Search

This special issue of Anthropology in Action presents a collection of articles that reflect on and analyse the role of social science in epidemic response. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed deep social and economic inequalities within and across countries which produce unequal COVID-19 outcomes. Researchers have long noted the connections between socioeconomic inequalities and infections, and there is growing recognition that epidemics are also social and political events (Bardosh et al. 2020). Anthropological and other social science research has contributed to epidemic response, through attention to cultural and politico-economic context, reframing community ‘resistance’, bolstering community engagement in preparedness and response, and informing response activities, including risk communication (Abramowitz 2017; Bardosh et al. 2020). Despite this, much of the work has been ad hoc and not systematically integrated into the systems of epidemic response, with the exception of the Centres d’Analyses des Sciences Sociales (CASS) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This special issue is timely, in that it builds on foundational work in social science and epidemic response, draws on tensions and experience from recent epidemics including COVID-19 and Ebola, and charts a way forward at both a theoretical and a practical level.

In epidemic preparedness and response, it is now commonly accepted that insights from social science disciplines are important in shaping action. Unfortunately, the role of social science is often confined to risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) efforts. In this article, we propose an analytical framework that would allow researchers and practitioners from different disciplines to employ social science insights to enrich their understanding of epidemics and formulate more effective and sustainable responses. The framework goes beyond simply unpacking social, political, economic and cultural dimensions of context; it situates disease itself – as it is shaped by the contexts in which it circulates – and views it in dynamic relation to response. It also explores how different individuals, social groups and institutions shift their knowledge and practices during an epidemic through power-laden processes of dialogue and learning, or even through silencing and side-lining. It is our hope that this framework will enable responders to engage more deeply and systematically with the contexts of emergencies, so as to ensure activities are more adaptive to local dynamics.