Improving immunization? The politics and problems of research questions and answers
Response to: ‘Improving Immunisation coverage in Rural India:
clustered randomized controlled evaluation of immunization campaigns with
and without incentives” ( 17th May 2010) issue of BMJ.
I have three critical issues to raise with such a study.
1. What is the notion of governance existing for the researchers. Their
attempt to run down the idea of existing government policies thru the
presentation of such data and also the idea of introduction of incentives,
aims to vilify and squander existing government policies and offer
solutions (which governments may have thought of themselves) but did not
choose the path of.
2. This study not only presents itself in a disrespect towards welfare
government and their policies but also treats people in the country with
a certain notion of disrespect. The introduction of incentive based
solutions in places of extreme poverty offer ‘quick fix’ solutions but are
also markers of dire and desperate existence of the people. This too is
taking away from the dignity of those who have been served. This is
besides the point that they have been used as rats in poverty lab ( which
seems to present itself easily to these researchers in a third world
country), and been experimented upon. The presence of a control area, only
adds to the unethical dimension of this study.
3. My third point is located at the design of the RCT and the grave
violations it represents. At one level the RCT, the systematic review seem
to be coming from the purely secular, scientific and objective domain ,
which Is equalizing everyone under the rubric of its ‘method’ on the other
hand the ‘method’ itself beholds within it a political economy of research
and research foundations. With its foundations set in Logical positivism
it addressess people as if they were without nation, a history, a race,
without poverty and also without gender. They are removed from all
contextualization’s and their dreams, demands, dignity and desperations
are played upon to satisfy the vily production factories of western
researchers. There is nearly an methodological irreverence, towards issues
of historical deprivation, poverty of races and nations and their policies
at the core of even such a study.
Bibliography
Foucault, M (1973), The Birth of the Clinic, Routledge, London.
Lambert, H., Gorden, E., Bogdan-Lovis,E.,(edited),(2006) Social Science
and Medicine, Gift Horse or Trojan Horse? Social Science Perspectives on
Evidence-based Health Care.
Kleinmann, A (ed.) ( 1978), Culture and healing in Asian societies :
anthropological, psychiatric, and public health studies, G.K. Hall.
Feyerabend, Paul (1981), Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method:
Philosophical Papers Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social
Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press, USA.
Rapid Response:
Improving immunization? The politics and problems of research questions and answers
Response to: ‘Improving Immunisation coverage in Rural India:
clustered randomized controlled evaluation of immunization campaigns with
and without incentives” ( 17th May 2010) issue of BMJ.
I have three critical issues to raise with such a study.
1. What is the notion of governance existing for the researchers. Their
attempt to run down the idea of existing government policies thru the
presentation of such data and also the idea of introduction of incentives,
aims to vilify and squander existing government policies and offer
solutions (which governments may have thought of themselves) but did not
choose the path of.
2. This study not only presents itself in a disrespect towards welfare
government and their policies but also treats people in the country with
a certain notion of disrespect. The introduction of incentive based
solutions in places of extreme poverty offer ‘quick fix’ solutions but are
also markers of dire and desperate existence of the people. This too is
taking away from the dignity of those who have been served. This is
besides the point that they have been used as rats in poverty lab ( which
seems to present itself easily to these researchers in a third world
country), and been experimented upon. The presence of a control area, only
adds to the unethical dimension of this study.
3. My third point is located at the design of the RCT and the grave
violations it represents. At one level the RCT, the systematic review seem
to be coming from the purely secular, scientific and objective domain ,
which Is equalizing everyone under the rubric of its ‘method’ on the other
hand the ‘method’ itself beholds within it a political economy of research
and research foundations. With its foundations set in Logical positivism
it addressess people as if they were without nation, a history, a race,
without poverty and also without gender. They are removed from all
contextualization’s and their dreams, demands, dignity and desperations
are played upon to satisfy the vily production factories of western
researchers. There is nearly an methodological irreverence, towards issues
of historical deprivation, poverty of races and nations and their policies
at the core of even such a study.
Bibliography
Foucault, M (1973), The Birth of the Clinic, Routledge, London.
Lambert, H., Gorden, E., Bogdan-Lovis,E.,(edited),(2006) Social Science
and Medicine, Gift Horse or Trojan Horse? Social Science Perspectives on
Evidence-based Health Care.
Kleinmann, A (ed.) ( 1978), Culture and healing in Asian societies :
anthropological, psychiatric, and public health studies, G.K. Hall.
Feyerabend, Paul (1981), Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method:
Philosophical Papers Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Latour, Bruno & Steve Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life: The Social
Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press, USA.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests