作为证据,什么是证据?一个二元论的例子?

IF 1.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Social Theory & Health Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-16 DOI:10.1057/s41285-021-00170-4
Andrew Neil Fletcher
{"title":"作为证据,什么是证据?一个二元论的例子?","authors":"Andrew Neil Fletcher","doi":"10.1057/s41285-021-00170-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How 'evidence' is conceptualised, generated and deployed in meso-level policy implementation on the ground is critical to health delivery. Using the case of a large-scale health service reconfiguration in northwest England, this study began as a narrative investigation into how different data types and sources are prioritised as NHS administrative structures change over time. During the research, one unpopular reconfiguration decision, the downgrading of a hospital, was challenged using judicial review. Suddenly, a key decision was being based not upon 'facts and data' type evidence but upon evidence of adherence to administrative procedure. This transferred focus away from the ever-shifting categories and hierarchies of data 'types' towards an emphasis on process. By comparing two deliberative contexts-committee and judicial review-this article proposes that evidence can be understood as simultaneously entity and process. As health service reconfigurations continue in response to austerity, integration agendas, evolving organisational landscapes, and demographic and political change, it is increasingly important to recognise the different meanings and uses of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":46551,"journal":{"name":"Social Theory & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8594643/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is evidence as evidence is used? A case of dualism?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Neil Fletcher\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41285-021-00170-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How 'evidence' is conceptualised, generated and deployed in meso-level policy implementation on the ground is critical to health delivery. Using the case of a large-scale health service reconfiguration in northwest England, this study began as a narrative investigation into how different data types and sources are prioritised as NHS administrative structures change over time. During the research, one unpopular reconfiguration decision, the downgrading of a hospital, was challenged using judicial review. Suddenly, a key decision was being based not upon 'facts and data' type evidence but upon evidence of adherence to administrative procedure. This transferred focus away from the ever-shifting categories and hierarchies of data 'types' towards an emphasis on process. By comparing two deliberative contexts-committee and judicial review-this article proposes that evidence can be understood as simultaneously entity and process. As health service reconfigurations continue in response to austerity, integration agendas, evolving organisational landscapes, and demographic and political change, it is increasingly important to recognise the different meanings and uses of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Theory & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8594643/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Theory & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-021-00170-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Theory & Health","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-021-00170-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如何将“证据”概念化、产生和部署到基层的中层政策实施中,对卫生服务至关重要。本研究以英格兰西北部大规模卫生服务重组的案例为例,对不同的数据类型和来源如何随着NHS行政结构的变化而优先考虑进行了叙述调查。在研究过程中,一项不受欢迎的重组决定,即一家医院的降级,受到了司法审查的挑战。突然间,一个关键的决定不再基于“事实和数据”类型的证据,而是基于遵守行政程序的证据。这将焦点从不断变化的数据“类型”的类别和层次结构转移到强调过程。本文通过对委员会审议和司法审查两种审议语境的比较,提出证据可以同时理解为实体和过程。随着卫生服务的重新配置继续应对紧缩、一体化议程、不断变化的组织格局以及人口和政治变化,认识到证据的不同含义和用途变得越来越重要。
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
What is evidence as evidence is used? A case of dualism?

How 'evidence' is conceptualised, generated and deployed in meso-level policy implementation on the ground is critical to health delivery. Using the case of a large-scale health service reconfiguration in northwest England, this study began as a narrative investigation into how different data types and sources are prioritised as NHS administrative structures change over time. During the research, one unpopular reconfiguration decision, the downgrading of a hospital, was challenged using judicial review. Suddenly, a key decision was being based not upon 'facts and data' type evidence but upon evidence of adherence to administrative procedure. This transferred focus away from the ever-shifting categories and hierarchies of data 'types' towards an emphasis on process. By comparing two deliberative contexts-committee and judicial review-this article proposes that evidence can be understood as simultaneously entity and process. As health service reconfigurations continue in response to austerity, integration agendas, evolving organisational landscapes, and demographic and political change, it is increasingly important to recognise the different meanings and uses of evidence.

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
Social Theory & Health
Social Theory & Health SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Social Theory & Health provides an international scholarly forum for theoretical reflection and debate on contemporary health issues, many of which bear directly on the planning and delivery of services. The journal aims to consolidate, refine and extend theoretically informed work on the role of health in modern societies. Interest in issues of theory and health now informs many academic and practice-oriented disciplines and crosses discipline boundaries. The Editors encourage contributions from all relevant disciplines, as well as from those involved directly in front-line treatment and care. Contributions from the developing world are particularly welcome. The journal aims to include contributions from all theoretical perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Populism, moral foundations, and vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19 Habits and the socioeconomic patterning of health-related behaviour: a pragmatist perspective Inequity in palliative care: class and active ageing when dying Correction to: Postcolonial riskscapes: risk, trust, and the community-based response to Ebola virus disease in Liberia Negotiating body and power in forensic mental health care
×
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