Comments on: SOME REACTIONS TO WHAT WE HEAR (AND DO NOT HEAR) IN MANY A PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE THESE DAYS. http://www.socialmedicine.org/2010/04/10/human-rights/some-reactions-to-what-we-hear-and-do-not-hear-in-many-a-public-health-conference-these-days/ An Alternative to Corporate Health (founded in 2004) Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:12:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dale Dewar http://www.socialmedicine.org/2010/04/10/human-rights/some-reactions-to-what-we-hear-and-do-not-hear-in-many-a-public-health-conference-these-days/#comment-375 Dale Dewar Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:45:18 +0000 http://www.socialmedicine.org/?p=4306#comment-375 I certainly share a lot of Claudio's frustrations. While I realize that even those of us in the public health and health education fields do not want to bite the hand that feeds us, otherwise known as the sources of funding, could we not see some research that is directed towards change? How do we get into the boardrooms of those who manufacture weapons rather than how we help the maimed? How do we access the mining companies that take the land (and pollute) rather than deal with the loss of livelihood and food sources of the peasants? Need I say more? I certainly share a lot of Claudio’s frustrations. While I realize that even those of us in the public health and health education fields do not want to bite the hand that feeds us, otherwise known as the sources of funding, could we not see some research that is directed towards change? How do we get into the boardrooms of those who manufacture weapons rather than how we help the maimed? How do we access the mining companies that take the land (and pollute) rather than deal with the loss of livelihood and food sources of the peasants?

Need I say more?

]]> By: Sarah Walpole http://www.socialmedicine.org/2010/04/10/human-rights/some-reactions-to-what-we-hear-and-do-not-hear-in-many-a-public-health-conference-these-days/#comment-374 Sarah Walpole Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:41:06 +0000 http://www.socialmedicine.org/?p=4306#comment-374 You allude to the fact that the changes that are needed are not just structural, but also cultural. Cultural changes take a long time. Nevertheless, we need to look at the very ingrained way in which we assign value.. Many of us are part of a very wide spread culture that values achievement, and measures success relative to others with various markers. These markers are representative of the importance that we assign to given structures; such as conferences or peer reviewed journals. There are reasons for giving these things high value - they have been approved by a number of people. As Ron Labonte notes, though, there are many good ideas out there that haven't been approved and the peer-reviewed ideas aren't necessarily the best, and certainly won't always be the best. Our culture also values certain ways of gathering, recording and holding information, e.g. the "hierarchy of evidence" (meta-analysis is better than RCT is better than expert opinion). As a result it is difficult to developing indepth analysis of systems and situations that are constantly in flux. Whilst "star speakers" have valuable ideas, it is the ideas, not the speakers that we should be hanging on to. There is increasing recognition of the need for more participative methods in conferences, such as smaller groups sessions. It's very difficult on very large scale and under time pressures. Things could be better through - ensuring effective structures for meetings - representative individuals present, working on a local scale wherever possible and sharing ideas/information/outcomes with other groups by email/other communication channels (benefits in terms of time, sustainability and involvement) - learning and disseminating good facilitation techniques to enable small groups to work effectively - trying to break away from our engrained leaning towards "achievement" and value only in recognised channels (many of which are inaccessible to people with great ideas) - recognising good ideas from the "non-star" speakers, and the ones who don't even get to attend the conference - trying not to promote ourselves through these channels (very difficult, as we still need to use them to get the message out, and because we can't help but assign value to ourselves through them!) A different style of writing (!), but some cross-over messages.. http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/nomasters.php http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/product.php You allude to the fact that the changes that are needed are not just structural, but also cultural. Cultural changes take a long time. Nevertheless, we need to look at the very ingrained way in which we assign value..

Many of us are part of a very wide spread culture that values achievement, and measures success relative to others with various markers. These markers are representative of the importance that we assign to given structures; such as conferences or peer reviewed journals. There are reasons for giving these things high value – they have been approved by a number of people. As Ron Labonte notes, though, there are many good ideas out there that haven’t been approved and the peer-reviewed ideas aren’t necessarily the best, and certainly won’t always be the best.

Our culture also values certain ways of gathering, recording and holding information, e.g. the “hierarchy of evidence” (meta-analysis is better than RCT is better than expert opinion). As a result it is difficult to developing indepth analysis of systems and situations that are constantly in flux.

Whilst “star speakers” have valuable ideas, it is the ideas, not the speakers that we should be hanging on to. There is increasing recognition of the need for more participative methods in conferences, such as smaller groups sessions. It’s very difficult on very large scale and under time pressures.

Things could be better through
- ensuring effective structures for meetings – representative individuals present, working on a local scale wherever possible and sharing ideas/information/outcomes with other groups by email/other communication channels (benefits in terms of time, sustainability and involvement)
- learning and disseminating good facilitation techniques to enable small groups to work effectively
- trying to break away from our engrained leaning towards “achievement” and value only in recognised channels (many of which are inaccessible to people with great ideas) – recognising good ideas from the “non-star” speakers, and the ones who don’t even get to attend the conference
- trying not to promote ourselves through these channels (very difficult, as we still need to use them to get the message out, and because we can’t help but assign value to ourselves through them!)

A different style of writing (!), but some cross-over messages..
http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/nomasters.php
http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/product.php

]]> By: CHAN Chee Khoon http://www.socialmedicine.org/2010/04/10/human-rights/some-reactions-to-what-we-hear-and-do-not-hear-in-many-a-public-health-conference-these-days/#comment-373 CHAN Chee Khoon Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:22:30 +0000 http://www.socialmedicine.org/?p=4306#comment-373 yes, Claudio, powers of co-optation... diplomacy masquerading as social science, unwillingness to confront power configurations, even to push the limits, research-as-a-delaying-tactic in technocratic guise (dot the 'i's and cross the 't's; evidence-based policies and program'), feeding off the conceit and willful naivety (disingenuity) of policy researchers and analysts... yes, Claudio, powers of co-optation… diplomacy masquerading as social science, unwillingness to confront power configurations, even to push the limits, research-as-a-delaying-tactic in technocratic guise (dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s; evidence-based policies and program’), feeding off the conceit and willful naivety (disingenuity) of policy researchers and analysts…

]]>