I believe that individual risk-taking behavior increases during periods of economic and social disruption (which leads to some well-established health outcomes). I can measure changes in individual bahviour, but how can I link it back to changes in the social environment? I think it must be through individual perceptions of how their economic and social life has changed, but how to measure???
One way to get at social disorder is to use Durkheim's model, which describes how anomie in the social order (a breakdown in order, which can generate normlessness) can produce other changes, such as patterns of behavior. Economic disruption, for instance, can generate anomie both when the economy is accelerating and decelerating. You can look at related measures used in the literature, such as divorce to measure one aspect of social stability/anomie (widely used for example in criminology). Anomie is also linked to suicide in Durkheim's work (see his book, Suicide) and in contemporary studies. You can use institutional anomie theories related to Robert Merton's work 1938) and expanded upon by Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994), and tests of that argument by, for example, Chamlin and Cochran (1995, 2007; see also their work on social altruism, 1997). You don't, in these views, necessarily need to use individual perceptions, since the idea is that aspects of the nature and changes in social order and institutions generate anomie, which can then impact individual's behavior.
Thanks Michael. That's helpful. I really appreciate the references.
Here is the problem I'm working on: in conflict zones, there are changes in the rates of STIs. Some of this has to do with the deployment of lots of young men in areas away from home, and consequent changes in the prevalence of sex work. Some of it has to do with changes in the nature of sex work itself and, in particular, increases in risk-taking behaviour on the part of sex workers. My sense is that the same kind of social instability that sees increases in family disruption or increases in suicide might also lead to a kind of desperation or hopelessness that makes particularly risky behaviours more routine. The reason I wanted a "scale" that measures individual perceptions is because I'd like to be able to separate this effect from the effect of price or income changes for sex workers. It might not be possible to disentangle these effects, because the anomie might work through economic factors. We will interview, but such a scale would still be helpful.
Here's a link to the Council on Foreign Relations' Global Conflict Tracker. You might contact them about metrics.
https://www.cfr.org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/p32137
You might also use a brief crisis intervention assessment tool for measuring individual response to crisis and severity of crisis/ trauma perception. Good luck. Interesting work.
You may already be aware of this report (a purely economic and social capital perspective):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/Stiglitzreport.pdf
This paper offers some guidelines for collecting data which, to me, seem very logical, and its bent is looking at ways research collection escapes confounding the question's (measurement's) [answer] value and or validity.
With what you are looking at there will be several confounding variables given the complexity of relationships, person to self, person to enviorment, and person to other actors in same. Something apparent to me is the difference between environmental change induced behavior and trauma induced, like what is expected of someone who has suffered from some form of short- or long-term PTSD.
I must admit my curiosity as to what constitutes "risk-behavior" in your research proposal. Good luck!!
Paul -- I'm now pillaging "crisis assessment tools". Thanks for the suggestion; maybe I can adapt something.
Jon -- yes, the confounding is significant. This is an international team project so we have several different lenses to look through-- anthropology, economics, sociology, public health. I'm "economics": we have reports that risk-taking behaviour is increasing. (Risk-taking behavior = behaviour more likely to lead to transmission of HIV/HepC, so everything from reduced condom use, through various acts that increase exchange of bodily fluids. Injection drug use and the risk of violence also factor in.) The problem is that these behaviours also pay more. So, are sex workers more likely to engage in risky behavior because it pays better (in a context of declining overall incomes, rising prices and rising unemployment caused by conflict and migration) or because people in general (including sex workers) are less forward-looking and less risk averse in troubled times? Or (most probably) both?That's what I'm trying to disentangle, and that's why it would be great to have a measure of how affected workers perceive themselves to be by the social disorder.
Just re-reading what I wrote: Injection drug use isn't a risky sexual behavior as much as a risky social behaviour; I wonder if I can use it as a proxy for perceived social disorder? There might be other similar behaviours not directly related to the purchase and sale of sex itself.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science