Hughes Gemma
a Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Anthropol Med. 2019 Apr;26(1):33-47. doi: 10.1080/13648470.2018.1507105. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
An in-depth case study of integrated health and social care provides the empirical basis for this exploration of tensions between ethnography and evaluation. The case study, developed from a two year period of fieldwork, is based on ethnographic data of individuals' experiences of living with multiple long-term conditions, their experiences of integrated care, and integrated care commissioning practices. Narrative and phenomenological analysis show how temporal aspects of ethnographic fieldwork contribute to producing knowledge of patients' experiences. However, tensions emerge when attempting to bring learning from these experiences into discussions about evaluations of services. Data generated from fieldwork are seen as both too 'big', in terms of quantity of details, and too 'small', in terms of generalisability. Scale is also of concern, as tensions between ethnography and evaluation play out in questions of relevance. Ethnography foregrounds embodied, day-to-day lived experience, bringing the minutiae of daily life into sharp focus whereas evaluators need a wider angle to foreground larger objects of interest; organisations, budgets, services. A further source of tension between ethnography and evaluation emerges in defining interventions as distinct from context, when the conceptual boundary required to distinguish the shape of the intervention within a social world blurs and dissolves under the close gaze of an immersed ethnographer, problematizing attempts to inform causation. Concerns are raised that without greater dialogue about the nature of knowledge produced by patients' experiences, these experiences are at risk of being marginalised and de-centred.
一项关于综合健康与社会护理的深入案例研究为此次对人种志与评估之间紧张关系的探索提供了实证依据。该案例研究基于为期两年的实地考察,依据的是关于个人患有多种长期疾病的经历、综合护理体验以及综合护理委托实践的人种志数据。叙事分析和现象学分析表明了人种志实地考察的时间维度是如何有助于生成有关患者经历的知识的。然而,当试图将从这些经历中获得的经验教训引入有关服务评估的讨论时,紧张关系就出现了。实地考察所产生的数据,从细节数量来看被认为“太大”,而从可推广性来看又被认为“太小”。规模也是一个问题,因为人种志与评估之间的紧张关系在相关性问题中显现出来。人种志突出体现的、日常的生活经历,将日常生活的细枝末节清晰地呈现出来,而评估者则需要更广阔的视角来突出更大的关注对象;组织、预算、服务。当在将干预与背景区分开来进行界定时,人种志与评估之间的另一个紧张源出现了,因为在社会世界中区分干预形态所需的概念边界在深入参与的人种志研究者的密切审视下变得模糊并消解了,这使得为因果关系提供信息的尝试变得成问题。有人担心,如果不对患者经历所产生的知识的性质进行更多对话,这些经历就有被边缘化和去中心化的风险。