Learning from differences between ordinary and expert theories of health and physical activity

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Community participation underpins primary healthcare and a socioenvironmental model of health promotion. However, physical activity promotion has, until recently, been influenced by expert-driven theories based on quantitative research. This paper reports on a qualitative study in Adelaide, South Australia that asked ‘How do ordinary people theorize about health, physical activity and constraints on choices to increase physical activity? How do ordinary theories differ from expert theories? What are the implications of these differences for the promotion of physical activity?’ The sample of 121 in focus groups and field visits was drawn from existing networks and organizations with varying experiences of factors associated with lower levels of physical activity in that area. Results show how ordinary theories qualify or challenge expert theories, explore what is reasonable as well as rational and maintain (rather than reduce) complexity and uncertainty. They deal with unhelpful expert advice. They construct normal stories about chronic conditions. Ordinary theories build from expert theories to suggest new approaches to health promotion. The results suggest that we should consider expert theories as scaffolds, not prescriptions. This helps experts to improve the quality of their advice by developing new theories of health promotion and sorting through the complex links between physical activity, health and life in general. Why do this? Because experts’ consultations and campaigns have a ‘multiplier effect’ whereby time taken to work with ordinary theories will influence future ordinary theorizing, leading to new discourses showing the benefits of expert–community dialogue.

This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit: