Perspectives on the social sciences in global animal health governance: A qualitative study of experts

IF 2.2 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Dorien H. Braam , Salome A. Bukachi , Diego Leiva , Alex Tasker , Lisa Boden , Kevin Bardosh
{"title":"Perspectives on the social sciences in global animal health governance: A qualitative study of experts","authors":"Dorien H. Braam ,&nbsp;Salome A. Bukachi ,&nbsp;Diego Leiva ,&nbsp;Alex Tasker ,&nbsp;Lisa Boden ,&nbsp;Kevin Bardosh","doi":"10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A global discourse continues to emphasize the importance of integrating the social sciences into health governance and systems research, including in the global animal health sector. By comparison to human health, however, it is unclear how far this discourse has changed institutional practices in animal health and what opportunities exist to strengthen this integration. We conducted a qualitative study to address these knowledge gaps, based on 29 semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with experts involved in the global governance of animal health and biosecurity across five regions between November 2022 and June 2023. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse results, which were triangulated with findings from primary and secondary data sources. We divide our analysis into three sections: 1) governance landscape; 3) prioritization; and 3) the role of social science. First, we found that KII consider the global animal health governance landscape shaped by five main actor networks who operate under different institutional norms and mandates: international organizations, bilateral donors, the private sector, national governments, and regional organizations. Informants believed that bilateral donors have disproportionate levels of control and influence; national governments struggle with realistic fiscal planning; engaging the private sector remains challenging; international organizations exhibit tensions in their conflicting mandates; and regional organizations need to be more involved. Second, we found that the key priorities of the actor networks were influenced by core uncertainties and tensions. This included different narratives about risk and methods of risk assessment; conflicting values between health and economic development; and capacity scale problems between global and local networks. The field is perceived to be dominated by the global health security agenda and international trade, and disproportionately focused on pandemic threats. Third, we found that barriers to the integration of social science included disciplinary boundaries, given the dominance of the veterinary sciences; the preponderance of instrumentalized goals; and structural conditions that limited opportunities for knowledge translation. Overall, we found that while the social sciences are increasingly part of a global discourse improving global animal health governance and systems, their current application appears to be of limited range and effectiveness. Coordinated investment in truly interdisciplinary networks, with sufficient disciplinary independence, may help address these problems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20413,"journal":{"name":"Preventive veterinary medicine","volume":"238 ","pages":"Article 106474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventive veterinary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587725000595","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A global discourse continues to emphasize the importance of integrating the social sciences into health governance and systems research, including in the global animal health sector. By comparison to human health, however, it is unclear how far this discourse has changed institutional practices in animal health and what opportunities exist to strengthen this integration. We conducted a qualitative study to address these knowledge gaps, based on 29 semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with experts involved in the global governance of animal health and biosecurity across five regions between November 2022 and June 2023. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse results, which were triangulated with findings from primary and secondary data sources. We divide our analysis into three sections: 1) governance landscape; 3) prioritization; and 3) the role of social science. First, we found that KII consider the global animal health governance landscape shaped by five main actor networks who operate under different institutional norms and mandates: international organizations, bilateral donors, the private sector, national governments, and regional organizations. Informants believed that bilateral donors have disproportionate levels of control and influence; national governments struggle with realistic fiscal planning; engaging the private sector remains challenging; international organizations exhibit tensions in their conflicting mandates; and regional organizations need to be more involved. Second, we found that the key priorities of the actor networks were influenced by core uncertainties and tensions. This included different narratives about risk and methods of risk assessment; conflicting values between health and economic development; and capacity scale problems between global and local networks. The field is perceived to be dominated by the global health security agenda and international trade, and disproportionately focused on pandemic threats. Third, we found that barriers to the integration of social science included disciplinary boundaries, given the dominance of the veterinary sciences; the preponderance of instrumentalized goals; and structural conditions that limited opportunities for knowledge translation. Overall, we found that while the social sciences are increasingly part of a global discourse improving global animal health governance and systems, their current application appears to be of limited range and effectiveness. Coordinated investment in truly interdisciplinary networks, with sufficient disciplinary independence, may help address these problems.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Preventive veterinary medicine
Preventive veterinary medicine 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
184
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Preventive Veterinary Medicine is one of the leading international resources for scientific reports on animal health programs and preventive veterinary medicine. The journal follows the guidelines for standardizing and strengthening the reporting of biomedical research which are available from the CONSORT, MOOSE, PRISMA, REFLECT, STARD, and STROBE statements. The journal focuses on: Epidemiology of health events relevant to domestic and wild animals; Economic impacts of epidemic and endemic animal and zoonotic diseases; Latest methods and approaches in veterinary epidemiology; Disease and infection control or eradication measures; The "One Health" concept and the relationships between veterinary medicine, human health, animal-production systems, and the environment; Development of new techniques in surveillance systems and diagnosis; Evaluation and control of diseases in animal populations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信