Additional Insights Into Problem Definition and Positioning From Social Science; Comment on “Four Challenges That Global Health Networks Face”

Document Type: Commentary

Author

Department of Health Sciences, Sargent College, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract

Commenting on a recent editorial in this journal which presented four challenges global health networks will have to tackle to be effective, this essay discusses why this type of analysis is important for global health scholars and practitioners, and why it is worth understanding and critically engaging with the complexities behind these challenges. Focusing on the topics of problem definition and positioning, I outline additional insights from social science theory to demonstrate how networks and network researchers can evaluate these processes, and how these processes contribute to better organizing, advocacy, and public health outcomes. This essay also raises multiple questions regarding these processes for future research.

Keywords

Main Subjects


"Watch the Video Summary"

  1. Shiffman J, Smith S. Generation of political priority for global health initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. Lancet. 2007;370(9595):1370-1379. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61579-7
  2. Koon AD, Hawkins B, Mayhew SH. Framing and the health policy process: a scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(6):801-816. doi:10.1093/heapol/czv128
  3. Shiffman J. Four Challenges That Global Health Networks Face. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(4):183-189. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.14
  4. Tosun J. Polycentrism in global health governance scholarship: Comment on “Four challenges that global health networks face.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017; forthcoming. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.64
  5. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Longman; 2003.
  6. Sridhar D, Batniji R. Misfinancing global health: a case for transparency in disbursements and decision making. Lancet. 2008;372(9644):1185-1191. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61485-3  
  7. Kapstein EB, Busby JW. Making markets for merit goods: the political economy of  antiretrovirals. Global Policy. 2010;1(1):75-90. doi:10.1111/j.1758-5899.2009.00012.x   
  8. Acharya A. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):239-275.
  9. Checkel JT. The constructive turn in international relations theory. World Polit. 2011;50(2):324-348. doi:10.1017/S0043887100008133
  10. Cortell AP, Davis JW. When norms clash: international norms, domestic practices, and Japan''s internalisation of the GATT/WTO. Rev Int Stud. 2005;31(1):3-25.
  11. Feinberg M, Willer R. From gulf to bridge: when do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015;41(12):1665-1681. doi:10.1177/0146167215607842
  12. Schneider A, Sidney M. What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Stud J. 2009;37(1):103-119. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00298.x
  13. Dovel K, Yeatman S, Watkins S, Poulin M. Men''s heightened risk of AIDS-related death: the legacy of gendered HIV testing and treatment strategies. Aids. 2015;29(10):1123-1125. doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000000655
  14. Higgins JA, Hoffman S, Dworkin SL. Rethinking gender, heterosexual men, and women''s vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(3):435-445. doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.159723
  15. Poulin M, Dovel K, Watkins SC. Men with money and the “vulnerable women” client category in an AIDS epidemic. World Dev. 2016;85:16-30. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.04.008