Abstract
In their paper, published in this journal, Dijkstra & Horstman critically reflect on a selection of social epidemiological articles and examine how low socioeconomic status populations are constructed in these articles. They identify four components which they argue represent the “dominant thought style” of this literature: 1) proliferation, 2) generalization, 3) problematization and 4) individualization. We largely agree with their first two points, but strongly disagree with the other two, and explain why in our reply. All in all, we believe that their analysis is a wake-up call for social epidemiologists, rightly pointing to the risk that the relevance and moral origins of the use and study of categories, like ‘low socioeconomic status’, can easily become less visible, and therefore should be articulated and explained every time.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
