‘Yeah, this one will be a good one’, or Tacit knowledge, prophylaxis and the border: Exploring everyday health security decisionmaking

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Dialogue Pub Date : 2022-03-03 DOI:10.1177/09670106211066750
Adam Ferhani
{"title":"‘Yeah, this one will be a good one’, or Tacit knowledge, prophylaxis and the border: Exploring everyday health security decisionmaking","authors":"Adam Ferhani","doi":"10.1177/09670106211066750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Approaching health security from a practice-theoretical perspective, this article advances our understanding of the everyday and locality in health security decisionmaking, and is guided by the following two questions: How is it determined when a health security threat is likely to be present at a point of entry? What knowledge informs everyday health security decisions at borders? Markedly little is known about health security decisionmaking, though conventional wisdom tells us that health security decisions are based on stringent processes and – importantly – anchored in epidemiological knowledge. The assumed primacy of epidemiological knowledge in health security decisionmaking is well illustrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: evidence-based responses emerged globally following sophisticated epidemiologic investigation. Are health security decisions always rooted in epidemiology? A 12-month period of non-participant observation of Port Health Officers – who, under the auspices of the 2005 International Health Regulations, are responsible for numerous prophylactic measures at the UK border – gives a unique, privileged entry point for understanding the health security decisionmaking process and tells a story that both questions the centrality of epidemiology and foregrounds the role of tacit knowledge and intuition in health security decisionmaking. This article, which draws on insights from the science and technology studies literature on tacit knowledge, shows how observed health risk taxonomies and corollary decisions in prophylactic border security are predicated almost exclusively on hunches and ‘just knowing’ that something ‘doesn’t feel right’.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"497 - 514"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211066750","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Approaching health security from a practice-theoretical perspective, this article advances our understanding of the everyday and locality in health security decisionmaking, and is guided by the following two questions: How is it determined when a health security threat is likely to be present at a point of entry? What knowledge informs everyday health security decisions at borders? Markedly little is known about health security decisionmaking, though conventional wisdom tells us that health security decisions are based on stringent processes and – importantly – anchored in epidemiological knowledge. The assumed primacy of epidemiological knowledge in health security decisionmaking is well illustrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: evidence-based responses emerged globally following sophisticated epidemiologic investigation. Are health security decisions always rooted in epidemiology? A 12-month period of non-participant observation of Port Health Officers – who, under the auspices of the 2005 International Health Regulations, are responsible for numerous prophylactic measures at the UK border – gives a unique, privileged entry point for understanding the health security decisionmaking process and tells a story that both questions the centrality of epidemiology and foregrounds the role of tacit knowledge and intuition in health security decisionmaking. This article, which draws on insights from the science and technology studies literature on tacit knowledge, shows how observed health risk taxonomies and corollary decisions in prophylactic border security are predicated almost exclusively on hunches and ‘just knowing’ that something ‘doesn’t feel right’.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“是的,这将是一个很好的”,或者隐性知识,预防和边界:探索日常健康安全决策
本文从实践和理论的角度探讨了健康安全问题,促进了我们对健康安全决策中的日常性和地方性的理解,并以以下两个问题为指导:如何确定入境点何时可能存在健康安全威胁?哪些知识为边境的日常卫生安全决策提供信息?显然,人们对卫生安全决策知之甚少,尽管传统智慧告诉我们,卫生安全决策基于严格的流程,重要的是,以流行病学知识为基础。严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型疫情很好地说明了流行病学知识在卫生安全决策中的首要地位:经过复杂的流行病学调查,全球出现了循证应对措施。卫生安全决策总是植根于流行病学吗?港口卫生官员在2005年《国际卫生条例》的主持下,负责英国边境的许多预防措施,对他们进行为期12个月的非参与者观察,理解卫生安全决策过程的特权切入点,告诉了一个既质疑流行病学的中心地位,又强调隐性知识和直觉在卫生安全决策中的作用的故事。这篇文章借鉴了科学和技术研究文献中关于隐性知识的见解,展示了在预防性边境安全中观察到的健康风险分类法和推论决策几乎完全是基于预感和“仅仅知道”某些事情“感觉不对劲”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Security Dialogue
Security Dialogue INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Security Dialogue is a fully peer-reviewed and highly ranked international bi-monthly journal that seeks to combine contemporary theoretical analysis with challenges to public policy across a wide ranging field of security studies. Security Dialogue seeks to revisit and recast the concept of security through new approaches and methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Qualifying deportation: How police translation of 'dangerous foreign criminals' led to expansive deportation practices in Spain. Insecurity, deportability and authority ‘My body is my piece of land’: Indebted deportation among undocumented migrant sex workers from Thailand and Nigeria in Europe ‘Women helping women’: Deploying gender in US counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Everyday security and the newspaper obituary: Reproducing and contesting terrorism discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1