John Brett

The Center for Human Development in Guatemala: An Innovative Model for Global Population Health

Edwin J. Asturias, MD, Gretchen Heinrichs, MD, DTMH, Gretchen Domek, MD, MPhil, John Brett, PhD, Elizabeth Shick, DDS, MPH, Maureen Cunningham, MD, MPH, Sheana Bull, PhD, Marco Celada, MD, Lee S. Newman, MD, MA, Liliana Tenney, MPH, Lyndsay Krisher, MPH, Claudia Luna-Asturias, MSW, Kelly McConnell, MD, Stephen Berman, MD* Center for Global Health, Colorado School of Public Health Partners with Children’s Hospital Colorado, 13199 E. Montview Boulevard, Campus Box A090, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13123 E. 16th Avenue, Campus Box B065, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E. 17th Place, Campus Box C290, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; Department of Anthropology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Colorado-Denver, PO Box 173364, Campus Box 103, Denver, CO 80217, USA; School of Dental Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 13065 E. 17th Avenue, Campus Box F833, Aurora, CO 80045, USA; Center for Health, Work & Environment, Colorado School of Public Health, 13001 E. 17th Place, Campus Box B186, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

The Political-Economics of Developing Markets versus Satisfying Food Needs

This article argues that the conflicting nature of international food aid policy and economic development maximally benefits wealthy countries at the cost of reduced access to nutrient rich foods in developing countries. A Bolivia case example is used to examine the consequences of international food aid policy that favors the disposal of excess commodity products in poor countries in the name of “food aid” and economically liberal trade policies that favor shifting highly nutritious local products to wealthy countries in the name of “economic development.” Bolivia has been a major recipient of U.S. food aid, much of it in the form of surplus wheat which makes up a large portion of the vast quantities of white bread upon which the poor subsist. The heavy subsidization of wheat flour ensures a steady supply of calories to a population burdened by endemic, crushing poverty. Quinoa, sometimes called the “miracle grain of the Andes” because of its superior nutritional content and ability to grow in cold, high-altitude regions, has been developed into a major export crop generating much needed hard currency and income for peasant farmers. This success on international markets has resulted in steep local price increases resulting in a highly nutritious traditional food source becoming largely unavailable to the majority of the population.

Book Review: Rapid Qualitative Inquiry: A Field Guide to Team-Based Assessment, by Beebe, J.

James Beebe’s (2001) first book-length treatment of what he called then the Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) was an early and important contribution to what was emerging, to use Penn Handwerker’s (2001) phrase, “Quick Ethnography.” The idea that high-quality ethnographic research could be successfully executed without the increasingly rare, and often inappropriate, long-term fieldwork was being explored in ever more detail as more and more anthropologically trained practitioners were working outside of traditional academic settings. Beebe’s shift from RAP to Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) reflects both a reconceptualization and refinement of the earlier perspective based on extensive use and reflection by him and the many practitioners who published their RAP/RQI findings and reflections. The core features that set this approach apart from “qualitative research” and traditional ethnography are:

Book Reviews: Rapid Qualitative Inquiry: A Field Guide to Team-Based Assessment

James Beebe’s (2001) first book-length treatment of what he called then the Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) was an early and important contribution to what was emerging, to use Penn Handwerker’s (2001) phrase, “Quick Ethnography.” The idea that high-quality ethnographic research could be successfully executed without the increasingly rare, and often inappropriate, long-term fieldwork was being explored in ever more detail as more and more anthropologically trained practitioners were working outside of traditional academic settings. Beebe’s shift from RAP to Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) reflects both a reconceptualization and refinement of the earlier perspective based on extensive use and reflection by him and the many practitioners who published their RAP/RQI findings and reflections. The core features that set this approach apart from “qualitative research” and traditional ethnography are:

Introduction: The Public Interest and the American Food Enterprise: Anthropological Policy Insights

Inequality in the control over agri-food systems is widely recognized and much discussed as a particularly insidious form of injustice (Albritton 2009; Patel 2008; People’s Food Sovereignty 2009). This special issue posits that much of this inequality is rooted in power asymmetries in the U.S. food system and codified through U.S. agriculture and food policies (Barrett and Maxwell 2005). Commercial trade and foreign aid policies that favor transnational firms and certain constituencies within donor countries place many people in poor countries at greater risk of food insecurity, malnutrition, and reduced control over their food supply. U.S. domestic food and farm policies not only contribute to these problems abroad but exacerbate or, at best, fail to alleviate them at home. Without redress, the existing imbalances bias the allocation of food and food-producing resources in favor of the wealthy, exploits the natural environment for short-term gain of private interests over long-term public interests, deflects moral challenges posed by human rights to food, and defines the terms of discourse of food and food deprivation in ways that increase the risk of malnutrition and poor health. Although legally and discursively access to food is emerging world-over as a basic human right (Golay 2009), in practice, food is more commonly framed as simply another commodity, as witnessed by the recent debates around using food crops in fuel production, innocuously labled as “biofuels,” in the name of “energy independence.” The denial of food’s special, essential status ultimately weakens local control of food production and consumption in ways destructive of bio-cultural and ecological equilibriums that tend to protect nutritional status, livelihoods, and the environment.

Book Review: Karen O’Reilly Key Concepts in Ethnography London: Sage 2008. 240 pp.

can serve to help them better understand a participant’s world. This attention to the emotionally embodied researcher adds another dimension to critical examination of how researcher subjectivity influences how data are collected and interpreted. The book distinguishes itself as based on interviews with 30 researchers of varying levels of experience. These findings are used to support existing arguments rather than offering a source for in-depth exploration of issues. Unlike a title that concentrates on exploring the findings of an empirical study, there is no comprehensive description of research methodology, leaving details such as the sample derivation, their gender, and exactly what sensitive topics they studied undisclosed. I would have found the latter helpful when reading the extracts quoted, which appear without descriptors throughout. An indication of the researcher’s experience, topic of study, and possibly gender could have helped to contextualize narratives and avoid confusion about whether a group of quotes belonged to the same person or many. Although the book professes to cater to experienced academics, its structure and content are likely to best meet the needs of new researchers. Those with considerable experience of sensitive research might expect a more complex and nuanced exploration of the challenges of this work. For instance, readers are advised that “sensitive researchers need to be vigilant in ensuring that the results of the research are not used in such a way that further stigmatizes or marginalizes the group under study” (p. 29). In my experience, researchers often don’t have the luxury of such control, especially when there is media interest in their work. Teasing out some of these complexities and troubling the concept of “research ownership” would advance the limits of this discussion. Similarly, the important issue of researcher disclosure did not examine some of the problems inherent in this approach. The authors describe how “researcher self-disclosure was often reported by the researchers we interviewed with the hope of somehow creating a ‘level playing field’ for participants” (p. 88). It might be argued that the notion that self-disclosure makes researchers’ identity/beliefs and practices transparent does not take account of the complexity of our identities. Some researchers also note how their attempts to build rapport through self-disclosure worked counterproductively by further alienating participants who did not appreciate this approach (Abell, Locke, Condor, Gibson, & Stevenson, 2006). As it is uniquely tailored to the health and social sciences and offers a concise introduction to important issues in the field, this book has much to offer those newly embarking on sensitive research. I plan to use it as a research supervisor of students undertaking sensitive research and in undergraduate research methods courses that I teach. My reason for doing so is captured by the authors in their concluding comments: “The importance of continuing high-quality qualitative research on sensitive topics is paramount to the success of health and social sciences research into the future” (p. 125). This book provides students with conceptual and practical resources toward this end.

108.00. ISBN 978-1412928656

Flagler, Joel and Raymond P. Poincelot, eds. People‐Plant Relationships: Setting Research Priorities. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press, 1994. xix + 444 pp. including index.

Ethnobotany and horticulture: Two fields with more in common than plants

49.95 cloth. Etkin, Nina L., ed. Eating on the Wild Side: The Pharmacologic, Ecologic, and Social Implications of Using Noncultigens. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1994. viii + 305 pp. including indices.

Barriers to hospital births: why do many Bolivian women give birth at home?

40.00 cloth.