KTTC’s first virutal seminar _ on ‘the nature of evidence’, part 1 of 3.
FINALLY! We held our first Virtual Seminar Series today and (i can’t help but feel) it was a smashing success! Participants included one post-doc and 3 doctoral candidates with KT-focused interests, and one community practitioner (a clinical nurse specialist from Oregon) with a burgeoning interest in KT. There were no “ground rules” to shape our dynamics, but instead just a couple of facilitative mechanisms: (i) the google-doc that houses some of the previously prepared commentary that served as a point of departure for our seminar, and (ii) an attempt to establish an atmosphere in which we could “pit & pursue” each others’ ideas and assumptions.
If you’re interested, feel free to take a gander at the google-doc at this link:
You’ll find (in row 2 of the Jan 19 2012 worksheet) what is essentially an annotated bibliography for the two articles we read/discussed, plus a brief summary of the topics of discussion that emerged (in row 3). Perhaps, over time, this google-doc will evolve into something of a living document as we/you/anyone adds to or builds upon some of the ideas shared today. (Feel free to leave a post-seminar Comment somewhere on the google-doc and/or by replying to this thread
FYI, the two readings for today were:
Raphael, D. (2000). The question of evidence in health promotion. Health Promotion International, 15 (4), 355-368
and
Rycroft-Malone et al. (2004). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47 (1), 81-90.
Some of the topics we landed on during the seminar include: additions to / variations of the principles of evidence-based practice (a la Sackett); the merits and (im)possibilities of methodological and theoretical (and even epistemological) pluralism; notions of ‘KT as bricolage’ (see Levis-Stauss 1966, Kincheloe 2001, Denzin & Lincoln 2005, but you’ll not find anything, i don’t think, about bricolage & KT per se); the notion of ‘crystallization’ (see Richardson1997; Ellingson 2009); we also spoke of the growing acceptance and apparent appropriateness of mixed methods research in KT (fitting indeed with notions of science from the viewpoints of epistemological pluralism);
… and in an unexpected and most refreshing sense, storied for us were some of the experiences of a KTTC member from the US, a clinical nurse specialist working with Veterans — it’s exciting to bear witness to the growth and inclusiveness of & with/in the KTTC; moreover, these real-world experiences helped (re)ground our discussion in the ‘swampy lowlands’ (Schon, 1996) of clinical practice — ivory-tower-speak seems to tend toward the abstract at times, don’t you think?
That’s not to apologize though for this seminar topic: the ‘nature of evidence’ is akin to considerations of the nature of knowledge, and so it seems venturing into and getting a feel for some philosophical conventions and apparatuses is necessary, productive, and rewarding. Doubly so, i’d say, when our shared thoughts remain meaningful to all knowledge users’n'producers.
And/so/also FYI, the two readings for NEXT week (ie, Jan 26, 12 noon eastern) are:
Straus, S. & Haynes, B. (2009). Managing evidence-based knowledge: the need for reliable, relevant and readable resources. CMAJ, 180 (9), 942-945
and
Bluhm, R. (2005). From hierarchy to network – a richer view of evidence for evidence-based medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48 (4), 535-547.
Thanks for your consideration and time — we look forward to more rich participation and collaborative learning next week!
Take care all,
Ryan

Vivian Chan 6:02 pm on January 20, 2012 Permalink
Great to hear the 1st session went well!
With respect to the nature of evidence, perhaps this article from the New Yorker would also offer another perspective. It talks about the decline effect and the scientific method…
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?printable=true
the article ended with…
“Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism. Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”
Robin Urquhart 9:06 pm on January 21, 2012 Permalink
Hi All,
Viv, I just finished reading the New Yorker article you suggested above, and it was a terrific read. Thanks!
I also recommend to anyone pondering the notion of evidence and “truth”.
Cheers,
Robin
Heather Colquhoun 2:57 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink
Agreed, great read. I guess that throws replication out the window.