Tasa Health Section

TASA HEALTH SECTION

Convenor’s Report 2005 Annual General Meeting

I am sorry that the TASA Executive meeting prevents me from joining you today, and I thank the Tasmanian members for organising and running this meeting on my behalf.

In one sense, 2005 has been a quiet year for the section, as we have had few organised activities. On the other hand, however, it is apparent that members remain active in their research, teaching and consultation activities and these ensure that health sociology remains a vibrant and exciting specialty to be in.

Health Sociology Review has grown in size and significance this year, and it is particularly gratifying to see more papers from overseas and from non-TASA members. This journal now offers health sociologists a significant vehicle for publishing their work, and I thank the editors, Fran Collyer and Toni Schofield, Book Review Editor Dorothy Broom and eContent Management for their hard work in raising the profile of this journal.

In contrast, eSocHealth has been affected by significant technical problems this year. I know Chris King has been investigating alternative options and I thank him for the time he has put into this.

In 2005 TASA sanctioned the establishment of thematic groups, to bring together sociologists with similar interests. In practice, the health sociology section has operated like a thematic group for several years, and I believe the time is right for us to apply to the TASA Executive to be recognised as a thematic group. As far as I can judge, this will make little or no difference to the way we operate, although as thematic groups become established and develop their own norms of behaviour they may take on responsibility for organising their sections of the Annual Conference. One benefit of becoming a thematic group will be a clearer identification of membership of the health section, which at present is a little vague. I encourage members at this meeting to discuss the issues and to see if there is support for the motion I have placed on the agenda. It is also timely to discuss whether there should be one all-embracing health sociology thematic group, much as we have now, or whether certain sub-specialities have sufficient numbers to form thematic groups on their own. There is already a group looking at mental health, and last year at the AGM there was a call for a critical disabilities studies group. The basic requirement for formation of thematic groups is a minimum of fifteen members, two of whom are identified as convenors. Groups are not mutually exclusive, so a person may be a member of more than one group.

I hope that you have wide-ranging and positive discussions about these issues.

Kind regards

Eileen Clark La Trobe University, Wodonga 22 November 2005