Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/23648
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Greenhalgh, T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ozbilgin, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Contandriopoulos, D | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-30T17:19:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-30T17:19:41Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-10-22 | - |
dc.identifier | ORCID iDs: Trisha Greenhalgh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088; Mustafa Özbilgin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8672-9534; Damien Contandriopoulos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0238-8101. | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Greenhalgh, T., Ozbilgin, M. and Contandriopoulos, D. (2021) 'Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19 pandemic' [version 3; peer review: 2 approved. Last updated: 10 JUN 2022], Wellcome Open Research, 6, 126, pp. 1 - 32 . doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16855.3. | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 126 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/23648 | - |
dc.description | Revised -- Amendments from Version 2: Version 3 is the same as version 2 except for some typos pointed out by Reviewer 1 have been corrected. Specifically, after removing one of the four original case studies (from USA), we had omitted to correct "four case studies" to "three case studies" in the abstract, and remove a reference to USA in the text. | - |
dc.description.abstract | Copyright: © 2021 Greenhalgh, T. et al. Background: Scientific and policy bodies’ failure to acknowledge and act on the evidence base for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a timely way is both a mystery and a scandal. In this study, we applied theories from Bourdieu to address the question, “How was a partial and partisan scientific account of SARS-CoV-2 transmission constructed and maintained, leading to widespread imposition of infection control policies which de-emphasised airborne transmission?”. Methods: From one international case study (the World Health Organisation) and three national ones (UK, Canada and Japan), we selected a purposive sample of publicly available texts including scientific evidence summaries, guidelines, policy documents, public announcements, and social media postings. To analyse these, we applied Bourdieusian concepts of field, doxa, scientific capital, illusio, and game-playing. We explored in particular the links between scientific capital, vested interests, and policy influence. Results: Three fields—political, state (policy and regulatory), and scientific—were particularly relevant to our analysis. Political and policy actors at international, national, and regional level aligned—predominantly though not invariably—with medical scientific orthodoxy which promoted the droplet theory of transmission and considered aerosol transmission unproven or of doubtful relevance. This dominant scientific sub-field centred around the clinical discipline of infectious disease control, in which leading actors were hospital clinicians aligned with the evidence-based medicine movement. Aerosol scientists—typically, chemists, and engineers—representing the heterodoxy were systematically excluded from key decision-making networks and committees. Dominant discourses defined these scientists’ ideas and methodologies as weak, their empirical findings as untrustworthy or insignificant, and their contributions to debate as unhelpful. Conclusion: The hegemonic grip of medical infection control discourse remains strong. Exit from the pandemic depends on science and policy finding a way to renegotiate what Bourdieu called the ‘rules of the scientific game’—what counts as evidence, quality, and rigour. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA to TG); National Institute for Health Research (BRC-1215-20008, TG as BRC Theme Lead); ESRC (ES/V010069/1 to TG). | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 - 32 | - |
dc.format.medium | Electronic | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | F1000 Research on behalf of Wellcome Trust | en_US |
dc.relation.isversionof | Wellcome Open Research 2021, 6:126 Last updated: 10 JUN 2022 [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] | - |
dc.rights | Copyright: © 2021 Greenhalgh, T. et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the .Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | - |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | - |
dc.subject | SARS-CoV-2 | en_US |
dc.subject | aerosol transmission | en_US |
dc.subject | Bourdieu | en_US |
dc.subject | illusio | en_US |
dc.subject | orthodoxy | en_US |
dc.subject | symbolic violence | en_US |
dc.subject | evidence-based medicine | en_US |
dc.subject | infection prevention and control | en_US |
dc.title | Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19 pandemic | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16855.3 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Wellcome Open Research | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published online | - |
pubs.volume | 6 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2398-502X | - |
dc.description.version | 3 | - |
dc.rights.holder | Greenhalgh, T. et al. | - |
Appears in Collections: | Brunel Business School Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FullText.pdf | Copyright: © 2021 Greenhalgh, T. et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the .Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | 1.41 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License