Béhague Dominique Pareja, Gonçalves Helen, Victora Cesar Gomes
Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Cien Saude Colet. 2008 Nov-Dec;13(6):1701-10. doi: 10.1590/s1413-81232008000600002.
Collaboration between anthropology and epidemiology has a long and tumultuous history. Based on empirical examples, this paper describes a number of epistemological lessons we have learned through our experience of cross disciplinary collaboration. Although critical of both mainstream epidemiology and medical anthropology, our analysis focuses on the implications of addressing each discipline's main epistemological differences, while addressing the goal of adopting a broader social approach to health improvement. We believe it is important to push the boundaries of research collaborations from the more standard forms of "multidisciplinarity," to the adoption of theoretically imbued "interdisciplinarity." The more we challenge epistemological limitations and modify ways of knowing, the more we will be able to provide in-depth explanations for the emergence of disease-patterns and thus, to problem-solve. In our experience, both institutional support and the adoption of a relativistic attitude are necessary conditions for sustained theoretical interdisciplinarity. Until researchers acknowledge that methodology is merely a human-designed tool to interpret reality, unnecessary methodological hyper-specialization will continue to alienate one field of knowledge from the other.
人类学与流行病学之间的合作有着漫长而波折的历史。基于实证案例,本文描述了我们通过跨学科合作经验学到的一些认识论教训。尽管我们对主流流行病学和医学人类学都持批判态度,但我们的分析重点在于解决各学科主要认识论差异的影响,同时致力于采用更广泛的社会方法来改善健康这一目标。我们认为,将研究合作的边界从更标准的“多学科性”形式拓展到采用具有理论内涵的“跨学科性”非常重要。我们对认识论局限挑战得越多,对认知方式的改变越大,就越能深入解释疾病模式的出现,进而解决问题。根据我们的经验,机构支持和采取相对主义态度是持续进行理论跨学科研究的必要条件。除非研究人员认识到方法论仅仅是一种人为设计的解释现实的工具,否则不必要的方法论过度专业化将继续使一个知识领域与另一个知识领域相疏离。