Who says systems are ‘soft’? Demanding legitimacy and center ring in the health truth forum

Who says systems are ‘soft’? Demanding legitimacy and center ring in the health truth forum

Unpublished manuscript

Michele Battle-Fisher

Orgcomplexity Blog originally posted 3/14/13

Who says systems theory is soft? Ms. Ronda Rousey became the first female mixed martial arts (MMA) Ultimate Fighting Conference champion in February 2013 in the first ever headliner fight of female UFC fighters in a male-dominated sport. I watched her ritualized “weigh in” against a fine, muscular competitor in Liz Carmouche. There is a strange fractal beauty in administering an arm bar in a padded, neon-bathed chain-linked octagon. But there is a kindred connection to adaptation that must not be lost here.  Systems may appear to be the “feminine” counterpart of the masculine, gold standard methods revered in health research today.  But complexity is no less important and there is strength and flexibility in those loins.  With all of its fractal beauty, mixed martial artists manipulate weaknesses in an opponent.  Somehow it is even more intoxicating to see women who have been constrained to the submissive, demure gender role to pin her opponent. If a MMA fighter becomes “static”, she will be overrun by the power of the opposing fighter (agent). We in systems harness the power of normalizing brokerage within ego networks and laser point to uncovering and mitigating weaknesses in an adaptive system.  In a previous blog post, I pondered my own stance (http://wp.me/p32X8n-an) on what fidelity is.  As I will discuss a recent commentary of Ghaffar et al (2013) and some political stances of John S. Mill, it is time for systems researchers to weigh in and demand legitimacy of what is really going on in the widening chiasm in legitimacy. I fear that if systems remains entrenched in the periphery of influence, the adaptive nature of health disparities will be inadequately explored. This is a monumental omission impeding a more authentic and all-encompassing “truth” of health.

I see quite a few discussions of systems in health in the commentaries and viewpoints sections of peer-reviewed journals.  These journal sections are often populated by writings highlighting controversial topics or perceived gaps in the present literature. Ghaffar et al. (2012) speak of “changing mindsets” and getting a place at the big kids’ table of stakeholders.  Systems should be getting its own house in order by accepting and follow a unified identity of our own (Ghaffar et al., 2012). There certainly should be some self-love.  But I think that before these wonderful aspirations of playing nicely on the playground can happen, time must be taken to grapple with the blockages to the very idea of truth. In other words, can our complex truth be at all compatible with a conventionally accepted statistical truth? Do we accept our own complex truth? Few, aside from the stalwart “all is relative” Geertz-flavored interpretists, question statistics fundamentally. Complexity still has its naysayers.

The will of society, with our funny little orb of health hovering and bobbing within it, aligns religiously with the will of the majority. Mill (1947) wrote “On Liberty” in 1895 as a treatise on the overlay of personal responsibility and an authoritative state.  He advocated a balance of pareto efficiency (good for the majority, which is fundamental ideologically to public health) and personal autonomy (translation-but you cannot make me do it for my own good). For the sake of this argument, Mill also defends the existence of protection against prevailing feelings and opinions (Mill, 1947). Many in science would not label our scientific results as feeling “mental models” (or maybe they do???). The explanations that we view as valid or potentially valid are at the mercy of the “denial of usefulness” (Mill, 1947). Why is social network analysis even needed when epidemiology has served well?  Let me restate. Why is social network analysis needed when epidemiology has served the existing questions well? That is the point.  The questions of social networks and conventional epidemiology differ. Many of the complexity questions have yet to be asked (translated- published in a top-tier journal). Scientific method calls for a sensible harmony among research questions, methods and results. For progress to be made, the need for an alternative intellectual irritant such as the outsider of systems is often necessary to spur discussion and move that health discussion into novel and innovative directions. Mill (1947) wrote:  “men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error”. I add that human nature seeks making adjustments to our reasoning out of realized and accepted necessity.  We do not expend unnecessary energy when we are comfortable with the status quo. Mill (1947) explains our propensity toward remedy as being tied to 2 factors: the direction of the sentiment (as in complexity versus convention) and the degree of interest in that sentiment. Otherwise, we are indifferent or opposed to seeking out alternatives.  Is pareto efficiency of the public we serve in healthcare adequate served by ignoring complexity? No.

 

 

References

Curtis, M. (ed.) (1985). The Great Political Theories- volume 1. New York: Avon Books.

Ghaffir, A et al. (Feb. 9, 2013). Changing mindsets in health policy and systems research. The Lancet. 381, 436-37.

Mill, J.S. (1947) On Liberty. Wheeling,IL: Harlan Davidson.

“Rousey wins first UFC women’s match”. Retrieved on February 25, 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/24/us/ufc-women-fight/index.html?hpt=hp_c2.

SAVE THE DATE – Complex Systems, Health Disparities & Population Health – Feb 2014

SAVE THE DATE –
Complex Systems, Health Disparities & Population Health – Building Bridges
February 24-25, 2014, Natcher Conference Center, NIH Campus, Bethesda, MD
This will be the first conference examining how the tools and approaches of complex systems science can be applied to the understanding of health disparities and population health.
Join researchers from the health, social, policy, and computer sciences, leaders from the private and public sector, and representatives of funding agencies to see how the powerful tools of complex systems science can be applied to eliminating health disparities and improving population health.
Organized by the Network on Inequality, Complexity & Health (NICH), and sponsored by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, this ground-breaking meeting will be of use to all who are interested in building bridges between the many disciplines interested in health disparities and population health, and those involved in complex systems analysis and simulation.

For further information, please contact Ms. Michele Zeiser (mzeiser@umich.edu or 734-615-6986).

How useful can SNA be right now in healthcare settings? A look at Chambers et al. (2012) review

My blog would not be doing complexity justice without briefly dipping our toes into the state of use and utility of SNA in healthcare research today. Chambers et al (2012) published in PLoSOne “Social Network Analysis in Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review”, taking a gander at SNA’s use in health interventions.

Take home messages to take to the bank:
1. SNA has been used in cross sectional, descriptive studies and have been not been taken farther. [No surprise there…]
2. SNA is performed by pure social scientists, not applied researchers such as public health researchers, which may lead to its lack of adaptation to real world interventions. [No surprise there either…Few have been formerly trained]

Now you may spend time reading the article on your own. It is not meant to be an exhaustive review…Sorry to disappoint.

However I do have one huge bone to pick with the review methodology. Excluded were studies of “patients’ and carers’ social networks”. WHY? WHY? WHY? Okay, I understand that the authors were only interested in studies within traditional healthcare settings. But how might a behavior-change intervention stay salient and beneficial by ignoring the patient lived environment outside of the clinic. How can any ecological exploration of illness leave out resources such as knowledge, social influence, value negotiation and power embedded in those social ties? If the boundary of health is prematurely truncated to leave out influences outside of the healthcare setting (those not donning starched white coats but nonetheless dab the mouths of these patients with compassion), how successful would ANY SNA intervention (if ever done) be without exploring the complexity of health “in place”. If our definition of Chambers et al (2012) “intervention” involves only nodes bobbing in a healthcare setting, then ignore the above statement and be happy with your p-value. It is the unpredictable emergence of life events and methodological messiness of complexity outside of the clinic that is worrisome. Yes we need to heed Chambers et al. (2012)’s call. But I implore, the messiness outside of the examining room is worth it as well.

MBF

reference:

Chambers D, Wilson P, Thompson C, Harden M (2012) Social Network Analysis in Healthcare Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review. PLoS ONE 7(8): e41911. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041911.

Black Female Identity and Breastfeeding

“Black Female Identity and Breastfeeding”
Theresa Thompson, Contributor
Orgcomplexity Blog
May 16, 2013

Black female identity is situated between socially constructed concepts of race and gender. The burden lay on Black women in terms of morbidity and mortality has been well established. But we must remember that there is a struggle African American women endure in order to define “self “ in mainstream society. This struggle also arises within the Black community. Intrapersonal factors – such as social class, upbringing, religion, and health can make navigating health difficult for some. For this reason it is important to understand the black female identity as an interconnected whole (also known by the cushy label of intersectionality). In a previous Orgcomplexity blog, The Heavy Load of Agency and Health: Anna Julia Cooper, Race and Gender, Ms. Battle-Fisher (2013) uses the work of Anna Julia Cooper as an allegory of the gendered woman (http://wp.me/p32X8n-q). Though complex the notions of cultural and gender identity are necessary for wellness, Battle-Fisher (2013) conveys the question of how complete wellness can be achieved for black women when the space may not be provided an authentic voice. Battle-Fisher (2013) states that the “issue of embodiment is a precursor that must not be ignored when exploring the failures and less frequent successes of understanding health.” While much progress has been made in understanding the determinants of health, often the ‘barriers’ to health behaviors can be elusive. It is important that social, cultural, and structural factors not be discounted.

How does the composition of black female identity even relate or link to the public health and further the issue of breastfeeding? While there is no disputing the strong medical evidence that breast milk is best for infants, this has not translated to an acceptable level of adoption among Black mothers. It may be that such black women have perceptions of their body that may prevent such adoption. Mass media outlets as well as the blogosphere have taken to this issue. ‘Why Don’t Black Women Want To Breast Feed?’ by Toya Sharee (2012) wrote that women may perceive that breast were for sex and that breastfeeding just was not something Black women did. While anecdotal, these are sentiments that gain traction and proliferate on Twitter. They become viral, but not in a good way. Black mothers do not see other black mothers breastfeeding. There lies the interdependency- new black mothers will then also not breastfeed unless something or someone intervenes.

One of the leading health indicators for African Americans in the U.S. that conveys a poor health report is infant mortality. Research has shown a relationship between breastfeeding and infant mortality. African American women have the lowest breastfeeding rates of any other racial group in the U.S. followed with the highest rates of alternative infant food supplementation rates. According to UNICEF (2008) breastfeeding alone has the potential to save more lives than any other prevention intervention. An easy to read report published by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Health Studies Institute and written by Barbara L. Philipp and Sheina Jean-Marie (2007), accounts to how breastfeeding saves infant lives. Breastfeeding could save or delay about 720 post-neonatal deaths each year (Chen & Rogan, 2004). Game changer!!!

One new resource has been created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services called It’s Only Natural: mother’s love, mother’s milk, specifically in support of African American mothers breastfeeding and the benefits for their babies as well as the mothers. Spread the word! It’s Only Natural uses online media in the form of pictures, videos, links, commentary, information and literature, testimonials, quick facts, planning tools and partner resources to help support African American mothers in their journey to breastfeeding successfully (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2013). All representations of mothers and babies, video commentary, and testimonials for viewing on the website depict a diverse portrayal of African American mothers and their thoughts or advice for other mothers on the topic. This is a significant accomplishment as It’s Only Natural is one of the first all-encompassing resources targeting social and cultural barriers to breastfeeding African American mothers face. African American mothers can access this resource online and find it is designed not merely with them in mind but specifically for them. Another section of the website addresses and breakdowns the common myths and mistruths about breastfeeding in the African American community and also has videos by African American mothers discussing the topic and their views. Having a great resource like It’s Only Natural, has the potential to helping to spread the knowledge and benefits to African American mothers about breastfeeding not only for their babies but also for themselves more successfully as this resource has placed breastfeeding in a social-cultural context. This resource should be a Tweet before the latest meme for the newest 3D blockbuster.

References

Battle-Fisher, M. (2013). The Heavy Load of Agency and Health: Anna Julia Cooper, Race and Gender, Retrieved from Orgcomplexity Blog at http://wp.me/p32X8n-q.

Chen, A. & Rogan, W. (2004). “Breastfeeding and the Risk of Postnatal Death in the United States,” Pediatrics. 113 (2004), E435-39.

Philipp, B., & Jean-Marie, S. (2007) African American and Breastfeeding: The Courage To Love: Infant Mortality Commission. Washington D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic Health Studies.

Sharee, T. (2012) Why Don’t Black Women Want To Breast Feed? Retrieved from http://madamenoire.com/169359/why-dont-black-women-want-to-breastfeed/.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013) It’s Only Natural: a mother’s love, mother’s milk, Retrieved from Women’s Health, http://www.womenshealth.gov/ItsOnlyNatural/index.html.

.

The participant observer and engagement in the routine

The participant observer and engagement in the routine
Unpublished manuscript
by Michele Battle-Fisher

If complexity theory will allow the use of the “participant observer” as a bricoleur or tinkerer, might there be more complexity found in the mundane? Is being a bricoleur too complex? Is it really an untainted “network” if I maneuver myself into it? Were we just there by serendipity and would not be a network at all? Does a network require a higher social purpose to exist? A social network has been “simply” defined as a set of objects, be it people, sharers of an elevator lift, or even geese that are linked in some meaningful, measureable fashion. A gaggle of geese is a gaggle of geese but do the geese define themselves as so? Are people riding on a lift bound by some unspoken creed or are merely only passersby that are already late for the tube? Perhaps it is only a network for geese when there is an imprinted biological or social need to cooperate, for instance for safety or food gathering. Then is it simply just a gaggle again or orchestrated group affiliation as we are looking in from the outside? Geese are known to imprint on other geese that care for them, forming a network based on biological necessity for survival. A rider of an elevator does not have to talk to activate the elevator or imprint to share the communal space on the elevator platform. That access was granted to the elevator by pushing a floor button to halting metal ropes at the mercy of potential energy. However though we do not imprint as geese, we choose to interact in the most mundane of circumstances. That interaction serves a mighty purpose. We live therefore we connect in space and find meaning.
On February 25, 2009, I conducted an observational study of graduate students’ use of a computer lab. A mundane task perhaps, but it is a reality for the life of any graduate student to spend an inordinate amount of time there. I wondered if there were any other social purposes for time in the lab: completion of research, meeting with friends, and a use of escape from the campus. The setting was the 4th floor computer lab of a Midwestern public university, a lab with exclusive use by graduate students of my program. I observed from 2:00pm-2:43pm. Observational study seemed like a logical fit as I had unfettered access and shared a purposed physical space. I did feel like a voyeur as I “assumed” permission to watch and take note of the others. As Wolcott asserts I chose number #2, “nothing in particular” (Glesne, 2006). This situation seemed ordinary enough as I have experienced the same drudgery of working in a stale, sensory deficient lab whose one purpose is for work. So I sought what was unusual.
From notes: The only sounds that can be heard in this cavernous room dotted by
PC’s lined up against the walls is the sound of the ventilation system. This noise was
interrupted by key strokes. The key strokes are intermittent. I hear a sneeze.
There are 3 women and no men. No one says “bless you”. No one talks.
This brings up an issue that I had being a participant observer. How natural would the event be if I interject actions such as saying “bless you” (see Lather, 1986)? I wondered how importing my own actions would affect the validity of the study. I thought that I would learn more in the silence (see Belensky et al, 1986).
From notes: The lights above are covered by “waffles” and very bright incandescent light that defeats the “tranquility” of the wall color. No one is talking to the others…No one is sitting next to each other.
But in room of women (no men entered the room while I took notes), I remembered Belensky et al. (1986) statement of “deaf and dumb”. Perhaps the proper decorum is to allow others to work in peace. But on this day, no one worked in collaboration. When I ceased taking notes, a friend of mine who is also of color entered the lab and started talking to me. She talked about the program, but she mostly just wanted to talk. It was not a conversation that was shared with the others in the room. They did not join in. We did not have the solidarity that they felt permission to even care about what we were talking about.
From notes: At 2:35, more copies are made at printer 2. I turn around to see if they are retrieved. They are not retrieved for 3 minutes. It is the girl at 2:30 entry in the T shirt marketing her undying affection for the Buckeyes and distressed tan boots. I am jealous of the boots. I do not ask where she got them. I cannot sit at the terminal without readjusting my gaze and looking around. I appear to be the only one with this problem.
Certainly, I am the primary research instrument (Glesne, 1999; see Dillard, 2000). But this was not an easy task for me. There were only women there but did this make it a feminist moment? I tried to imagine whether a feminist epistemology of any wave would work here. No one acknowledged the entry of anyone in the room. Due to the layout of the room, unless the women were sitting with me (next to the door), they went on with their business. I learned that it is difficult to “make the strange familiar” when the event being study is so close to my own experience. I am an observer. But I did feel some guilt. I felt as if I was intruding. Not that my note taking stopped anyone from working. It was the sanctity of presumed privacy that the other students assumed when entered the room was the problem for me.
But what if you are interested in the creation of community when you are an outsider? I came across a very cool short film by Mark Isaacs called “Lift”. Isaacs (2001) set up a camera in a London elevator “lift” with the purpose of creating what he calls a vertical community (or, as I would call it, a vertical network). Isaacs sought to use his lens as an incubator to link riders of the lift in engaged conversation. He defines community in three ways: spatially, temporally and purposely. His community is bound by the shiny steel car enclosure and platform. You then have the boundaries set once the large steel doors clang shut. The composition changes over time as people enter and leave the lift. The network also is purposed- to utilize the mundane action of riding the elevator to build a sense of community. Is it only a vertical community when Isaccs set up his tripod with the explicit goal of recording the rides of passengers? It is a question to pose as it is often defined by the observer, in this case, by Isaacs, on exactly how the network is segmented and defined. There are a few fancy anthropological terms that I feel might help. There are two orientations with which we can understand the world- as an outsider (etic) and as an insider (emic). In defining how we might conceptualize networks, Kadushin (2012) differentiates perspectives as emic (such as the lift riders or the women in the lab) and the etic viewpoint (like me as an interloper, and Isaacs with his camera).
According to network theory, naming a network is powerful. While Isaacs markets the riders as a vertical community, they are most likely unaware that they are such or are being viewed as such. Unnamed groups are often identified by the observer and the boundaries are often most not agreed upon by the group members (Kadushin, 2012). Our understanding what is group then becomes grounded in the reality of the observer and is played out by the actors. Isaacs (2001) is using the idea of network segmentation without knowing it. Isaacs (2001) plays off of the reality that each lift rider overlaps larger primary networks, such as floor neighbors, high rise inhabitants, or just common Londoners.
Mathematically, a clique should be defined as a complete sub graph of three or more people that must all be interacting in some meaningful way (Kadushin, 2012). Take the instance in the film where two older individuals know each other, converse and thus decide to ignore the camera. Isaacs is left out only to document the event. They did not clique. If we apply Kadushin’s definition of collectivity to the Isaac’s film, now it gets interesting. Stay with me now. According to Kadushin (2012), “a collectivity is structurally cohesive to the extent that the social relations of its members hold it together.” Further there are two mechanisms that support and disrupt this happy state of togetherness. First, if a “disruptive force” acts upon the group, will the network survive? Second, complexity is bound also to the health of its network. Like a game of Ker Plunk, disruption in a complex system occurs when one or more people are removed from the group (Kadushin, 2012). The cohesion may or may not be able to survive. The vertical community must regenerate every time a person disembarks from the elevator lift or refuses to engage with the camera. Then the process of community starts all over again. According to Miller & Page (2007), the “deep” quality of the complexity would mean that the parts of a sum of the networks will have structural repercussions on the health of the entire system (the sum). Strogatz (2001) purports that complexity and its networks teeter on the “edge of chaos”. So the reality of the vertical community of Isaacs becomes precarious at best but one worth fighting for. This is not to say that an experiment such as Isaacs cannot have societal effects outside of the lift. However short- lived the vertical community, connections reaffirm our humanity in the end. But the trick is harnessing the power of these connections once the words dissipate or the steel doors to the bing of a ground floor arrival.

References
Belenky, M. et al. (1986). To the other side of silence. In Women’s ways of knowing (pp. 3-20). New York: Basic Books.
Dillard, C. (2000). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661-681.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming Qualitative Researchers. White Plains: Jossey-Bass.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research: Between a Rock and a Soft Place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.
Isaacs, M. (director) (2001) Lift [documentary]. United Kingdom: Second Run.
Kadushin, C. (2012) Understanding Social Networks. New York: Oxford.
Miller, J. & Page, S. (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems: an Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton Studies in Complexity). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Strogatz, S. (2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature. 410. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/pdf/410268a0.pdf

Human agency and the node

Unpublished manuscript
Michele Battle-Fisher

According to Anthony Giddens (1979), human agency must include an acting subject that deals with action linearly. Sound simple, huh? In this duality of structure, on the most basic level people make up society but are inherently constrained by it (Giddens, 1979). Social interaction is strongly linked this unavoidable embeddedness of the individual within a (social) system (Giddens, 1979). But in Giddens’ writing, I find his musings around power most interesting.

Giddens would argue that sociology had lacked a theory of action. I  enjoyed Giddens’ acceptance that the dialectic of control is a two-way street, though the magnitude of the lesser power would certainly dwarf those in “control” (Giddens, 1979). Power and centrality in networks brings to light unintended consequences of social action of the “powerful”, not personal culpability, per se. Giddens (1979) wrote that a person wields power could have acted otherwise.  In social networks, degree is a measure of possible opportunities due to his or her favored position. Even if an influential node has the highest Bonacich centrality or has been blessed with higher number of connections, there is still human agency (outside of coercion). Did that node have to take advantage of that position of prestige?

I would venture that daily history becomes recapitulated by those in control of  my historical barometer. That barometer may be puppetered in part by our network. I live life, later to splice episodes of that life that are later deemed relevant to a “history”.  Each history is a snapshot from my sociograms, typifying my connections and relationships. I have a memory, some that remain more salient and true than others. My history is not purely textbook history. Someone else adds me to the book of saints if they see fit. I am not alone, not without alters that “alter” and co-create my history. But I also co-create theirs…I would need to intentionally speak louder and endearing into the history’s good graces. It is a life where I have lived within a connected network of influences, each acted upon as their own little co-existing ego networks. Networks are nested within networks. We have networks with boundaries set up specific personal and societal purposes: my church folk from my hometown on the Ohio, my high school graduating class, and even my present census track. How else could we answer this social issue than by social network analysis? Moreover, I must voice and respect the power and constraints endemic of being a citizen of my overlapping and changing networks.

Giddens’ notion of agency was not new in my opinion. I give Giddens credit for amalgamating society cohesively as agency and power, whereby given credence to some lesser-approached theorists that came before. Giddens was rebutting against dominant theories of his time. As a result, we must take care in social network theory and analysis to not ignore the social, human nature of the nodes we map. The pendulum in “social” theory had swung such that actors (and any sense of agency) were reduced to roles and functions in a system (as node in a social network graph). Giddens was fighting this unapologetically. Social networks celebrate the structure and agency in both application and ontology. Both are instrumental if we as complexity thinkers let them be. Mr. Giddens, we are not on opposing teams.

 

Reference

 

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

 

 

 

 

People over 50 are doing what?!?!

Intimacy. It happens. People just don’t talk about it. The stigma and aversion of openly discussing sexual health and education is proving to be a problem and a major cause of concern in public health among the aging population. The CDC estimates that in 2005 people over the age of 50 accounted for 15% of the newly diagnosed cases of HIV/AIDS (CDC, 2005). That segment of the population represents 24% of the total amount of people living with HIV/AIDS, an increase of 7% from 2001 (CDC, 2005).

Being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS is no longer viewed as a death sentence as it once was. With effective treatment and medication, people are now living longer and carrying out normal everyday activities. So why are they at an increased risk? A review of 17 research studies conducted by Savasta in 2004 suggested three factors that were greatly associated with increased rate of HIV transmission among the aging population. They included: 1) poor and inadequate education regarding HIV and its modes of transmission 2) lack/low perceptivity of risk 3) lack of communication between patients and their primary health care provider (Savasta, 2004).

Adults still want to have fun! People of this age group could be entering the dating scene again, looking to explore and find a partner for emotional support. They may not understand the risk associated with HIV/AIDS and view it only as a youth epidemic. This is partially due to the lack of education programs and resources that are geared towards the aging population. Researchers have found that out of 50 states, only 15 states had public health departments that provided HIV/AIDS prevention materials towards the intended audience (Orel et. al, 2004). With insufficient knowledge, adults are less likely to protect themselves or perceive HIV as a risk, reducing their willingness to engage in safe sex practices or obtain regular screenings (CDC, 2008).

When was the last time you talked to your doctor about your sexual health? It’s not an easy topic to bring up and openly discuss with anyone. Even with physicians, people might find it rather awkward and may even be taboo in certain communities and cultures. The lack of communication between patients and their physicians regarding this issue can create complications. Physicians may misdiagnose HIV/AIDS as some of the symptoms are similar to those of normal aging (CDC, 2008). A physician’s perception that their patient is not at risk for HIV/AIDS diminishes the opportunity to talk to them about their sexual health, HIV prevention, and screenings, leading to a delay in diagnosis and treatment (CDC, 2008).

References

Centers for Disease Control. (2008). HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report,
2005. Vol. 17. Rev ed. Atlanta:1–54.

Centers for Disease Control. (2008). HIV/AIDS among Persons Aged 50 and Older. Retrieved on March 5, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/over50/resources/factsheets/pdf/over50.pdf

Orel, N.A., Wright, J.M., & Wagner, J. (2004). Scarcity of HIV/AIDS risk-reduction materials targeting the needs of older adults among state departments of public health. The Gerontologist, 44, 693-696.

Savasta, A.M. (2004). HIV: Associated transmission risks in older adults – An integrative review of literature. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 15, 50-59.

Understanding position in social networks and our social ecological duty

Unpublished manuscript
by Michele Battle-Fisher

Structure- then Word associate- blurt out “Patterns”, maybe “Connection”
Who (or what) are the nodes? Who is connected to whom? What is the underlying structure? How are we isolated or socially integrated? This idea of structural position or “color” is central to understanding social networks. Why? That pretty NetDraw representation of a network or the complete networks given by Linkurious gives us “color” (position), a quick and dirty visual of structure. This “surface structure” (as defined by Borgatti & Everett) on a rather superficial level is concretely labeled as components of the system. If nodes can be perfectly exchanged, you have structural equivalence. But how many of our real-world networks can really ascribe to Borgatti and Everett’s definition of structural equivalence? Structural equivalence is the same as IDENTICAL ego networks that each node would be have the same structural attributes across the board (density, degree, etc.). This gold standard of structural equivalence may be impossible to attain in real networks. These networks require not only the same individuals across ego networks but also the “same” mathematical mix of structural results. Having the same structural properties does not mean that the nodes are structurally equivalent. Why care? According to Burt, structurally equivalent actors see each other as social comparisons to monitor beliefs and behaviors due to the equivalence in structural environment. This ascribes to the implicit assumption often levered that structural equivalence yield equivalent social environments. This does not mean that the innate complexity of each person is interchangeable but the structural properties (as well as social leverages) are equal such that actors may be interchanged one-for-one for the same mathematical result.
As an example, color may matter in risk-taking. In the work of Rice et al.’s (2012) study of HIV risk behavior, homeless adolescents were located within the core (that dense ball of spaghetti in the middle of the network graph), were more likely to be female and were more likely to have been homeless for at least 2 years. Surprisingly, being on the outside (in the periphery) was protective against HIV risk taking. You may still have positive support to exhaust that may help a youth reintegrate into a stable living environment. But, why would a teen become homeless if there were obvious or accessible support networks to stay in a stable housing environment. The longer a teen is away, it becomes more likely that their family will be in the same dire social straits and may not be protective in navigating good social choices and decisions. But the longer a teen is away, human nature requires connection and closeness, a family broadly defined. Being on the outside (peripheral) of the homeless core protects against HIV risk-taking. Let us not forget a social purgatory between the instability of homelessness and the perceived caustic environment that the teen desperately calls to escape. The peripherals may be at risk in other ways that may lead to a greater risk of HIV risk taking once the teen is in the core. Social networks are powerful and are often underutilized in uncovering the underlying structure of public health issues. But the work that we hold dear must be acknowledged for its power to illuminate macro-level, ecological gaps and failures, such as failing just one homeless teen.
References
Borgatti, S. & Everett, M. (1992). Notions of Position in Social Network Analysis. Sociological Methodology, 1-35.
Rice, E., Barman-Adhikari, A., Milburn, N. & Monro, W. (2012) Position-Specific HIV Risk in a Large Network of Homeless Youths. American Journal Of Public Health. 102(1), 141-147.

A weighted issue of being a “case”

unpublished manuscript
by Michele Battle-Fisher

Emotional Fugue in a Supermodel World: An Autoethnography in Very Free Verse (Battle-Fisher, 2009)
Infidelity and deceit.
Sucralose and high fructose.
Waistlines and bulge.
BMI and IOU’s.
I despise the agony
Though I resign myself.
I want to be healthy.
Emotional entropy.
Psychological centrifuge.
As I run helter-skelter,
My weary heart, once beating
In calm syncopation,
Jumps into arrthymia.
Oops, that’s not a good thing.
No more parasitic love/hate with my weight.
I used to be a string-bean…
Now I am to lust legumes.
Proper recipient of such affection
Is stupifying…elusive.
Hell, I am tired and haven’t been walkin’ long.
Need thirty good minutes.
Guess that I do not need rest.
Not that my waistline is
The circumference of Gibraltar.
I am still shop at Banana Republic,
That bastion of suburban moms
That eat less to gain more.
I try to forget, fake a fugue.
(Saw it done in a movie once.)
To no avail, I merely exist.
Now I live ascetically.
Oh, that’s a psychosis.
Only 10 office visits allowed.
Hope that my DSM obliges.
No more desires.
(Reprinted with permission)

I have struggled with weight for far too long. It has never been a clinically severe obese case, just enough for me to despise the double chin as a foreboding of what could come if I did not change my sinful ways. So I wrote this autoethnography with a feminist and complexity lens in mind (see Vaughn, 2005; Naples & Sachs, 2000). Naples and Sachs (2006) positions a “standpoint” epistemology calls for self-reflection. It is my intention that the employing of autoethnography to give meaning to a social construction of “weight” in light of three (maybe four if you are overzealous with labels) distinct methodological paradigms: the positivist, interpretive and feminist/postcolonial.

As a former size of women’s 4/6 (a post-positivist label), any compounding of that measurement has brought much of the torture. It has been a system that has both physically and emotionally been disordered. This weight system has certainly become ordered since the outcomes have become most predictable. BMI up, weight up, emotions down. Of course, weight management is not that simple physiologically. If you recall the work of Booth-Sweeney, the bathtub analogy was perfect while people (even us so-called educated ones) continue to be highly and predictably imperfect in the ability to understand the stock and flows of even the most simple of systems. In terms of the fractal structure of nested networks (I argue that all social interaction is nested in some fashion), I made choices: to eat, to ignore advice, to remain autonomous. But this autonomy comes with a price, both on me as well as public health. I am a numerator “case” in a case study that I would rather not join. I add to the burden on society as well. What I attempted to do in the poem is to uncover the possible parameters in this emergent system of an expanding waistline. The worse outcomes of a system occur when the emergence die from failing to control the “entropy” or the system becomes frozen in a system of being “stuck” in this unhealthy health pattern.

I was not healthy at size 4/6 however at that weight society left me alone. As a practitioner of health, I fail to have the strength of Atlas to handle the guilt of the extra adipose that I carry now. I know the science. I practice my Vinyasa with honest intention. I dance to “Starmaker”, pretending to rival my idol of childhood, Irene Cara of Fame. The weight is coming off albeit it is still an outward sign of struggles and failures. But what is “knowing”? Health must inherently deal in part with the world outside of the science. We are embodied. But reconciling the “truth” with the “”voice” has not been without its pains (see Strauss & Corbin, 1997). The point of better health is to alleviate somatic pain. What residual that is often left behind is the collateral damage of the self with the diseased body. As my stanzas attempts to convey, there is often a grappling of meaning in trying reconciling the “known truth” of the etiology of weight with the oft overwhelming social pressures of conformity (see Peshken, 1988). Statistics have shown that I am not alone. What could be reviewed is what implications our public health initiatives have on the “whole” of society, employing a more constructionist lens. A rubric of treating disease that is purely positivist is woefully insufficient. But public health deviates from clinical medicine in the sense that now public health is in your home, in your mind with the hopes of paternally people to leading more healthful lifestyles. I find that my own struggle with self-image and weight could serve as an exemplar of how imperfect a patient can be (see Peshkin, 1988, Belensky et al., 1986).

Does it take a paradigm for that to happen? No, a paradigm is only as worthwhile as its popularity and its use by its converts (see Pegues, 2007). If a label of feminist is requested to validate the reassertion of female soma, so be it. If a public health practitioner is seen as having a critical lens, that promoter working with at-risk blacks for HIV see a burden and unmet need. It could be argued whether a label of epistemology were necessary at all. Labels are inherent to a post-positivist lens. Syphilis would not have a mode of treatment if it were not for a scientifically replicated definition of its reality (see Weaver and Olsen, 2006; Lather, 1991). But as Hardy points out (1993), demystifying science without regard for gender or race prolongs the misguiding tradition in science that race is a dispensable variable not worthy of investigation. A discussion of conformity to a Western ideal of health may preclude optimal transmission of health information if the cultural community is left unaccounted for (see Cohen, 1985). But this label does not guarantee a value-added treatment of care.

In the poem, the objectifying of body into a purely somatic entity allows the requirements of pure diagnostics. If it were not for Body Mass Index as mentioned in the authoethnography, there would not be a rubric of “measure more” to ensure that the proper charted course can be taken for my weight management (see Crotty, 1998; Crossley, 1996). But this “takes away” the intricacies of the self that is grappling with the health issue. There would no place in positivism for the ambiguity of self.

This would be counter-intuitive. But my feelings have no structured reasoning. I purport that this blog does not seek to demonize the clinical observation. Patients seek care and “cure” from their health professionals. The doctor must use objective senses to help diagnose (“objects and events”). But in this explanation of care, the body becomes a separate vessel, a possession of a disease that needs to be regained through a reaffirmation of selfhood. But often in this dialectic of doctor-patient, the patient may feel stripped of ability to compromise or perhaps “merge” ideas with the doctor to personalize health. The poem highlights this struggle of “borrowed identity” as patient that goes home to a mirror to be fully reminded of her struggle. The writer is caught in a hermeneutic that is all real by physical reminders and emotional dissonance (Crotty, 1998). Nor do the written words of the poem fully account for my personal rendering of weight and health. As an example of lack of parity in health, Syphilis is not created equal. Ask (if it were possible) the Tuskegee patient who lacked proper antibiotics and died of arsenic poisoning as a treatment of syphilis. His voice would speak a world apart from the accolades placed on The Tuskegee Project by some (see Cose, 1997). But as the positivists would highlight, a part of knowing is in the nomenclature (Crotty, 1998). Being critical may help in leading a researcher in a way of unraveling an issue, but the investment is overall that lives must be positively changed. But often the complex human is the hardest element which with to come to terms. I should have been satisfied with ion channels. They make sense.

When it comes to the issue of the research as predictability through hypothesis testing, a scholar must choose wisely where to stand. If ontology wasn’t the essence of being, then the arguments of truth versus mistruth would be fruitless (see Sipe and Constable, 1996). The doctor “problem solves” the illness. This leaves the social determinants of health to be left often for the patient to make meaning of. For the study of public health, scholars must grapple with balancing a “truth” in occurrence of disease with the unpredictability of the individual; again reliance on a purely quantified positivist isolation of problem will be woefully insufficient. This would require that medicine acknowledge the necessity of a “translation process” to infuse humanity into care. In addition, the “possession of the body” must not lie with the medical community; it must be reclaimed, evidenced by “embracing real life” and “giving (myself) a voice”.

Now the task of finding allegiance in numbers and staking claim to truth appears to be the vogue of scientific inquiry today. From the tangent of post-modernists that propose that truth is based on context to the propositions of knowing as concreteness of the positivist, the fact that the very dialectic of process production still, in my opinion, seeks verification of some linking of theory to a chosen reality. This was not created in a vacuum. My reality is the weight. My lens changes with the wind. But the reality of the event remains. I am not my weight but it still counts.

References
Battle-Fisher, M. (May 10, 2009). Emotional fugue in a supermodel world-autoethnography in
very free verse. [Electronic version]. The Yale Journal of Humanities in Medicine.
Retrieved from http://yjhm.yale.edu/poetry/mbattle-fisher20090510.htm.

Belenky, M. et al. (1986). To the other side of silence. In Women’s ways of
knowing (pp. 3-20). New: Basic Books.

Cohen, A. P. (1985). The Symbolic Construction of Community. London:
Routledge.

Cose, E. (April 21, 1997) “Forgive and Forget?” Newsweek, p.45.

Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (2001). On Personhood: An Anthropological Perspective from
Africa. Social Identities, 7(2), 267-284.

Crossley, M. (1999). Reconceptualising Comparative and International Education.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 29(3), 249.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. London/Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Hatch, J. A. (2006). Qualitative studies in the era of scientifically based research:
musings of a former QSE editor. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education (QSE), 403-407.

Lather, P. (1991) Getting Smart. New York: Routledge,

Naples, N. & Sachs, C. (2000). Standpoint epistemiology and the uses of self-
reflection in feminist ethnography: lessons for rural sociology. Rural
Sociology, 194-214.

Pegues, H. (2007). Of Paradigm Wars: Constructivism, Objectivism, and
Postmodern Stratagem. Educational Forum, 71(4), 316-330.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In Search of Subjectivity–One’s Own. Educational
Researcher, 17(7), 17.

Sipe, L., & Constable, S. (1996). A Chart of Four Contemporary Research
Paradigms: Metaphors for the Modes of Inquiry. Taboo: The Journal of
Culture and Education, 1(Spring), 153-163.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Weaver, K., & Olson, J. K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used for nursing
research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 459-469.