政治化的突发卫生事件和对医疗救护人员的暴力抵抗

IF 3.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Peace Research Pub Date : 2023-05-21 DOI:10.1177/00223433231158144
Melanie Sauter
{"title":"政治化的突发卫生事件和对医疗救护人员的暴力抵抗","authors":"Melanie Sauter","doi":"10.1177/00223433231158144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"2019 has been the most violent year on record for health workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Attacks on healthcare coincided with the first-ever Ebola outbreak in an active conflict zone. Many of the attacks on the Ebola response were perpetrated by civilians who intended to disrupt the response, which in turn contributed to the spread of the virus. Why would communities attack the very people trying to protect them from disease? This mixed-method study examines the case of violence against Ebola responders during the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s tenth Ebola outbreak from 2018 to 2020. First, an ‘explaining-outcome’ process tracing reconstructs key events that led to the violent resistance of the population. I find that – contrary to popular belief – distrust alone was not the main driver. Rather, I argue that the politicization of the response provoked violent popular resistance. Second, an interrupted time-series model shows that the exclusion of three regions from the presidential election due to Ebola led to a significant increase in attacks on Ebola responders. The analysis demonstrates that the behavior of healthcare responders has limited ability to build trust when other political dynamics are at work. The article illustrates how combining process tracing with quantitative causal inference methods enables the simultaneous inquiry of cause, mechanism, and effect.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Politicized health emergencies and violent resistance against healthcare responders\",\"authors\":\"Melanie Sauter\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00223433231158144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"2019 has been the most violent year on record for health workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Attacks on healthcare coincided with the first-ever Ebola outbreak in an active conflict zone. Many of the attacks on the Ebola response were perpetrated by civilians who intended to disrupt the response, which in turn contributed to the spread of the virus. Why would communities attack the very people trying to protect them from disease? This mixed-method study examines the case of violence against Ebola responders during the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s tenth Ebola outbreak from 2018 to 2020. First, an ‘explaining-outcome’ process tracing reconstructs key events that led to the violent resistance of the population. I find that – contrary to popular belief – distrust alone was not the main driver. Rather, I argue that the politicization of the response provoked violent popular resistance. Second, an interrupted time-series model shows that the exclusion of three regions from the presidential election due to Ebola led to a significant increase in attacks on Ebola responders. The analysis demonstrates that the behavior of healthcare responders has limited ability to build trust when other political dynamics are at work. The article illustrates how combining process tracing with quantitative causal inference methods enables the simultaneous inquiry of cause, mechanism, and effect.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Peace Research\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Peace Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231158144\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Peace Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231158144","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

摘要

2019年是刚果民主共和国卫生工作者有记录以来最暴力的一年。对医疗机构的袭击恰逢埃博拉病毒首次在活跃的冲突地区爆发。针对埃博拉应对工作的许多袭击都是平民所为,他们的目的是破坏应对工作,这反过来又助长了病毒的传播。为什么社区会攻击那些试图保护他们免受疾病侵害的人呢?本混合方法研究调查了2018年至2020年刚果民主共和国第十次埃博拉疫情期间针对埃博拉应对人员的暴力事件。首先,一个“解释-结果”追踪过程重建了导致民众暴力抵抗的关键事件。我发现,与普遍的看法相反,不信任本身并不是主要的驱动因素。相反,我认为,应对措施的政治化引发了民众的暴力反抗。其次,一个中断的时间序列模型显示,由于埃博拉病毒,三个地区被排除在总统选举之外,导致对埃博拉应急人员的袭击显著增加。分析表明,当其他政治动态在工作时,医疗保健响应者的行为建立信任的能力有限。本文阐述了如何将过程追踪与定量因果推理方法相结合,从而同时探究原因、机制和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Politicized health emergencies and violent resistance against healthcare responders
2019 has been the most violent year on record for health workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Attacks on healthcare coincided with the first-ever Ebola outbreak in an active conflict zone. Many of the attacks on the Ebola response were perpetrated by civilians who intended to disrupt the response, which in turn contributed to the spread of the virus. Why would communities attack the very people trying to protect them from disease? This mixed-method study examines the case of violence against Ebola responders during the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s tenth Ebola outbreak from 2018 to 2020. First, an ‘explaining-outcome’ process tracing reconstructs key events that led to the violent resistance of the population. I find that – contrary to popular belief – distrust alone was not the main driver. Rather, I argue that the politicization of the response provoked violent popular resistance. Second, an interrupted time-series model shows that the exclusion of three regions from the presidential election due to Ebola led to a significant increase in attacks on Ebola responders. The analysis demonstrates that the behavior of healthcare responders has limited ability to build trust when other political dynamics are at work. The article illustrates how combining process tracing with quantitative causal inference methods enables the simultaneous inquiry of cause, mechanism, and effect.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Journal of Peace Research is an interdisciplinary and international peer reviewed bimonthly journal of scholarly work in peace research. Edited at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), by an international editorial committee, Journal of Peace Research strives for a global focus on conflict and peacemaking. From its establishment in 1964, authors from over 50 countries have published in JPR. The Journal encourages a wide conception of peace, but focuses on the causes of violence and conflict resolution. Without sacrificing the requirements for theoretical rigour and methodological sophistication, articles directed towards ways and means of peace are favoured.
期刊最新文献
Environmental displacement and political instability: Evidence from Africa Words to unite nations: The complete United Nations General Debate Corpus, 1946–present Friends and partners: Estimating latent affinity networks with the graphical LASSO Demographic features or spatial structures? Unpacking local variation during the 2022 Iranian protests Many hurdles to take: Explaining peacekeepers’ ability to engage in human rights activities
×
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