Search

An initial challenge to apply relevant social psychological knowledge to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Cambodia has grown, using a Lewinian 'action research' perspective, into a multi-sectoral research and health intervention programme. This addresses inequalities in literacy, employment, poverty and the risk of dying from HIV/AIDS. At the level of the individual, it seeks behavioural change to 100% condom use for women and men at risk. At the social level, a pyramidal 'peer educator' training program is initiated, while at the community, institutional and international levels, hiring policies of hotels and the health policies of globalised businesses are challenged to contribute proactively to the campaign against the spread of HIV/AIDS. While a grass-roots community (NGO) group works locally to improve the situation of married women and the 'beer girls' of Siem Reap, students in several countries are organising internet sites concerning the ethical and fair-trade practices of international beer companies profiting from the sales of these beer-girls, who are now 20% HIV positive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following Cambodia's implementation of the 100% condom use program with enforcement of condom use and STI treatment services for sex workers in 2001, sexually transmitted infection and HIV declined markedly. In 2008, Cambodia implemented a law to ban brothel-based sex work. We reported trends in unprotected vaginal intercourse with sex workers among heterosexual men buying sex before (2003-2008) and after (2009-2012) the brothel ban in Cambodia. We also determined the association of brothel ban with these men's reports of unprotected intercourse with sex workers., Methods: In this serial cross-sectional study, we collected yearly behavioural data on random cross-sectional samples of heterosexual men buying sex who attended the only government health centre in Siem Reap for voluntary confidential counselling and testing (VCCT) between 2003 and 2012. We used multivariable Poisson regression analysis on the 10-year data of 976 men to obtain the adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) of unprotected intercourse in the last 6 months by brothel closure., Results: Men buying sex from non-brothel-based sex workers increased almost 3-fold from 17% in 2007-2008 before brothel closure to 55% in 2011-2012 after brothel closure (p < 0.001). Unprotected intercourse with sex workers in the last week increased significantly from 37% (2003-2004) before brothel closure to 65% (2011-2012) after brothel closure. This increase corresponded closely with the increase in self-reported unprotected intercourse from 35% to 61% by the sex workers (n = 1805) attending the same clinic for VCCT. Brothel closure was associated with an increased risk (aPR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.40-1.94) of unprotected intercourse with sex workers. HIV prevalence in the heterosexual men declined significantly from 26% in 2003-2004 to 4.8% in 2007-2008 and 0 case in 2009-2010 before increasing to 5.6% in 2011-2012., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the brothel ban had led to an increase in unprotected intercourse with all sex workers for men buying sex. This effect could be attributed to reduced condom access, a consequence of the lack of feasibility to implement the 100% condom use program following the brothel ban. The ban on brothels in Cambodia should be reviewed.

Three Canadian colleagues in health psychology recount their careers in a field of research and practice whose birth they witnessed and whose developments they have critiqued. By placing the development of health psychology in Canada in a context that is both institutional and personal, Stam, Murray, and Lubek raise a series of questions about health psychology and its propagation. While uniquely Canadian their professional careers were affected by international colleagues as well as others-patients and community members-whose views shaped their perspectives. This article is a plea for the continuing development of critical voices in health psychology.

A "standard" historiographical overview of the development of health psychology in the United States, alongside behavioral medicine, first summarizes previous disciplinary and professional histories. A "historicist" approach follows, focussing on a collective biographical summary of accumulated contributions of one cohort (1967-1971) at State University of New York at Stony Brook. Foundational developments of the two areas are highlighted, contextualized within their socio-political context, as are innovative cross-boundary collaboration on "precursor" studies from the 1960s and 1970s, before the official disciplines emerged. Research pathways are traced from social psychology to health psychology and from clinical psychology to behavioral medicine.

Academic (sub)disciplines develop in time and place when particular ideas/practices are nurtured within social, gendered, cultural, community, economic and political contexts. Different histories employ different analyses, some with external views of scientific outputs describing research and practice, and others with internal, behind-the-scenes examinations of these developments, through oral histories and personal recollections. This collection, written by historians of (social) science, or practitioners or pioneering participants, uses different historiographical methods to contextualize health-related activities within the sub-discipline of health psychology and the evolving critical and/or community approaches. The papers connect the evolving health psycholog{y/ies} with changing socio-political circumstances in different countries.

This case study illustrates a participatory framework for confronting critical community health issues using 'grass-roots' research-guided community-defined interventions. Ongoing work in Cambodia has culturally adapted research, theory and practice for particular, local health-promotion responses to HIV/AIDS, alcohol abuse and other challenges in the community of Siem Reap. For resource-poor communities in Cambodia, we recycle such 'older' concepts as 'empowerment' and 'action research'. We re-imagine community health psychology, when confronted with 'critical', life-and-death issues, as adjusting its research and practices to local, particular ontological and epistemological urgencies of trauma, morbidity and mortality.

Gordon Allport's account of the development of social psychology in the 1954 Handbook of Social Psychology became, de facto, a standard or official historical reference for researchers and apprentices. His history also provided the field's ontological center point with a definition of social psychology that would become predominant. The revised and updated chapter appeared posthumously in 1968, was then reprinted (lightly edited) in 1985, but was removed from the 1998 Handbook. In 1966, Allport prepared a parallel evaluation of six decades of the history of social psychology, for a conference on graduate education in social psychology. This paper was critical of "elaborate mendacious experimentation" and ended with a plea for an interdisciplinary cross-cultivation. It was rarely cited. Ironically, it was Allport's "official" history, his justificatory Handbook account, that often was used for graduate mentoring rather than the more critical history, specifically written to address issues of graduate education. Other "official" Handbook historical chapters that succeeded Allport's displayed less breadth of geographical and transdisciplinary coverage and offered a shorter temporal, more presentist, and more selective personalist historical perspective. In contrast to more contextualist accounts, these Handbook chapters are constrained in a number of ways that raise questions about the success, functions, and professional consequences of such "official" histories, and who should write them., (Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

A textual analysis of post-World War II social psychology methodology manuals and handbook chapters on "methods" indicates that the introduction of the experimental method was enforced and gradually strengthened through the use of scientific rhetoric and the minimization of alternative research strategies. As a consequence, by the 1960s experimentation had become such an established identifying feature of psychological social psychology that the acceptability of ideas in the field came to depend largely on the ability of authors to couch them in the language of the experiment. Text writers continually shored up the defenses of scientific legitimacy and denigrated all other types of argument. We explore three sources of tension or strains evident as contradictions in these texts: (1) between a rational experimenter's carefully following prescribed, logic-generated scientific practices and the investigator's artfully or intuitively designing research; (2) between social psychologists' missionary activities of proselytizing the experiment as the primary research method and social psychologists' apologies and insecurities expressed about using experiments; and (3) between the treatment of participants as docile and submissive versus portraying them as underhanded and damaging to the outcome of the research. In addition, we briefly reexamine the strain (4) between sober scientific experimentation and a playful "fun and games" approach to experimentation (Lubek & Stam, 1995)., (Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

Authors in this collection offer both critique and contextualist counterpoint to the standard, "official" histories of the field-successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology in 1954, 1968, 1985, and 1998. Unlike mainstream histories, the collected studies do not together constitute a seamless chronicle of continual progress for practitioners in a research area seeking social science status, viability, and legitimacy. Rather the authors focus on choice points, crises, and debates (some still ongoing), pay special heed to non-mainstream branches and voices, question numerous assumptions concerning the interrelationships among social psychological methodology, ontology (Danziger; MacMartin & Winston; Stam, Radtke, & Lubek), boundaries (Good), and individualisms (moral, political, and/or methodological). The specific contributions of Floyd and Gordon Allport are discussed from several perspectives as they helped define and shape and write the history of the field (Lubek & Apfelbaum; Parkovnick; Greenwood; Chung), and bridge it to neighboring areas (personality) and disciplines (psychology and sociology) (Nicholson; Barenbaum; Cherry). The constraints, origin myths, insensitivities, and omissions of standard histories are pointed out (Samelson), some partial correctives are advanced, and a more generative role for future historical studies is suggested., (Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)