In this article we report on collaborative, ethnographic research investigating the first regional tobacco control office in the U.K. and some of the dilemmas it poses. The ideal of collaboration is fully realisable in this setting, where the participants are both eager and qualified to contribute meaningfully to the project. However, the fulfilment of such an ideal poses its own problems. For example, the educational level and professional expertise of some participants allows them to fully engage with the theoretical framework to the extent that they could, if allowed, rewrite manuscripts. Other issues are more subtle, such as how to establish appropriate boundaries between the researcher and the tobacco control office staff. We suggest that the collaborative research model presupposes differentials of power, education and culture between researchers and participants that do not necessarily apply in the case of research in such settings. Where these differentials are lacking, the field is open for dominant participants to assume `undue influence' over the research project. To prevent this, we have reinstated boundaries between object and subject that were originally dissolved as part of the collaborative model. As a result, our project is maintaining a delicate balance between the conflicting aims of objectivity and collaboration.
Dilemmas in an Ethnographic Study of Health Policy Makers
Serena Heckler and Andrew Russell
An Impact Case Study of Anthropological Collaboration in Tobacco Control
Andrew Russell and Sue Lewis
In this article we consider the 'impact case study' (ICS) as a specific kind of document, one which, as part of the U.K.'s Research Excellence Framework (REF), enforces a common template for the description and measurement of the social and economic effects of research in U.K. higher education. We track the development of an ICS describing anthropological research in tobacco control which, after many iterations, was not submitted as part of the REF. We ask 'what is impact?' in cases where anthropological research is based on principles of collaboration and serendipity rather than the mechanistic 'research > translation > impact > measurement' model which an ICS is expected to follow. What is included and what excluded by the strictures of such a model? We are generally supportive of the impact agenda, feeling that university resources and activities have a vital role to play in progressive social change. However, the way 'impact' is recorded, appraised and measured in an ICS only captures a small proportion of the effects of anthropological research, and encourages particular forms of public engagement while discounting others.
Alice H. Cooper and Paulette Kurzer
The puzzle explored in this article is why Germany, in spite of its
superb record in environmental policy and health care, has systematically
thwarted measures to reduce smoking rates. At this point,
thousands of large-scale epidemiological findings demonstrate a relationship
between smoking and disease. Moreover, unlike alcohol,
there is no safe amount of smoking. Cigarettes kill, and smoking is
the single largest source of preventable death in advanced industrialized
states. By various estimates, tobacco kills 500,000 Europeans
per year, including 120,000 Germans. Globally, in the years 2025 to
2030, smoking will kill 7 million people in the developing world and
3 million in the industrialized world. No other consumer product is
as dangerous as tobacco, which kills more people than AIDS, legal
and illegal drugs, road accidents, murder, and suicide combined.
Public Health Knowledge and Smoking Practice
Simone J. Dennis
: Tobacco Research, Tobacco Control Research, Smokers, and Ethnography It is certainly the case that the broadest consequences of anthropological alignment with public health goals are well-known; they have, for instance, been rehearsed particularly