Editorial

Archives

Jane Shoebridge
Nursing (Social Science), Faculty of Health Sciences, Flinders University of South Australia, SA

Eileen Willis
Department of Palliative and Supportive Services, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA

Article Text

As new editors we are proud to produce the tenth issue of the Annual Review of health Social Sciences. The Annual Review was born ten years ago at La Trobe University to founding editors Jeanne Daly and Allan Kellehear who also produced Volume Two. Since then five editorial teams have been responsible: Bryan Turner, Liz Eckermann, Derek Colquhoun and Pat Crotty at Deakin University for volumes 3 and 4; Stephanie Short at the Universities of Wollongong and NSW for volumes 5 and 6; Alan Petersen at Murdoch University for volume 7; Jeanne Daly and Allan Kellehear at La Trobe for volumes 8 and 9; and now Jane Shoebridge and Eileen Willis at Flinders University for volumes 10 and 11. The Annual Review is produced under the auspices of the Health Section of The Australian Sociological Association.

The foundation editors set two main aims for the Annual Review. First, the journal should be a vehicle to persuade health workers and funding bodies in Australia and New Zealand of the importance of the social sciences in researching problems in health care. The journal should reflect the richness of insights and soundness of explanations which health social sciences can offer from their extensive range of methods and theories. Their second aim was to build a comprehensive network of health social scientists from within associated disciplines - in particular sociology, psychology and anthropology - so as to build understanding and respect for each other's methodological preferences. At that time Australasian social scientists felt quite strongly that prejudice existed against the funding of research which took ‘cultural, historical, qualitative and/or critical approaches' to health-related problems (Daly and Kellehear 1991: 2). Further, because quantitative, survey and experimental designs were more familiar to funders influenced by biomedical science, it was the superficially more rigorous behavioural sciences which were favoured (Daly and Kellehear 1991).

Since the first editorial,the content of the Annual Review has undoubtedly been true to these aims. Further, the journal's consistent sociological focus reflects the increasing influence of sociology in Australian health research generally and in curricula for students of health care. This parallels the recognition internationally of the value of the field of study referred to variously as ‘the sociology of health and illness', ‘health sociology' or ‘health, medicine and the body'. Health sociology teaches practitioners how to orient their work and their attitudes sensitively to the interests of their clients; it also teaches how the well-being of individuals, groups and communities is integrally bound up with social, economic and political dynamics which in turn demand rigorous analysis at local, national and global levels.

Current direction

The present editors continue the challenge to present health social science research to a wide readership of health workers, managers, policy analysts and funders alike. We believe that to achieve this it is essential to take a broad view of the sociology of health and illness. To this end we encourage authors to write for a general sociology readership - that is, we do not assume the health field attracts a narrow interest. On the contrary, in keeping with the journal's history, we seek to bring health-related sociological insights into the general field of the social sciences and vice versa. Most importantly we expect authors to take theoretically informed approaches to their subject matter and to link findings from research to the general social, political and economic debates of our time. We are aware that this is sometimes a ‘tall ask' of individual writers and accordingly we are keen to take advantage of papers prepared for conferences and to commission papers which can contribute to symposia on particular subjects. Symposia have the added advantage of presenting alternate views of a subject, thereby raising issues and advancing debate. This is especially valuable for teaching purposes. We are also keen to commission commentaries on issues of the day and on arguments presented in previous journal editions.

This issue

This present volume contains symposia on (1) the impact of information technology on the health workforce and (2) the social relations of childbirth. The proposed content of Volume 11 includes symposia on Aboriginal society and health and on dealing with stigma in illness and in health work, along with commentaries on issues raised in Volume 10.

The articles in the present volume are derived from the Coriole Health Day: TASA Conference, 5 December 2000. The first symposium contains three outstanding original articles on Health IT and globalisation. Kevin White's account of What 's happening in general practice is the scholarly underpinning to recent media reports on the corporatisation of general practice. Jan Sinclair- Jones' case study of e-medicine is a fascinating investigation of the impact of the globalisation of call centres on medical transcription work. Eileen Willis' analysis of Computerised workload measures explores the continuing degradation of hospital work. All three articles demonstrate the impact of globalisation and technology on professional autonomy in health care. If these studies show how the computer revolution re-tools an industry, they also invite assessment of the extent to which interests embedded in its class and gendered structure are at the same time both threatened and enhanced.

The second symposium of three research-based articles by Karen Lane, Kerreen Reiger, Diane Gosden and Carolyn Noble on The Social relations of childbirth bring together detailed and informed accounts of this arena of contestation. The papers provide an elegant case study in the intricacies and politics of interest groups. The first two papers are by experienced research sociologists and activists. Karen Lane challenges maternity hospitals to enable women to advocate their own interests in all clinical interactions. It is not sufficient merely to persuade hospital boards and committees of this imperative for their women clients; it is also necessary to make profound philosophic shifts in the curricula of midwifery and obstetrics. Kerreen Reiger then shows how organised midwifery in Australia is struggling to re-establish midwives as primary carers of childbearing women. A perceptive commentary on these two articles from renowned US sociologist and feminist critic Barbara Katz Rothman should give Australian activists some hope. But is it enough to agitate change from within existing structures? With their astonishing insight into the home birth movement in Australia, Diane Gosden and Carolyn Noble challenge the boundaries of organised childbirth. The articles in this symposium are informed by theory from, respectively, economics, political science and the sociology of social movements. They all draw on sociological theory of organizations and professions and understandably all use feminist theory.

Book reviews

The health field in sociology is brimming with new publications. We plan to expand the review section in the journal and to this end have established strong links with publishers. We are privileged to present in this issue, Catherine Garrett's appreciation of Bev McNamara's latest work.

Proposed change of title

The present editors have been encouraged by health sociologists in The Australian Sociological Association to consider publishing this journal more often. Volume 11 is scheduled for publication in October/November 2001. We anticipate reviewing papers from the Health Day of TASA National Conference, December 2001 for Volume 12 early in 2002 and are assembling ideas towards a symposium on health care systems for Volume 13 later in 2002.

Greater frequency of issue requires a change of the journal's title. Professor Jake Najman's suggestion of Health Sociology Review has been embraced and we expect Volume 11 will be published under that title.

The present editors and many members of the Health Section prefer to publish in hard copy format. Our capacity to meet costs (of layout, printing etc) depends on sales. If these are insufficient we may need to publish electronically, possibly on the esochealth website.

We trust you enjoy Volume 10 and recommend it ‘far and wide'.

Toggle references