Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health
Global health research is essentially a normative undertaking: we use it to propose policies that ought to be implemented. To arrive at a normative conclusion in a logical way requires at least one normative premise, one that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone. But there is no widely ac...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
2015-10-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Health Policy and Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ijhpm.com/pdf_3043_97f33b2c010917d3626e0df796cba963.html |
| _version_ | 1818096601290244096 |
|---|---|
| author | Gorik Ooms |
| author_facet | Gorik Ooms |
| author_sort | Gorik Ooms |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Global health research is essentially a normative undertaking: we use it to propose policies that ought to be implemented. To arrive at a normative conclusion in a logical way requires at least one normative premise, one that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone. But there is no widely accepted normative premise for global health, and the actors with the power to set policies may use a different normative premise than the scholars that propose policies – which may explain the ‘implementation gap’ in global health. If global health scholars shy away from the normative debate – because it requires normative premises that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone – they not only mislead each other, they also prevent and stymie debate on the role of the powerhouses of global health, their normative premises, and the rights and wrongs of these premises. The humanities and social sciences are better equipped – and less reluctant – to approach the normative debate in a scientifically valid manner, and ought to be better integrated in the interdisciplinary research that global health research is, or should be. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T23:07:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ebf21d366bf545218ab1aefc82d2328f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2322-5939 2322-5939 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T23:07:13Z |
| publishDate | 2015-10-01 |
| publisher | Kerman University of Medical Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Health Policy and Management |
| spelling | doaj.art-ebf21d366bf545218ab1aefc82d2328f2022-12-22T01:30:02ZengKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-59392322-59392015-10-0141064164410.15171/ijhpm.2015.116Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global HealthGorik Ooms0Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium; Law and Development Research Group, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, BelgiumGlobal health research is essentially a normative undertaking: we use it to propose policies that ought to be implemented. To arrive at a normative conclusion in a logical way requires at least one normative premise, one that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone. But there is no widely accepted normative premise for global health, and the actors with the power to set policies may use a different normative premise than the scholars that propose policies – which may explain the ‘implementation gap’ in global health. If global health scholars shy away from the normative debate – because it requires normative premises that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone – they not only mislead each other, they also prevent and stymie debate on the role of the powerhouses of global health, their normative premises, and the rights and wrongs of these premises. The humanities and social sciences are better equipped – and less reluctant – to approach the normative debate in a scientifically valid manner, and ought to be better integrated in the interdisciplinary research that global health research is, or should be.http://www.ijhpm.com/pdf_3043_97f33b2c010917d3626e0df796cba963.htmlGlobal HealthHumanitiesSocial SciencesNormsPoliticsPower |
| spellingShingle | Gorik Ooms Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health International Journal of Health Policy and Management Global Health Humanities Social Sciences Norms Politics Power |
| title | Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health |
| title_full | Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health |
| title_fullStr | Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health |
| title_full_unstemmed | Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health |
| title_short | Navigating Between Stealth Advocacy and Unconscious Dogmatism: The Challenge of Researching the Norms, Politics and Power of Global Health |
| title_sort | navigating between stealth advocacy and unconscious dogmatism the challenge of researching the norms politics and power of global health |
| topic | Global Health Humanities Social Sciences Norms Politics Power |
| url | http://www.ijhpm.com/pdf_3043_97f33b2c010917d3626e0df796cba963.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gorikooms navigatingbetweenstealthadvocacyandunconsciousdogmatismthechallengeofresearchingthenormspoliticsandpowerofglobalhealth |