认真对待经验证据 v.2.01

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES
Terje Tilden, May-Britt Solem, Frode Thuen, Lennart Lorås, Jan Stokkebekk, Kristoffer Whittaker
{"title":"认真对待经验证据 v.2.01","authors":"Terje Tilden,&nbsp;May-Britt Solem,&nbsp;Frode Thuen,&nbsp;Lennart Lorås,&nbsp;Jan Stokkebekk,&nbsp;Kristoffer Whittaker","doi":"10.1111/1467-6427.12448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article discusses the status and challenges related to the basic perspective of knowledge and science in systemic practice. This article points out that some parts of the field (i.e. collaborative dialogical practice) have a preference for knowledge obtained through qualitative rather than quantitative studies. This is problematised, partly based on methodology and partly on the bias this entails in the provision of knowledge to students and systemic practitioners. The consequences of such a preference may be that systemic practitioners will lack significant knowledge, and that they are not encouraged to conduct or participate in quantitative studies. This issue highlights a stronger focus on the field's basic perspectives, as well as key political, ethical and professional policies. In response, the article presents the theories of interactive constructivism and critical realism and proposes that these become the guiding paradigm for systemic practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51575,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-6427.12448","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking empirical evidence seriously v.2.0†\",\"authors\":\"Terje Tilden,&nbsp;May-Britt Solem,&nbsp;Frode Thuen,&nbsp;Lennart Lorås,&nbsp;Jan Stokkebekk,&nbsp;Kristoffer Whittaker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-6427.12448\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article discusses the status and challenges related to the basic perspective of knowledge and science in systemic practice. This article points out that some parts of the field (i.e. collaborative dialogical practice) have a preference for knowledge obtained through qualitative rather than quantitative studies. This is problematised, partly based on methodology and partly on the bias this entails in the provision of knowledge to students and systemic practitioners. The consequences of such a preference may be that systemic practitioners will lack significant knowledge, and that they are not encouraged to conduct or participate in quantitative studies. This issue highlights a stronger focus on the field's basic perspectives, as well as key political, ethical and professional policies. In response, the article presents the theories of interactive constructivism and critical realism and proposes that these become the guiding paradigm for systemic practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-6427.12448\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6427.12448\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6427.12448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了与系统实践中的知识和科学的基本观点有关的现状和挑战。文章指出,该领域的某些部分(即合作对话实践)更倾向于通过定性研究而非定量研究获取知识。这一点受到质疑,部分原因在于方法论,部分原因在于在向学生和系统实践者提供知识时会产生偏差。这种偏好的后果可能是,系统从业人员将缺乏重要的知识,而且不鼓励他们开展或参与定量研究。本期文章强调要更加关注该领域的基本观点以及关键的政治、伦理和专业政策。为此,文章提出了互动建构主义和批判现实主义理论,并建议将其作为系统实践的指导范式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking empirical evidence seriously v.2.0†

This article discusses the status and challenges related to the basic perspective of knowledge and science in systemic practice. This article points out that some parts of the field (i.e. collaborative dialogical practice) have a preference for knowledge obtained through qualitative rather than quantitative studies. This is problematised, partly based on methodology and partly on the bias this entails in the provision of knowledge to students and systemic practitioners. The consequences of such a preference may be that systemic practitioners will lack significant knowledge, and that they are not encouraged to conduct or participate in quantitative studies. This issue highlights a stronger focus on the field's basic perspectives, as well as key political, ethical and professional policies. In response, the article presents the theories of interactive constructivism and critical realism and proposes that these become the guiding paradigm for systemic practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of Family Therapy advances the understanding and treatment of human relationships constituted in systems such as couples, families and professional networks and wider groups, by publishing articles on theory, research, clinical practice and training. The editorial board includes leading academics and professionals from around the world in keeping with the high standard of international contributions, which make it one of the most widely read family therapy journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信