topoi, 2/22

Click here for the topoi. This is the expanded one from the internet.

And here is one more. This is the smaller word document that's not from the internet.

(1) Appearance versus reality + dissoi logoi = 

One organizational strategy I could try is to say that, while it seems as if EBP is the "gold standard" and that qualitative research is derivative and subjective (Rosenstock & Lee, 2002), this form of knowledge-making actually de-privileges the decision-making and negotiation process of parents and practitioners, both the experiential knowledge of parents and expertise of the practitioners (Kemm, 2006). But, to be fair, this latter type of research is open to bias and manipulation because of the way research funding works. Perhaps this is one of the reasons to support mixed methods research.

Rosenstock, L. & Lee, L. J. (2002). Attacks on Science: the risks to evidence-based policy. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 14-18.

Kemm, J. (2006). The limitations of 'evidence-based' practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12(3). 319-324. 

(2) Paradox 

What's weird about the reaction to EPB is the implication that complexity can be garnered through an application of less energy to the research site, by ceasing to busy the subjects to whom the research is aimed with data they simply don't have a use for (Martin & Sturmberg, 2009). 

Martin, C. M. & Sturmberg J. P. (2009). Perturbing ongoing conversations about systems and complexity in health services and systems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(3), 549-552. 

(3) Paradigm 

A popular argument against EBP maintains that this type of research is counterintuitively so scientific as to preclude a use-value among those who would most benefit from it (Lenne & Waldby, 2011). Yet, if we see this claim in terms of those who support EBP, we might say, the point isn't to make an unusable product, and the product isn't unusable: the point is to eliminate potential bias to encourage as many re-purposing down the road as possible. In other words, if research is contextually situated and inapplicable to other situations from the get go, that actually has no use-use. EBP research has actually maximum use value precisely because it can potentially be re-purposed an indefinite amount of times (Rosenstock & Lee, 2002).

Lenne, B. S. & Waldby C. (2011). Sorting out autism spectrum disorders: evidence-based medicine and the complexities of the clinical encounter. Health Sociology Review, 20(1), 70-83. Print. 

(4) Ubiquity  

What makes "complexity" such a tricky term to pin down in the context of EBP is how it gets used in so many different ways. Across different articles, each researcher or team of researchers has their own definition, which is exacerbated across the quantitive and qualitative studies (Rosenstock & Lee, 2002; Martin & Sturmberg, 2009; Kemm, 2006). 

Victora, C. G., Habicht, J., & Brice, J. (2004) Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 400-405.

(5) Context / Intention 

While some do claim that EBP and its relation to the pubic is hampered in terms of causality (Victora, Habicht, & Brice, 2004), we have to remember that these claims have taken place only in the policy literature and therefore at the level of general discussion. No studies have actually tried to map the re-purposing of EBP studies that do in fact take place down on the ground in practice. 

(6) Social Justice

(7) Mistaken Critic