Search

In the XX century, especially after WWII, a great number of ethnic Macedonians have migrated to Australia and the US, while recently, after the 1991 dissolution of Yugoslavia, the direction of the migration influx has changed its course mainly towards Europe. While the first diaspora community was motivated by economic reasons drawing rural and urban citizens alike in pursuit of better life, the second wave of migration was led by political circumstances pushing mostly young educated people who failed to envisage decent life in the homeland. Hence there is a reason to believe that the two communities have different views and feelings of their homeland that underpin their construction of it. To identify the types of ‘Macedonia’ constructed by these two communities of migrants, and trace similarities and differences, this study will analyze on-line discourses on Macedonia produced by the members of the two diasporas. In so doing, we will be particularly interested in the meanings, attitudes, feelings and images the two communities ascribe to the homeland through the on-line interaction on their FB pages.

Background DIALOG+ is a resource-oriented and evidence-based intervention to improve quality of life and reduce mental distress. While it has been extensively studied in mental health care, there is little evidence for how to use it in primary care settings for patients with chronic physical conditions. Considering that DIALOG+ is used in existing routine patient-clinician meetings and is very low cost, it may have the potential to help large numbers of patients with chronic physical conditions, mental distress and poor quality of life who are treated in primary care. This is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where resources for specialised services for such patients are scarce or non-existent. Methods An exploratory non-controlled trial will be conducted to primarily assess the feasibility and acceptability and, secondarily, outcomes of delivering DIALOG+ to patients with chronic physical conditions and poor quality of life in primary care settings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda. Thirty patients in each country will receive DIALOG+ up to three times in monthly meetings over a 3-month period. Feasibility will be assessed by determining the extent to which the intervention is implemented as planned. Experiences will be captured in interviews and focus groups with care providers and participants to understand acceptability. Quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression, objective social situation and health status will be assessed at baseline and again after the three-session intervention. Discussion This study will inform our understanding of the extent to which DIALOG+ may be used in the routine care of patients with chronic physical conditions in different primary care settings. The findings of this exploratory trial can inform the design of future full randomised controlled trials of DIALOG+ in primary care settings in LMICs. Trial registration All studies were registered prospectively (on 02/12/2020 for Uganda and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 01/12/2020 for Colombia) within the ISRCTN Registry. ISRCTN17003451 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), ISRCTN14018729 (Colombia) and ISRCTN50335796 (Uganda). Protocol version and date: v2.0; 28/07/2020 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), v0.3 02/08/2020 (Colombia) and v1.0, 05/11/2020 (Uganda).

The past few decades have been marked by an increasing discussion on the role of dialogue in anthropology, especially following the anthropological turn of the 80s, when the discipline was looked upon as one “writing a culture” rather than understanding it from the insider’s perspective, while the ethnographer was thought of as the epistemic dictator, incapable of establishing a dialogical relation with his subjects of inquiry. The power relationship was indeed one of the most prominent problems in creating an equal, dialogical setting between the anthropologist and the other culture. This paper aims at revisiting feminist anthropology tracing the elements which constituted it, its original inspiration, and main motifs of action mostly gathered around the strong male bias of the discipline. This bias was predominantly manifested in the monological, androcentric understanding and exploration of cultures. In tracing these aspects, and acknowledging the more egalitarian status of this discipline since its early days versus other social sciences (Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict were among the most prominent women anthropologists), the paper will look at early women anthropologists works some of which were excluded from the canon. It will also point to the existence of strong male bias in ethnography and the discipline as a whole, thus triggering the emergence of feminist anthropology with its capacity for reflexivity and accountability in ethnographic work.