International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | Interview with the Author—Dr. Doris Yuet Lan Leung

Name: Dr. Doris Yuet Lan Leung
Affiliations: School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
Interests: qualitative research, mental health, palliative end-of-life, cultural sensitivity

“The Risk Perception of the Chinese Diaspora during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Targeting Cognitive Dissonance through Storytelling”
by Doris Yuet Lan Leung, Shoilee Khan, Hilary Hwu, Aaida Mamuji, Jack Rozdilsky, Terri Chu and Charlotte Lee
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21(5), 556; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050556
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/5/556

1. Congratulations on your published paper! Could you introduce yourself and your current research to our readers?
Thank you for the opportunity to share my work! I am an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic School of Nursing, where I have been involved in research on social vulnerability for the past ten years. Social vulnerability refers to the combination of personal, social, economic, and environmental factors—such as income, immigrant status, and age—that place individuals at greater risk of poor health outcomes.
My research also focuses on educating healthcare professionals in cultural sensitivity, both in practice and research.

2. What are the major challenges and breakthrough innovations in this research field?
Traditionally, social and psychological research has been dominated by quantitative methods, but my work is primarily qualitative, collecting and analyzing personal narratives.
One breakthrough in my research has been the adoption of critical realism, a theoretical lens that examines how social structures and personal choices intersect in healthcare. This approach helps explain why health outcomes vary among different groups despite similar circumstances. Critical realism allows me to combine subjective and objective evidence to understand how people cope with adversity. While this framework has been around since the 1990s, it remains relatively underutilized in my field, making it an exciting area for exploration.

3. Speaking of adversity, could you elaborate on what types you focus on in your research?
When I talk about adversity, I refer to the social factors that create vulnerability—especially stigma. Stigma can take many forms, including public stigma, self-stigma, and structural stigma embedded within healthcare policies and practices.
For example, many healthcare norms and institutional policies are shaped by social structures that dictate how patients are treated. When individuals experience social vulnerability—whether due to economic barriers, immigration status, or age—these structures can intensify adversity. My research examines how such stigma affects patient experiences and how we can create pathways for resilience.

4. What motivates you to pursue this research?
Much of my inspiration comes from personal experience. I am a registered nurse with over 30 years of experience primarily in psychosocial mental health. Being a third-generation Chinese–Canadian has also shaped my perspective on cultural influences in healthcare.
Through my work, I collect and analyze personal narratives to understand stigma and its effects. My Ph.D. research focused on palliative and end-of-life care, which also carries cultural stigma. This combination of interests naturally led me to investigate how stigma operates as a form of adversity in healthcare.

5. How do you see the future of research in your field? What advice would you give to new scholars?
The field is evolving to acknowledge the complexity of healthcare decision-making. Historically, research has oversimplified these complexities, but we need more theoretical models that address how social vulnerabilities shape health outcomes.
For new scholars, my biggest advice is start with your passion. A Ph.D. is a long and intense journey, and your research should be something you deeply care about, as it will likely shape your career for decades.
Additionally, researchers should focus on intersections—for example, how stigma influences whether people disclose mental health conditions. While promoting openness is generally beneficial, some individuals face real risks in disclosing their conditions due to social and structural barriers. Understanding these complexities is essential for driving meaningful change.

6. How did you learn about IJERPH, and what was your experience with the editorial process?
I first learned about IJERPH through a Ph.D. student I co-authored a paper with. She had a great experience publishing in the journal, which led me to submit my own work here.
I’ve found the editorial process to be efficient and professional. Compared to other journals, where reviews can take six to nine months, IJERPH has a fast response time of two to three months, which is incredibly valuable for researchers.
I also appreciate that the journal welcomes diverse methodologies, including qualitative research like mine, and allows a reasonable word count—essential for conveying the depth of qualitative studies.