29 Oct Argh, step 5.

Received today from my chair:

Can you rework the introduction with my suggestions here, and then resend?  I want to look at the background and lit review in the context of a clearer introductory statement about what you mean.  I’m still a bit confused about your argument.  I have all day today, so see if you can reframe the argument and get this back to me this afternoon.  I’ll take a look today and tomorrow.

Yes. Yes i can. but, oh dear…i realized that i’ve got the pieces but haven’t clearly tied them all neatly together yet.
1. health citizenship
2. enclaving / micro-territorialization
3. build back better

Unfortunately, much of my argument rests on the notion that health citizenship is tied ot the state is tied to the possibilities of building back better. Which means that i have some how become a bit of a statist. Next, i’ll be capitalising The State…

So my premise: health enclaving creates variable health citizenship which is a two way project: one, to empower people to their rights (demanding a particular amount of social capital) and two, of the kinds of responsibilities that are being expected. Internationally constructed health enclaves, then, supersume the role of the state in the citizenship definition moving it out of the reach of democracy – meaning, the people being “helped” are not being given the opportunity to be at all part of the guiding force of their own social service provision. Which means, we are looking at fractured top-down health service provision. Which even the IMF and WB now recognize to not be particularly well-designed.

This is not coming across clearly in my research proposal. I think i may be in for a complete re-write for the NSF in just three months. For now, i have to work with what i have as my first grant app is due Monday and i still haven’t figured out how to download the app forms.