Contested legitimacy for anthropologists involved in medical humanitarian action: experiences from the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola epidemic

Conducting Social Science Research During Epidemics and Pandemics: Lessons Learnt

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on how field-based research is being conducted globally. Given the challenges of undertaking fieldwork during epidemics and the need for mixed methods research to address the social, political, and economic issues related to epidemics, there is a small but growing body of evidence in this area. To contribute to the logistical and ethical considerations for conducting research during a pandemic, we draw on the challenges and lessons learnt from adapting methods for two research studies conducted in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings: (1) in-person research in Uganda and (2) combined remote and in-person research in South and Southeast Asia. Our case studies focus on data collection and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting mixed methods research, even with many logistical and operational constraints. Social science research is often used to identify the context of specific issues, to provide a needs assessment, or inform longer-term planning; however, these case studies have shown the need to integrate social science research from the start of a health emergency and in a systematic way. Social science research during future health emergencies can also inform public health responses during the emergency. It is also crucial to collect social science data after health emergencies to inform future pandemic preparedness. Finally, researchers need to continue research on other public health issues that are ongoing even during a public health emergency.

Humanitarian inversions: COVID-19 as crisis

COVID-19 is a multi-spectral crisis that has added an acute layer over a panoply of complex emergencies across the world. In the process, it has not only exposed actually-existing emergencies, but also exacerbated them as the global gaze has turned inward. As a crisis, COVID-19 straddles and challenges the boundaries between humanitarianism, development and global health - the frames and categories through which emergencies are so often understood and intervened upon. Reflection on these fundamental categories is, we argue, an important geographical endeavour. Drawing on Geoffrey Bowker's analytical lens of the 'infrastructural inversion', we explore how humanitarianism has been upended by Covid-19 along two axes that are of core concern to geographers: (1) the spatial; and (2) the temporal. We first contextualise current debates on the humanitarian endeavour and its future within recent geographical research. We then set out the complex structure by which COVID-19 has been both imagined and intervened upon as a humanitarian emergency. In so doing, we then pave the way for a deeper empirical analysis of the spatial and temporal inversions that have been brought forth by COVID-19. The paper concludes by examining the conceptual value of the 'inversion' in developing geographical research agendas better attuned to the increasing porosity of humanitarianism, development and global health.

The response is like a big ship': community feedback as a case study of evidence uptake and use in the 2018-2020 Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Introduction

The 2018–2020 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) took place in the highly complex protracted crisis regions of North Kivu and Ituri. The Red Cross developed a community feedback (CF) data collection process through the work of hundreds of Red Cross personnel, who gathered unprompted feedback in order to inform the response coordination mechanism and decision-making.

Aim

To understand how a new CF system was used to make operational and strategic decisions by Ebola response leadership.

Methods

Qualitative data collection in November 2019 in Goma and Beni (DRC), including document review, observation of meetings and CF activities, key informant interviews and focus group discussions.

Findings

The credibility and use of different evidence types was affected by the experiential and academic backgrounds of the consumers of that evidence. Ebola response decision-makers were often medics or epidemiologists who tended to view quantitative evidence as having more rigour than qualitative evidence. The process of taking in and using evidence in the Ebola response was affected by decision-makers’ bandwidth to parse large volumes of data coming from a range of different sources. The operationalisation of those data into decisions was hampered by the size of the response and an associated reduction in agility to new evidence.

Conclusion

CF data collection has both instrumental and intrinsic value for outbreak response and should be normalised as a critical data stream; however, a failure to act on those data can further frustrate communities.

Bringing the social into vaccination research: Community-led ethnography and trust-building in immunization programs in Sierra Leone

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a complex, contested social phenomenon and existing research highlights the multifaceted role of trust in strengthening vaccine confidence. However, understanding public engagement with vaccination through the lens of (mis)trust requires more contextual evidence on trust's qualitative determinants. This includes expanding the geographic focus beyond current studies' focus on High Income Countries. Furthermore, obstacles remain in effectively integrating social science findings in the design of vaccine deployment strategies, and in ensuring that those who implement interventions and are affected by them are directly involved in producing knowledge about vaccination challenges.

METHODS

We piloted a community-led ethnographic approach, training Community Health Workers (CHWs) in Kambia District, Sierra Leone, in qualitative social science methods. Methods included participant observation, participatory power mapping and rumour tracking, focus group discussions and key stakeholder interviews. CHWs, with the support of public health officials and professional social scientists, conducted research on vaccination challenges, analysed data, tested new community engagement strategies based on their findings and elicited local perspectives on these approaches.

RESULTS

Our findings on vaccine confidence in five border communities highlighted three key themes: the impact of prior experiences with the health system on (mis)trust; relevance of livelihood strategies and power dynamics for vaccine uptake and access; and the contextual nature of knowledge around vaccines. Across these themes, we show how expressions of trust centered on social proximity, reliability and respect and the role of structural issues affecting both vaccine access and confidence. The pilot also highlighted the value and practical challenges to meaningfully co-designed research.

CONCLUSION

There is scope for broader application of a community-led ethnographic approach will help redesign programming that is responsive to local knowledge and experience. Involving communities and low-cadre service providers in generating knowledge and solutions can strengthen relationships and sustain dialogue to bolster vaccine confidence.

Comparative ethnographies of medical research: materiality, social relations, citizenship and hope in Tanzania and Sierra Leone

In this paper we bring together ethnographic research carried out during two clinical prevention trials to explore identities, relations and political imaginations that were brought to life by these different technologies. We highlight the ways in which critical anthropological engagement in clinical trials can help us radically reconsider the parameters and standards of medical research. In the paper we analyse the very different circumstances that made these two trials possible, highlighting the different temporalities and politics of HIV and Ebola as epidemics. We then describe four themes revealed by ethnographic research with participants and their communities but mediated by the specific sociopolitical contexts in which the trials were taking place. In both countries we found materiality and notions of exchange to be important to participants’ understanding of the value of medical research and their role within it. These dynamics were governed through social relations and moral economies that also underpinned challenges to Western notions of research ethics. The clinical trials offered a language to express both disaffection and disillusionment with the political status quo (often through rumours and anxieties) while at the same time setting the foundations for alternative visions of citizenship. Attached to these were expressions of ‘uncertainty and hope’ steeped in locally distinctive notions of destiny and expectations of the future.