Paper short abstract:

This paper foreground grounds matters of ‘complicity’ in medical anthropological research. Complicity here might take the form of the (perhaps unwitting, potentially unavoidable) reproductions of problematic exclusions, inequalities, or claims that might emerge out of research practice.

Paper long abstract:

In what ways might we as researchers engage in forms of ‘complicity’? The term has anchored a critique of researcher-stakeholder ‘rapport’ (e.g Marcus, 2001). Building on this, we use complicity as an explorative heuristic for thinking through the methodological politics of contemporary social science and humanities research in the broad area of health. Complicity here might take the form of (perhaps unwitting, potentially unavoidable) reproductions of problematic exclusions/inequalities/claims.

In this paper, we think this through with reference to two empirical contexts: (1) in Hollin's work on Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (or, CTE, cumulative damage caused by head trauma), most research is done with sportsmen – predominantly because of the ease of studying this sample. This is as true for ethnographers as epidemiologists, for in the UK it is challenging to secure access to relevant constituencies beyond predominantly male, white sports teams. Does this constitute complicity in, e.g., the erasure of domestic abuse victims within this research domain? (2) in Williams' work at the intersection of race/biomedicine, Black and Minority Ethnicity (BME) activists employ biologically essentialist tropes of race to encourage BME participation in biomedical projects. Whilst sympathies with activists’ political projects might be found, there remains an unease about claims of race’s essential nature. Does silence in the face of these claims amount to complicity in their propagation?

This paper also introduces a forthcoming Sociology of Health and Illness special issue/monograph on methodological complicities, contributors to which are amongst speakers in this panel.

Paper short abstract:

Funders are increasingly expecting researchers to collaborate with stakeholders, including the pharmaceutical industry, raising the danger of complicity. How can social scientists engage in a constructive manner, whilst remaining independent, principled and critical?

Paper long abstract:

The pharmaceutical industry plays a central role in the production of the drugs we use to treat most illnesses. It is immensely powerful and has received sustained attention from sociologists and anthropologists of health and illness who have provided a critique of its influence and unethical behaviour. However, in recent years funders are increasingly expecting researchers to collaborate with stakeholders, including industry. This raises important questions about the possibility of different forms of complicity. This presentation asks: how can social scientists engage with the pharmaceutical industry in a positive and constructive manner, whilst remaining independent, principled and critical? In answering this I will draw on my experience of establishing a major project on high priced drugs for rare diseases and the literature on research collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and responsible research and innovation. This will be used to propose a methodological framework that is based on a SCRIPT, which emphasises Strategic mapping, Careful and critical engagement, ongoing Reflection, maintaining Independence, normative Principles and building Trust. 

Paper short abstract:

This presentation describes the attempt to recruit an ethnically-diverse sample to inform the development of an intervention for stroke patients. The study revealed deep uncertainties and tensions which we use to re-examine our own complicities.

Paper long abstract:

The lack of racial or ethnic diversity in health research participation is a multi-dimensional problem. Racism and intersectional disadvantage compel us to use racial and ethnic categories to explore health, but race theorists warn that these can be essentialising and pathologising. Yet, the alternative, the pursuit of colour-blindness, can render the impact of race and ethnicity on health invisible.

This presentation describes the attempt to recruit an ethnically-diverse sample to inform the development of an intervention for stroke patients. The study revealed deep uncertainties and tensions which we use to re-examine our own complicities. We focus on the experiences of study researchers and participants to show how ‘usual’ research practices are unwittingly exclusionary and promote ‘methodological whiteness’ (Bhambra, 2017b).

Calls for greater diversity in research are frequently made, yet health research remains tainted by the use of problematic epistemological starting points, rendering participation by minoritised people un-easy. Medical sociologists, especially those engaged in clinical trials, have a vital role to play in recalibrating health research to attend to ethnicity and race. This requires us to reflect on our practices, to recognise where we are complicit, and to actively engage with communities to produce more inclusive research.

Paper short abstract:

Drawing on the experience of five scholars in knowledge production on the health and social inequalities experienced by European Roma populations, we explore how we might better account for, and work against, the complex web of dynamic oppressions embedded within processes of knowledge production.

Paper long abstract:

This presentation draws on the experience of five Romani and non-Romani scholars in knowledge production on the health and social inequalities experienced by European Roma populations. Together, we explore how we might better account for, and work against, the complex web of dynamic oppressions embedded within processes of academic knowledge production. Our aim is to encourage careful scrutiny through which scholars might better recognise our own complicity with oppression and identify concrete actions towards transforming our research practices. Drawing on Williams et al.’s (2019) domains of racism typology, we use examples from our own work to illustrate three interconnected domains of oppression in which we have found ourselves entangled (structural, cultural and interpersonal). A new conceptual framework is proposed as an aid to understanding the spectrum of different ‘types’ of complicity (voluntary-involuntary, conscious-unconscious) that one might reproduce across all three domains. We conclude by exploring how scholars might promote a more actively anti-racist research agenda, identifying and challenging subtle, hidden and embedded negative ideologies and practices as well as more obviously oppressive ones. We hope these reflections will help revitalise important conversations.