Analyze

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

"Health care service delivery may be challenging in the post-disaster environment and often requires coordination and cooperation among levels of government, health services programs, schools, media, and community organizations  "

"The first challenge lies in identifying the correct sampling frame, which generally comprises all persons affected by the disaster. The sampling frame may be even more difficult to identify in natural disasters, when the geographic area of impact is larger and less defined."

"The second challenge lies in finding potential participants and completing interviews. Widespread displacement and communication breakdown may make it difficult to reach per- sons who have experienced the disaster, and if they can be reached, they may be consumed with recovery efforts and may not agree to participate in research .  "

"Psychological first aid (PFA) has become the preferred post-disaster intervention, with three goals: Secure survivors’ safety and basic necessities (e.g., food, medical supplies, shelter), which promotes adaptive coping and problem solving; reduce acute stress by addressing post-disaster stressors and providing strategies that may limit stress reactions; and help victims obtain additional resources that may help them cope and regain feelings of control.  "

Since the report was published by the IAEA, which is an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation of nuclear technology worldwide, it can be considered a government report. 

Based off the references, it is clear that a very extensive amount of research was done with well over ~70 references. Based off the bibliography, a lot of data was collected from articles and reports on nuclear safety efforts. Also many of the references analyzed historical events and past nuclear disasters and emergency response regulations. The bibliography, which includes some of her other works shows she is an expert in the field and cited other experts as well. 

Byron Good is a PhD, BD and professor of Medical anthropology. He is a professor in the department of global health and social medicine at Harvard University. He studies psychotic illness, mental health service development and need in post conflict and post tsunami areas. He also analyzes the cultural meaning behind mental illness across the world. He is highly regarded in his field. 

Many studies used as references for this article have to do with the biosocial aspects of diseases. Many of the articles trace the spread of disease in different populations and analyze the population's demographics.  Health care utilization and social aspects are all themes that are seen in most of the references in this study. There are also many epidemiological studies. The dates of studies date back as early as the 80s and as recent as the year the article was written in 2006. This shows an extensive and thorough amount of research. The articles are also taken from reputable sources and journals and written by experts as well, showing a great deal of care and effort gone into research aspects of this article. 

Looking at the references, it is very clear that an extensive amount of work and research went into writing this article. Many of the references are from reputable books on sexual violence and gender based violence and its role in society. Many research articles and studies on gender persecution are cited, as well as works written by other experts in the field on human rights, women rights and sexuality and violence of women are cited. The citations also cover a broad range of time showing depth and span of the information that was used to produce this article.