Volume 41, Issue 3 p. 310-335
Original Article

Managing Dissonance and Dissent: Bureaucratic Professionalism and Political Risk in Policy Implementation

Denise Lillvis

Corresponding Author

Denise Lillvis

Address correspondence to Denise Lillvis, Primary Care Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 77 Goodell Suite 220, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA. Telephone: (716) 816-7274; Fax: (716) 845-6899; Email: dlillvis@buffalo.edu.Search for more papers by this author
First published: 27 May 2019
Citations: 4
I would like to thank my anonymous reviewers, as their invaluable critiques improved this article. I would also like to thank Scott Greer, Peter Jacobson, Anna Kirkland, Mark Navin, Dorit Reiss, and Charles Shipan for their helpful comments and suggestions, and I would like to thank Charley Willison for her research assistance. This research was funded by a Rackham Pre-doctoral Fellowship, a Gerald R. Ford Fellowship, and the Clark & Robin Chandler Graduate Award from the University of Michigan, in addition to a Health Resources and Service Administration National Research Service Award Grant T32 HP30035.

Abstract

This article examines the implementation of a Michigan rule requiring vaccine-critical parents to attend an education session at a local health department prior to receiving an immunization waiver. During interviews (N = 35), public health professionals recognized that providing waivers deviated from their professional mission. Yet, they chose to prioritize client service in their interactions, thereby managing and absorbing conflict at the parent level. Politically, vaccine critics have succeeded in proposing bills to undo this rule. This suggests that conflict management and absorption is a vital policy function because conflict can turn into political action, endangering the future of a promising rule.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.