Surreal illustration of a researcher navigating a stormy sea of cigarettes and papers.

Navigating the Minefield: Early Career Researchers, Public Health, and the Emotional Toll of Research

Author's portrait.
Samir D’Costa in Health & Wellness December 2025 • 5 min read.

"Discover how the pressure to conform, emotional biases, and public scrutiny can impact early career researchers in public health—and what can be done to foster a healthier environment."


Public health is inherently intertwined with moral, ethical, and emotional considerations, yet the implications for knowledge production and dissemination remain underexplored. Emotion is central to the field, influencing arguments and swaying opinions (Cairney & Oliver, 2017; Etter, 2015). Publics, policymakers, and commercial entities leverage emotional language and appeals in public health issues (de Andrade, Spotswood, Hastings, Angus, & Angelova, 2017; O'Donoughue Jenkins, Kelly, Cherbuin, & Anstey, 2016; Smith & Stewart, 2015).

While the social construction of scientific knowledge is well-established (Latour & Woolgar, 1986), the emotional dimensions of knowledge production often receive less attention. Latour and Woolgar's 'cycle of credit' highlights how knowledge creation in research environments is driven by personal beliefs, career strategies, and opportunities. This framework, however, neglects the emotional aspects, which is reflected in recent calls for objectivity and attention to partisan politics in public health discussions (Warner, 2018; Greer et al., 2017).

Although emotion permeates the research cycle, it is often overlooked in discussions about shaping knowledge and research careers, even in fields like public health, which frequently evoke moral and ethical debates. This article addresses this gap, focusing on the emotional experiences of early career researchers (ECRs) in public health, particularly in controversial areas like e-cigarette research.

The Emotional Gauntlet: How E-cigarette Research Highlights the Challenges

Surreal illustration of a researcher navigating a stormy sea of cigarettes and papers.

Gaining perspective in scrutinized fields like public health, where population-level stakes are high, can be particularly challenging. Tobacco research exemplifies this, with scholars noting the dominance of public health agendas that narrowly view smokers from behavioral perspectives (Bell & Dennis, 2013; Macnaughton, Carro-Ripalda, & Russell, 2012). Challenging these perspectives has become increasingly difficult, especially for researchers from sociological and related disciplines (Bell, 2013; Mair & Kierans, 2007).

E-cigarettes are a prime example of ongoing controversy. Some hail them as potential life-saving devices (Fairchild, Bayer, & Colgrove, 2014), while others doubt their effectiveness in reducing harm (Chapman, 2014). Similar debates surrounded nicotine gum, initially questioned for addressing nicotine addiction versus the 'contaminated' cigarette (Elam, 2015). E-cigarettes introduce new dimensions with their variety and the emergence of a vaping 'subculture' (Keane, Weier, Fraser, & Gartner, 2017).

  • Navigating Moral Minefields: The framing of 'renormalisation' of smoking has become a key debate, reflecting deep-rooted moral beliefs about purity, sanctity, and harm reduction (Alderman, Dollar, & Kozlowski, 2010).
  • Conflict of Interest: Unclear efficacy of e-cigarettes for harm reduction (Malas et al., 2016), tobacco industry involvement (Gornall, 2015), and potential conflicts of interest (Kosmider & Anastasi, 2016; Pisinger, 2016) contribute to a divided field. Commentary pages in journals often highlight strong feelings, framing researchers as either 'proponents' or 'opponents'.
  • Early Career Challenges: This division has significant implications for ECRs, who must navigate academic expectations, publishing pressures, and public engagement (McKay & Monk, 2017). Public health researchers face greater scrutiny from various publics (Burawoy, 2005), making their work vulnerable to misinterpretation and moral questioning.
This dynamic can lead to feelings of misrepresentation, questioning of motives, and doubt about skills. A 2016 event in Edinburgh highlighted these challenges, where ECRs shared negative experiences with colleagues, media, and the public. Attendees, ranging from recent PhD graduates to emerging experts, expressed diverse views on e-cigarettes. To advance professional practice, the following sections focus on common themes related to emotional and affective dimensions, using semi-fictionalized vignettes to protect anonymity.

Fostering a Healthier Research Environment

These challenges are often experienced through the fear of inadvertently aligning with one side or another. To address these issues, we must reflexively consider how emotion directs our research, actions, and comments. By doing so, we can create more supportive, safe, and friendly environments for those starting out in the field, and improve public understanding of health issues.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What are some of the unique emotional challenges faced by early career researchers specifically within the field of public health?

Early career researchers in public health navigate a landscape heavily influenced by moral, ethical, and emotional considerations. They face pressures to conform to established views, especially in scrutinized areas like e-cigarette research, where debates over harm reduction and renormalization of smoking are prominent. Public scrutiny and the risk of misinterpretation further exacerbate these challenges, leading to feelings of misrepresentation and doubt.

2

How do concepts like 'cycle of credit' and 'social construction of scientific knowledge' fall short in capturing the full experience of researchers in emotionally charged fields?

While Latour and Woolgar's 'cycle of credit' highlights the role of personal beliefs and career strategies in knowledge creation, it largely overlooks the emotional dimensions that significantly influence research, particularly in public health. Similarly, the social construction of scientific knowledge, while acknowledging the societal influences, often neglects how emotions shape the research process and its reception. This gap is especially pertinent in controversial areas, where researchers' emotional experiences can impact their work and careers.

3

In what ways do debates surrounding e-cigarettes highlight the emotional and ethical challenges encountered by public health researchers?

The debates surrounding e-cigarettes exemplify the moral minefields that public health researchers must navigate. Conflicting views on the efficacy of e-cigarettes for harm reduction, the involvement of the tobacco industry, and potential conflicts of interest create a divided field. This division places early career researchers in a precarious position, where they must navigate academic expectations, publishing pressures, and public engagement while facing scrutiny from various publics and the risk of being labeled as 'proponents' or 'opponents'.

4

What is the significance of the 'renormalisation' of smoking debate, and how does it reflect deeper moral beliefs within the context of public health research?

The 'renormalisation' of smoking debate reflects deep-rooted moral beliefs about purity, sanctity, and harm reduction. This framing influences how e-cigarettes and other harm reduction strategies are perceived, creating a morally charged environment for researchers. Early career researchers must navigate these moral minefields, being aware that their work can be interpreted through the lens of these pre-existing beliefs, potentially leading to misrepresentation and questioning of their motives.

5

What steps can be taken to foster a healthier research environment for early career researchers in public health, especially in controversial areas like e-cigarette research?

Fostering a healthier research environment requires reflexive consideration of how emotion directs research, actions, and comments. Creating supportive, safe, and friendly environments where early career researchers can openly share their experiences and concerns is crucial. Encouraging awareness of emotional biases, promoting open dialogue, and addressing potential conflicts of interest can help mitigate the emotional toll of research and improve public understanding of health issues.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.