Obvious disclaimer that the National Geographic Society is a US-based organization, and, in the past, has had viewpoints that very much “favored” the West.
I am not a newbie to Prolific by any means - been using the platform regularly for 3+ years. Just today, I was completing a screener for this study. It ended abruptly, and it was immediately rejected by Prolific for “speeding”. Give me a break 🙄
I was a medical anthropology grad student around 2010 (started a PhD-track program, but unceremoniously “discontinued studies” after the first semester), and lately I’ve found myself looking back at some of the concepts, readings, and frameworks we discussed and wondering how the field views them now.
At the time, ideas like cultural competency, social determinants of health, maternal-child health, global health interventions, health disparities, culture-bound syndromes, health belief models, “vulnerable populations,” and structural violence felt very central to the discipline.
I’m curious from people currently in the field:
Which of these concepts are still considered foundational?
Which have been significantly challenged, revised, or fallen out of favor?
Are there concepts from that era that are now seen as overly simplistic, paternalistic, or too focused on “culture as explanation” rather than structural inequality?
What frameworks or ways of thinking have become much more central since then?