One Health. Группа авторов

One Health

One Health - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу
the ‘oft-forgotten’ – communities, minorities and vulnerable populations. This was illustrated in Case study 1 for women food producers in Africa and Asia, in Case study 2 for indigenous populations in Guatemala and in Case study 3 for the Kwaio peoples of the Solomon Islands. This participatory transdisciplinary approach will undoubtedly yield robust interventions that are more effective in achieving desired outcomes and impacts and more likely to be sustainable.

      However, as we have shown, social science interventions are not yet systematically used in One Health programme design and evaluation, which is often developed as research to address a problem with or without linkage to a service delivery. Lapinski et al. (2015, p. 52) note that ‘there is a paucity of research regarding efficacious approaches’. This requires social science to be utilized in programme development. What should be done about this underutilization of social science approaches in One Health programmes and interventions?

      There remain other questions about the level of integration of social science approaches and the insights they provide into One Health programmes and approaches, and especially, the territory beyond infectious diseases. These include the following.

      • Are social scientists partnered with to conceptualize a programme, to value the unique insights provided in complex and adaptive systems?

      • Are social scientists undertaking these studies in parallel to programme developers, where the value of integration is not yet fully appreciated?

      • Are they only used to help access communities and populations, so that interventions are ‘accepted’ (tolerated) by the ‘target populations’?

      • Are well-trained social scientists being employed, or are social science methods being used by others without robustness, to try to improve acceptability of their programmes, or at least foster community engagement and health education? For example Keck (2019, p. 38), when reviewing social science engagement in programmes of zoonotic infection control, questioned whether the social scientists were being engaged to bring ‘intellectual interest and ontological challenges of an anthropology of zoonosis beyond the regular calls for expertise on epidemiological contagion or on social participation’.

      • Are we really seeing One Health social science or animal, human and environmental social sciences methods that are siloed? As demonstrated, if a social science approach is used, medical anthropology seems to be the dominant approach to develop a One Health understanding of human health problems, with little integration with environmental, ecological and non-human species anthropologies. However, emerging sub-disciplines like multispecies ethnographies are challenging this dominance, and platforms like the One Health–Social Science Initiative Hub may assist in crossing these ‘boundaries’.

      Conclusion

      As outlined in this chapter, social science adds value in identification, design and implementation of One Health interventions. It has been used to provide insights into the importance of reflexive methodologies, how knowledge systems help shape the research and intervention outcomes, the ethnocentricity of etic explanatory models and the significance of emic views or multiple epistemologies, and how such understanding helps generate more robust data and mechanisms for implementation of these interventions.

      The One Health approach enables a broad range of social science disciplines to come together to examine these issues, fostering theoretical and integrative innovations in understanding culture, economics, gender, ecology, behaviours, political contexts and indigenous knowledge.

      There remains a need for social science to take a more active role in the design and conceptualization phase of programmes, and in helping multidisciplinary teams address potential design bias, inaccurate representation of various agencies, or cultural myopia. There is also a need to develop more robust approaches to evaluation of the success and sustainability of transdisciplinary approaches and the integration of social science into One Health programmes. In addition, the focus of the social sciences in One Health needs to be broadened to include tools, approaches and theories that truly embrace the human–animal–environment interface (Brown and Nading, 2019) and resilience strengthening (Obrist et al., 2010) and adaptations that occur within each of these and in the interfaces. Social science in One Health is applicable and adds value to understanding and meeting many of the grand challenges facing the planet, as delineated in the Sustainable Development Goals. There continues to be a need for publication and dissemination of successful models of social science integration in One Health approaches and the impact this integration brings to interventions, and a need for such approaches to be robustly evaluated and available beyond discipline-specific peer-reviewed publications.

      References

      Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.

Скачать книгу