Lawton Julia, Ahmad Naureen, Peel Elizabeth, Hallowell Nina
Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, School of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, UK.
Sociol Health Illn. 2007 Sep;29(6):891-906. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01036.x.
We undertook a secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with white (n = 32) and Pakistani and Indian (n = 32) respondents who had type 2 diabetes, which explored their perceptions and understandings of disease causation. We observed subtle, but important, differences in the ways in which these respondent groups attributed responsibility and blame for developing the disease. Whereas Pakistani and Indian respondents tended to externalise responsibility, highlighting their life circumstances in general and/or their experiences of migrating to Britain in accounting for their diabetes (or the behaviours they saw as giving rise to it), white respondents, by contrast, tended to emphasise the role of their own lifestyle 'choices' and 'personal failings'. In seeking to understand these differences, we argue for a conceptual and analytical approach which embraces both micro- (i.e. everyday) and macro- (i.e. cultural) contextual factors and experiences. In so doing, we provide a critique of social scientific studies of lay accounts/understandings of health and illness. We suggest that greater attention needs to be paid to the research encounter (that is, to who is looking at whom and in what circumstances) to understand the different kinds of contexts researchers have highlighted in presenting and interpreting their data.
我们对32名患有2型糖尿病的白人受访者以及32名巴基斯坦和印度受访者进行了深入访谈的二次分析,探讨他们对疾病成因的看法和理解。我们观察到,在这些受访者群体将患糖尿病的责任归咎于何处的方式上,存在细微但重要的差异。巴基斯坦和印度受访者倾向于将责任外化,在解释自己的糖尿病(或他们认为导致糖尿病的行为)时,强调他们总体的生活状况和/或他们移民到英国的经历;相比之下,白人受访者则倾向于强调自身生活方式“选择”和“个人失误”的作用。在试图理解这些差异时,我们主张采用一种概念和分析方法,该方法兼顾微观(即日常)和宏观(即文化)背景因素及经历。在此过程中,我们对社会科学中关于外行对健康和疾病的描述/理解的研究进行了批判。我们建议,需要更加关注研究过程(即谁在观察谁以及在何种情况下观察),以理解研究人员在呈现和解释数据时所强调的不同类型的背景。