4.1 Article

Gypsies/Travellers and health: risk categorisation versus being 'at risk'

期刊

HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 176-193

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2013.764974

关键词

risk management; risk; risk categorisation; uncertainty; Gypsy; Travellers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk categorisation provides a routine and necessary contribution to the way people make sense of and impute predictability in a complex human world of which their knowledge is limited. It is a precursor to the development of risk management strategies. Risk categorisation schemes can vary depending on the underlying perspective and knowledge used in their construction. There are estimated to be between 120,000 and 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in the United Kingdom. They have been categorised on the one hand as a group that is 'at risk' suffering wide-ranging inequalities and on the other they can be seen as the archetypical 'other' posing risks to normative stability. Public policies to manage their health risks have been limited in contrast to policies to address their 'otherness' status which have aimed to exclude, relocate and forcibly remove them from public space. Little is understood about the way in which Gypsies and Travellers categorise and manage the risks to their health within the context of adverse public policies. In-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken during 2010 and 2011 with 39 Gypsies and Travellers aged between 18 and 66 years comprising 20 females and 19 males living in an area of South East England. Respondents framed risk in terms of threats to their health, culture and traditional way of life and issues of trust were central to this. They sought to devise risk management strategies that would maintain boundaries between their community and outsiders who were perceived to be the source of risks to their health. A consequence of their risk management strategies was the potential perpetuation of threats to their health and well-being.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据