Impact of - IDL-BNC @ IDRC - International Development Research ...

on clinical studies and laboratory tests. They argued against stratifying the
sample fearing it would compromise the representativeness of their results.
Ultimately, the position of the physicians dominated, and the sample was not
stratified. As a result, it was not possible to establish the influence of plot size
or occupation on risk levels and application or prevention practices. (This was
corrected in the second phase of research in which the population was stratified
according to orchard size.) The clinical analysis and laboratory tests were
conducted on all those who were fumigating at the time of observation.
Difficulty in harmonizing the approaches of the professionals in the social and
medical sciences was encountered on another point as well. The social scientists
proposed that risk studies should be concerned not only with application
practices, protection, and prevention, but also should consider the point of
view of the growers. This information would serve to orient the educational
process and probe the importance of conditional elements such as economic
factors. Accordingly, the survey included a series of open-ended questions
that, with difficulty, would permit a quantitative analysis. In contrast, the
medical scientists felt that the growers' opinions could be useful only if they
were categorized quantitatively as "adequate/inadequate" or "relation/no
relation with DNOC."
The open-ended questions of the survey yielded general comments, e.g., "It
bothers me to use gloves, masks, or boots." What, precisely, bothered the
person (the inconvenience, the expense, etc.) was not included. Therefore, it
was not possible to see the logic of these answers or compare them with others.
Because of this deficiency, the debate was arbitrarily resolved in favour of the
physicians.
On the issue of self-diagnosis, the same problem arose. The medical scientists
were interested in tabulating, as faithfully as possible, the perceived annoyances,
the type of annoyances, and their perceived cause to categorize them
as "right/wrong" and "related/not related to DNOC." They proposed direct
questioning, clinical examination, and corroboration of results with laboratory
analysis. The social and educational scientists, on the other hand, were interested
in studying this aspect through open-ended questions that would permit
the discovery of "the logic of folk wisdom" and enable future comparison with
the medical sciences. In their opinion, the classification of "right/wrong" or
"related/not related to DNOC" would not give precise grounds for educational
intervention. It would only identify areas of intervention.
For example, if a grower has complained about "suffocation" and he or she is
asked the reason for that complaint, the response "it is because of DNOC" or
"because of the day's work" is sufficient for the physician. Those answers
reveal the percentage of the population that is able to identify the root cause
of the complaint. However, the social scientist is interested in obtaining
answers that indicate, for example, that the "suffocation" was produced
because the DNOC was "hot." It is reported as "hot" because it "burned" the
tree buds. This characteristic of DNOC may change perception of "normal"
99