文章基本信息

标题：The Privileging of Communitarian Ideas: Citation Practices and the Translation of Social Capital Into Public Health Research
本地全文：下载
作者：Spencer Moore ; Alan Shiell ; Penelope Hawe 等
期刊名称：American journal of public health
印刷版ISSN：0090-0036
出版年度：2005
卷号：95
期号：8
页码：1330-1337
DOI：10.2105/AJPH.2004.046094
语种：English
出版社：American Public Health Association
摘要：The growing use of social science constructs in public health invites reflection on how public health researchers translate, that is, appropriate and reshape, constructs from the social sciences. To assess how 1 recently popular construct has been translated into public health research, we conducted a citation network and content analysis of public health articles on the topic of social capital. The analyses document empirically how public health researchers have privileged communitarian definitions of social capital and marginalized network definitions in their citation practices. Such practices limit the way public health researchers measure social capital’s effects on health. The application of social science constructs requires that public health scholars be sensitive to how their own citation habits shape research and knowledge. Recent reports suggest that the integration of social science constructs into public health research will continue to increase in the coming years. 1 While concepts such as socioeconomic status and culture have long been a part of the public health vernacular, one of the more recent newcomers has been social capital . Since Kawachi and colleagues’ 1997 essay “Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality,” 2 there has been a proliferation of articles devoted to the application and perceived utility of the concept of social capital in population health research. Definitions of social capital range from communitarian definitions, which focus on “features of social organization such as civic participation and trust in others,” 2 to network definitions, which focus on social relationships and access to resources. We present the results and conclusions of a citation network analysis and a citation content analysis conducted on the translation of the concept of social capital into public health research. We use the term “translation” rather than “integration” purposefully to refer to the semiotic processes associated with the movement of ideas and concepts across academic boundaries and the structures of authority that emerge through these migratory processes. 3 Whereas integration or transfer suggests that ideas remain intact as they cross from the social sciences to public health, the notion of translation suggests that ideas may be reshaped as they cross boundaries and become embedded in different institutional contexts and intellectual paradigms. With the promise that social science holds for health research come important challenges. 4 One such challenge is for public health professionals and researchers to remain critically reflective about the processes by which social science is translated into the public health mainstream. How do public health researchers translate social science concepts into research and practice? How does this translation affect the meaning and application of those concepts? One means by which public health researchers might remain critical of their application of social science constructs is to reflect on one of the most basic of academic activities—citation practices. The academic practices of researchers require that researchers know the research and literature in which they specialize. They draw upon that literature as they write journal articles or grant applications, or promote their programs and activities to colleagues, policy-makers, and the public more generally. Although skeptical of certain articles in the field or perhaps even the literature more generally, scholars are required to exhibit knowledge of that literature, particularly those articles considered seminal. However, what constitutes the “field” or an area of specialization is not simply an amorphous collection of articles. Instead, it is a collection of articles with a particular structure, a structure that emerges from the citation practices of the scholars who engage in that field. It is a structure that elevates the prominence and visibility of certain theoretical and methodological approaches while marginalizing others. In short, citation practices constitute a “knowledge–construction” process that shapes the way we think about and engage with our research. Analyses of these practices have revealed the cognitive structure of research fields, the prominence of certain articles and scholars, and the developmental history of disciplines and areas of specialization. 5 ^– 7 The analysis of the citation practices surrounding the translation of social capital into public health requires us to think about public health research, practice, and knowledge in a manner in which we may not be accustomed. Rather than viewing research as an objective, apolitical endeavor, our analysis underscores the ways in which intellectual authorities and hierarchies emerge through seemingly mundane and everyday activities, such as writing and citing articles. While there are political implications that can be gathered from such an analysis, our intention is not to deconstruct public health knowledge but to demonstrate the practices by which that knowledge becomes shaped, and the implications that these shapes have for the way in which public health translates and applies social science in health research. With the exception of Navarro’s general critique of what he refers to as the “communitarian approach” to social capital 8 and Fassin’s discussion of the conceptual limitations of social capital in epidemiology, 9 little has been written about the actual processes and academic practices surrounding public health’s translation of social capital. The continued relevance and growth of public health as a field, however, requires a willingness to reflect critically on how translation processes transpire and how public health knowledge emerges from various types of social practices and institutions. In so doing, a deeper understanding of how social contexts affect health might be fostered.