Review Essay: Limits of the Numerical and the Personalized Measurement Trend in Mental Health Care

IF 0.6 1区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Philosophy of the Social Sciences Pub Date : 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1177/00483931241255255
Nina S. de Boer, Rosa W. Runhardt
{"title":"Review Essay: Limits of the Numerical and the Personalized Measurement Trend in Mental Health Care","authors":"Nina S. de Boer, Rosa W. Runhardt","doi":"10.1177/00483931241255255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Limits of the Numerical calls for the (re)contextualization of the numerical in the social domain and emphasizes that using quantitative data has epistemic and practical/moral considerations that may not align. In this review essay, we evaluate these claims using a case study, viz. the personalized, clinical experience sampling method (ESM) in mental health care. This case study (1) nuances claims made in Limits of the Numerical regarding the generality and non-contextuality of numerical data, and (2) highlights two additional dimensions to the numerical that have been underexposed in the book (i.e., reactivity and Ballung concepts).","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931241255255","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Limits of the Numerical calls for the (re)contextualization of the numerical in the social domain and emphasizes that using quantitative data has epistemic and practical/moral considerations that may not align. In this review essay, we evaluate these claims using a case study, viz. the personalized, clinical experience sampling method (ESM) in mental health care. This case study (1) nuances claims made in Limits of the Numerical regarding the generality and non-contextuality of numerical data, and (2) highlights two additional dimensions to the numerical that have been underexposed in the book (i.e., reactivity and Ballung concepts).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评论文章:心理健康护理中数字和个性化测量趋势的局限性
数字的局限性》呼吁对社会领域中的数字进行(重新)语境化,并强调使用定量数据在认识论和实践/道德方面的考虑可能并不一致。在这篇评论文章中,我们通过一个案例研究,即心理健康护理中的个性化临床经验取样法(ESM),来评估这些主张。该案例研究(1)细化了《数字的局限性》一书中关于数字数据的普遍性和非语境性的主张,(2)强调了数字的两个额外维度(即反应性和巴隆概念),而这两个维度在该书中并未得到充分展示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.
期刊最新文献
Do We Have to Choose Between Different Concepts of Social Structure? A Comparative Analysis of Approaches and Ideas From Nigel Pleasants, Douglas V. Porpora, and David Easton Review Essay: Limits of the Numerical and the Personalized Measurement Trend in Mental Health Care Instrumentalism in the Social and Moral Sciences Concepts in Context: Ontological Coherence in Political Science Research Book Review: A Way Through the Global Techno-Scientific Culture
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1