of our work does, or should pursue that purpose” (1989, p. 98). The 2001 special issue on “practical theory” published by
Communication Theory also indicates the importance of communication as a practical field. In the editor’s introduction, Barge (2001) advocated to develop a practical theory as mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Other scholars (e.g., Frey, 1998; Petronio, 1999) also emphasized that communication scholars were responsible to explore how their scholarship can be translated into practice and
how communication theory and research could tackle applied communication problems such as social justice issues.
Among areas in the communication field, health communication is significantly close to practice as stated earlier. Hence, it is not surprising that many health communication research examples are used when addressing the point that communication as a practical discipline and applied research should be as important as pure disciplinary research.
Theory and Practice Integration in Health Communication
Integration of theory and practice is particularly
salient in health communication. Many scholars (e.g., Babrow & Mattson, 2003; Freimuth, 1995; Nzyuko, 1996; Petronio, 1999; Scherer & Juanillo, 1992; Witte, 1996) have recognized this significance. Health communication should be practical, so any work that doesn’t include practical concerns would not meet
qualifications as “good” health communication research. Among others, Babrow and Mattson’s (2003) article of theorizing about health communication in the Handbook of Health Communication could be regarded as an important theoretical argument on the integration of theory and practice. By employing Craig’s perspective of communication as a practical discipline, Babrow and Mattson (2003) contended: “health communication theory is understood to emerge from
practical efforts” (p. 47). Following this, the authors argued that “health communication scholarship is first and foremost about concrete practices in the world” (p. 37). They further elaborated this claim by pointing out that a health communication theory is meaningless if it does not influence practices relevant to health cares and public health promotion.
Other scholars expressed similar viewpoints from different perspectives. For example, Green, Poland, Rootman (2000) emphasized the setting approach to health promotion, in which they claimed that the concept of setting is fundamental to a theory in health promotion because it delineates boundaries for the understanding of context as health promotion seeks to become more ecological and context sensitive. And setting is equally important in practice as health promotions are responsive to the particular needs and living circumstances of target people.
Despites the ideal arguments about integrating theory and practice, in reality, we experience the tensions between theory and practice. It is also not unusual that there are deep gaps between health communication research and practice.
Current Problems of Applying Theory into Practice in Health Communication
While scholars sitting in the ivory tower to conduct their research, many do not really think how to effectively translate these research results into practice
(Freimuth, 1995, Nzyuko, 1996; Petronio, 1999; Witte, 1996), not to mention their research is improved by knowing the practical world. Moreover, academic health communication researchers may doubt public health practitioners’ understanding of a theory’s utility for practice or commitment to rigorous evaluation. On the other hand, health practitioners and professionals
may resist efforts to team up with academic health communication researchers because of previous experiences with or stereotypes about academic
researchers who have never been in the field. Various specific problems existed in the integration of theory and practice: research is not problem-based (Nzyuko, 1996; Petronio, 1999), researchers are not willing to share their research (Freimuth, 1995), access to research results is difficult (Nzyuko, 1996; Petronio, 1999; Witte, 1996), and practitioners do not use
research results in their real life work (Witte, 1996). If I use one phrase to summarize the problems, that is the “practitioner-researcher gap.”
Research is hardly Problem-based
Pertaining to theory and practice, the consensus from many health practitioners and even health communication researchers is that many theories are not problem-based. Burdine and McLeroy (1992) interviewed several health practitioners by asking them the question: “How do you use theory in your practice?” Most of those interviewed thought that theory, while useful in limited ways, is not well enough developed to be of much practical use. Some comments support this perspective: “I haven’t found any single theory with enough utility to be of much practical value – I use elements of many theories, and theory applies to the average – what I do is work at the fringe – so little theory applies.”
When addressing this problem, one health communication scholar in a top communication program expressed, in reality, many of the theories are incompetent in solving real life problems because they haven’t been really developed with problems in mind. People cannot apply it if it is not a problem-based theory to begin with and we cannot expect health practitioners to apply the theories which do not fit their realities.
Unwilling to Share Research Results
Researchers tend to be more comfortable sharing their world with their academic peers and be far removed from the field both in distance and in language (Nzyuko, 1996). In some situations, the academics are not willing to provide guidance to the practitioners (Freimuth, 1995). Freimuth (1995) gave an example. She once participated in a small conference in Washington, D.C. which was sponsored by several government health agencies and a social marketing firm. The goal of the conference was to provide guidance on the use of fear appeals in health communication campaigns. Almost all of the researchers were unwilling to provide any guidance to the practitioners to assist them in deciding whether to use fear in their messages or how to use this appeal effectively. The practitioners were quite frustrated by this experience and are unlikely to turn again to the academic community for advice. In the practitioner-researcher relationship, researchers might take an active role because they are the originators of research. Connecting to Research Results is Difficult
Practitioners have difficulties to make research results to be ready to use unconsciously. These difficulties come from several channels, including (1) research articles are esoteric and hard to understand, (2) research articles and reports may not be available physically, and (3) it is hard to choose the appropriate ones among numerous publications.
For the first point, practitioners may find research articles full of theoretical and statistical jargons which appear to be not really relevant for practical applications. This is actually a dilemma for researchers because in the academic world, they need to write this way to publish; however this style does not fit into the practical world. For the second point, many practitioners may not have physical access to journals or books because many academic research articles are published in journals that are available at university libraries only. For those living in poor and isolated area, it is hard to have access to these publications. Finally, some practitioners may face information explosion. Recently, new journals, monographs, and books on health communication appear daily. If they live in cities, they face to this information bomb. How does one know which journal and article to choose from the vast array of options?
Practitioners Seldom Use Research Results
It is sad when a health communication researcher who works hard to improve practice finds that few practitioners really use his/her research results. Witte (1996) reported that she used to ask practitioners a question: “How do you come up with the actual words or pictures in the messages? What guides the development of the content of the messages?” The answers she got were virtually identical: “It’s a creative process,” “We just let the ideas come to us.” We use our imagination.” Similarly, Maiback and Parrott (1995) pointed out that while campaign messages might be pretested, practitioners failed to use empirical research published in academic outlets when campaign materials or messages were developed.
Possible Solutions to Improve Theory and Practice
Integration
As indicated at the beginning, the integration of theory and practice has been a topic for discussion over a decade ago, which means some scholars and practitioners have recognized this problem. In this process, it seems academic researchers and theorists may take more of the responsibilities to complete the circle of theory and practice interpenetration. The reasons are twofold. First, practitioners work fine when they use their intuition and imagination to design messages or transmit health information, thus they are not really motivated to use theoretical works particularly when it is hard to understand and get access to. Second, health communication scholars are initiators of the theories and research; therefore they know better where the research results could be applied and how they could be made understandable. Hence, when
discussing possible solutions to the current problems, I choose to focus most on what health communication scholars could do to improve the situation.
Starting Theory Development from Problems and Developing Practical Theory
As health communication scholars, when developing certain theories, we need to consider the problems that plague our society. We need more emphasis on developing theories that lend themselves to answering pragmatic questions instead of being an “armchair theorist” (Nzyuko, 1996, p. 227). Petronio (1999) pointed out that starting from a problem to do research, not only might grassroots or practitioners benefit, but the discipline also stands to gain heartily
from this investment.
When talking to a well-known health communication scholar, she indicated that health communication particularly seems to be generated from people who find a practical problem and create na?ve theories that explain the phenomenon. She continued that health communication research should be practical, so any work that doesn’t include practical concerns would not meet her qualifications as “good” health communication research.
Another health communication scholar in a large research institute thought that a scholarship could not
exist as a legitimate academic enterprise without being able to inform practice. Ultimately, a good theory is practical and helps people understand how the world operates and hence improve the living conditions.
According to Burdine and McLeroy (1992), in order to guide practice, a theory of the problem would address two goals: (1) It would begin with the specific health problems for which interventions or awareness-raising are needed, rather than starting with certain social scientific theories to be tested, and (2) It would identify potential points of intervention or public health promotion suggested by the specific theories. Thus, to develop theories from problems, it is beneficial that as a theorist or a researcher, s/he gathers firsthand information from the grassroots, professionals, and practitioners, listens to the real problems from them, and integrates these practical problems into both theory building and empirical research.
It is promising to find that the academic world is making effort to raise scholars’ awareness. In a special
issue of Communication Theory on developing practical theories, Barge (2001) maintained that the role of the
practical theorists is to “map the puzzles, dilemmas, or challenges inherent to a practice and to describe the particular communicative strategies, moves, and structures that manage those problems” (p. 7). Developing a practical theory is a sign to show that scholars have started to make effort to change the reality.
Willingness to Share and Make a Stand
It is important that the academic community be willing to listen to practitioners and be responsive to their needs. Babrow and Mattson (2003) argued: “We
believe that concerns about the contributions of health communication theory to practice have little to do with the nature of theory and more to do with the activities of theorists who fail to complete the circle in which theory and practice interpenetrate” (p. 38). I could not make assumptions about this argument but I think when the authors used the phrase “activities of theorists”, they referred to multiple activities which might include actively sharing research results.
One reason for not being willing to make recommendations might be the academic practices of tentativeness and caution (Witte, 1996). Academics are reluctant to tell practitioners “what works” with any degree of certainty because of the scientific training that promote tentativeness. For example, academics know that they can never “prove” a hypothesis or theory – they can only rule out alternative explanations. Another reason is related to the promotion system – informing practitioners is not researchers’ priority given the fact
that serving practitioners is not highly rewarded in academic institutions.
However, if we want our research or theories to be used, we must be willing to make a stand, pull out research that appears to have consistent findings and
offer certain recommendations to practitioners.
According to Witte (1996), researchers need to suggest strongly whether a theory or a common sense works better. One possible way to do this is to conduct studies that compare campaign messages developed according to the theoretical guidance and those developed within the institution and common sense only. These types of studies are desperately needed toward convincing
practitioners of the worth of research-based theory.
Another possibility is to develop sample worksheets for
practitioners according to theoretical implications.
Witte (2001) in her book, Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step by Step Guide , set a good example of providing a step-by-step guide for designing health risk messages with tools such as scales of measuring the
effectiveness of a message and a set of worksheets on how to include efficacy and threat messages effectively.
Communicating Research Findings
Use of language . How to communicate research findings successfully to the practitioners is a question scholars need to consider. In many cases, practitioners do not read research articles because they are full of theoretical and statistical jargons and appear to be less than relevant for practical applications. These esoteric articles need to be translated into “real” words for those
in practice. Many research results stay behind the
frontline practices and to translate them into practices is a challenge but a necessary and critical step.
Quick and easy recommendations are preferred given that practitioners are busy and often work under severe time pressures. Being aware of the differences between academia and practice is important. Only when researchers keep in mind practitioners need brief and easy to understand languages, they can consciously do that. One way is to establish linkage with practitioners and ask their preferences of language uses and trying to adapt to their styles. Working together with practitioners who participate in rewriting the academic articles may be an effective way as well. Browsing publications in practitioners’ world will also be helpful to translate academic results into practice.
Format of publication. To have an impact on public health and social change, communication research must be disseminated in nontraditional ways. Practitioners cannot be expected to come looking for research results in academic journals, especially those with limited readerships. Therefore other formats such as trade journals, short newsletters, and press releases are better choices. For example, in the public health field, having an article published in Public Health Reports may not impress a tenure and promotion committee but it does have the potential of reaching thousands of practitioners.
There are many possible routes. Asking news reporters and magazine writers to work in collaboration to complete the translation process is a viable way. Bring the information into the public area through media in ways that maintains the integrity of the findings and conveys the information in an accessible fashion is an effective way. An executive brief style and a bulleted format would facilitate quick information processing.
Training. Another way to communicate research results is to conduct training by holding seminars and conferences. In organizations, there are lots of opportunities for practitioners to participate in various kinds of seminars and conferences. Researchers may take these opportunities to hold instructional seminars. The direct contact between researchers and practitioners provides opportunities to clarify unclear questions. Scholars can also conduct training through workshops, classes offered for non-credit, and curricula that focus on ways people can learn from existing theories and research.
Doing Funded Research
Communication as a practical discipline needs to pursue research that can influence thinking in other disciplines, help shape social policies, and encourage social good. Then participation in funded research is essential in achieving such a goal (Slater, 2002). This is particularly important for health communication research. Moreover, for health communication scholars, there are potential funding opportunities because health research funding agencies demonstrate increasing recognitions of the function of communication. Finally, doing funded research could help to enhance the discipline’s credibility and visibility.
In the health area, funding agencies show a growing recognition of the communication field. For example, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a very influential federal agency has identified cancer communications as an area of “extraordinary opportunity.” The Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch (HCIRB) of NCI is dedicated to research about the influences of communication and informatics in cancer prevention and control. It seeks to advance communication and information science across the cancer continuum-prevention, detection, treatment, control, survivorship, and end of life.
As the funding agencies have placed greater prominence on health promotion/education, risk prevention, behavior change, health services, and quality of life issues in public health, behavioral research such as psychology, sociology and communication research has begun to relate to many of the major public and private health research funding agencies. Hence, there is a great opportunity at this point in time for health communication scholars to cooperate with these agencies to conduct research and increase influence on health interventions at various levels. As Kreps (2003) indicated: “health communication scholars need to seize this window of opportunity now, while the window is open” (p. 612).
Doing funded research is also a nice way to increase visibility and credibility. When reflecting their experience working with health professionals, Edgar, Freimuth, and Hammond (2003) provided invaluable information about the importance of doing funded research for health communication scholars. They found that the literature of the health communication discipline often does not receive the attention it deserves
in campaign work. Much of the research base is unknown outside our own discipline. They attributed the reason to this discipline lacks scientific credibility in some circles. For example, many health communication studies are small on scale or are limited to college student samples, which lack external validity. As a result, campaign planners fail to see how findings have direct applicability to their larger scale projects that target diverse audiences. Participation in funded research projects could help reduce these problems. When doing funded health research, health communication research often is embedded in more general health promotion research projects. Health communication scholars have the opportunity to work with interdisciplinary teams and involve in multiyear
large-scale projects with diverse participants such as low-income mothers and male blue-collar workers.
Conducting funded research not only make health communication scholars focus on practical issues but also saves money for one’s institution and makes your name known by the relevant practical world. Currently, raising awareness to reaching out for external funding is important. Researchers in institutions may need to change the traditional way of doing research in their own offices. It is beneficial to go beyond boundaries and talk to people across disciplines and look for opportunities to do funded research. At the same time, larger unit heads such as department chairs, and school deans may change their traditional way of thinking by averting to organizational funding, which will create opportunities for their faculty members to get funding for their research.
Thus far, I have discussed on how an individual scholar should do to improve the theory and practice amalgamation. From another perspective, I also think that institutions and organizations actually influence individual’s behaviors greatly.
Motivating Scholars to Get into the Field
The current evaluation system in academia does not encourage researchers/scholars to apply theories into practice although many people realize the importance to connect with practice. If scholars spend time and energy on thinking about promoting their theories or research results into practice, they may have less time to do research that are required by tenure/promotion, and would possibly fail to get tenure/promotion. Therefore, scholars are not motivated to spend time on making connection of theory with practice. If the system were changed in some way, situations might be different. For example, actively engaging in practice is credited toward promotion, at least in some areas like health communication which relates closely to practice. This way, researchers in academia will have motivation to involve in practice actively.
Change of Professional Associations
It seems the communication associations like National Communication Association and International Communication Association do not successfully attract practitioners in the health area. Each year, in the conferences, we see scholars present their research results; however, it seems there are not many practitioners participating in the conference to exchange their ideas.
When I asked a former NCA Health communication division chair about whether the Health Communication Division of NCA has plans of developing the integration of health communication theory and practice. He told that: “I don’t think they have any plans for this. They want to attract more people to do health communication research and have great interests to attract people outside the academic area with masters and doctors degrees to contribute their ideas.” Obviously, it is important for a young discipline to develop research interests and ideas. But on another side, the practical nature of health communication calls for research which is closely relates to and reflects practice. Without knowing reality well, theory and research might fall into a cycle of “doing research for research purposes only.”
Communication organizations may set up goals to take stands on policy issues and to lobby vigorously for issues relevant to its interests. Clearly, organizations do influence public policies and social changes. If more and more practitioners were attracted to attend the conferences and be members of the organizations, the integration of theory and practice would be promising. Moreover, in these professional conferences, direct contacts between researchers and practitioners would create good opportunities for collaboration and deeper understanding of each other.
Final Thoughts
The practical nature of the communication discipline encourages scholars to develop theories that are useable in the real world. The health field offers communication scholars challenging research agendas that potentially can yield important theoretical advances which can enhance practices. Theory applications not only help practices but also benefit from practices. In this final part, I’d like to call attention to certain issues that not fully discussed in the previous part and thus provide clues for further discussions.
In the previous discussion, I focused on the efforts health communication scholars would make to advance the cooperation of the theoretical work and practices, but did not address more about the efforts from practitioners’ side. However, to formulate a good circulation of theory and practice, “walking a mile in each other’s shoes” (Parrott & Steiner, 2003, p. 638) is a principle worthy of application in any context. As academic researchers, getting out of the “ivory tower” to communicate with practitioners is critical to formulate positive researcher-practitioner relationships. On the other hand, practitioners may actively seek opportunities to cooperate with scholars. First, they may change already formulated stereotypes about academic researchers who are not members of this field and cooperate actively with academic researchers to better their health communication practices. Second, instead of using intuition/imagination most of the time, practitioner may have the awareness to utilize research results when deliver health care or promote public health (e.g., designing a campaign message).
When talking about developing a practical theory, it does not necessarily mean that if a theory is not useful
currently it is not a good theory. Scholars may also consider its potential future impact on practices. As one scholar/theorist comments that a theory’s implications for practice may not be immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean the theory isn’t a good one. Apparent lack
of application today doesn’t preclude powerful applications in the future. This is even demanding from health communication scholars because when considering this fact, a scholar needs to have insight and imagination.
Close cooperation among researchers and practitioners may also function to promote applied health communication research. As Kreps (2001) pointed out, ideally the field of health communication is moving toward a complex agenda for applied health communication research that will examine the role of communication in health care and evaluate the influences of communication on important psychological, behavioral, and physiological health outcomes. The current emergence and development of applied communication research are positive signs. “Applied research should thus serve as a vital source of insight into the contingencies of practice”(Craig, 1995, p. 152). In a practical discipline, theory must be informed by, and relevant to, the requirements of practical reflection.
This paper addresses issues pertaining to the integration of theory and practice in the health communication area. This issue has been continually provoking the field of health communication, which is
in the process to better the integration of theory and practice. As health communication scholars, we have the responsibilities to reach out to the practical world and therefore pushing health communication research to be more closely related to our real life. Correspondence to:
Hairong Feng
Department of Communication
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN, 47907
Telephone: (765) 494-9518
Email: hfeng@https://www.doczj.com/doc/ed14602815.html,
References
Babrow, A. S., & Mattson, M. (2003). Theorizing about health communication. In T. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Rarrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 35-61). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum.
Backer, T. E., Rogers, E. M., & Sopory, P. (1992). Designing health communication campaigns: What works? Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Barge, J. K. (2001). Practical theory as mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Communication Theory, 11, 5-13. Burdine, J. N., & McLeroy, K. (1992).
Practitioners’ use of theory: Examples from a work-group. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 331-340.
Buller, D. B. (2002). Final thoughts on funded communication research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 411-417.
Clift, E. (1997). What do you day you do? Health communicators and where we fit in. Journal of Health Communication, 2, 65-67.
Craig, R. T. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, L.Grossberg, B. J. O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Paradigm issues (pp. 97-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Craig, R. T. (1995). Applied communication research in a practical discipline. In K. N. Cissna (Ed.), Applied communication in the 21st century (pp. 147-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dorsey, A. M. (2003). Lessons and challenges from the field. In T. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Rarrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 607-608). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum Edgar, T., Freimuth, V. S, & Hammond, S. L. (2003). Lessons learned from the field on prevention and health campaigns. In T. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Rarrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 625-636). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum.
Freimuth, V. S. (1995). Response to seibold: Applied health communication research. In K. N. Cissna (Ed.), Applied communication in the 21st century (pp.
39-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Freimuth, V. S., Stein, J. A., & Kean, T. J. (1989). Searching for health information: The cancer information service model. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Frey, L. R. (1998). Communication and social justice research: Truth, justice, and the applied communication way. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 155-164.
Harris, L. M. (1995). Health and the new media. Technologies transforming personal and public health. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jackson, L. D., & Duffy, B. K. (Eds.). (1998). Health communication research. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kreps, G. L. (2001). The evolution and advancement of health. Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 231-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kreps, G. L. (2003). Opportunities fro health communication scholarship to shape pubic health policy and practice: Examples from the National Cancer Institute. In T. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller,
& R. Rarrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 609-624). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum.
Kreps, G. L., & Thornton, B. C. (1992). Health communication: Theory and practice. Illinois: Waveland Press.
Maiback, E., & Parrott, R. L. (1995). Designing health messages. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nzyuko, S. (1996). Does research have any role in nformation/education/communication programs in Africa? An insider’s view. Journal of Health Communication, 1, 227-229.
Parrott, R., & Steiner, C. (2003). Lessons learned about academic and public health collaborations. In T. L. Thompson, A. M. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Rarrott (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 637-649). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum
Petronio, S. (1999). “Translating scholarship into practice”: An alternative metaphor. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 87-91. Poland, B. D., Green, L. W., & Rootman, I. (Eds.).
(2000). Settings for health promotion. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ray, E. B., & Donohew, L. (Eds.). (1990). Communication and health: Systems and applications. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
Scherer, C. W., & Juanillo, N. K. (1992). Bridging theory and praxis: re-examining public health communication. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15 (pp. 312-345). Newbury Park: Sage.
Slater, M. D. (2002). Communication research on a broader stage: An introduction to the special forum on funded research in communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 315-320.
Witte, K. (1996). Notes from the field: Does publishing in academic journals make a difference? Journal of Health Communication, 2, 221-226.
Witte, K., Meyer, G., Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.