Ethnographic Methods for Identifying Cultural Concepts of Distress: Developing Reliable and Valid Measures

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Field Methods Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI:10.1177/1525822X221113178
Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, A. Brewis, H. Dengah, W. Dressler, B. Kaiser, B. Kohrt, Emily Mendenhall, Seth Sagstetter, L. Weaver, K. X. Zhao
{"title":"Ethnographic Methods for Identifying Cultural Concepts of Distress: Developing Reliable and Valid Measures","authors":"Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, A. Brewis, H. Dengah, W. Dressler, B. Kaiser, B. Kohrt, Emily Mendenhall, Seth Sagstetter, L. Weaver, K. X. Zhao","doi":"10.1177/1525822X221113178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We review ethnographic methods that allow researchers to assess distress in a culturally sensitive manner. We begin with an overview of standardized biomedical and psychological approaches to assessing distress cross-culturally. We then focus on literature describing the development of reliable and valid culturally sensitive assessment tools that can serve as complements or alternatives to biomedical categories and diagnostic frameworks. The methods we describe are useful in identifying forms of suffering—expressed in culturally salient idioms of distress—that might be misidentified by biomedical classifications. We highlight the utility of a cognitive anthropological theoretical approach for developing measures that attend to local cultural categories of knowledge and experience. Attending to cultural insider perspectives is necessary because expressions of distress, thresholds of tolerance for distress, expectations about stress inherent in life, conceptions of the good life, symptom expression, and modes of help-seeking vary across cultures.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221113178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We review ethnographic methods that allow researchers to assess distress in a culturally sensitive manner. We begin with an overview of standardized biomedical and psychological approaches to assessing distress cross-culturally. We then focus on literature describing the development of reliable and valid culturally sensitive assessment tools that can serve as complements or alternatives to biomedical categories and diagnostic frameworks. The methods we describe are useful in identifying forms of suffering—expressed in culturally salient idioms of distress—that might be misidentified by biomedical classifications. We highlight the utility of a cognitive anthropological theoretical approach for developing measures that attend to local cultural categories of knowledge and experience. Attending to cultural insider perspectives is necessary because expressions of distress, thresholds of tolerance for distress, expectations about stress inherent in life, conceptions of the good life, symptom expression, and modes of help-seeking vary across cultures.
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
识别遇险文化概念的民族志方法:制定可靠有效的措施
我们回顾了民族志方法,使研究人员能够以文化敏感的方式评估痛苦。我们首先概述了跨文化评估痛苦的标准化生物医学和心理学方法。然后,我们重点关注描述可靠有效的文化敏感评估工具开发的文献,这些工具可以作为生物医学类别和诊断框架的补充或替代品。我们描述的方法有助于识别痛苦的形式——用文化上显著的痛苦习语来表达——这些痛苦可能会被生物医学分类错误识别。我们强调了认知人类学理论方法在制定关注当地文化知识和经验类别的措施方面的效用。关注文化内部视角是必要的,因为不同文化对痛苦的表达、对痛苦的容忍阈值、对生活中固有压力的期望、美好生活的概念、症状表达和寻求帮助的模式各不相同。
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
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting What predicts willingness to participate in a follow-up panel study among respondents to a national web/mail survey? Invited Review: Collecting Data through Dyadic Interviews: A Systematic Review Offering Web Response as a Refusal Conversion Technique in a Mixed-mode Survey Network of Categories: A Method to Aggregate Egocentric Network Survey Data into a Whole Network Structure
×
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