翻译风险:社会工作者的认识论假设如何塑造他们分享知识的方式

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gemma Mitchell, I. Demir
{"title":"翻译风险:社会工作者的认识论假设如何塑造他们分享知识的方式","authors":"Gemma Mitchell, I. Demir","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2021.1888892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social workers are at the heart of drives to improve child health and wellbeing, with knowledge sharing between them and other professionals viewed as a way to reduce the uncertainty associated with this area of risk work. We aim to fill a significant gap in the literature by examining how social workers assess, interpret, filter and share knowledge relating to risk and uncertainty – what we call the translation of risk – within their profession. Based on data from a qualitative study with social workers in England between 2012 and 2013, we identify two main approaches social workers employ. We conceptualise them as 1) reluctant translating, and 2) dynamic translating. Our analysis shows that epistemic assumptions such as how social workers conceptualise the fact/value separation; how they view what we call ‘grey evidence’; and how they understand the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, underpin how social workers translate risk. We add a new dimension to the literature on risk by arguing that we need to pay attention to the epistemological values that underpin ‘client-facing’ risk work. Thus, we aid understanding of not only how knowledge is shared in particular ways, but also why this is the case. We identify reasons why some social workers include valuable ‘grey evidence’ and prioritise adequacy over accuracy in their translations of risk. We highlight, however, that through an over-emphasis on accuracy and boundaries, evidence-based practice might end up driving out ‘grey evidence’ and inadvertently hampering effective decision-making, judgement and knowledge sharing on risk.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"20 1","pages":"17 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Translating risk: how social workers’ epistemological assumptions shape the way they share knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Gemma Mitchell, I. Demir\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13698575.2021.1888892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social workers are at the heart of drives to improve child health and wellbeing, with knowledge sharing between them and other professionals viewed as a way to reduce the uncertainty associated with this area of risk work. We aim to fill a significant gap in the literature by examining how social workers assess, interpret, filter and share knowledge relating to risk and uncertainty – what we call the translation of risk – within their profession. Based on data from a qualitative study with social workers in England between 2012 and 2013, we identify two main approaches social workers employ. We conceptualise them as 1) reluctant translating, and 2) dynamic translating. Our analysis shows that epistemic assumptions such as how social workers conceptualise the fact/value separation; how they view what we call ‘grey evidence’; and how they understand the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, underpin how social workers translate risk. We add a new dimension to the literature on risk by arguing that we need to pay attention to the epistemological values that underpin ‘client-facing’ risk work. Thus, we aid understanding of not only how knowledge is shared in particular ways, but also why this is the case. We identify reasons why some social workers include valuable ‘grey evidence’ and prioritise adequacy over accuracy in their translations of risk. We highlight, however, that through an over-emphasis on accuracy and boundaries, evidence-based practice might end up driving out ‘grey evidence’ and inadvertently hampering effective decision-making, judgement and knowledge sharing on risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"17 - 33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2021.1888892\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2021.1888892","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

社会工作者是改善儿童健康和福祉的核心,他们与其他专业人员之间的知识共享被视为减少与这一风险工作领域相关的不确定性的一种方式。我们的目标是通过研究社会工作者如何评估、解释、过滤和分享与风险和不确定性有关的知识——我们称之为风险的翻译——来填补文献中的一个重大空白。根据2012年至2013年英国社会工作者的定性研究数据,我们确定了社会工作者采用的两种主要方法。我们将其定义为:1)不情愿翻译和2)动态翻译。我们的分析表明,认知假设,如社会工作者如何概念化事实/价值分离;他们如何看待我们所说的“灰色证据”;以及他们如何理解客观性和主观性之间的关系,是社会工作者如何转化风险的基础。我们通过论证我们需要关注支撑“面向客户”风险工作的认识论价值,为风险文献增加了一个新的维度。因此,我们不仅帮助理解知识是如何以特定的方式共享的,而且还帮助理解为什么会这样。我们确定了一些社会工作者在风险翻译中包含有价值的“灰色证据”的原因,并优先考虑充分性而不是准确性。然而,我们强调,由于过分强调准确性和边界,基于证据的实践可能最终会排除“灰色证据”,并在无意中阻碍有效的决策、判断和风险知识共享。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Translating risk: how social workers’ epistemological assumptions shape the way they share knowledge
Social workers are at the heart of drives to improve child health and wellbeing, with knowledge sharing between them and other professionals viewed as a way to reduce the uncertainty associated with this area of risk work. We aim to fill a significant gap in the literature by examining how social workers assess, interpret, filter and share knowledge relating to risk and uncertainty – what we call the translation of risk – within their profession. Based on data from a qualitative study with social workers in England between 2012 and 2013, we identify two main approaches social workers employ. We conceptualise them as 1) reluctant translating, and 2) dynamic translating. Our analysis shows that epistemic assumptions such as how social workers conceptualise the fact/value separation; how they view what we call ‘grey evidence’; and how they understand the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, underpin how social workers translate risk. We add a new dimension to the literature on risk by arguing that we need to pay attention to the epistemological values that underpin ‘client-facing’ risk work. Thus, we aid understanding of not only how knowledge is shared in particular ways, but also why this is the case. We identify reasons why some social workers include valuable ‘grey evidence’ and prioritise adequacy over accuracy in their translations of risk. We highlight, however, that through an over-emphasis on accuracy and boundaries, evidence-based practice might end up driving out ‘grey evidence’ and inadvertently hampering effective decision-making, judgement and knowledge sharing on risk.
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
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
×
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