Reflections on a field across time and space: the emergent medical and health humanities in South Africa

Interdisciplinary co-teaching as a sustainable model for health humanities pedagogy

Academics and students from marginalised identities encounter challenges and barriers at all levels of participation in the settler colonial university, in both practices of teaching and learning. While this observation holds true for courses in the health humanities, their unique interdisciplinary position and context creates space for challenging dominant norms in society and in academia. In this paper, we describe our experiences as two black and queer graduate students developing and co-teaching an online interdisciplinary course, 'Race and Medicine'. The idea for co-teaching originated as a means of ensuring continuity and sustainability in the course (AvB was expecting her first child and contending with the possibility of unplanned preterm birth) and emerged into what we suggest, in line with the transformative pedagogical theory of bell hooks, was a micro-scale transgressive learning community. We argue that our co-teaching partnership facilitated practices of revealing, mitigating and disrupting oppressive structures in the white heteropatriarchal academy, in addition to offering unique learning opportunities for students. The intersections of difference and similarity between our disciplinary, professional and social identities transformed and enhanced the types of conversations and learning activities we held with the class and were a feature of the course which was rated highly in evaluations. We conclude by suggesting co-teaching as a possible model of sustainable pedagogy for the health humanities, one that is especially valuable for racialised graduate students who are developing professional identities as instructors and exploring careers in the health humanities. In addition to facilitating interdisciplinary student learning, co-teaching and the subsequent formation of micro-scale transgressive learning communities challenges the dominant power structures of the academy by making space for teaching and learning in the contexts of solidarity, care and sustainability.

Authorship in the Medical Humanities: Breaking Cross-field Boundaries or Maintaining Disciplinary Divides?

PURPOSE

Medical humanities is a field which implies collaborative work across disciplines although the degree to which this actually occurs is unknown. Our purpose was to determine the degree of joint work in medical humanities through analysis of authorship and acknowledgements in the two main medical humanities journals.

METHODS

Observational survey of authorship. We studied authorship data in all papers published in the two major general medical humanities journals between 2009 and 2018 (n=595).

RESULTS

Two-thirds of papers (67.4%) had single authors, of whom a majority declared a single disciplinary affiliation (70.3%). The titles of 60.8% of papers explicitly suggested collaborative content of which 19.9% had multiple authors from more than one discipline (not within the same school); of the remainder, almost half (48.1%) had a single, single-disciplinary author (although 8.5% demonstrated interdisciplinarity in the acknowledgements). One-third of papers (193/595;33%) referenced one or more people in the acknowledgements. Among papers whose titles suggested humanities or medical content only, authorship lists of 10.2% and 17.9% respectively demonstrated collaborative scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable involvement from both humanities and medical practitioners, there is still substantial scope for enhanced emphasis on collaborative (multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary) seminars and exchanges in the medical humanities and editorial policies to promote transparency of the nature of collaborative work among disciplines. Journal editors and editorial boards should reflect on the opportunity to promote enhanced visibility of joint work in scholarship in the medical humanities through reflection and review of current editorial policies.

Biomedicine and the humanities: growing pains

In this article, we discuss the challenges facing humanities researchers approaching studies in clinical and community health settings. This crossing of disciplines has arguably been less often explored in the countries we discuss-Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa-but our experiences also speak to broader trouble with disciplinary 'ethnocentrism' that hampers the development of knowledge. After a brief contextualising overview of the structures within our universities that separate or link the humanities, medicine and social science, we use case studies of our experiences as an arts researcher, an anthropologist and a historian to draw attention to the methodological clashes that can hobble research between one disciplinary area and another, whether this manifests in the process of applying for ethical clearance or a professional wariness between healthcare practitioners and humanities scholars in health spaces. We argue overall for the great potential of humanities in the health 'space'-as well as the need for improved dialogue between the disciplines to bring a diverse community of knowledge to bear on our understandings of experiences of health. And we suggest the need for a robust awareness of our own positions in relation to medicine, as humanities scholars, as well as a patient persistence on both sides of the humanities-health science equation to create a broader and ultimately more effective research system.

Challenging perceptions of disciplinary divide: an ethnographer's experience of collegiality, collaboration and crisis

Warned by social scientists about 'the disciplinary divide' and the hostility of medical professionals to qualitative research, I was pleasantly surprised by the collegiality I experienced while conducting fieldwork among clinician-researchers in South Africa. This commentary is a challenge to common discourse, historically dominant in a global (north) anthropology, that biomedical practitioners are necessarily antagonistic to the humanities. Drawing on my field experiences, I propose an optimistic outlook for collaboration and inclusivity in developing medical and health humanities in Africa. While conducting anthropological fieldwork among doctors producing medical research, I gained access to elite professional spaces, even presenting anthropological work in medical research forums. I established relationships with leading figures in various clinical departments and research institutes. There were, unsurprisingly, times when I had to rigorously defend my methodology. I had to revise my methodological knowledge including on quantitative methods to explain varying epistemologies to both sympathetic and doubtful medical colleagues. But, I was often treated as a fellow researcher, a colleague. Some clinician-researchers accepted me as having different, valuable expertise to analyse human complexity and proposed opportunities for possible collaboration. I argue that these clinicians appreciated this expertise because of their pervasive perceptions of crisis in healthcare and an awareness of the complexities of biomedicine in an African context of social heterogeneity, medical pluralism and legacies of social injustice. These concerns around crisis and complexity may be points of leverage for expanding interdisciplinary collaboration and facilitating access to research sites and research forums.