学习经验教训:应对复杂性。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/S1744133122000135
Calum Paton
{"title":"学习经验教训:应对复杂性。","authors":"Calum Paton","doi":"10.1017/S1744133122000135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the article, 'Learning Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic', Powell (2022) rightly implies that there is a profusion of confusion in the 'industry' which has grown up around lesson-learning from the pandemic. His contribution sets out a helpful framework for classifying or making attempts at lesson-learning. He combines the tripartite classification of inadequate approaches to policy-learning and policy transfer developed 30 years ago by Dolowitz and Marsh ('uninformed-incomplete-inappropriate'), which he inverts to produce a classification of approaches which are informed, complete and appropriate, with the framework of 'outcome-mechanism-context' from realistic evaluation. (I use the term realistic rather than realist, as the latter implies an epistemological stance as opposed to what was intended, which is that evaluation takes account of complexity in a realistic manner.) This produces a classification, and possibly an 'ideal type', of informed outcomes, complete mechanisms and appropriate context. Powell rightly implies that no overall conclusion is available from the literature reviewed. He does however imply that different approaches may work in different settings. This is true in one sense but misleading in another. This commentary argues that such 'relativism' is not only dangerous in practice but mistaken in theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":"18 1","pages":"104-110"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning lessons about lesson-learning: Covid complexity.\",\"authors\":\"Calum Paton\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1744133122000135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the article, 'Learning Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic', Powell (2022) rightly implies that there is a profusion of confusion in the 'industry' which has grown up around lesson-learning from the pandemic. His contribution sets out a helpful framework for classifying or making attempts at lesson-learning. He combines the tripartite classification of inadequate approaches to policy-learning and policy transfer developed 30 years ago by Dolowitz and Marsh ('uninformed-incomplete-inappropriate'), which he inverts to produce a classification of approaches which are informed, complete and appropriate, with the framework of 'outcome-mechanism-context' from realistic evaluation. (I use the term realistic rather than realist, as the latter implies an epistemological stance as opposed to what was intended, which is that evaluation takes account of complexity in a realistic manner.) This produces a classification, and possibly an 'ideal type', of informed outcomes, complete mechanisms and appropriate context. Powell rightly implies that no overall conclusion is available from the literature reviewed. He does however imply that different approaches may work in different settings. This is true in one sense but misleading in another. This commentary argues that such 'relativism' is not only dangerous in practice but mistaken in theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"104-110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133122000135\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133122000135","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鲍威尔(2022)在文章《从Covid-19大流行中吸取教训》中正确地暗示,在围绕从大流行中吸取教训而成长起来的“行业”中存在着大量的困惑。他的贡献为分类或尝试教训学习提供了一个有用的框架。他结合了30年前由Dolowitz和Marsh提出的政策学习和政策转移的不充分方法的三方分类(“不知情-不完全-不适当”),并将其倒置为一种知情,完整和适当的方法分类,并从现实评估的“结果-机制-背景”框架中进行了分类。(我使用“现实主义”而不是“现实主义”一词,因为后者暗示了一种与意图相反的认识论立场,即评估以现实的方式考虑复杂性。)这产生了一种分类,可能是一种“理想类型”,即知情的结果、完整的机制和适当的背景。鲍威尔正确地暗示,从所回顾的文献中无法得出全面的结论。然而,他确实暗示,不同的方法可能在不同的环境中起作用。这在某种意义上是正确的,但在另一种意义上却具有误导性。这篇评论认为,这种“相对主义”不仅在实践中是危险的,而且在理论上是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Learning lessons about lesson-learning: Covid complexity.

In the article, 'Learning Lessons from the Covid-19 Pandemic', Powell (2022) rightly implies that there is a profusion of confusion in the 'industry' which has grown up around lesson-learning from the pandemic. His contribution sets out a helpful framework for classifying or making attempts at lesson-learning. He combines the tripartite classification of inadequate approaches to policy-learning and policy transfer developed 30 years ago by Dolowitz and Marsh ('uninformed-incomplete-inappropriate'), which he inverts to produce a classification of approaches which are informed, complete and appropriate, with the framework of 'outcome-mechanism-context' from realistic evaluation. (I use the term realistic rather than realist, as the latter implies an epistemological stance as opposed to what was intended, which is that evaluation takes account of complexity in a realistic manner.) This produces a classification, and possibly an 'ideal type', of informed outcomes, complete mechanisms and appropriate context. Powell rightly implies that no overall conclusion is available from the literature reviewed. He does however imply that different approaches may work in different settings. This is true in one sense but misleading in another. This commentary argues that such 'relativism' is not only dangerous in practice but mistaken in theory.

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
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
How should medicines reimbursement work? The views of Spanish experts. Success and failure in establishing national physician databases: a comparison between Canada and Israel. Implications of the fair processes for financing UHC report for development assistance: reflections and an application of the decision-making principles to PEPFAR. A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices. Response to critics of Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage.
×
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