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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Field Methods Multiple-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

5.90%

发文量

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.