Department of public health, La Trobe.
Crime Justice and Legal Studies, La Trobe.
Med Anthropol. 2024 May 18;43(4):295-309. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2024.2349513. Epub 2024 May 16.
Medical anthropologists working in interdisciplinary teams often articulate expertise with respect to ethnography. Yet increasingly, health scientists utilize ethnographic methods. Through a comparative review of health ethnographies, and autoethnographic observations from interdisciplinary research, we find that anthropological ethnographies and health science ethnographies are founded on different epistemic sensibilities. Differences center on temporalities of research, writing processes, sites of social intervention, uses of theory, and analytic processes. Understanding what distinguishes anthropological ethnography from health science ethnography enables medical anthropologists - who sometimes straddle these two ethnographic modes - to better articulate their epistemic positionality and facilitate interdisciplinary research collaborations.
医学人类学家在跨学科团队中工作时,经常会表达自己在民族志方面的专业知识。然而,越来越多的健康科学家开始使用民族志方法。通过对健康民族志的比较回顾和跨学科研究的自传体观察,我们发现,人类学民族志和健康科学民族志建立在不同的认识论基础上。差异主要集中在研究的时间性、写作过程、社会干预的地点、理论的使用以及分析过程上。了解人类学民族志与健康科学民族志的区别,可以使医学人类学家(有时他们会跨越这两种民族志模式)更好地阐明自己的认识论定位,并促进跨学科研究合作。