双重认知:连接双重研究范式对社会变革的价值。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Neera R Jain, Erene Stergiopoulos
{"title":"双重认知:连接双重研究范式对社会变革的价值。","authors":"Neera R Jain, Erene Stergiopoulos","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Methodological choices carry political consequences and real-world effects in research that seeks to advance justice. The epistemic and ontological grounding of a study shapes what researchers can know, and what they can change. Scholars who produce research with an aim to improve the world for disabled people and other equity-denied groups have debated the utility of certain paradigms and approaches, often arguing that one is superior to another in order to realize these aims. In this research methods paper, the authors set out to offer another view. They discuss their recent approach to analyzing a single dataset of survey responses from a national sample of medical students with disabilities, using two different orientations to reflexive thematic analysis: critical realist/contextualist and relativist/constructionist. They illustrate how each orientation, operating from a different paradigmatic position, generates distinct interpretations and implications. Engaging with debates from disability studies, feminist research, and health professions education, the authors argue that our field of disability inclusion in health professions education research and social justice research more broadly needs pragmatic solutions and exploration of underpinning discourses to achieve a grand project of social change-only possible through the exercise of multiple paradigmatic positions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double Knowing: The Value of Bridging Dual Research Paradigms for Social Change.\",\"authors\":\"Neera R Jain, Erene Stergiopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Methodological choices carry political consequences and real-world effects in research that seeks to advance justice. The epistemic and ontological grounding of a study shapes what researchers can know, and what they can change. Scholars who produce research with an aim to improve the world for disabled people and other equity-denied groups have debated the utility of certain paradigms and approaches, often arguing that one is superior to another in order to realize these aims. In this research methods paper, the authors set out to offer another view. They discuss their recent approach to analyzing a single dataset of survey responses from a national sample of medical students with disabilities, using two different orientations to reflexive thematic analysis: critical realist/contextualist and relativist/constructionist. They illustrate how each orientation, operating from a different paradigmatic position, generates distinct interpretations and implications. Engaging with debates from disability studies, feminist research, and health professions education, the authors argue that our field of disability inclusion in health professions education research and social justice research more broadly needs pragmatic solutions and exploration of underpinning discourses to achieve a grand project of social change-only possible through the exercise of multiple paradigmatic positions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006155\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在寻求促进正义的研究中,方法选择具有政治后果和现实影响。一项研究的认识论和本体论基础决定了研究人员可以知道什么,以及他们可以改变什么。为残疾人和其他被剥夺公平的群体改善世界而进行研究的学者们对某些范例和方法的效用进行了辩论,他们经常认为为了实现这些目标,一个范例和方法优于另一个。在本文的研究方法中,作者提出了另一种观点。他们讨论了他们最近对来自全国残疾医科学生样本的调查回应的单一数据集进行分析的方法,使用两种不同的方向进行反身性主题分析:批判现实主义/语境主义和相对主义/建构主义。它们说明了从不同的范式位置出发的每一种取向如何产生不同的解释和含义。参与残疾研究、女权主义研究和卫生专业教育的辩论,作者认为,我们在卫生专业教育研究和社会正义研究中纳入残疾人的领域更广泛地需要务实的解决方案和探索基础话语,以实现社会变革的宏伟工程——只有通过多种范式立场的实践才有可能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Double Knowing: The Value of Bridging Dual Research Paradigms for Social Change.

Abstract: Methodological choices carry political consequences and real-world effects in research that seeks to advance justice. The epistemic and ontological grounding of a study shapes what researchers can know, and what they can change. Scholars who produce research with an aim to improve the world for disabled people and other equity-denied groups have debated the utility of certain paradigms and approaches, often arguing that one is superior to another in order to realize these aims. In this research methods paper, the authors set out to offer another view. They discuss their recent approach to analyzing a single dataset of survey responses from a national sample of medical students with disabilities, using two different orientations to reflexive thematic analysis: critical realist/contextualist and relativist/constructionist. They illustrate how each orientation, operating from a different paradigmatic position, generates distinct interpretations and implications. Engaging with debates from disability studies, feminist research, and health professions education, the authors argue that our field of disability inclusion in health professions education research and social justice research more broadly needs pragmatic solutions and exploration of underpinning discourses to achieve a grand project of social change-only possible through the exercise of multiple paradigmatic positions.

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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信