Co wynika z badań opartych na dowodach dla dalszego rozwoju nauk społecznych?

Main Article Content

Stanisław Kowalik

Abstrakt

Global social order calls for more and more knowledge of applicable character. As a result, medicine developed certain procedures known as evidence-based research and evidence-based practice. Both procedures are promoted with great intensity in the domain of social sciences. The article demonstrates that such a type of modernisation may pose a threat to social sciences and their development. An alternative model of conducting research in the field of social sciences has been presented, which would guarantee an increase in the regulatory scientific knowledge in relation to the practice and which, at the same time, would protect social sciences against excessive political and economic interference in its further development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Kowalik, S. (2020). Co wynika z badań opartych na dowodach dla dalszego rozwoju nauk społecznych?. Człowiek I Społeczeństwo, 49, 135–165. https://doi.org/10.14746/cis.2020.49.8
Dział
ARTYKUŁY

Referencje

  1. Arystoteles (1990). Dzieła wszystkie, t. 2. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  2. Audi, R. (2004). Perception and consciousness. W: I. Nüniluoto, M. Sintonen, J. Woleński (red.), Handbook of Epistemology (s. 57–107). Dordrecht: Springer.
  3. Aument, K., Conley, Q. (2018). Transforming theory to practice. Integrating evidence-based practices in human performance improvement. Performance Improvement, 57, 26–32.
  4. Barlow, N. (1958). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. London: Collins.
  5. Beauchamp, S., Drapeau, M., Dionne, C. (2015). The development of practice guidelines in the social and human sciences. Canadian Psychology, 56, 357–357.
  6. Bendle, M.F. (2001). Being critical in globalized world. Australian Psychologist, 36, 81–83.
  7. Berg, H. (2019). Evidence-based practice in psychology fails to be tripartite. A conceptual critique of the scientocentrism in evidence-based practice in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–15.
  8. Böhme, G. (1979). Alternatives in science – alternatives to science? W: H. Nowotny, H. Rose (red.), Counter-movements in the Sciences. The sociology of the alternatives to big science (s. 105–125). London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  9. Böhme, G., Stehr, N. (1986). The Knowledge Society. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  10. Brendtro, L.K., Mitchell, M.L. (2010). Weighing the evidence. From chaos to consilience. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19, 1–5.
  11. Brohman, J. (1995). Economism and critical silences in development studies. A theoretical critique of neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly, 16, 297–318.
  12. Brzeziński, J. (1978). Metodologiczne i psychologiczne wyznaczniki procesu badawczego w psychologii. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
  13. Bunge, M. (1985). Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Life science, social science and technology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  14. Burgess, A., Chang, J., Nakamura, B.J., Izmirian, S., Okamura, K.H. (2016). Evidence-based practice implementation within a theory of planned behaviour framework. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 1, 647–665.
  15. Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Macmillan Publishers.
  16. Caselli, M. (2012). Trying to Measure Globalization. New York: Springer.
  17. Cavallo, R.E. (1979). The Role of Systems Methodology in Social Science Research. Boston: Kluwer.
  18. Coleman, J.S. (1968). Wstęp do socjologii matematycznej. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
  19. Cotterrell, R. (1998). Why must legal ideas be interpreted sociologically? Journal of Law and Society, 25, 171–192.
  20. Dunn, D.S., Elliott, T.R. (2008). The place and promise of theory in rehabilitation psychology. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53, 254–267.
  21. Ercikan, K., Roth, W.M. (2016). Qualitative and quantitative evidence in health. The critics view. W: K. Olson, R.A. Young, I.Z. Schultz (red.), Handbook of Qualitative Health Research for Evidence-based Practice (s. 77–90). New York: Springer.
  22. Eustace, S. (2018). Technology-induced bias in the theory of evidence-based medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24, 945–949.
  23. Gay, P. (2003). Freud. Życie na miarę epoki, tłum. H. Jankowska. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka.
  24. Gibson, E.J. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5, 69–75.
  25. Giddens, A. (2009). Europa w epoce globalnej, tłum. M. Klimowicz, M. Habura. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  26. Greenhalgh, T. (2001). How to Read a Paper. The basics of evidence-based medicine. London: BMJ Books.
  27. Hallowell, N., Lawton, J., Gregory, S. (2005). Reflections on Research. The realities of doing research in the social sciences. Berkshire: Open University Press.
  28. Hamill, N.R., Wiener, K.K. (2018). Attitudes of psychologists in Australia towards evidence-based practice in psychology. Australian Psychologist, 53, 477–485.
  29. Karin, H., Filip, S., Jo, G., Bert, A. (2009). Obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based physiotherapy in practice. A focus group-based study in Belgium (Flanders). Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 25, 476–488.
  30. Kok, G., Bartholomew, K., Parcel, G.S., Gottlieb, N.H., Fernández, M.E. (2014). Finding theory – and evidence-based alternatives to fear appeals. Intervention mapping. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 98–107.
  31. Kowalik, S. (1989). Upośledzenie umysłowe. Teoria i praktyka rehabilitacji. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  32. Kowalik, S. (1994). Zachowania konsumenckie – teoria preferencji – reklama. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 52, 97–111.
  33. Kowalik, S. (2006). Czy potrzeba nam autorytetów na świecie? Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 67, 191–208.
  34. Kowalik, S. (2015). Uśpione społeczeństwo. Szkice z psychologii globalizacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie „Sedno”.
  35. Kruglanski, A. (1989). Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge. New York: Springer.
  36. Kurz-Milcke, E. (2004). The authority of representation. W: E. Kurz-Milcke, G. Gigerenser (red.), Experts in Science and Society (s. 281–301). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  37. Lane, D.C., Oliva, R. (1998). The greater whole. Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft system methodology. European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 214–235.
  38. Li, D. (2014). Value Theory. A research into subjectivity. Berlin: Springer.
  39. Lubeck, S., Jessup, P. (2001). Globalisation and its impact on early years funding and curriculum. Reform initiatives in England and the United States. W: T. David (red.), Promoting Evidence-based Practice to Early Childhood Education. Research and its implications (s. 227–249). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
  40. MacCoun, R.J. (2015). The epistemic contract. Fostering an appropriate level of public trust in expert. W: B.H. Bornstein, A. Tomkins (red.), Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with Authority (s. 13–36). Heidelberg: Springer.
  41. Malcolm, K.T., Taylor, K.K., Mitchell, J., Saile M., Heatly, M., Alpert-Gillis, L.J. (2019). Why, what, and how. Training community clinicians on evidence-based practice for youth mental health. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 13, 279–286.
  42. Mansell, W., Carey, T.A. (2009). A century of psychology and psychotherapy. Is an understanding of control the missing link between theory research and practice? Psychology and Psychotherapy. Theory, Research, and Practice, 82, 337–353.
  43. Marttila, T. (2016). Post-fundational Discourse Analysis. From political difference to empirical research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. Montero, M. (2002). On construction of reality and truth. Towards epistemology of community social psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 571–584.
  45. Montori, V.M., Guyatt, G.H. (2008). Progress in evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1814–1816.
  46. Møller, V., Huschka, D. (2009). Challenges for quality-of-life studies in the Millennium. W: V. Møller, D. Huschka (red.), Quality of Life and the Millennium Challenge (s. 1–12). New York: Springer.
  47. Nowotny, P. (1979). Science and its crisis. Reflection on antiscience. W: H. Nowotny, H. Rose (red.), Counter-movements in the Sciences. The sociology of the alternatives to big science (s. 1–27). London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  48. Oakley, A. (2002). Social science and evidence-based everything. Educational Review. 54, 277–286.
  49. Oliga, J.C. (1996). Power, Ideology, and Control. New York: Plenum Press.
  50. Olson, K., Young, R.A., Schultz, I.Z. (2016). Using qualitative health research to transform the nature of evidence. W: K. Olson, Young R.A., I.Z. Schultz (red.), Handbook of Qualitative Health Research for Evidence-based Practice (s. 3–6). New York: Springer.
  51. Peck, J., Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 2, 380–404.
  52. Peluso, P.R. (2018). Adlerian evidence-based practice research. Response to Sperry. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 74, 265–271.
  53. Petras, J. (1999). Globalization. A critical analysis. W: R.M. Chilcote (red.), The Political Economy of Imperialism. New York: Kluwer.
  54. Petrażycki, L. (1985). O nauce, prawie i moralności. Pisma wybrane. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  55. Podgórecki, A. (1966). Zasady socjotechniki. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
  56. Rakel, H. (2004). Scientists as expert advisors. Science cultures versus national cultures? W: E. Kurz-Milcke, G. Gigerenser (red.), Experts in Science and Society (s. 3–25). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  57. Ruane, F. (2014). Public intellectuals in times of crisis. The role of academia. W: M. Corcoran, K. Lalor (red.), Reflections on Crisis. Dublin: RIA.
  58. Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M., Gray, J.A., Haynes, R.B., Richardson, W.S. (1996). Evidence-based medicine. What is it and what in isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.
  59. Scholte, J.A. (2000). Globalization. A critical introduction. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
  60. Shapin, S. (1993). Historia nauki i jej socjologiczne rekonstrukcje. W: B. Barnes, D. Bloor (red.), Mocny program socjologii wiedzy (s. 373–440), tłum. Z. Jankiewicz, J. Niżnik, W. Szydłowska, M. Tempczyk. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
  61. Sherwood, V.A. (2019). Does evidence-based treatment exist in the mental disciplines? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39, 239–253.
  62. Siemianowski, A. (1976). Poznawcze i praktyczne funkcje nauk empirycznych. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Sindermann C.J. (1985). The Jay of Science. New York: Springer.
  63. Singh, N.N., Oswald, D.P. (2004a). Evidence-based practice. Part I. General methodology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 129–142.
  64. Singh, N.N., Oswald, D.P. (2004b). Evidence-based practice. Part II. A specific methodology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 255–262.
  65. Sintonen, M., Kiikri, M. (2004). Scientific discovery. W: I. Nüniluoto, M. Sintonen, J. Woleński (red.), Handbook of Epistemology (s. 205–253). Dordrecht: Springer. Straus, S.E., Richardson, W.S., Glasziou, P., Haynes, R.B. (2005). Evidence-based Medicine.
  66. How to practice and teach. London: Elsevier Health Sciences.
  67. Strothmann, M., Rupp-Serrano, K. (2020). A comparative analysis of evidence-based selection, professional selection, and selection by approval plan. Library Resources and Technical Services, 64, 15–25.
  68. Sundholm, G. (2004). Antirealism and the roles of truth. W: I. Nüniluoto, M. Sintonen, J. Woleński (red.), Handbook of Epistemology (s. 437–466). Dordrecht: Springer.
  69. Thyer, B.A., Pignotti, M. (2015). Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
  70. Ullrich, O. (1979). Counter-movements and the sciences. Theses supporting counter-movements to “scientisation of the world”. W: H. Nowotny, H. Rose (red.), Counter-movements in the Sciences. The sociology of the alternatives to big science (s. 127–146). London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  71. Viglione, J., Blasco, B.L. (2018). The differential impacts of probation staff attitudes on use of evidence-based practices. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 449–458.
  72. Wainwright, D.W., Oates, B.J., Edwards, H.M., Childs, S. (2018). Evidence-based information systems. A new perspective and a road map for research-informed practice. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 1035–1063.
  73. Wallerstein, I. (2004). Koniec świata jaki znamy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe „Scholar”.
  74. Walter, W. (2004). Experts’ discourses as judicial drama or bureaucratic coordination. Family debate in the United States and Germany. W: E. Kurz-Milcke, G. Gigerenser (red.), Experts in Science and Society (s. 27–46). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  75. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T.G., Feather, N.T., Platow, M.J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389.
  76. Wheen, F. (2005). Karol Marks. Biografia, tłum. D. Cieśla. Warszawa: W.A.B.
  77. Wright, A.L., Hibbert, P., Greenfield, G. (2018). Student understandings of evidence-based management. Ways of doing and being. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 17, 453–473.