Hvordan skal vi forske i design og anvendelse af IT på sundhedsområdet

    Publikation: Konferencebidrag uden forlag/tidsskriftPaper/skriftligt oplægForskning

    Abstract

    How to Do Research on IT Design and Applications in Healthcare Science?
    Background
    It is of pivotal importance for an increasing number of scientists in the healthcare research community to retrieve knowledge about which IT design and applications empower the end-user to master their own life independently.

    This is especially evident from scientific papers and presentations at research conferences on health care, special needs and rehabilitation.

    They therefore argues that research should use approaches, principles and methods addressing whether this purpose is fulfilled. However, research from scientists in the field find that the dominant research paradigm (referred to as “the paradigm of evidence”) says very little about whether designs and applications fulfil the purpose.

    Objective
    Therefore, they seek new principles for research (often referred to as “the paradigm of realism”) able to find knowledge about whether designs and applications fulfil the purpose at hand.

    The paradigm of realism questions the dominating assumptions in e.g. human-computer interfaces, human factors, socio-technic and medicine, including the characteristics of research settings, scientific inquiry and empiricism. What is lacking therefore, this work argues, is a scientific foundation for a paradigm of realism comparable to the evidence paradigm.

    Some studies assume that realism is a direct consequence of the physical world as the domain of research without a proper account of how the physical world inquired into is real - e.g. how research doesn’t constrain reality. Or, studies make rather random choices amongst approaches, principles, methods and conditions applied and then argue that these more closely account for the reality and inquiry into end-users in real life conditions than does the paradigm of evidence without a proper account of the irrelevance of approaches, principles, methods and conditions not accounted for, to the question of realism.

    Methods
    Three premises in particular are used to argue that a realistic paradigm is used 1) ecology can be used as metaphor for approaches, the complexity and scale for what is staged and inquired scientifically, 2) the inquiry retain the complexity, connectedness and heterogeneity of reality, 3) testimony from individuals involved is valid as empirical information - including experiences and perceptions (also empathetic). These premises are nicely dovetailed to Dohn’s ”knowledge in practice”, Boltes' concepts and requirements for the design of and application of IT and Latour’s ideas about a new scheme for research and inquiry into a number of modes to retrieve knowledge about the world. Like the realistic paradigm the points of departure of all the three scientists question the capacity of contemporary dominant paradigm to find relevant knowledge about the world we inhabit.

    This work suggests to establish a more well-defined scientific basis for when we can argue that research is up to the standards of the realistic paradigm departs, therefore, from Latour, Bolter and Dohn. Rather than providing a categorical yes or no to whether the research is realistic, I suggest an evaluation of the degree of realism from balancing a number of indicators. The paper dovetails these indicators to Latour’s modes of existence, Dohn’s aspects, Bolter's concepts,”forms” and “dimensions”.

    Results and conclusions
    Research in Progress
    Bidragets oversatte titelHvordan skal vi forske i design og anvendelse af IT på sundhedsområdet
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    Publikationsdato23 maj 2014
    StatusUdgivet - 23 maj 2014

    Citationsformater