DDT: Misunderstood or Misrepresented? A critical discourse analysis of the competing claims on the safety and viability of DDT for combating malaria in Africa

Abstract: The symbolic elite discourse on the safety and viability of using the insecticide DDT for combating malaria in Africa is marked by extreme dissonance. While some positions within the debate on using DDT for malaria prevention are quite nuanced, others are more extreme if not one-dimensional. The ones who tend to hold more nuanced or centrist positions on using DDT for controlling malaria are often researchers who acknowledge its capacity to simultaneously prevent and cause harmful effects. Meanwhile, symbolic elites from both the anti- and pro-DDT side competing for space within the discourse have employed certain strategies in how they present their competing claims to the truth about DDT. These strategies of persuasion have been the object of scrutiny in this thesis. With a combination of systematic review and critical discourse analysis methods, this research has explored the discrepancies between the competing claims on what ought to be considered accurate or 'true' knowledge on the use of DDT in malaria control interventions.