Background

​

Social sciences have long contributed to the critical understanding of health inequalities; yet insights from social sciences remain marginalised in the field of public health (Powell et al. 2024). Social theories and method – critical to investigate power in the context of health inequalities – are often deemed too abstract or ‘academic’ by many public health practitioners, researchers, and policy makers (Powell et al. 2024). Most still prefer descriptive qualitative work and neglect conceptual development through interpretive analysis, an approach that focuses on identifying shared meanings in participants’ responses over shared topics of discussion to generate themes (Braun & Clarke, 2024). This marginalisation of interpretive analysis further contributes to a culture of under-conceptualised qualitative health research (Broom, 2021; Sheard, 2022), further maintaining a cycle of epistemic injustice, in which diverse ways of knowing and producing knowledges remain oppressed by dominant groups that have the power to decide research agenda and topics (Bhakuni & Abimbola, 2021).

​

The ‘participatory turn’ in public health has contributed to the efforts of bringing diverse knowledges through the participation of communities (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006). However, as participatory research becomes the standard practice, there remains an under-explored question of how interpretive analysis has evolved in this context. Key to this question is to examine the different elements of interpretive analysis, such as the understanding of ‘concept’ and ‘theory’ (Broom, 2021; Sheard, 2022), in the context of power dynamic between and within academia, communities, and other research stakeholders. This begs even more pertinent questions: whose interpretations matter? How do researchers, communities, and other research stakeholders negotiate different interpretations?

In this free one-day symposium, Bradford Centre for Qualitative Research (BCQR) invites multidisciplinary researchers and practitioners in the health and social care sectors to reflect on the contemporary state of interpretive analysis in public health. Hosted at Bradford Arts Centre (previously Kala Sangam), this symposium presents a carefully curated case studies to understand how interpretive analysis manifests and evolves in the context of partnerships between researchers, communities (including families), and service providers. The range of case studies featured in this symposium, from hyperlocal to cross national research projects, from food support to the involvement of children with disabilities in health care decision making, further showcases critical and innovative approaches to interpretive analysis that the social sciences have brought into public health.

​

References:

​

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662

 

Bhakuni, H., & Abimbola, S. (2021). Epistemic injustice in academic global health. The Lancet Global Health, 9(10): e1465-e1470. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00301-6

​

Braun V & Clarke V. (2024) Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine. 38(6):608-616. doi:10.1177/02692163241234800

​​

Broom A. (2021) Conceptualizing Qualitative Data. Qualitative Health Research. 31(10):1767-1770. doi:10.1177/10497323211024951

​

Powell K, Fox N, Bhanbhro S, et al. (2024) Sociologists in public health: Perspectives in Public Health. 144(2):72-74. doi:10.1177/17579139231204245

​

Powell, K., et al. (2024). Sociologists in public health: marginal observers or mainstream collaborators? Perspectives in Public Health,144(2):72-74. doi:10.1177/17579139231204245

​

Sheard, L. (2022). Telling a story or reporting the facts? Interpretation and description in the qualitative analysis of applied health research data: A documentary analysis of peer review reports. SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 100166. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100166

 

​

​