Digital ethnography in higher education teaching and learning—a methodological review

To understand how the digitalization of higher education influences the inter-relationship between students, teachers, and their broader contexts, research must account for the social, cultural, political, and embodied aspects of teaching and learning in digital environments. Digital ethnography is a research method that can generate rich contextual knowledge of online experiences. However, how this methodology translates to higher education is less clear. In order to explore the opportunities that digital ethnography can provide in higher education research, this paper presents a methodological review of previous research, and discusses the implications for future practice. Through a systematic search of five research databases, we found 20 papers that report using digital ethnographies to explore teaching and learning in higher education. The review synthesizes and discusses how data collection, rigour, and ethics are handled in this body of research, with a focus on the specific methodological challenges that emerge when doing digital ethnographic research in a higher education setting. The review also identifies opportunities for improvement—especially related to participant observation from the student perspective, researcher reflexivity in relation to the dual teacher-researcher role, and increased diversity of data types. This leads us to conclude that higher education research, tasked with understanding an explosion of new digital practices, could benefit from a more rigorous and expanded use of digital ethnography

Safe storage of pesticides in Sri Lanka – Identifying important design features influencing community acceptance and use of safe storage devices

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-poisoning with pesticides is the cause of an estimated 300,000 deaths annually in rural Asia. The great majority of these deaths are from impulsive acts of self-harm using pesticides that are readily available in the home. The secure storage of pesticides under lock has been emphasized as a possible answer to the problem. This aspect, however, has been poorly researched. In this paper, we report on the design and use, in rural Sri Lanka, of a variety of different lockable storage devices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Following a baseline survey of pesticide storage practices, randomly selected households received a pesticide safe storage device. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase a total of 200 households in two villages were provided with in-house safe storage devices and two follow-up surveys were conducted seven and 24 months after distribution. The results of the seven month post-distribution survey have already been published. In the second phase, a further 168 households were selected in two additional villages and given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device and a follow-up survey conducted seven months after distribution. Both follow-up surveys aimed to assess the use of the device, obtain detailed user feedback on the different storage designs, and to identify problems faced with safeguarding the key. Twelve focus group discussions were held with representatives of households that received a storage device to derive from the community qualitative feedback on the design requirements for such devices.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and sixty one of the 200 households selected during the first phase were using pesticides at the time of the follow-up survey, 24 months after distribution. Of these 161 households 89 (55%) had the pesticides stored and locked in the provided device. Among the 168 households that were given a choice between an in-house and an in-field storage device 156 used pesticides at the time of survey and of these 103 (66%) selected in-field storage devices and 34% chose in-house storage devices. Of the 156 households, 106 (68%) stored all pesticides in a locked storage device at the time of the follow-up survey seven months after distribution. The majority of households that received an in-field storage device chose to install the device within their compound rather than in the field as they were concerned about the possibility of theft. The preferred design of the storage device was influenced by a number of occupational factors such as land size, crop patterns, types and the quantity of pesticides used. The presence of termites, perceived safety, material used to manufacture the device and ease of location influenced their choice. The study revealed that it was difficult to keep the key to the device hidden from children; and that the person in charge of the key would have easy access to the stored poison.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study confirms the high acceptance of lockable storage devices by the community although the use of the device reduced over time. A large proportion of pesticides stored within the compound after the introduction of the device may have implications for accessibility to pesticides in the domestic environment. The ability of other household members, including children, to easily find the key is also worrying.</p

The fear of bad smell: Health risk awareness related to using waste in agricultural production in Vietnam

Waste watersWater reuseAgricultural productionFish farmingIrrigation waterPublic healthRisksSkin diseasesOrganic fertilizersWomen

New Formulation of Paraquat: A Step Forward but in the Wrong Direction?

The author discusses whether the new paraquat formulation introduced in Sri Lanka is a step forward in reducing deaths from paraquat self-poisoning

Pattern of pesticide storage before pesticide self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Deliberate self-poisoning with agricultural pesticides is the commonest means of suicide in rural Asia. It is mostly impulsive and facilitated by easy access to pesticides. The aim of this large observational study was to investigate the immediate source of pesticides used for self-harm to help inform suicide prevention strategies such as reducing domestic access to pesticides.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was conducted in a district hospital serving an agricultural region of Sri Lanka. Patients who had self-poisoned with pesticides and were admitted to the adult medical wards were interviewed by study doctors following initial resuscitation to identify the source of pesticides they have ingested.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 669 patients included in the analysis, 425 (63.5%) were male; the median age was 26 (IQR 20-36). In 511 (76%) cases, the pesticides had been stored either inside or immediately outside the house; among this group only eight patients obtained pesticides that were kept in a locked container. Ten percent (n = 67) of the patients used pesticides stored in the field while 14% (n = 91) purchased pesticides from shops within a few hours of the episode. The most common reasons for choosing the particular pesticide for self-harm were its easy accessibility (n = 311, 46%) or its popularity as a suicide agent in their village (n = 290, 43%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Three quarters of people who ingested pesticides in acts of self-harm used products that were available within the home or in close proximity; relatively few patients purchased the pesticide for the act. The study highlights the importance of reducing the accessibility of toxic pesticides in the domestic environment.</p

Community uptake of safe storage boxes to reduce self-poisoning from pesticides in rural Sri Lanka

BACKGROUND: Acute poisoning by agricultural pesticides is a well established global public health problem. Keeping pesticides under safe storage is now promoted as a potential way to reduce the number of severe poisoning cases. However, there have been no published studies documenting the feasibility of such an approach. Therefore, the objective of the study presented here was to determine community perceptions and use of in-house safe storage boxes for pesticides in rural Sri Lanka. METHODS: Boxes with a lock, to be used for the in-house safe storage of pesticides, were distributed to 200 randomly selected farming households in two agricultural communities. A baseline survey determined pesticide storage practices and household characteristics prior to distribution. The selected households were encouraged to make use of the box at community meetings and during a single visit to each household one month after distribution. No further encouragement was offered. A follow-up survey assessed storage practices seven months into the project. RESULTS: Following the distribution of the boxes the community identified a number of benefits including the protection of pesticide containers against exposure from the rain and sun and a reduced risk of theft. Data were analysed for 172 households that reported agricultural use of pesticides at follow-up. Of these, 141 (82%) kept pesticides in the house under lock against 3 (2%) at baseline. As expected, the distribution of boxes significantly reduced the number of households storing pesticides in the field, from 79 (46%) at baseline to 4 (2%) at follow-up. There was a significant increase in the number of households keeping pesticides safe from children between baseline (64%) and seven months after the distribution of boxes (89%). The same was true for adults although less pronounced with 51% at baseline and 66% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The farming community appreciated the storage boxes and made storage of pesticides safer, especially for children. It seems that additional, intensive promotion is needed to ensure that pesticide boxes are locked. The introduction of in-house safe storage boxes resulted in a shift of storage into the farmer's home and away from the field and this may increase the domestic risk of impulsive self-poisoning episodes. This increased risk needs attention in future safe storage promotion projects

A community-based cluster randomised trial of safe storage to reduce pesticide self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka: study protocol

BACKGROUND: The WHO recognises pesticide poisoning to be the single most important means of suicide globally. Pesticide self-poisoning is a major public health and clinical problem in rural Asia, where it has led to case fatality ratios 20-30 times higher than self-poisoning in the developed world. One approach to reducing access to pesticides is for households to store pesticides in lockable "safe-storage" containers. However, before this approach can be promoted, evidence is required on its effectiveness and safety. METHODS/DESIGN: A community-based cluster randomised controlled trial has been set up in 44,000 households in the North Central Province, Sri Lanka. A census is being performed, collecting baseline demographic data, socio-economic status, pesticide usage, self-harm and alcohol. Participating villages are then randomised and eligible households in the intervention arm given a lockable safe storage container for agrochemicals. The primary outcome will be incidence of pesticide self-poisoning over three years amongst individuals aged 14 years and over. 217,944 person years of follow-up are required in each arm to detect a 33% reduction in pesticide self-poisoning with 80% power at the 5% significance level. Secondary outcomes will include the incidence of all pesticide poisoning and total self-harm. DISCUSSION: This paper describes a large effectiveness study of a community intervention to reduce the burden of intentional poisoning in rural Sri Lanka. The study builds on a strong partnership between provincial health services, local and international researchers, and local communities. We discuss issues in relation to randomisation and contamination, engaging control villages, the intervention, and strategies to improve adherence

The cost-effectiveness of banning highly hazardous pesticides to prevent suicides due to pesticide self-ingestion across 14 countries:a model-based economic evaluation

Background: Reducing suicides is a key Sustainable Development Goal target for improving global health. Highly hazardous pesticides are among the leading causes of death by suicide in low-income and middle-income countries. National bans of acutely toxic highly hazardous pesticides have led to substantial reductions in pesticide-attributable suicides across several countries. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing national bans of highly hazardous pesticides to reduce the burden of pesticide suicides.Methods: A Markov model was developed to examine the costs and health effects of implementing a national ban of highly hazardous pesticides to prevent suicides due to pesticide self-poisoning, compared with a null comparator. We used WHO cost-effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE) methods to estimate pesticide-attributable suicide rates for 100 years from 2017. Country-specific costs were obtained from the WHO-CHOICE database and denominated in 2017 international dollars (I$), discounted at a 3$0&middot;007 per capita (95% UI 0&middot;006&ndash;0&middot;008). In the population-standardised results for the base case analysis, national bans produced cost-effectiveness ratios of $94 per HLYG (95$237 per HLYG (95% UI 191&ndash;303) across upper-middle-income and high-income countries. Bans were more cost-effective in countries where a high proportion of suicides are attributable to pesticide self-poisoning, reaching a cost-effectiveness ratio of $75 per HLYG (95% UI 58&ndash;99) in two countries with proportions of more than 30%.Interpretation: National bans of highly hazardous pesticides are a potentially cost-effective and affordable intervention for reducing suicide deaths in countries with a high burden of suicides attributable to pesticides. However, our study findings are limited by imperfect data and assumptions that could be improved upon by future studies.Funding: WHO

Evaluation of acceptability and use of lockable storage devices for pesticides in Sri Lanka that might assist in prevention of self-poisoning

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Self-poisoning with pesticides is a major reason for high suicide rates in rural areas of many developing countries. Safer storage of pesticides may be one means of prevention. We have conducted a study to assess the acceptability and use of lockable boxes for storing pesticides in rural Sri Lanka.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Four hundred lockable metal storage boxes were given to farming households, 100 in each of four villages. Assessment interviews were conducted by Sumithrayo (NGO) field workers immediately after boxes were supplied (T1), 11 – 14 weeks later (T2), 30 weeks later (T3), and 18 months later (T4). Data on suicide and self-harm were collected from local police and hospitals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At T1 only 1.8% (7/396) of households reported locking up pesticides, 72.5% (279/385) easy access to pesticides for adults and 50.4% (195/387) easy access for children. At T3 most informants in households using pesticides reported using the box all (82.3%, 298/362) or most of the time (7.2%, 26/362). Informants usually reported always locking the box (92.8%, 336/362) and most boxes were locked on inspection (93.6%, 339/362). By T4 there was some reduction in reporting that the box was kept locked all of the time (75.2%, 267/355) and the box being locked on inspection (73.8%, 262/355). Easy child access to the key was reported in relatively few households (10.7% at T4), although interviewers judged that this was possible in rather more (20.6%). Most informants regarded the box as useful (100% at T3 and 99.4% at T4), with convenience for storage, security, avoiding wastage, and protection of children being major factors. A message on the box about how to deal with bad feelings and the importance of safer storage was well received. The locks had been broken or the key lost in a few households.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Introduction of lockable boxes for storing pesticides to farming households in Sri Lanka appeared to be acceptable. Most households used the boxes responsibly, although there was some decline in the proper usage over time. A large-scale trial of lockable storage devices in farming households in rural areas as a means of prevention of suicide and accidental poisoning is now indicated.</p