Search results

Epidemiology is often described as “the basic science of public health” (Savitz, Poole & Miller, 1999; Syme & Yen, 2000). This description suggests both a close association with public health practice, and the separation of “pure” scientific knowledge from its application in the messy social world. Although the attainability of absolute objectivity is rarely claimed, epidemiologists are routinely encouraged to “persist in their efforts to substitute evidence for faith in scientific reasoning” (Stolley, 1985, p. 38) and reminded that “public health decision makers gain little from impassioned scholars who go beyond advancing and explaining the science to promoting a specific public health agenda” (Savitz et al., 1999, p. 1160). Epidemiology produces authoritative data that are transformed into evidence which informs public health. Those data are authoritative because epidemiology is regarded as a neutral scientific enterprise. Because its claims are grounded in science, epidemiological knowledge is deemed to have “a special technical status and hence is not contestable in the same way as are say, religion or ethics” (Lock, 1988, p. 6). Despite the veneer of universality afforded by its scientific pedigree, epidemiology is not a static or monolithic discipline. Epidemiological truth claims are embodied in several shifting paradigms that span the life of the discipline. Public health knowledges and practices, competing claims internal and external to epidemiology, and structural conditions (such as current political economies, material technologies, and institutions) provide important contexts in which certain kinds of epidemiological knowledge are more likely to emerge.

In 2009, Blacks earned about 6% of the doctoral degrees awarded in the field of epidemiology (NSF, 2010). This one year snapshot of attainment estimated that 17 of the 273 doctoral degrees in the field were granted to Blacks. Aschengrau and Seage (2008) defined epidemiology as “the study of the distribution and determinants of disease frequency in human populations and the application of this study to control health problems” (p. 6). The research in epidemiology is often organized by disease or source of risk – e.g., infectious disease, cancer, occupational injury, psychiatric, respiratory, intestinal, renal, dental, or cardiovascular. Another way to categorize the research in epidemiology is by method – spatial, meta-analysis, economic, environmental, clinical, surveillance, disease informatics, biostatistics, and so on. For example, the progress in the Human Genome Project, in computing power, and in the development of powerful statistical approaches has expanded the analytical possibilities in genetic epidemiology, a discipline that seeks to understand how genetics, environmental factors, and their interactions produce various diseases and traits in humans. Genetic epidemiology as well as the other methodologies associated with field of epidemiology is part of population science where population history and dynamics are modeled. The scientific discipline of epidemiology is rarely part of discussions focused on opportunity pathways in STEM fields. Nor are many other fields aligned with population science (e.g., demography and population sociology) included in these discussions. These omissions represent blind spots that deserve to be clearly seen as part of discussions of STEM fields that require sound inquiry and serve to advance human development and human capital, while contributing to the common good.

The purpose of this chapter is to offer reflections on conventional theories concerning causes and determinants of diseases. It also intends to examine both theoretical and empirical bases for adopting an Integrated Social-Ecological Systems (ISES) lens as a tool for understanding complexities related to drivers, determinants and causes of diseases.

We assessed the theoretical underpinnings of a range of historical and contemporary lenses for viewing infectious disease drivers and the implications of their use when used to explain both personal (i.e. individual) and population health. We examined these issues within the empirical context of the City of Dhaka (Bangladesh) by adopting an ISES lens. Within this study an emphasis has been placed on illustrating how feedback loops and non-linearity functions in systems have a direct bearing upon various aspects of infectious disease occurrences.

A brief triumph over microbes during the last century stemmed in part from our improved understanding of disease causation which was built using disciplinary-specific, monocausal approaches to the study of disease emergence. Subsequently, empirical inquiries into the multi-factorial aetiology and the ‘web of causation’ of disease emergence have extended frameworks beyond simplistic, individualistic descriptions of disease causation. Nonetheless, much work is yet to be done to understand the roles of complex, intertwined, multi-level, social-ecological factors in affecting disease occurrence. We argue, a transdisciplinary-oriented, ISES lens is needed to explain the complexities of disease occurrence at various and interacting levels. More theoretical and empirical formulations, with evidence derived from various parts of the world, is also required to further the debate.

Our study advances the theoretical as well as empirical basis for considering an integrated human-nature systems approach to explaining disease occurrence at all levels so that factors at the individual, household/neighbourhood, local, regional and global levels are not treated in isolation.

This study contributes to the understanding of the health effects of pesticides exposure and of how pesticides have been and should be regulated.

This study presents literature reviews for the period 2000–2013 on (i) the health effects of pesticides and on (ii) preference valuation of health risks related to pesticides, as well as a discussion of the role of benefit-cost analysis applied to pesticide regulatory measures.

This study indicates that the health literature has focused on individuals with direct exposure to pesticides, i.e. farmers, while the literature on preference valuation has focused on those with indirect exposure, i.e. consumers. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the rationale for regulating pesticides, the role of risk perceptions in benefit-cost analysis, and the importance of inter-disciplinary research in this area.

This study relates findings of different disciplines (health, economics, public policy) regarding pesticides, and identifies gaps for future research.

Barbara M. Altman, a Sociologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, is currently a Special Assistant on Disability Statistics at the National Center for Health Statistics and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her previous position was Senior Research Fellow with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She is a past president of the Society for Disability Studies and served on the founding Board of Directors of that organization. Her disability research interests focus in three areas: operationalization of disability definitions/measures in survey data; access to, financing and utilization of health care services by persons with disabilities, particularly working age persons and women with disabilities; and disability among minority groups. She is the author of a number of articles and book chapters on disability topics, and has served as editor of special issues of Disability Studies Quarterly and Journal of Disability Policy Studies. She is co-editor of this series Research in Social Science and Disability.Deborah J. Anderson, Ph.D., has conducted policy research in the area of Aging and Developmental Disabilities at the University of Minnesota since 1985. Her studies have included analyses of the health status, health conditions and health-related limitations and needs of older adults with mental retardation living in a variety of residential settings as well as in their own homes. These studies have included a longitudinal study of a 10% sample of older adults living in residential facilities licensed by developmental disabilities agencies, the National Nursing Home Survey of 1985, the National Medical Expenditure Survey of 1987, and the National Health Interview Disability Supplement (NHIS-D) of 1994–1995. She has also studied careproviders of older adults with mental retardation, innovative programs serving aging adults with developmental disabilities/mental retardation, and state agencies’ preparation for serving adults with mental retardation as they aged. Most of this research has been conducted as part of the NIDRR-funded RRTC on Aging and Developmental Disabilities. Dr. Anderson is also an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN.Lynda L. Anderson, M.A., M.P.H., is a Resource Manager at No Place like Home in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. Ms. Anderson earned a Master of Arts degree in Human Service Administration and a Master of Public Health degree in Community Health. Ms. Anderson is a doctoral candidate in Work, Community and Family Education at the University of Minnesota. She has more than eighteen years of experience working with people with disabilities as a Direct Support Professional, Program Director, and Researcher. She has participated in NHIS-D analysis activities for the last five years.Sharon N. Barnartt, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology at Gallaudet University. She has co-authored two books: Deaf President Now: The 1988 Revolution at Gallaudet University (1995) and Contentious Politics in the Disability and Deaf Communities (2001). She has also presented papers and published widely in the areas of socio-economic status and disability/deafness, legal and disability policy issues, and social movements in the deaf and disability communities. She is a former president of the Society for Disability Studies, co-editor of Research in Social Science and Disability and on the editorial board of Journal of Disability Policy Studies.Phillip W. Beatty, M.A., is a Senior Research Associate at the National Rehabilitation Hospital Center for Health & Disability Research in Washington, DC. His recent research focuses on predictors of access to health services among adults with disabilities. Mr. Beatty is also conducting research to determine the ways in which functional outcomes information is being used by stakeholders in the medical rehabilitation industry.Edward Brann, M.D., M.P.H., is Acting Director of the Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The division conducts a number of research and program activities for people with disabilities.Hong Chen, M.S., is an Economist in RTI International’s Division of Health Economics Research. His work focuses primarily on the analysis of large claims and survey databases, with an emphasis on diabetes prevention, substance abuse, and competitive bidding for durable medical equipment.Lisa J. Colpe, Ph.D., M.P.H., is a Clinical Epidemiologist Specializing in Survey Design and Research. At the time the work on this chapter was done, she was an Epidemiology Training Program Fellow in the Division of Health Interview Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics.Roger B. Davis, Sc.D., is Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Associate Professor of Biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Davis has overseen the statistical design of numerous clinical trials, especially involving cancer and AIDS therapies. An expert in survival analysis, he also participates in health services research and clinical epidemiology studies with colleagues at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where he serves as Biostatistician in the Division of General Medicine and Primary Care.John Drabek, is an Economist in Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-Term Care Policy in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He received his B.A. in Economics from Northwestern University, and his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Prior to joining the federal government, he performed research at the University of Southern California, and at the University of California, Los Angeles.Laura J. Dunlap, M.A., is a Health Economist in RTI International’s Center for Interdisciplinary Substance Abuse Research. Since joining RTI in 1994, she has worked on studies analyzing the costs and benefits of substance abuse treatment, the effect of treatment services on post-treatment outcomes, and the costs and cost-effectiveness of public health and treatment interventions aimed at special populations such as drug users and low-income women.Holly J. Fedeyko is a former employee of the Disability and Health Branch, CDC in Atlanta, Georgia. While at the CDC she focused her efforts on Research in disability issues as related to questions from the National Health Interview Survey. She received her M.P.H. in Epidemiology and Environmental Health from Emory and her B.S. in Biology from McGill. She is currently employed as an analytical consultant for a private company and now resides in the San Francisco Bay area.Frances K. Goldscheider, University Professor and Professor of Sociology, began her Brown career in 1974. Since obtaining her Ph.D. in Demography from the University of Pennsylvania in 1971, Goldscheider has focused her research on census and survey data to address questions related to family structure and coresidential relationships, examining causes and consequences of change. Goldscheider pioneered research on the single-person household, and on home leaving and return to the nest of young adults, and has examined issues of labor force and family decisions of 20th century American women. She is an expert on family structure and relationships, fertility, parenthood, household economy, and marriage. Her intergenerational focus (on the living arrangements of young adults and the elderly) has expanded to include gender issues, particularly marriage and divorce, with a strong concern with the consequences of family structure for investments in childhood and young adulthood. Recent research interests include men’s roles in parenting and in the family.Scott D. Grosse, Ph.D., is a Health Economist at the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He conducts applied research on the costs associated with various childhood conditions and economic evaluations of screening programs and interventions intended to improve health and developmental outcomes in children.Gerry E. Hendershot, Ph.D., is a Consultant on Disability and Health Statistics. From 1985 to 2001, he held various positions on the staff of the National Health Interview Survey, including Assistant to the Director for Data Analysis and Dissemination. He had a lead role in promoting, designing, and analyzing the National Health Interview Survey on Disability. He is the author of many published statistical reports on disability and other health-related topics.Dennis P. Hogan, Professor of Sociology, joined the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University in 1995. He received a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1976. He has taught at both the University of Chicago, where he acted as associate director of the Population Research Center, and Pennsylvania State University, where he served as director of the Population Research Institute. In 1997, Hogan was named to an endowed professorship as the Robert E. Turner Distinguished Professor of Population Studies. Some of his research interests include the interrelationships of the family lives of individuals and their social environments, the measurement of disability, family consequences of disability, and the transition to adulthood. Hogan’s current research focuses on child disability. He is the principal investigator on grants supporting this program from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics Subcommittee on Disability and the Spencer Foundation.Ghada al Homsi, M.S., is an Economist in RTI International’s Center for Interdisciplinary Substance Abuse Research. Her work focuses on the analysis of large surveys and the design and maintenance of databases of program costs.Amanda A. Honeycutt, Ph.D., is an Economist in RTI International’s Division of Health Economics Research. Since joining RTI in 1998, she has led a number of studies on the cost-of-illness, the cost of intervention programs, and the cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment interventions that focus primarily on diabetes, HIV/AIDS prevention, and children’s health, disability, and development.Peter C. Hunt, M.P.H., was an Association of Schools of Public Health Fellow in the Division of Health Interview Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, at the time work on this chapter was done. He subsequently served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research. He is currently a Research Associate at the University of Pittsburgh Model Center on Spinal Cord Injury.Lisa I. Iezzoni, M.D., M.Sc., is Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Co-Director of Research in the Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Her primary research interest is risk adjustment for assessing health care quality and improving the fairness of payments. A 1996 recipient of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy Research, she also studies health policy issues relating to mobility impairments. Dr. Iezzoni is a member of the Institute of Medicine.Gwyn C. Jones, Ph.D., M.S.W., M.Ed., is a Senior Research Associate at the National Rehabilitation Hospital Center for Health & Disability Research in Washington, DC. She is a former ATPM/CDC Fellow and current grantee. Her research and publications have focused on health risks, chronic conditions, and use of preventive services among working-age adults with disabilities, prescription drug use among non-elderly adults with disabilities, and rural Medicaid managed care for adults with disabilities.Judith D. Kasper, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, and a Senior Research Associate in the Center for Health Services Research, at The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research interests include health policy in long-term care, aging and disability, access to health care for vulnerable populations, and the development and application of data sources for health policy and health services research. Dr. Kasper holds a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Chicago.K. Charlie Lakin, Ph.D., is the Director of the Research and Training Center on Community Living at the University of Minnesota. Mr. Lakin has had extensive experience in gathering, analyzing, and using statistics from many primary and secondary data sources with the products of this work included in more than 200 publications in developmental disabilities and related services. Mr. Lakin was a member of the six-person external technical advisory panel on the instrumentation for the Disability Supplement. Mr. Lakin serves as Associate Editor of Mental Retardation, and consulting editor of The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (JASH), the Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disability and Social Science and Disability.Sheryl A. Larson, Ph.D., is a Research Associate at the Research and Training Center on Community Living at the University of Minnesota. She earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Minnesota. She has 20 years of experience in services to persons with DD as a residential counselor, behavior analyst, social worker, and program evaluator and has worked for the RTC for the last 14 years. Ms. Larson was the Co-Principal Investigator for a two-year NIDRR Field Initiated Project which used the National Health Interview Survey Disability Supplement to examine the characteristics and service needs of persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities. She directed a supplement to the Research and Training Center on Community Living’s core grant that funded an international user’s conference in June 2000 for researchers analyzing NHIS-D topics. She has co-authored several papers using NHIS-D data. Dr. Larson has also co-authored several books, book chapters, journal articles and technical reports on workforce development issues, residential services, and community integration for persons with developmental disabilities and is a consulting editor of Mental Retardation.Donald J. Lollar, Ed.D., Senior Research Scientist, Division for Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. His advanced degrees are from Indiana University, and his most recent writings include co-editing an Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation supplement on the Science of Disability Outcomes, and articles for the 2003 Annual Review of Public Health and 2002 Public Health Reports outlining public health strategies to improve the health and well-being of people with disabilities. He has spent the past seven years developing public health science and programs to improve the health of people with disabilities, prevent secondary conditions, and increase participation in society. He currently serves as the co-lead of the Healthy People 2010 workgroup on Disability and Secondary Conditions (Chap. 6 of HP 2010). Dr. Lollar began involvement with the WHO classification ICIDH in 1994 while still in private practice, assessing potential utility of ICIDH-2 for clinical records. He is currently a part of the team to adapt the ICF to improve its utility for children and youth.Pamela Loprest is a Labor Economist and Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute. Her research focuses on low-wage labor markets and how government policies can help to reduce and remove barriers to work among disadvantaged populations. Dr. Loprest has a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has been at the Urban Institute since 1991.Elaine Maag is a Research Associate in the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Policy Center. Her research focuses on policies affecting youth with disabilities and employment opportunities for adults. She also conducts research on how tax policy affects low-income families. Ms. Maag holds an M.S. in Public Policy from the University of Rochester.Jennifer M. Park is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her current research is funded by a grant she holds from the American Education Research Association to examine cognitive development among first grade youth with and without emotional impairment. Her dissertation explored cognitive growth among kindergarteners with and without perceptual impairment. Dr. Park holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from Brown University, where her research examined the diverse effects of child disability on family outcomes.Elizabeth K. Rasch, M.S., P.T., is an Associate Service Fellow at the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, working in the area of disability statistics. She is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Maryland, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, with a concentration in Epidemiology. Her research interests include the health of persons with disabilities, factors that contribute to disability, as well as the use of and access to healthcare services by persons with disabilities. She has been actively involved in research since 1985 and has published articles and book chapters on topics related to disability and rehabilitation.Anne W. Riley, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, in the division of Health Services Research, at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Riley has expertise in the assessment of mental health and health, especially of children and adolescents, methods development, and evaluation systems for monitoring the outcomes of care for youth.Diana E. Schendel, Ph.D., is a Lead Health Scientist at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She directs both intramural and extramural epidemiologic studies of reproductive and developmental outcomes, with a primary focus on cerebral palsy, autism, and other neurodevelopmental problems.Hilary Siebens, M.D., is Lecturer in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) at Harvard Medical School and Associate Director, PMR Service, at the Massachusetts General Hospital. She received clinical training in internal medicine, geriatrics, and PMR. Her publications address exercise among older adults, models of rehabilitation, and quality improvement initiatives.Lois M. Verbrugge, Ph.D., M.P.H., is Distinguished Senior Research Scientist in the Institute of Gerontology at the University of Michigan. She has contributed to disability theory and has conducted analyses of arthritis disability, gender differences in morbidity and mortality, and co-morbidity, using large-scale data sets. Her recent publications have emphasized the relative benefits of equipment and personal assistance for disability, the interleaving of aging and disability, and global indicators of disability. She was awarded the American Psychological Association Distinguished Contribution to Women’s Health Award in 1994.Whitney P. Witt, Ph.D., M.P.H., is an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Center for Healthcare Studies at the Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Witt’s prior work focuses predominately on people living with HIV/AIDS, including children and their families. Over the last five years, she has applied her experience in advocacy, policy, and research on vulnerable and high-cost, chronically ill populations to the field of maternal and child health services research. Dr. Witt’s research emphasizes the importance of family adaptation in ensuring the mental health of children with disabilities and for helping these children obtain access to mental health services. Most recently, her work has focused on the impact of maternal depression on familial health and mental health, preventive care practices, and use of health and mental healthcare services. She holds a Ph.D. in health services research and a M.P.H. from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a B.A. in women’s studies and law from Hampshire College.Li-shou Yang, Ph.D., is Research Investigator in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Trained in social demography, her research focuses on the family, the life course, and social change.

As environmental health scientists increasingly take up genetic/genomic modes of knowledge production and translate their work for applications in biomedicine, risk assessment, and regulation, they “bring the human in” to environmental health issues in novel ways. This paper describes the efforts of environmental health scientists to use molecular technologies to focus their research inside the human body, ascertain human genetic variations in susceptibility to adverse outcomes following environmental exposures, and identify individuals who have sustained DNA damage as a consequence of exposure to chemicals in the environment. In addition to transforming laboratory research, they see in these such practices the opportunity to advance public health, through innovations in biomedical practice and refinement of environmental health risk assessment and regulation. As environmental health scientists produce and translate these new forms of knowledge, they simultaneously assume and instantiate specific notions of the human subject and its agency, possibilities, and responsibilities vis-à-vis health and illness. Because dimensions of human subjectivity remain under-theorized in bioethics, sociological approaches to understanding and situating the human subject offer an important means of elucidating the consequences of genetics/genomics in the environmental health sciences and highlighting the social structures and processes through which they are produced.We are responsible for the world in which we live not because it is an arbitrary construction of our choosing, but because it is sedimented out of particular practices that we have a role in shaping. –Barad, 1998

This chapter depicts the burden of suicidal behavior among African American males. It describes the public health approach to preventing suicidal behavior among African American males. This approach includes assessing and describing the problem; identifying causes or risk and protective factors; developing and evaluating programs and policies; and implementing and disseminating findings and activities. The chapter provides a review of the epidemiology of fatal and non-fatal suicidal behavior; a summary of what is known about the risk and protective factors of the problem; and a descriptive analysis of the circumstances associated with suicides among young African American males is presented. Lastly, the authors give a summary of evidenced-based prevention programs which could be applied in preventing male suicidal behavior.

Purpose – To examine the influence of changing diagnostic tools and the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries' practices on perceptions of depression prevalence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Approach – This is a general review of the sociohistorical shifts in depression diagnosis and pharmaceutical and health insurance industry practices during this time period as they impact professional and lay perceptions of changes in depression prevalence.

Findings – Shifts in the definition of depression to an increasingly medically oriented, social context-free definition along with the interaction of the pharmaceutical industry, health care, and health insurance industries in the U.S. system of mental health care have become major organizers of professional and lay perceptions of the nature of depression, its treatment, and prevalence. These sociohistorical and economic influences need to be factored into debates on depression prevalence.

Contribution of paper to the field – This chapter provides an introductory-level synthesis of basic psychiatric epidemiology concepts and social science critiques of professional and lay perceptions of depression prevalence as “epidemic.”

Depressive disorder has been defined by increasingly specific neurophysiological mechanisms and features during the past two decades. At the same time, depression has grown into an epidemic proportion and become a major public health problem. Consequently, the scope of depressive experience and conduct has also widened and the meaning of depression has multiplied and become equivocal. This chapter analyses how this tension is handled in current Western mental health care. The focus of the study is the role of neuroscientific views in mental health reasoning and practice. The empirical case is the mental health discussion in Finland from the late 1980s to the present day. The analysis of the historical change in understandings of depression in Finnish psychiatry and mental health care provides a view of the relevance of neuroscientific models in defining depressive illness and outlining diagnostic and treatment practices. Moreover, the analysis brings forth the relationship of neuroscientific concepts to other ways of defining depression – epidemiology, diagnostic classification, psychodynamic and other psychological theories – within clinical reasoning. A conclusion to be drawn from the analysis of the Finnish case is that neurobiological concepts of depression have only limited influence on the ways in which the disorder is conceived within the practical context of mental health care. It seems that the idea of depression as a multi-factorial disorder remains a good enough conceptual framework for clinical practice. Even the influence of neurosciences on treatment is still somewhat marginal. Within current practices of depression management, it is not the brain that is treated but risks, symptoms, and persons.

In the network of conversations that constitute the realities called organizations, the focus and unit of work in producing and managing change is conversation. This means that change agents work with, through, and on conversations to generate, sustain, and complete new conversations in order to bring about an altered network of conversations that results in the accomplishment of specific commitments. This chapter proposes that bringing about this alteration is an infective process in which change agents “infect” organizations with new conversations. Drawing on the field of epidemiology, it explores the nature of that infective process and the roles infective agents, susceptible hosts, and environmental factors play in it. These factors are then put into a conversational context and their implications for organizational change explored.