RAPID: Cultural Differences in Shaping Diagnostic Testing Regimes in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Funded by National Science Foundation (NSF)
- Total publications:0 publications
Grant number: 2027745
Grant search
Key facts
Disease
COVID-19Start & end year
20202021Known Financial Commitments (USD)
$100,000Funder
National Science Foundation (NSF)Principal Investigator
Shobita ParthasarathyResearch Location
United States of AmericaLead Research Institution
University of Michigan Ann ArborResearch Priority Alignment
N/A
Research Category
Policies for public health, disease control & community resilience
Research Subcategory
Community engagement
Special Interest Tags
N/A
Study Type
Non-Clinical
Clinical Trial Details
N/A
Broad Policy Alignment
Pending
Age Group
Unspecified
Vulnerable Population
Unspecified
Occupations of Interest
Unspecified
Abstract
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences - The primary objective of this RAPID research project is to further our understanding of the role of political culture in shaping diagnostic testing regimes during the COVID-19 epidemic. The researcher will use qualitative case study methods in four geographical regions. The results of this project will serve to expand our understanding of how political culture shapes the development, implementation, and governance of diagnostic testing particularly during emergencies. It will also help us identify other aspects of political culture including whether citizen responses to and frustrations with emergency diagnostic testing systems take different form across the four regions. Project findings will be widely disseminated to academic, public, and policy audiences. The project will generate articles for academic audiences in the fields of STS, public health, political science, and public policy. Dissemination to the public will be via op-eds and podcast episodes. A white paper will be sent to relevant policymakers.
Research methods include conducting interviews, collecting documents, and doing ethnographic observation; when possible and relevant, ethnographic observation of press conferences and government hearings will also be conducted. Documents, interviews, and ethnographic field notes will comprise the data, which will be analyzed using a grounded theory approach. A ?snowball? sampling strategy will be used to select interview subjects; initial interview subjects will be asked to suggest others for interview. Initial subjects will be identified through the collected documents; important participants in each testing regime will be recorded. For each of the four case studies to be developed, this will likely include government officials involved in developing COVID-19 responses or regulating diagnostic testing regimes; organizations developing and offering testing; and civil society groups attempting to influence public, private, and non-profit sector action.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
Research methods include conducting interviews, collecting documents, and doing ethnographic observation; when possible and relevant, ethnographic observation of press conferences and government hearings will also be conducted. Documents, interviews, and ethnographic field notes will comprise the data, which will be analyzed using a grounded theory approach. A ?snowball? sampling strategy will be used to select interview subjects; initial interview subjects will be asked to suggest others for interview. Initial subjects will be identified through the collected documents; important participants in each testing regime will be recorded. For each of the four case studies to be developed, this will likely include government officials involved in developing COVID-19 responses or regulating diagnostic testing regimes; organizations developing and offering testing; and civil society groups attempting to influence public, private, and non-profit sector action.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.