Читать книгу A Companion to Medical Anthropology онлайн

148 страница из 242

The third approach is to conduct theory-based or theory-framed research (the more classic inductive stance in research where correlation or causality is a key feature to be explored). All three approaches can be framed from a humanistic (hermeneutical, phenomenological) approach where theory allows for an interpretation of the anthropological data, or they can be framed from a positivist approach where data are analyzed (rather than interpreted) and theory is tested against that systematic analysis. The most common approach in applied medical anthropology, which normally has to be justified or even “sold” to both communities and sponsors, is to lean toward the positivist, empiricist, and even modernist end of the theoretical spectrum that is available, but to also take into account the humanistic aspects of people’s health.

The historic anthropological study of substance abuse, for example, has followed two general approaches: (a) “atheoretical” (descriptive-comparative) approaches, and (b) approaches that develop and/or apply mid-level anthropological theory. Midrange theory, in anthropology, is the testable portion of one or a combination of the grand theory themes described above. Both of these approaches have been incorporated in single disciplinary research (where only anthropology theory and methods are used to explore the nature of health and healing), and in multi-disciplinary approaches where both theory and research methods are drawn from multiple disciplines (such as psychology, epidemiology, sociology, geography, biology, public health, etc.). The latter approach is much more challenging, and is often much more productive of change in a health care system.