Journal Club Entry on Transdisciplinary Public Health Research
Hi everyone!
I see our KTTC community has grown quite a bit since my last face-to-face meeting. It’s great to see an influx of new posts on the blog! It’s also great to see that the first VSS is up and running (unfortunately and somewhat ironically, I have my ‘Engaged Scholarship’ class Thursdays and have been unable to participate).
Anyways, I’m posting because this coming Thursday it’s my turn to present at our faculty’s PhD Journal Club (to those I haven’t met, I’m at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health). Presenting at the journal club entails selecting an article of relevance to your work, and submitting a summary of it and some corresponding discussion questions to the group. I’ve selected an article on the pitfalls of transdisciplinary [public health] research. I think this article will speak to a lot of KTTCers who have attempted research and practice in a transdisciplinary context. So I thought I would post the link to the article and my summary here. If you have thoughts on the discussion questions, that’s great! Otherwise consider this a quasi-annotated bibliographic entry for the blog. I hope everyone is having a productive winter term!
Regards,
Elaine
Journal Club Entry:
Canning, C.G., Hird, M., & Smith, G. (2010). The pitfalls of the “add-and-stir” approach to transdisciplinary public health research. Critical Public Health, 20(2), 145-155. http://www.tandfonline.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/09581590903342077
In the above article, Canning, Hird, & Smith (2010) critique current approaches to transdisciplinary public health research (TPHR) arguing that they tend to favour methodological but not epistemological integration. They refer to this as the ‘add and stir’ approach whereby natural scientists and social scientists partner to study complex public health problems without first uncovering and integrating each other’s epistemological stances. Resultantly, social scientists’ participation tends to be restricted to a social-constructivist approach focused on social, economic, ethical, and political issues, while natural scientists continue to produce positivistic studies of material things. The authors argue that this arrangement either reduces complex health problems to basic parts or conceptualizes the issue too broadly, impeding the discovery of cause-and-effect relationships. Moreover, the ‘add-and-stir’ approach negates the potential of TPHR to “define innovate ways of understanding complex social and biological issues.” (p.150). The authors suggest a better approach for studying complex public health issues would be to embrace an epistemology such as realism, which views “the complex interplay between the social and material as never having been epistemologically distinct” (p. 148). They conclude with recommendation for improving TPHR including: 1) critically analyzing the epistemological component of all team research, 2) reorienting research training around TPHR, and 3) focusing more on knowledge translation.
Discussion points and questions
The authors assert that TPHR “has become a major imperative across all sectors of society and knowledge domains” and that the CIHR among other funders mandate TPHR in the relevant funding calls.
o If so, why are so many ‘add-and-stir’ research projects funded?
o Do funding agencies appreciate the distinctions between multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarty enough to appreciate epistemologically conscious research designs?
Public health researchers are increasingly faced with a dual imperative of increasing their knowledge translation activities and engaging with other researchers from outside their subdiscipline to produce TPHR.
o Does the push for KT complement or undermine efforts towards TPHR? In what ways?
Canning, Hird and Smith assert that making epistemological assumptions explicit and adopting an integrative and flexible epistemology is key to producing high- quality TPHR.
o How comfortable are you with examining your own epistemological assumptions and exploring new ways of knowing?
Ryan DeForge 2:45 pm on January 26, 2012 Permalink
Brilliant post Elaine — thanks for making the time to share this article/summary and these points of discussion. I’m interested in taking a shot at responding to some of the issues you / the article raise:
{1. You mentioned that} The authors assert that TPHR “has become a major imperative across all sectors of society and knowledge domains” and that the CIHR among other funders mandate TPHR in the relevant funding calls. If so, why are so many ‘add-and-stir’ research projects funded?
o The first thing i think of is the notion of hegemony (see Gramsci, 1971, and/or the wiki-def’n at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony ) —- and insofar that post-positivism is the hegemonic paradigm in science, then we might well be able to account for so many ‘add and stir’ projects by way of pointing to what, at times, appears to be a positivist appropriation of POST-post-positivist methodologies. In other words, since the received way of doing and thinking about science is post-positivist, the integration of alternative methodologies occurs without paying attention to the epistemological nuances of those alternative methodologies. Hence you see mixed methods projects (or programs) that oftentimes mis-treat or ignore the philosophical assumptions that undergird the qualitative component. This is troubling insofar that as a consequence, the validity of the qualitative work is / might be compromised. Rather than the recipe becoming more rich and delicious with a newly added ingredient, the new ingredient becomes watered down.
2. Do funding agencies appreciate the distinctions between multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarty enough to appreciate epistemologically conscious research designs?
o I don’t know. If the hegemonic tendencies of post-positivist science reach up at all into the realm of funding, then i’d suppose (and be concerned) that the answer is No — partly because of (or reproduced by) the answer to your final question — are you/we comfortable with examining our own epistemological positions and with being open to new ways of knowing — if the answers to these questions are No, then how might science/funders ever come to respect (and perhaps favor) projects that espouse/practice epistemological pluralism?
3. Public health researchers are increasingly faced with a dual imperative of increasing their knowledge translation activities and engaging with other researchers from outside their subdiscipline to produce TPHR. Does the push for KT complement or undermine efforts towards TPHR? In what ways?
o I’d like to think that the ‘cutting edge KT’ invites/fosters/integrates other, alternative perspectives. If though KT practices remain orthodox, that is limited to ‘research-based evidence’ only — at the expense of clinical, patient, and local/contextual knowledge, then it would seem that any disciplines that embrace non-orthodox ways of knowing are likely to be marginalized. So, to answer the question, i might say, If/when KT practices embrace epistemological pluralism, then TPHR can be supported and enhanced.
4. Canning, Hird and Smith assert that making epistemological assumptions explicit and adopting an integrative and flexible epistemology is key to producing high- quality TPHR. How comfortable are you with examining your own epistemological assumptions and exploring new ways of knowing?
o My own doctoral training hasn’t steeped me in post-positivism; rather, in an effort to appreciate and apply the tenets of rigor in qualitative methodologies, I’ve learned that a central criterion for rigor IS to ‘locate oneself’ epistemologically … by asking/answering questions of how researchers’ subjectivities are present, how they are recognized/articulated, and by being transparent about how that affects one’s analysis and resultant knowledge claims. I’ve found though that this is a seemingly never-ending quest, and much like an insatiable sponge, one call easily fall into the (sometimes) paralyzing trappings of (not) knowing how we know. While the 4+ years of doctoral training can/does provide the opportunity for that growth and introspection, it seems that such considerations are inevitably rendered (by hegemonic forces) as moot — “let’s just be pragmatic about it” they say, and focus on solutions. Fair enough, but not at the expense of embracing other ways of knowing. SO, one either continues to run the risk of reigniting some paradigm war, OR one recedes to a camp of likeness where his/her alternative ways of knowing and alternative methodologies are accepted (albeit in some seemingly marginalized sense), OR those marginalized knowers must tactfully and patiently and persistently (re)create the spaces where hegemonic practices can be fractured so as to make room for ‘a view from below’. Being comfortable in/doing the latter is a tall order, one that requires a willingness to be vulnerable; thankfully, i think/sense, there are more of us ‘critical realists’ out there than we know, even if we might not all share a passion for appreciating how/when/why we’re ‘located’ as we are.
Thanks again Elaine. I’d be curious to know how your U of A seminar unfolds.
Cheers,
Ryan
Elaine Hyshka 2:08 am on January 29, 2012 Permalink
Ryan,
Thanks for taking the time to formulate such a thoughtful reply! It’s great to be able to indulge my sociological side in this forum, and the KTTC is lucky to have someone like you who has clearly thought a lot about epistemology and knowledge production. I’ve included some responses to your comments below:
1) Excellent point! I think you eloquently captured the major problems associated with adopting methodologies without consideration of their epistemologic roots, and hegemony is a interesting lens for making sense of why this is a perennial problem for many public health research projects with the even best transdisciplinary intentions.
2) During the seminar we talked a lot about how both funding agencies, the peer review system, and FECs tend to disincentivize quality TPHR. For example, funders often require applicants to demonstrate the multidisciplinary nature of the team, but rarely ask for details on how the team will integrate methodologically and epistemologically, and how this integration will be reflected in the findings. The overall attitude of the group was that TPHR was a noble pursuit but mostly unrealistic in the current academic system.
3) I agree with you that KT should ideally move towards epistemological pluralism, and certainly hope to push the boundaries in my own research. Lately though, I’ve been more inclined to think about and identify with the ‘engaged scholarship’ paradigm because it emphasizes both academic-knowledge user collaboration and cross-disciplinary collaboration (in research AND teaching) for addressing complex social problems (such as problematic substance use). I think the notion of epistemological pluralism is more at home in ES than KT, at least currently.
4) “It seems that such considerations are inevitably rendered (by hegemonic forces) as moot — “let’s just be pragmatic about it” they say, and focus on solutions. Fair enough, but not at the expense of embracing other ways of knowing. SO, one either continues to run the risk of reigniting some paradigm war, OR one recedes to a camp of likeness where his/her alternative ways of knowing and alternative methodologies are accepted (albeit in some seemingly marginalized sense), OR those marginalized knowers must tactfully and patiently and persistently (re)create the spaces where hegemonic practices can be fractured so as to make room for ‘a view from below’.”
This is great insight Ryan. Prior to reading this article, I hadn’t thought very critically about why interdisciplinary projects tend to adhere to conventional ways of collaborating and resultantly produce fairly standard discipline-specific research products. Reading the above comment, I really identify with your experience. You mention critical realism, and I’m curious if you’ve found any other theories offering guidance on epistemological integration? Unfortunately, I found Canning et al. (2010) short on guidance in this area, with two exceptions. The authors suggested incorporating a social theorist onto the research team who’s role would be to interrogate and document the team’s epistemologic stand point (a nice job prospect for my former classmates in sociology but not always practical), they also made a vague reference to Actor Network Theory, which I have seen (promisingly) applied in the realm of illicit drug research, but have not had the opportunity to investigate it further.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond! I look forward to future discussions on this topic.
Ryan DeForge 1:45 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink
re: ‘guidance on epistemological integration’ …
(1) I really enjoyed reading the book, Engaging Crystallization in Qualitative Research by L. Ellingson. It’s a little less about integrating per se, and more about re-presenting one’s findings across a/the continuum of epistemological positions … either within a single work, or spanning across a number of products/papers.
Here’s a link: http://books.google.ca/books/about/Engaging_Crystallization_in_Qualitative.html?id=HrO8BIycdfIC
(2) A colleague of mine is presenting (here at Western) later this week on using Actor Network Theory to understand the production and application(s) of knowledge within the context of genetic research. I like how ANT ‘gives agency’ to non-human mechanisms, and agree that such a theoretical orientation can help illuminate a/the context.
(3) A third way to engage notions of pluralism is through the theoretical notion of ‘bricolage’ … see Chapters 1 & 9 of the SAGE Handbook on Qual Research (4th ed), and/or do a google search for ‘Kincheloe AND bricoleur’. A colleague and I have an article in press re: ‘physiotherapy as bricolage’ in which we re-dress the ways in which ‘expertise’ is conceptualized in PT and in doing so, espouse a kind of epistemological pluralism, that is, across PTs’ practices, paradigms, and professional identities. In any case, donning a bricoleur’s hat is to surround and avail yourself to myriad perceptions, which, come full circle, is akin i think to ‘epistemological integration’.
Heather Colquhoun 2:09 pm on January 30, 2012 Permalink
Ryan and Elaine,
I don’t have any content to add to your discussion but I wanted to say how much I enjoyed reading your dialogue. It made me reflect on concepts that I rarely reflect on and made me wonder how I might become less trapped in singular (the opposite of pluralism?) notions/concepts/ways of thinking.
Thank you