Search

This commentary discusses the methodological utility of ethnography within the medical space. Whilst a general consensus affirms that ethnography aligns with qualitative approaches, as identified within the existing medical literature, here, we demonstrate how quantitative [positivist] methods can also be incorporated. This paper begins by contextualising ethnographic approaches within medical contexts by demonstrating its empirical value within the existing literature. Next, we discuss the interconnection between the practice of 'doctoring' and ethnographic research, whereby doctors themselves use forms of inductive and deductive reasoning to treat and manage patients in their everyday context. This philosophical discussion not only links to the everyday practice of medical practitioners, but also critically reflects on the role of the first author, as a diagnostic radiographer. Lastly, this paper identifies the virtues of ethnographic research for medical students and/or medical doctors whereby the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (within an ethnographic methodology) can lead to new empirical and methodological insights, enabling the creation of alternate research strategies and evidence. This methodological strategy may be best considered amongst medical students and/or early career medical researchers, but we also anticipate it to resonate and open further discussion with experienced medical practitioners and researchers transnationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community centrality is a growing requirement of social science. The field's research practices are increasingly expected to conform to prescribed relationships with the people studied. Expectations about community centrality influence scholarly activities. These expectations can pressure social scientists to adhere to models of community involvement that are immediate and that include community-based co-investigators, advisory boards, and liaisons. In this context, disregarding community centrality can be interpreted as failure. This paper considers evolving norms about the centrality of community in social science. It problematises community inclusion and discusses concerns about the impact of community centrality on incremental theory development, academic integrity, freedom of speech, and the value of liberal versus communitarian knowledge. Through the application of a constructivist approach, this paper argues that social science in which community is omitted or on the periphery is not failed science, because not all social science requires a community base to make a genuine and valuable contribution. The utility of community centrality is not necessarily universal across all social science pursuits. The practices of knowing within social science disciplines may be difficult to transfer to a community. These practices of knowing require degrees of specialisation and interest that not all communities may want or have. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This explorative and qualitative study, based on 27 interviews during two months of fieldwork, describes pese, an affliction of the skin that has conspicuously stayed under the radar of medico-anthropological research in Kigoma, a rural city in the northwest Tanzania. The condition reminds of a locally better known condition labeled kisigo, raising the question why two concepts of the same affliction exist side by side. It seems indicative that the two illness concepts stem from different cultures and that each specializes in an explanatory model: the former witchcraft (sorcery) and the latter spirit possession. Moreover, a symbiotic relation seems to exist between the healing traditions of the Bembe and the Ha. Government policies prohibiting witchcraft and targeting traditional healers seem to have created a situation where witchcraft practices and beliefs have come to represent the periphery and survive there, clandestinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]