Archives
Editorial
The on-going need for higher profile for health social sciences
Jeanne Daly
Allan Kellehear
Professor of Palliative Care, School of Public Health, La Trobe University, VIC
Evan Willis
School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, VIC
Article Text
In last year's issue of the Annual Review we outlined our objectives for the journal. Our major aim was to promote the diversity of our research methods and theories to health workers in general and funding bodies in particular. Underlining the purpose of that aim, we especially wanted to demonstrate the importance of focussing on the social context of health care and the particular relevance of social science methods in undertaking that task: The cultural, historical, qualitative and critical approaches to health research were argued to be some of our strengths over the more atomised and decontextualised research practices of some clinical and behavioural research into health.
Critical qualitative approaches to health research were well illustrated by the review articles published in last year's volume: Derek Colquhoun's article on the state of Health Education Research; Heather Gardner's review of Health Policy Research; Evan Willis' review of the Sociology of Health and Illness; and Lenore Manderson's review of the current state of Medical Anthropology.
We continue our commitment to demonstrating this diversity of research ware in the current volume. This year's issue focuses on a methodological topic, the use of focus groups, policy decisions about the supply and training of General Practitioners and a review article on the drug and alcohol field. Finally, we conclude with a review of social and behavioural science teaching in the context of the Nurse Education curriculum. In addition to demonstrating diversity, these articles make a contribution to the complex challenge of working with researchers and students from different professions, some of whom may have divergent epistemological backgrounds.
Another aim was to bring about positive change in favour of the health social sciences on research funding bodies. The register of health social scientists was intended to inform us as researchers of others in the community of health social scientists with whom we might discuss research proposals in the planning stages and whom we could list as potential reviewers. We hope that the register is starting to be used in this way. The register was also sent to funding bodies to inform them about researchers who would be appropriate reviewers for our grant proposals. We believe that the last aim is gradually being realised and that a greater range of proposals is being funded, even those using action research methods. Previously these would not have survived the reviewing process.
The Public Health Research and Development Committee who sponsored the original workshop at which this journal originated, has recently adopted the National Health and Medical Research Council procedure of interviewing shortlisted projects and it is not yet clear what impact these selection committees will have on the funding process. Unless the health social sciences are adequately represented on all selection committees, the gains made at the level of reviewing may be negated by an inability by selection committees to interpret what the reviewers are saying.
Positive changes towards the health social sciences have come from committees realising the importance of the social context of health. This understanding has been promoted by a number of committed health social scientists who are members of funding bodies. In recognition of the distinctive nature of social science research methods, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation has recently appointed three social scientists from our Register as members of their Public Health committee. Similarly the funding committee of the General Practice Evaluation Program has two members representing the social sciences. In contrast, on most other Committees, the social scientists are there as consumer representatives and it is in this role that they contribute to discussion of social science issues. This confusion of roles may not be in the interests of consumer bodies. Ideally, there is the need for both social scientists and consumer representatives. The present arrangements have allowed committees to draw on social science skills without officially recognising the contribution of our academic and research base in health.
A further aim of this journal is to identify issues in the health social sciences which are worthy of debate of a kind which is not publishable in medical or other health journals.
eContent Home