Teaching for Epidemiological Literacy: Description, Prescription, and Critical Thinking

I just completed an article that describes contrasting ideas for a sequence of topics as presented to students in a graduate course on epidemiological literacy. Because it could be the first draft of something more developed, I share the abstract and invite feedback.

This article describes contrasting ideas for a sequence of topics as presented to students in a graduate course on epidemiological literacy. The premise of the pedagogical approach—and by extension, of this contribution to the special edition—is that researchers develop their epidemiological thinking and practice over time through interactions with other researchers who have a variety of in-practice commitments, such as to kinds of cases and methods of analysis, and not simply to a philosophical framework for explanation. In descriptively teasing out what epidemiologists do in practice through a topic-by-topic presentation, I am prescriptively encouraging discussants to draw purposefully from across the range of topics and contrasting positions, and thereby pursue critical thinking in the sense of understanding ideas and practices better when we examine them in relation to alternatives.
The initial topic concerns ways to learn in a community; after that, a number of conceptual steps follow—the characterization of the very phenomena we might be concerned with, the scope and challenges of the field of epidemiology, the formulation of categories—before linking associations, predictions, causes and interventions and examining the confounding of purported links. Building on that basis, the remaining topics consist of issues or angles of analysis related to the complexities of inequalities within and between populations, context, and changes over the life course.
In the course of the description, some assertions about explanation and intervention emerge, notably, that epidemiological-philosophical discussion about causality often leaves unclear or unexamined whether a modifiable factor shown to have been associated with a difference in the data from past observations should be thought of as factor that, when modified, would generate that difference going forward. The article ends with conjectures that concern heterogeneity and the agency of the subjects of epidemiology.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s