5
Interdisciplinary research focusing on the intersection of human, animal and environmental health has risen to prominence in response to a range of issues articulated in the preceding chapters.
An editorial in Nature stressed that the ‘best interdisciplinary science comes from the realization that there are pressing questions or problems that cannot be adequately addressed by people from just one discipline’. It also emphasised that interdisciplinary research takes longer than conventional projects, making it more expensive in time and money. It takes time for all involved to become confident that colleagues from other disciplines use equal academic rigour, even if the methods in rival fields seem alien. When interdisciplinary research deals with problems associated with the lives and livelihoods of communities, the challenge of removing disciplinary hierarchies between researchers is just the first step. The researchers are also confronted by the need to acknowledge the importance of community knowledge, perspectives and priorities and so break down perceived hierarchies between ‘researchers’ and those who are ‘researched’.
The first part of this chapter gives a brief introduction to the foundational concepts of social research – its epistemology and methods – and highlights the central influence that gender plays in research. The remainder of the chapter is composed of four examples, small case studies, of mixed research methods in the context of applied planetary health research. The case studies provide insight into how interdisciplinary research is tackling some of the world’s most significant and complex problems and sharing lessons learned along the way.
This section is a short primer on social research for natural scientists. It discusses social research in the context of planetary health initiatives. Social research is taken to include social sciences (such as anthropology, political science, and sociology) and humanities (such as history, cultural studies, media studies, and legal scholarship), as well as qualitative methods undertaken in the context of health research and the natural sciences.
It is important to note that social research is not synonymous with qualitative research. Not all social research is qualitative, just as not all natural science research is quantitative. Very broadly speaking, qualitative research is enquiry primarily conducted at the level of individuals, while quantitative research focuses on aggregates. There is quantitative social research (the predominant method in economics, also extensively used in psychology, sociology and human geography) and there are qualitative methods in the natural sciences (e.g. in descriptive studies of animal behaviour or plant forms).
What makes social research distinct, unsurprisingly, is its focus on the social: interactions between people within a specific context. These interactions are complex and occur in multiple registers at once (e.g. the briefest greeting between two people simultaneously relies on registers of speech, body language, historic memory, shared assumptions and emotion). Any attempt to understand, interpret, predict or react to human behaviour must account for this complexity, both in method and analysis. The importance of context obliges social scientists to work with other disciplines and to account for factors such as environment, religion, class, education and so on.
There is a long tradition of social research into health. One of the first and most insightful proponents of social science in medical research was pathologist Rudolph Virchow. A pioneer of pathology and public health, Virchow worked both as a physician and a social scientist. In his study of the spread of disease in 19th-century Europe, Virchow recognised that virological and social factors worked in tandem to propagate disease. Living conditions, workplace exposures, food and hygiene practices, social interactions – all have a role to play in the spread of disease. Pathogenicity is a factor both of biological virulence and social condition. This is encapsulated in Virchow’s famous dictum: ‘medicine is a social science’.
From the late 19th century through to the mid-20th century, rapid advances in the sciences enabled vast strides against infectious disease and malnutrition. Developments in parasitology, virology, dietetics, botany, engineering and other disciplines led to rapid progress in sanitation, agriculture, nutrition, and human and animal medicine. Public enthusiasm for science was echoed in government funding for bold, visionary scientific enterprise. The hope of scientific solutions to age-old scourges temporarily eclipsed the role of social factors in health behaviour. Vaccines promised to wipe out polio, measles, mumps and rubella, while effective prophylaxis contained malaria.
However, the late 20th century and early years of the new millennium brought a renewed focus on the role of social factors in health. Attempts at disease eradication faltered, not on scientific grounds, but social and political ones. International vaccination campaigns were damaged by inadequate health infrastructure, corruption and deeply rooted historical suspicions. It might be tempting to think such rejections are characteristic of remote regions at the periphery of globalisation, yet the rise of anti-vaccination movements in Euro-America demonstrates this is not the case. Social research can help explain how and why such phenomena emerge.
Social and natural research share some fundamental similarities in how they view the world. However, there are also philosophical differences. It is important to be aware of these similarities and differences in order to correctly read and interpret the results of social research. Most social researchers and natural scientists share the same basic starting points for understanding the material world: we are individuals, endowed with consciousness (a sense of self) able to act upon and be acted upon by an external world. The external world is apprehended through the senses, can be interpreted, and inferences drawn from past experience. This is a theory of being (an ontology) that allows the possibility of empirical research: knowledge derived from observation and experience (for a more detailed comparison of ontology in the natural and social sciences, see Moon and Blackman 2014).
With some degree of empiricism as a common starting point, social research and the natural sciences may diverge in their conception of method, verifiability and the nature of evidence itself. The vast majority of social researchers will argue that pure observer neutrality and objectivity are impossible – more so when the object of study is human social interaction. They will maintain, however, that rigorous empirical accounts of human behaviour are nevertheless epistemologically reliable and valid. Pure objectivity may be impossible, but well-reasoned, logical interpretations from empirical observation represent a robust form of evidence.
Quantitative social research uses mathematical and statistical methods familiar to the natural sciences, while methods of qualitative social research include document analysis, interview, survey and observation. Qualitative evidence, among other forms, may be documentary (e.g. archival studies of history), oral (such as information solicited from interview), or observational (noted from direct observation of a practice or behaviour). In each case, the researcher is the primary research instrument: evidence is collected by and filtered through the critical faculties of the researcher. Qualitative researchers must be highly disciplined, alert to the possibility of error, bias or misreading. This means much social research is interpretative in character, meaning that, despite rigorous observation and analysis, it remains up to the individual researcher, and the peer community, to draw meaning out of the data. This motivates the scepticism of some natural scientists that qualitative research is inherently subjective and therefore biased. However, qualitative research can provide deep and well-contextualised insight that is impossible to capture with quantitative approaches. Qualitative research can in some cases integrate quantitative information to help describe the local context and compare or contrast it to findings in other settings. Often in these cases a large amount of quantitative information can be collected.
Social research must take account of a wide variety of influences, and this changes the nature and generalisability of the conclusions. Individual human behaviour cannot be isolated from social relations, biology or the environment. Further, social research is often performed in some degree of open setting – public spaces, workplaces or the home – where random or confounding influences cannot be isolated or controlled for. Quantitative social research attempts to smooth some of these differences through the use of aggregates, and can make reasonably definitive statements about the general composition or characteristics of a given population. However, it is more difficult to draw inferences about individuals; there are no laws of society that parallel the laws of physics. Thus, social research generally yields insight rather than certainty.
One of the foundational social research insights of the last 50 years is the central importance that positionality – the inescapable perspective of one’s gender, age, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation – plays in research findings in both the natural and the social sciences. For example, when arriving in a community to carry out a research survey, it is not uncommon to have a group of male researchers and enumerators introduced to the male local authorities and male resource persons. Such research is often conducted at the level of households, and usually the research team takes extreme care to ensure that the selection of the households is statistically random and representative of the area. This, it is believed, makes the data representative of the reality of the area under survey. Yet most studies still interview the head of the household without analysing the consequences of this choice. As a result, researchers end up interviewing a majority of male informants.
This is clearly problematic. In most countries (industrialised and industrialising) men and women do not have access to the same resources. Women still carry out most of the unpaid work such as caring for children, the sick and the old. They produce, keep and prepare the food. They work longer hours than men and get little benefit from this extra effort. On the contrary, they have fewer economic resources and less access to decision making than men (World Economic Forum).1 At the household level, women eat less nutritious food, such as meat, than their male partner.
Women are more likely to be among the malnourished as a result of pregnancy and breastfeeding and because of unequal distribution of resources in society and within the household. Discriminatory access to input, knowledge, land, credit, technologies, innovation, markets, etc., and unequal intra-household decision-making power all serve to exacerbate gender inequalities and vulnerability. This means that men and women do not have the same position, do not have the same views of the world they live in and do not have the same needs. Socioeconomic reasons, sociocultural attitudes, and group and class-based obligations influence men and women’s roles, responsibilities and decision-making functions. Cultural beliefs and practices limit women’s mobility, social contact, access to resources, and the types of activities they can pursue. Institutional arrangements can also create and reinforce gender-based constraints or, conversely, foster an environment in which gender disparities can be reduced. Risks and vulnerabilities, many of which are gendered, create poverty.
All these aspects affect the way women and men are impacted by disease and their environment. It also influences their ability to adapt; to adopt new measures, for example, to scale-up agricultural production or participate in community decision-making.
Thus, it is clear how the notion of a single household head introduces a gender bias and supports the idea that leadership is a male privilege. It assumes that when there is a couple, the man is designated as the head, no matter the degree to which responsibilities are shared within the household. It assumes that there is a need to have a head, that the head is a single person, that decisions cannot be taken by two or more persons, that the head represents and works in the best interest of the household. These unspoken assumptions do not conform to observed reality. On the contrary, focusing enquiry on a single head of household is highly problematic. Many women around the world have fought, and continue to fight, to give women domestic equality by changing national constitutions, family law or the definition of head of household. For example, in Mozambique after years of struggle by women, academics and civil society, the New Family Law (2004) defined that men and women act together as head of the household and have the same rights and obligation to ensure the wellbeing of the household. In the same way that women have managed to change it in law in some jurisdictions, it is important as researchers that we change it in our practices. In reality, what is called in research ‘male-headed household’ should be ‘male- and female-headed household’ or ‘joint-headed household’.
Box 5.1: Key recommendations to ensure more accurate gender representation in research
Ensuring consideration of both male and female points of view is both a human right and a practical development issue. For researchers, it is incumbent to ensure that data collected represent some of the 51 per cent of women in the world. Addressing gender issues is both holistic and transdisciplinary. It offers a unique transversal lens through which to understand EcoHealth, One Health and Planetary Health. Gender is an essential element to be addressed if these unifying paradigms are to realise their potentials.
The remainder of this chapter explores ways in which interdisciplinary methods can be used to gain insight on problems of central importance to planetary health. The first example explores infectious disease through the lens of One Health, and illustrates how historical and evolutionary approaches can complement our biological understanding of disease.
The second case study gives an example of interdisciplinary applied research, with the goal of bettering livelihoods for rural cocoa-growing farmers in Sulawesi, Indonesia, and Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. The third case study examines the gendered impacts of avian influenza on poor rural households in Indonesia. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to understanding how power dynamics influence experience, identity and livelihoods. This topic is further explored in Chapter 10. The final case study highlights the importance of enrolling communities as partners in interdisciplinary research when tackling issues intimately associated with their lives and livelihoods.
The medical discipline of infectious diseases concerns itself with the causes of cellular dysfunction resulting from infection by another living organism or virus. Following the medical community’s acceptance of the germ theory of disease in the early 20th century it took the field nearly a century to appreciate that most human infectious diseases have an animal or environmental origin. Pathogens that are able to infect humans, but have their major reservoir in an animal host are called zoonoses. It is now recognised that the transition from a predominantly animal to a predominantly human pathogen is a dynamic two-way process and that a variety of organisms have different levels of host-specific adaptation. This led to a greater appreciation of the need to study the interrelationship between humans and their environment, including wild, domestic or companion animals. A recent example of the devastating effect that a new pathogen can have on the human population is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type-1, which evolved from the simian immune deficiency virus affecting chimpanzees in central Africa. Other examples include the largest ever outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa in 2013–16 and the notorious influenza pandemic of 1917–18.
Tuberculosis remains the top infectious disease killer on the planet, responsible for nearly 1.5 million premature deaths in 2015. Described as ‘the captain of all these men of death’ , tuberculosis was considered to be the archetypical example of an animal disease that became adapted to the human host. However, with the advancement of genome sequencing and detailed evolutionary analysis it became apparent that Mycobacterium tuberculosis has ancient origins and that humans are probably the primary reservoir of the ancestral M. tuberculosis complex. It remains intriguing to consider how a relatively harmless environmental mycobacterium could evolve to become a major pathogen and why humans became the primary reservoir. Of all species on the planet only Homo sapiens have successfully controlled fire. The available evidence suggests that this created the environmental niche necessary for M. tuberculosis to evolve and flourish as a respiratory pathogen. Excessive smoke exposure in cave dwellings and poorly ventilated built shelters may have increased vulnerability through lung and airway inflammation. The cooking of food and the ability to manipulate the environment with fire increased human population density, while campfires also increased socialisation and close human interaction. All of these changes created the environment for a respiratory pathogen to evolve and sustain epidemic spread through aerosol transmission.
The example of tuberculosis illustrates how the human species has been able to influence its environment to such as degree that it creates new ecological niches for pathogens to fill. It provides a prescient example that environmental manipulation may bring benefits, which the taming of fire undoubtedly did, but it also exposes us to new risks. Recent environmental changes provide major opportunities for pathogens to emerge and spread. These changes include a dramatic increase in human population density, reduced genetic diversity among domesticated animals and plants, intensified farming practices, as well as our global connectedness through trade and travel. Wildlife and plant habitats are threatened by increased deforestation and expanded agriculture, resulting in more frequent interaction of wild species with domesticated animals and rural villagers. Human-induced ecosystem changes may disrupt ecological pyramids or introduce new species without natural predators, resulting in uncontrolled multiplication of lower level organisms.
Such a changed environment requires new ways of thinking and more sophisticated tools to predict risk and rapidly respond to outbreaks. It also requires a far deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of things, since all life on the planet ultimately depends on a functional ecosystem. Maintaining the integrity of ecological systems may provide the best form of disease prevention. This would require multidisciplinary teams who can assess a whole variety of risks from an ecosystem perspective using complex systems analyses. A vertical silo-approach has supported great gains in HIV care and malaria control, but narrowly focusing on single disease entities has fractured integrated primary care and may blind us to emerging threats and unintended social or environmental consequences. Sustaining life on our small blue planet, where ‘health’ is ultimately dependent on life-sustaining ecosystem services, requires careful assessment of ecological impacts with detailed risk mapping to identify key priorities for infectious disease prevention.
While the impacts of agriculture on food quality, nutrition and environmental and human health (‘agri-health’) are widely recognised, health also affects the capacity of smallholder farmers to increase productivity and alleviate poverty. Poor health and nutrition trap smallholder farmers in cycles of poverty, as they are unable to implement changes that improve crop yields and income. Poverty, in turn, limits their access to improved nutrition and healthcare.
Cocoa farming is a valuable source of income in many wet tropical countries. Well-managed cocoa trees have the potential to yield several tonnes of dry beans per hectare but the global average yield for smallholder producers remains around 300 kg/ha. Yields remain low because of a combination of poor crop, soil and water management, inadequate infrastructure, inefficient supply chains, financial constraints, pest and disease losses, the inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilisers, unsafe food storage, and low returns to labour.
Technologies to reduce crop losses and increase cocoa yields, based around regular weekly pod harvesting, canopy pruning, sanitation and fertiliser application, have been demonstrated to cocoa farmers in many countries. An analysis of the benefits to labour in Vanuatu showed that investing 52 extra hours of labour per month to improve the management of smallholder cocoa crops increased yields by 238 per cent and gave a return to labour of 150 per cent.
Despite this investment in farmer training, yields remain at low levels because, while farmers are conscious of the potential benefits, they choose not to invest in increasing cocoa yields. Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa shows that poor adoption may result from the lack of a clear economic incentive because of global cocoa price uncertainty, pest and disease losses, climate uncertainty, poor infrastructure, inadequate technical and financial support, and the limited availability of labour. Our research in PNG and Indonesia shows that the wealthiest smallholder cocoa farmer families are well educated, have diversified incomes and have good health.
The limited pool of labour prioritises food gathering and customary obligations, and is further depleted by the migration of youth to urban centres for education and employment, by alternative employment opportunities, and is constrained by poor health and nutrition. If farmers suffer physical or mental illness, or if they have to take their children to clinics and hospitals and are absent for extended periods, they may be unable to apply essential crop management interventions. In many areas of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea these factors have encouraged farmers to shift to lower-input but less rewarding crops such as oil palm and maize.
Understanding how malnutrition and ill health compound labour shortages would facilitate the development of strategies to holistically address rural poverty. Technologies and communication networks could be tailored to better engage women and youth, foster entrepreneurship, address limited capital availability, and improve health. Such approaches require closely integrating agricultural, health and community interventions from the early planning stages. In two current projects, interdisciplinary teams, including agricultural scientists, health and nutrition researchers, community development specialists, entrepreneurship trainers, marketing experts and human geographers, work together with farmers and stakeholders to identify and address key constraints. The core proposition in this approach is that higher yields of cocoa beans can be achieved when farm families make moderate progress with more intensified management, including rehabilitation of existing cocoa, replanting with improved genotypes, improved cocoa agronomy, soil management and integrated pest and disease management. Whole family extension approaches supporting intensified cocoa production releases land for supplementary activities generating incomes for women and youth – including food crops and small livestock – that lead to diversified incomes and improved nutritional outcomes. Furthermore, implementing better fermentation and drying procedures will produce higher quality beans that will, when linked through more efficient value chains to niche markets, return significantly higher prices.
A suite of projects aim to diversify and improve the sustainability and profitability of cocoa-based farming, develop opportunities for women and youth, understand the opportunities for improved community health and nutrition, foster innovation and community enterprise development, and strengthen cocoa value chains. Project elements include support to communities by trained primary crop, livestock and healthcare advisers using mobile technologies and apps to access wider expertise. This initiative entails deep engagement with farming communities, particularly women and youth, who are involved in the design, inception and implementation of the project. Communities will be enabled to celebrate their achievements in annual chocolate festivals.
The first outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 (HPAI) in Indonesia was reported in 2003. HPAI has since established as an endemic zoonotic disease in certain provinces of the country. This case study is an economic analysis of the gendered impact of HPAI on poor rural households in Indonesia.
An estimated 295 million indigenous chickens and 45 million ducks were kept by small-scale producers in Indonesia. Family poultry provide a valuable source of meat and eggs, particularly important in childhood nutrition. Poultry are also an important source of income for women, especially in poor rural households with more children and less access to education.
At the height of the HPAI outbreak, interventions aimed at preventing the impacts of HPAI included the death and culling of over 10 million birds between August 2003 and September 2005. Simultaneously, demand for poultry feed dropped 45 per cent and export volumes dropped 97 per cent. The cull and sharp drop in consumption had the effect of bankrupting poultry producers (an industry that employs over one million in Indonesia). The consequences of decreased poultry consumption on childhood nutrition have not been quantified.
The specific impact on small-scale poultry producers has not been studied. Village poultry contribute to income and food security, and, as these flocks are usually owned or managed by women, contribute to intra-household gender equality. They also provide insurance against income and nutrition shocks. Household poultry-keeping is, by nature, decentralised, and characterised by low levels of management, including minimal biosecurity practices, which can contribute to a high risk of losses to diseases such as HPAI should an incursion take place. Despite these risks, direct financial losses to small-scale poultry farmers were probably minimised where household income was diversified. For the reasons outlined above, however, it is almost certain those losses were disproportionately greater for women and poor rural households.
These facts have important implications for training and compensation programs. Such programs need to be focused on the rural poor, who rely on poultry for income and nutrition. Given their role in raising poultry, women must be actively involved in training and compensation programs.
The preceding case studies have highlighted the benefits of and lessons learned implementing interdisciplinary health research. The third case study emphasised the crucial importance of ensuring gender-sensitive research methodology to give voice to the knowledge and perspectives of women.
This fourth case study relates to interdisciplinary research addressing complex problems that are bound up with the lives and livelihoods of communities. It builds on the ‘Village chickens and their contributions to mixed farming households in resource-poor settings’ section in Chapter 8 of this book. In that section we advocate for longer term, mixed-methodology research based on the active involvement of communities, governments, the private sector and researchers that facilitates joint learning and problem solving. Similar issues will be found in research that seeks to tackle complex problems.
To recap, sustainable food and nutrition security is a global priority requiring a multi-pronged approach based on nutrition-sensitive landscapes and value chains. In Tanzania and Zambia, the prevalence of undernutrition in children under five years (U5) remains high – with the levels of stunting (low height for age, an indicator of chronic undernutrition) averaging 42 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. Both countries are seeking sustainable solutions to the food security challenge that will improve human nutrition through increased household income and dietary diversification. The ‘Strengthening food and nutrition security project through family poultry and crop integration in Tanzania and Zambia’ (Nkuku4U) project was designed in response to this situation.
Nkuku4U is a mixed-methods, five-year, cluster-randomised controlled trial implemented across the two countries involving four communities in each of five wards. Project sites were recommended by the Country Coordinating Committees (a group of national project team members, from a range of disciplinary backgrounds/institutions, who oversee project activities in each country). Suitable sites were based on: 1) the level of child undernutrition; 2) an absence of existing human nutrition interventions, and 3) a willingness of leaders at the regional, district and ward level to be involved. In each ward, households per community were selected on the basis of having one child under the age of two years at the time of enrolment following a ward-wide census. The enrolled households are followed longitudinally. Male and female community members trained as enumerators administer questionnaires in local languages, to obtain data on maternal and child health and nutrition from mothers/carers of enrolled children, and on livelihood strategies, livestock ownership and poultry-keeping practices from a mix (approximately 50:50) of male and female adult respondents in enrolled households. Children’s length/height measurements are recorded at six-monthly intervals. Qualitative data has also been gathered through annual participatory rural appraisals and impact assessments using male and female focus group discussions with representatives from four socioeconomic groups. The number of social groups and their characteristics were developed by the community participants during the baseline and varied slightly in each ward.
Human subject research ethics approval for this project was obtained from the relevant institutions in Tanzania and Zambia with approval subsequently granted by the University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee. Animal ethics approval was obtained from the University of Sydney’s Animal Ethics Committee only, as counterpart committees have not yet been established in Tanzania or Zambia.
Vaccination of village chickens against Newcastle disease (ND) by community vaccinators administering the I-2 ND vaccine via eye drop every four months on a fee-for-service basis was introduced in each ward in the first year of implementation. Cost-sharing through farmers making a payment to community vaccinators increases the likelihood that the ND control program will be sustained beyond the end of the project. Crop interventions were determined through participatory workshops in each project ward involving male and female participants, with an emphasis on the involvement of representatives from households enrolled in the project. The selected crop interventions were implemented the year after the introduction of the ND vaccination campaigns.
Communication plays a crucial role in interdisciplinary approaches, and sharing of results, problems and solutions and managing planning is of extreme importance. A Senior Advisory Board known as the Project Coordinating Committee (PCC) has been established to assist with broad long-term oversight and cross-sectoral co-ordination. The PCC meets every six months, alternating between Tanzania and Zambia. The involvement of government agencies enables research findings to contribute to positive impacts within the regulatory, financial and policy environment in which the findings are to be applied. The Country Coordinating Committee meets every 3–4 months in each country with community meetings held in participating wards on a monthly basis in association with data collection activities. We emphasised the importance of gender equity in terms of the project team composition from the community to the project management level.
This is a large, complex project, complicated further by poor rainfall during two of the three wet seasons since the project commenced. Collecting and analysing the data is a huge task with team members spread across the globe. In addition, the development of viable solutions during a time of significant weather variability has further increased the degree of difficulty.
As stated in Nature (2015) interdisciplinary research cannot be rushed. It takes time for researchers from different disciplines to appreciate the perspectives of other disciplines and non-academic research partners. Part of the solution is assembling a research team that is inclusive of all key partners and that is clearly focused on problem solving. Such teams form over years and are to be nurtured and highly prized. Other parts of the solution include funding bodies committing to longer-term projects that facilitate learning by doing and research institutions recognising that the conduct and publication of high quality, mixed-methods interdisciplinary research requires longer horizons.
Funding provided by the Australian government, especially the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) (HORT/2014/094 and FSC/2012/023) and the Australia–Indonesia Centre, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unite Nations and the Crawford Fund in support of research on disease prevention and improved food and nutrition security is gratefully acknowledged.
Alders, R.G., et al. (2003). Controlling Newcastle disease in village chickens: a training manual. https://bit.ly/2QBuV81.
Alders, R.G., et al. (2014). Using a One Health approach to promote food and nutrition security in Tanzania and Zambia. Planet@Risk 2(3): 187–90. https://bit.ly/2BU0Rwo.
Alders, R.G., et al. (2016). Approaches to fixing broken food systems. In Good nutrition: perspectives for the 21st century, K. Kraemer, et al., eds., 132–44. Basel, CH: Karger. https://bit.ly/2E2DH8x.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (2014). Developing the cocoa value chain in Bougainville. https://bit.ly/2dBfhqd.
Bagnol, B. (2009a). Gender issues in small-scale family poultry production: experiences with Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza control. World’s Poultry Science Journal 65(2): 231–40.
Bagnol, B. (2009b). Improving village chicken production by employing effective gender-sensitive methodologies. In Village chickens, poverty alleviation and the sustainable control of Newcastle disease, ACIAR Proceedings 131, R.G. Alders, P.B. Spradbrow, and M.P. Young, eds., 35–42. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. https://bit.ly/2H6AR5w.
Bagnol, B. (2012). Advocate gender issues: a sustainable way to control Newcastle disease in village chickens. Good Practices for Family Poultry Production Note No. 03. Rome: International Network for Family Poultry Development, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://bit.ly/2zGa89O.
Bagnol, B., R. Alders, and R. McConchie (2015). Gender issues in human, animal and plant health using an EcoHealth perspective. Environment & Natural Resources Research 5(1): 62–76.
Bagnol, B., et al. (2016). Transdisciplinary project communication and knowledge-sharing experiences in Tanzania and Zambia through a One Health lens. Frontiers in Public Health 4: 10.
Bernard, H.R. (2012). Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira.
Birn, A. (2009). The stages of international (global) health: histories of success or successes of history? Global Public Health 4(1): 50–68.
Bloom, B.R., and C.J. L. Murray (1992). Tuberculosis: commentary on a reemergent killer. Science 257(5073): 1055–64.
Catley, A., J. Burns, D. Abebe, and O. Suji (2008). Participatory impact assessment: a guide for practitioners. Somerville, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University. https://bit.ly/2zEpFqL.
Central Statistical Office (Zambia), Ministry of Health (Zambia), and ICF International (2014). Zambia demographic and health survey 2013–14. Rockville, MD: Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Health, and ICF International. https://bit.ly/2GeuqNB.
Chisholm, R.H., J.M. Trauer, D. Curnoe, and M.M. Tanaka (2016). Controlled fire use in early humans might have triggered the evolutionary emergence of tuberculosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(32): 9051–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603224113.
Collier, E. (2007). Um perfil das relações de género. Edição actualizada de 2006. Maputo, MZ: Agência Sueca para o Desenvolvimento Internacional (ASDI).
Crooks, D.L., L. Cliggett, and S.M. Cole (2007). Child growth as a measure of livelihood security: the case of the Gwembe Tonga. American Journal of Human Biology 19(5): 669–75.
Daniel, R., et al. (2011). Knowledge through participation: the triumphs and challenges of transferring Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPDM) technology to cocoa farmers in Papua New Guinea. Food Security 3(1): 65–79.
de Bruyn, J., J. Wong, B. Bagnol, B. Pengelly, and R.G. Alders (2015). Family poultry and food and nutrition security. CAB Reviews 10(013): 1–9.
Díaz Bordenave, J. (1998). Relation of communication with community mobilization processes for health. In Community mobilization for health: multidisciplinary dialogue, L.R. Beltrán and G.S. Fernando, eds., 94–8. John Hopkins University and SAVE.
Donni, O., and S. Ponthieux (2011). Approches économiques du ménage: du modèle unitaire aux décisions collectives. Travail, Genre et Sociétés 26(2): 67–83.
Iannotti, L.L., M. Barron, and D. Roy (2009). Nutrition impacts of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The FASEB Journal 23(1 Supplement): 918.3.
Janes, C.R., K.K. Corbett, J.H. Jones, and J. Trostle (2012). Emerging infectious diseases: the role of social sciences. Lancet 380(9857): 1884–6.
Kirk, J., and M.L. Miller (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Leatherman, T. (2005). A space of vulnerability in poverty and health: political-ecology and biocultural analysis. Ethos 33(1): 46–70.
Leonardo, W.J., et al. (2015). Labour not land constrains agricultural production and food self-sufficiency in maize-based smallholder farming systems in Mozambique. Food Security 7(4): 857–74.
Mackenbach, J.P. (2009) Politics is nothing but medicine at a larger scale: reflections on public health’s biggest idea. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 63(3): 181–4.
Moon, K., and D. Blackman (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists: social science for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28(5): 1167–77.
Muzari, W., W. Gatsi, and S. Muvhunzi (2012). The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Journal of Sustainable Development 5(8): 69.
Naipospos, T.S.P. (2009). Current situation with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Indonesia, with special emphasis on control at village level. In Village chickens, poverty alleviation and the sustainable control of Newcastle disease, ACIAR Proceedings 131, R.G. Alders, P.B. Spradbrow, and M.P. Young, eds., 141–6. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. https://bit.ly/2H6AR5w.
National Bureau of Statistics (Tanzania) (2011). Tanzania: demographic and health survey 2010. https://bit.ly/2KX4FQo.
Nature Editorial (2015). Mind meld: interdisciplinary science must break down barriers between fields to build common ground. Nature News 525(7569): 289.
Ottersen, O.P., et al. (2014) The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change. Lancet 383(9917): 630–67.
Padmawati, S., and M. Nichter (2008). Community response to avian flu in central Java, Indonesia. Anthropology & Medicine 15(1): 31–51.
Picchioni, F., et al. (2017). Roads to interdisciplinarity – working at the nexus among food systems, nutrition and health. Food Security 9(1): 181–9.
Sumiarto, B., and B. Arifin (2008). Overview on poultry sector and HPAI situation for Indonesia with special emphasis on the Island of Java. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. https://bit.ly/2SukXCP.
United Nations Development Program (2001). Gender in Development Program learning and information pack: gender analysis. New York: United Nations Development Program. https://bit.ly/28JpY3K.
Virchow, R. (1848). Der armenarzt. Medicinische Reform 18:125-7.
Viseu, A. (2015). Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature 525(7569): 291.
Wong, J.T., et al. (2017). Small-scale poultry and food security in resource-poor settings: a review. Global Food Security 15: 43–52. https://bit.ly/2RIjRDK.
World Health Organization (2016). Global health estimates 2015: deaths by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000–2015. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://bit.ly/1zAaIAK.
World Organisation for Animal Health (2016). Indonesia animal health situation: OIE World Animal Health Information System. https://bit.ly/19kEuOn.
1 http://bit.ly/2W9muRy