This month’s post is extra large, as it gathers the tail end of last month as well. Also, if you haven’t already, check out the special issues listed at the end of this post. Enjoy!
January 2015, Part 2 (You can find Part 1 here)
Anthropologies In and Of Evidence Making In Global Health Research and Policy (Invited Editorial)
Christopher J. Colvin
Anthropologists are not generally known for being optimistic about the state and status of their discipline’s contribution to health research, policy, and practice. Contemporary debates around the forms and effects of knowledge production in health often focus—despairingly, and with good reason—on the continuing dominance of quantitative, narrowly defined biomedical ways of knowing, the rise of the clinical trial and its broader project of evidence-based medicine (EBM), and the conflicted nexus between science and ‘Big Pharma’s’ pursuit of new pharmaceutical knowledge, technologies, and profits (Goldacre 2013; Lambert, Gordon, and Bogdan-Lovis 2006; Mykhalovskiy and Weir 2004; Petryna 2009). Despite the long-standing efforts of advocates from anthropology, sociology, history, and other disciplines to promote the importance of ‘neglected’ forms of social and behavioral research in health—research often glossed as ‘qualitative research’—the picture that most often emerges of the health arena is of a terrain that consists almost entirely of lab experiments, computer modeling, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the last few years, however, I have had the opportunity to be involved in two small, but potentially revealing developments in qualitative health research that might complicate this conventional narrative in useful ways.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.