Which Ethnography? Whose Ethnography? Medical anthropology's Epistemic Sensibilities Among Health Ethnographies.

Medical anthropologists working in interdisciplinary teams often articulate expertise with respect to ethnography. Yet increasingly, health scientists utilize ethnographic methods. Through a comparative review of health ethnographies, and autoethnographic observations from interdisciplinary research, we find that anthropological ethnographies and health science ethnographies are founded on different epistemic sensibilities. Differences center on temporalities of research, writing processes, sites of social intervention, uses of theory, and analytic processes. Understanding what distinguishes anthropological ethnography from health science ethnography enables medical anthropologists - who sometimes straddle these two ethnographic modes - to better articulate their epistemic positionality and facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborations.

Developing Trust in Collaborative Research: Utilizing Indigenous Pacific Methodologies to Create Dialogue Within Research Teams.

This article explores the processes involved in developing international, cross-cultural research teams. Scholarship on Indigenous and Pacific Methodologies demonstrate the importance of employing methodologies that center Indigenous approaches to research and relationships. This article explores using these methodologies within research teams as a preliminary step in developing sustainable and impactful international, cross-cultural research teams. Although this is not a formal study, the article reports that the importance of building trust within research teams as an essential step in addition to building trust with communities.

Defining focused ethnography: Disciplinary boundary-work and the imagined divisions between 'focused' and 'traditional' ethnography in health research - A critical review.

This article offers the first critical review of focused ethnography, an increasingly popular research method across health disciplines. Focused ethnographers, we argue, exemplify the practice of methodological boundary work, defining their method in contrast to the 'traditional' ethnographic approach of anthropology and sociology. To examine this boundary work, we collected two samples of health research articles published over the last decade and compared how focused ethnographers and medical anthropologists described, justified, and practised ethnography. We found that the core characteristics most often asserted to differentiate focused ethnography from conventional ethnography were: a more limited study timeframe and scope; a limited subpopulation sample; more concentrated research questions; the inclusion of insider researchers; and more orientation towards applied results. We show, however, that these are imagined binaries that fail to map onto actual differences of practice in the two samples and which obscure many similarities between them. By contrast, we identified four alternative differences between the two methods of ethnography. These centre on understandings of 'research time'; the very meaning of ethnography; the relationship of researchers to 'data'; and the presumed best method of social intervention. We therefore define focused ethnography as a versatile method of ethnography that attends to specific epistemological expectations within the health sciences regarding valid proof and empirical description, the boundaries of research, the nature of research relationships, and the duty to improve biomedicine. Ultimately, our study highlights that methodological boundary-work matters, because assumed differences and unexpressed misunderstandings can prevent productive dialogue and fruitful collaboration between disciplines to address pressing health problems.

Global inequities in access to COVID-19 health products and technologies: A political economy analysis.

This paper presents a political economy analysis of global inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tests. We adapt a conceptual model used for analysing the political economy of global extraction and health to examine the politico-economic factors affecting access to COVID-19 health products and technologies in four interconnected layers: the social, political, and historical context; politics, institutions, and policies; pathways to ill-health; and health consequences. Our analysis finds that battles over access to COVID-19 products occur in a profoundly unequal playing field, and that efforts to improve access that do not shift the fundamental power imbalances are bound to fail. Inequitable access has both direct effects on health (preventable illness and death) and indirect effects through exacerbation of poverty and inequality. We highlight how the case of COVID-19 products reflects broader patterns of structural violence, in which the political economy is structured to improve and lengthen the lives of those in the Global North while neglecting and shortening the lives of those in the Global South. We conclude that achieving equitable access to pandemic response products requires shifting longstanding power imbalances and the institutions and processes that entrench and enable them.

The victims, villains and heroes of 'panic buying': News media attribution of responsibility for COVID-19 stockpiling.

Societies often respond to a crisis by attributing blame to some groups while constructing others as victims and heroes. While it has received scant sociological attention, 'panic buying' is a critical indicator of such public sentiment at the onset of a crisis, and thus a crucial site for analysis. This article traces dynamics of blame in news media representations of an extreme period of panic buying during COVID-19 in Australia. Analysis reveals that lower socio-economic and ethnically diverse consumers were blamed disproportionately. Unlike wealthier consumers who bulk-bought online, shoppers filling trollies in-store were depicted as selfish and shameful, described using dehumanising language, and portrayed as 'villains' who threatened social order. Supermarkets were cast simultaneously as 'victims' of consumer aggression and 'heroes' for their moral leadership, trustworthiness and problem-solving. This portrayal misunderstands the socio-emotional drivers of panic buying, exacerbates stigma towards already disadvantaged groups, and veils the corporate profiteering that encourages stockpiling.

The political economy of restricting marketing to address the double burden of malnutrition: two case studies from Fiji.

OBJECTIVE: To draw lessons from Fiji regarding the challenges and opportunities for policy initiatives to restrict (i) food marketing to children and (ii) marketing of breast milk substitutes, to inform policy for the double burden of malnutrition. DESIGN: Qualitative political economy analysis of two policy case studies. SETTING: Fiji. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven key informants from relevant sectors, representing public health, economic and consumer interests. RESULTS: This study used two policy initiatives as case studies to examine factors influencing decision-making: Marketing Controls (Foods for Infants and Young Children) Regulations 2010, amended in 2016 to remove guidelines and restrictions on marketing in the form of labelling, and the draft Advertising and Promotion of Unhealthy Foods and Non-Alcoholic Beverages to Children Regulation developed in 2014 but awaiting review by the Solicitor General's Office. Factors identified included: a policy paradigm in which regulation of business activity contradicts economic policy goals; limited perception by key policy actors of links between nutrition and marketing of breast milk substitutes, foods and beverages; and a power imbalance between industry and public health stakeholders in policymaking. Regulation of marketing for health purposes sits within the health sector's interest but not its legislative remit, while within the economic sector's remit but not interest. Opportunities to strengthen restrictions on marketing to improve nutrition and health include reframing the policy issue, strategic advocacy and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting marketing should be recognised by public health actors as a public health and an industry policy issue, to support strategic engagement with economic policy actors.

The Everyday Politics of Risk: Managing Diabetes in Fiji.

In this article, I investigate how diabetes-related risks are experienced and managed in Fiji. Neoliberal discourses implore patients to be risk-averse and blame poorer Indigenous (iTaukei) people with diabetes for "irresponsible" treatment choices and medication "noncompliance." Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted during 2015-16, I suggest lower-income iTaukei people with diabetes face multiple layers of risk in everyday life beyond biomedical definitions, including spiritual threats; cultural politics; and limited healthcare access. People with diabetes pragmatically weigh up these risks when choosing whether to seek treatment, be it biomedical, faith-based, pharmaceutical, or herbal remedies. Better understanding how patients experience and manage risk will improve diabetes care.

(In)Visibility Online: The Benefits of Online Patient Forums for People with a Hidden Illness: The Case of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS).

Sufferers of medically unexplained conditions that are not observable in the clinic can experience multiple layers of invisibility: a lack of biomedical diagnosis; legal skepticism; political disinterest; and a loss of their prior social identity. For those with environmental sensitivities, this is compounded by literal hiddenness due to often being housebound. Drawing on an online survey of people with multiple chemical sensitivity, this article examines how the everyday experience of invisibility is mitigated by engaging with other patients online. Respondents used online forums to undertake various forms of "visibility work," including attempts to crystallize their suffering into something recognizable medically, legally, and politically, and to reconstruct an identity considered valid and deserving-although the therapeutic potential of online support was contingent on intra-group politics. This study demonstrates that online forums allow biomedicine's "invisible others" to struggle for alternative forms of recognition beyond the clinical gaze.

Repressive authenticity in the quest for legitimacy: surveillance and the contested illness lawsuit.

When seeking compensation for workplace injury, workers predictably face examination over the legitimacy of their condition from employers and medical and legal professionals. When the alleged injury is a contested environmental illness, the suspicion aroused and the scrutiny faced by workers is much more acute. In this paper, I analyse the medico-legal experiences of eight chemically sensitive claimants in Australia to reveal the nature and extent of the surveillance they are subjected to in their quest to prove the legitimacy of their disease. Four forms of surveillance are identified: medical scrutiny; legal surveillance, insurer investigation, and self-regulation. Advancing the Foucauldian concept of self-surveillance, I demonstrate that this latter form of regulation has the most deleterious impact on the claimants. The result of this scrutiny is a 'repressive authenticity' (Wolfe, 1999), where the chemically sensitive are expected to adhere to a particular normative ideal of sickness, which becomes therapeutically counterproductive.

Debating the legitimacy of a contested environmental illness: a case study of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS).

More than 20years after it was first identified, the anomalous condition, multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), remains immersed in controversy, with a continuing debate over its causation being played out in the medico-scientific community and in the courts. This article examines why sceptical and supportive experts disagree over the condition's legitimacy as an organic condition. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in Perth, Western Australia, the author scrutinises the decision-making practices of 16 experts (eight sceptical and eight supportive of a chemical explanation). Both groups were found to use evidence-based, inductive reasoning. However, sceptical experts tended to use a different set of evidence requirements, exhibited more faith in the efficiency of the current biomedical paradigm regarding toxicity and were less likely to acknowledge uncertainty in their field. All the experts recognised a spectrum of beliefs about the causal mechanisms of MCS. However, when they were engaged in litigation as expert witnesses due to their supportive or sceptical tendency, the oppositional legal system polarised their opinions and exacerbated the perceived divide between them. Ultimately, the adversarial medico-legal process inhibits genuine dialogue between some of the key players in the MCS debate, thus impeding understanding and consensus about the condition.

"I never wanted to be a quack!" The professional deviance of plaintiff experts in contested illness lawsuits: the case of multiple chemical sensitivities.

When medical practitioners act as expert witnesses for the plaintiff in contested illness lawsuits, they can be stigmatized by their professional community. Drawing on ethnographic research surrounding the condition multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) in Australia, this article focuses on: how plaintiff experts specialize; their rationale for deviance from the professional norm; and structural constraints to medical advocacy. By diagnosing and treating the condition as organic, these experts oppose the accepted disease paradigm of the medical community and therefore face professional isolation and peer pressure. They rationalize their continued advocacy within a moral discourse, which includes a professional aspiration toward altruism, an ethical commitment to "truth," and the explicit emphasis that financial gain is not a motivation. For their deviance the experts have been confronted with professional disillusionment and emotional drain. Ultimately, the medical profession is disenfranchising experts who may be vital characters in the quest for understanding about environmental illnesses.