|
African Health Sciences
Makerere University Medical School
ISSN: 1680-6905 EISSN: 1729-0503
Vol. 10, Num. 3, 2010, pp. 390-394
|
African Health Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 4, December, 2010, pp. 390-394
Practice Points
"Basically a house of experts: the production of World
Health Organization information"
*Tara Das
Stiteler Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104
*Correspondence author: Tara Das,
Independent Scholar,
Stiteler Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
19104,
tara.das@gmail.com
Code Number: hs10071
Abstract
Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) is widely regarded
as the preeminent international authority on
health and scientific matters. Its information mandate is a powerful one,
for it enables the WHO to construct issues as
legitimate ones for concern that should be addressed in particular ways.
Methods: Intensive interviewing of WHO staff was used to elicit writing
and editing processes. Approximately 25 people
were interviewed repeatedly from year 2004 to 2005 using the snowball sampling
method.
Results: A core staff in headquarters dominates the selection of topics,
writing and editing activities. The authority of
senior management in headquarters emerges as more significant than that of
country leaders and representatives.
Discussion: In contrast to sister UN agencies, WHO staff prioritize
collaboration and input from science and health
researchers over that of UN colleagues and its internal editors. Senior management
participation ensures stability in WHO
information over time and adherence to the WHO scientific mandate across
documents.
Key Words: HIV, AIDS, WHO, UN, information, publications
Introduction
International organizations disseminate vast amounts of
information via research, writing, and publishing activities.
These processes, in presenting social problems and
solutions in particular ways, influence country policy
debates and agenda settings. This study focuses on the
World Health Organization (WHO), because it is
internationally recognized as an expert house of scientists
and physicians. Their statistics, reference manuals, and
policy recommendations are widely cited and utilized by
physicians, political officials, researchers, and NGOs.
However, the organizational processes, by which WHO
health and scientific documents are produced, have been
little examined. This study does so, with a focus on HIV/
AIDS documents published by WHO.
The respect given to WHO and its HIV/AIDS
information can be demonstrated with a few illustrations.
For instance, in Uganda, the Association of the Promotion
of Traditional Medicine (Prometra) was created in order to
heighten the legitimacy of traditional HIV/AIDS treatment
and to develop collaboration between modern and
traditional medical research. It has been dispensing
Metrafaids for treating AIDS since the early 1990s, which,
Prometra claims, has proven effective with no adverse side
effects. Underscoring the authority of WHO, Prometra's chairman Dr. Yahaya
Sekagya has cited WHO policies in
justifying administration of herbal HIV/AIDS drugs.
"When challenged on how Prometra can administer
Metrafaids, without conducting safety and efficacious
scientific research needed of every drug, Sekagya said the
World Health Organisation (WHO) had relaxed certain
conditions for traditional medicines"1. In Kenya as well,
the WHO is referenced in discussions over the use of
traditional medicine to treat HIV/AIDS. The Kenyan
government has urged researchers and scientists to carry
out tests on investigational drugs according to specified
WHO procedures. For example, Fares Kuindwa, Secretary
to the Cabinet, cautioned, the government would continue
to support and encourage local initiatives in the global effort
to find a cure for AIDS. He urged scientists and researchers
to strictly observe professional ethics while carrying out
these tests as specified by the ministry of health and the
World Health Organization2.
The WHO is widely regarded as the preeminent
international authority on health and scientific matters. This
point means that the research and writing activities that go
into WHO documents and publications warrant further
investigation. The UN-wide information mandate is a
powerful one, for it enables WHO and other
international organizations to construct issues as
legitimate ones for concern that should be addressed
in particular ways. A literature in sociology on social
problems has elaborated on this theme3,4,5,6. Broadly
speaking, certain conditions are identified as social
problems with particular characteristics, not due to their intrinsic nature,
but via actor-imposed frames,
which impose meaning and guide action.
In sociology, Snow and Benford were
instrumental in the mid-1980s in extending
Goffman's frame analysis to social movement
organizations in discerning how cognitive processes,
identity formation, and culture are of influence in
protest activities7. Frames are "schemata of
interpretation" that imbue experiences and events
with specific meaning for individuals and groups.
Frames are neither arbitrary nor neutral. Rather, they
are cognitive guides or structures, which indicate what
is important to observe, and by directing attention
away from other possible interpretations, indicate
what is unimportant. Frames aid in interpreting
phenomena by defining the problem that requires
redress, identifying its causative factors, and
suggesting reforms and policies in accordance. With
the use of frames, people are able " 'to locate,
perceive, identify, and label' occurrences within their
life space and the world at large" 8.
Among the international organizations that
have been at the forefront in addressing HIV/AIDS
are the WHO, UNAIDS, and the World Bank. The
WHO, with its Global Program on AIDS in 1986,
took the initial lead in constructing an international
response to HIV/AIDS once it became evident that
the disease was not confined to wealthy, industrialized
countries. However, with its mandate being
exclusively health and science-related, and other UN
agencies clamoring for responsibility, UNAIDS, a
joint agency created in 1996, was established in order
to better coordinate international actions. The World
Bank, the lead financier for HIV/AIDS projects,
began focusing its efforts in 1992.
Each of these organizations has constructed
in-depth arguments that center on their organizational
mandate: WHO - epidemiology; UNAIDS -
human rights; and the World Bank - socioeconomic
development. Yet they also all touch upon
epidemiology of HIV/AIDS; the threat to
development; the need to reduce poverty and elevate
the economic and legal status of women to counter
epidemics; prevention over treatment; and the need
for political commitment. Language and
representations utilized by groups and organizations
are thus meant to persuade and generate collective
beliefs and identities, which are necessary before
mobilization can ensue. This study investigates how
such language and representations are developed at
the WHO by examining its writing and publishing activities, and the attitudes
of those who engage in
them.
Methods
This study is qualitative, anthropological, and
exploratory in design, since the issue of how UN
organizations write and edit scientific publications
has been little investigated. The questions were openended
and intended as guides for subjects in their
explanations of processes. These questions included
asking - Who selected topics for publication? Who
was primarily responsible for writing (e.g. consultants
or permanent staff)? Who gave final approval for
publications? The subjects were senior staff, initially
identified by the WHO information center and
subsequently via snowball sampling, who were
directly involved in writing and production of
publications. Approximately 25 people were
interviewed repeatedly from year 2004 to 2005. The
objective was to identify the key parties and the
decision-making protocols involved in the
production of WHO information.
Results
WHO Institutional Setting
The WHO is the UN specialized agency for health,
and was created in 1948. Its constitutional mandate
is to ensure the highest possible level of physical and
mental health in people worldwide, which is integral
to achieving peace and security. The WHO is largely
staffed by about 3500 scientists, doctors, and other
health professionals with approximately 75 in the
HIV department. It is a normative agency that sets
standards and benchmarks for public health, and
provides policy and technical guidelines to be used
by health systems around the world. Staff in the
WHO regards the provision of normative and
technical guidance on scientific, medical, and health
related issues as one of their primary missions. Thus,
writing and publishing guidelines are considered
priority activities.
Christine* (all names have been changed), a WHO
and UNAIDS freelance writer, remembers her
experiences in editing and writing early WHO
documents during its Global Program on AIDS in
the 1980s.
I've been writing for a very long time. I
started as a freelance writer in 1983. I wrote
to someone at WHO and started editing
several publications like the World Health
Forum. It was pretty turgid stuff. I had to turn
it into readable...Then in the mid-80s, I started writing for them...The chief
publications
lady in
AIDS was a very good friend of mine. I got more
and more experience in AIDS...In the early 1990s,
I wrote on AIDS and HIV for the general public.
At that stage, [WHO] had lots of technical
documents but nothing for the general reader. I
worked on that.
However, this editing process was discovered to be too
time consuming for the central Office of Publications, and
the office was dissolved upon a review of
documentation procedures. Theresa, senior technical
editor, relates, "An increasing amount of funding
was being available to technical units, which were
not part of the regular WHO budget. They were
increasingly available to do their own documentation.
The official channel got bypassed. Get it out, get it
out, get it out. The result was that they [documents]
were at variance with house style." Ayana, her former
colleague, simply states, "The responsibility for
publications is to individual clusters. They assumed
all responsibility, including editing and following
manuscripts through."
When later interviewing scientists and
physicians in the HIV department, I discovered that
freelance writers are frequently hired to do the formal
writing, yet do so in consultation with the scientists
who are responsible for the research and
administering the particular document. The editorial
staff provide less input than was previously the case.
This information was not immediately offered to
me; it emerged when I asked interviewees to guide
me through a step by step process of making a
document. Yet it explains the strongly scientific and
technical bent of WHO publications.
Publishing from the HIV/AIDS physician and
scientist perspective
There is little direct communication between scientists
who originate HIV/AIDS documents and editorial
staff. Communication is mediated through the HIV
information center. The WHO HIV information
center coordinates interactions between the HIV
departments and technical editors, and sends
publications for design layout and printing. Jennifer,
the HIV/AIDS information documentation assistant,
articulates, "Editors don't engage in direct
consultation with the group. They will forward
questions to the technical director, but they don't
interact directly. They go through me. I hire technical
editors and writers." Despite the emphasis on style
from the WHO in-house editorial staff, there are
some scientists who are contrary.
In illustration, Mark, head of the testing and
counseling team within the WHO prevention team,
frankly admits, "When I was head of UNAIDS in
India, I published anyway I liked and pretended that
I lost the style guide." Paulo, a physician in the Sexually
Transmitted Infections (STI) focus group, says, "I
have an in-built aversion to the style guide. It's often
quite boring but I see the advantage to having
corporate style." Nonetheless, when asked about
their hiring requirements for freelance writers and
editors, it is expected that the latter will have read
publications by the WHO as well as by other UN
agencies. Chiara, a medical scientist on the HIV
prevention team, tells, "All departments have a list
of writers, editors, technical editors. We work with
external writers that we know have experience writing
about HIV, who have familiarity with HIV and the
WHO approach and style, and WHO views on these
issues." Raoul, a physician on the care team, affirms,
"Writers and editors read publications by other
agencies, definitely."
Nevertheless, interactions with international
medicine and science experts are considered more
important. Bharati, who works in HIV
communication and provides media releases on the
3 by 5 initiative3 million to have HIV treatment by
2005] avers, "It can become pretty arcane. The levels
of technical specialty are often exquisite. The medical
officers go to people who will give good input."
Within the cluster, the selection of topics is based on
the latest advances in scientific, technological, and
pharmaceutical research about HIV/AIDS. When I
ask how topics are chosen for HIV/AIDS
documents, Mark provides a lengthy response.
I can't speak for other departments. WHO
fulfills a number of functions. Its mandate
is to improve the health of countries, which
means that in many ways, it's uniquely tasked
with providing the normative guidance for
ministries of health around the world, that
use that as a gold standard for developing
own policies. In HIV/AIDS, all of the teams
will determine the priorities for insuring that
departments of health have the necessary
information to make the most of the latest
advances in research about HIV/AIDS.
As a result, it is imperative to respond to proven
interventions and scientific advances. Chiara, who is
also part of the prevention team, offers one example.
"We know that the use of rapid tests is vastly
preferable to laboratory-based methods. Being aware
of that, and that countries don't have policies on use of rapid tests, we
agreed that we should give the
world information about rapid tests. We were
responding to advances in sciences and imperatives
of the 3 by 5 program."
Nevertheless, topics also emerge based on
country experiences. Mildred, a medical officer who
works in the country support team, focuses more
on interactions with country representatives than with
international experts. She describes her responsibilities
in terms of publishing as the following. "The country
support team comprises people who liaise directly
with countries. We are the mouthpiece of countries
and regional offices and coordinate activities at the
country level. I'm in touch with country officers on
a daily basis so I quickly learn what countries need
to plan better." Paulo, in the STI focus group,
corroborates, "Another WHO major mission is to
give country support. To adjust or create a specific
guideline, regional and country representatives can
be contacted. We might suggest someone to go over
from headquarters to help." Still Mildred makes sure
to say that on the country support team, "We know
the kinds of information to give to countries, but
we still require international consensus so that advice
on policies and procedures is suitable." Thus while
WHO medical staff acknowledge diverse countrylevel
experiences, they give greater weight in their
documents to scientific expert findings. Hence it is
easier for WHO information to remain consistent
over time and across documents.
Mandate awareness and collaboration
UN-wide norms of collaboration and consultation
necessitate staff to be versed in the mandate of their
specific organization as well as those of sister agencies,
so that they know over which aspects of
international issues they can claim ownership. WHO
staff are very clear on which issues are under their
domain. Carlos, who works on the 3 by 5 initiative,
relates, ?We want to establish global guidelines. That
is the primary mission of WHO.? Likewise, Paulo,
in the STI focus group, says, ?WHO?s mandate is to
improve the health of countries, which means that
in many ways, it?s uniquely tasked with providing the
normative guidance for ministries of health around
the world.? After querying what the staff member?s
duties included, how topics were chosen, and what
kinds of editing concerns did s/he have, I would
mention how I was struck by the similarity in
language and arguments made in later publications
by WHO, UNAIDS, and the World Bank. It is here
that several staff members would assert the necessity for freelance writers
to be well-read in UN-wide
publications, particularly those relevant to the topic
at hand. Collaboration on international documents
may be more likely with HIV/AIDS, which is now
encouraged through the creation of UNAIDS, a joint
UN agency that consists of co-sponsoring sister
agencies. Nonetheless, in contrast to staff of sister
UN organizations, WHO staff are more likely to
collaborate with their science and health colleagues
than other UN staff. As Mark asserts in the below
quote, WHO staff will seek input from UN
organizations, but that will not always happen as staff
regard the WHO as basically a house of experts.
We go to a lot of trouble to make sure that
our sister agencies have their say on specific
publications. If we didn?t, the publications
would lack authority. It's a very important
part of the production process, but it's
notgoing to happen with all the agencies all
the time. In all areas of technical specialism
- WHO is basically a house of experts, some
in pretty arcane fields - all of us are technical
focal points and have partner focal points
in major agencies. [I interject and ask what a
focal point is.] I know who is responsible
for testing and counseling in all the major
organizations and go straight to that person.
Our areas overlap.
Discussion
The WHO is widely regarded as the preeminent
international authority on health and scientific matters.
Hence WHO research and writing activities warrant
further investigation. The intensive interviewing
elucidates observations, about the production of
WHO documents and publications. A core staff in
headquarters dominates the selection of topics,
writing and editing activities. Despite there being
editorial staff at WHO, it is the scientific and technical
staff who dominate these activities. Moreover, several
officials communicate the participation and input
from country representatives, particularly in selection
of topics. However when they delve into further
detail, sometimes delineating the origins of specific
publications, the authority of senior management in
headquarters emerges as more significant than that
of country leaders and representatives. The presence
of WHO editors and use of UN-experienced
freelance writers account for similarity in WHO
publications with those of sister UN agencies.
However WHO scientific staff prioritize collaboration with science
and health researchers over
UN colleagues, which underscores WHO
independence from other UN agencies. Senior
management participation also ensures stability in
WHO information over time and adherence to the
WHO scientific mandate across documents.
References
- Bakyawa J. Ugandan Healers Plead Their Case
in Nairobi. The Monitor. September 30, 2003.
- The East African. New Cure or Old Story? The
East African. March 11, 1996.
- Best J, ed. Images of Issues: Typifying
Contemporary Social Problems. New York:
Aldine De Gruyter. 1989.
- Holstein JA, Miller G, eds. Reconsidering Social
Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems
Theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 1993.
- Holstein JA, Miller G, eds. Challenges and
Choices: Constructionist Perspectives on Social
Problems. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 2003.
- Spector M, Kitsuse JI. Constructing
Social
Problems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers. 1987.
- Snow DA, Benford RD, et al. Frame Alignment
Processes, Micro-mobilization and Movement
Participation. American Sociological Review August
1986;51: 464-481.
Copyright 2010 - African Health Sciences
|