Advanced search
1 file | 319.81 KB Add to list

Navigating between stealth advocacy and unconscious dogmatism : the challenge of researching the norms, politics and power of global health

Gorik Ooms (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Global Health, Humanities, Social Sciences, Norms, Politics, Power

Downloads

  • IJHPM30431443645000.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 319.81 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Ooms, Gorik. “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, vol. 4, no. 10, 2015, pp. 641–44, doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.116.
APA
Ooms, G. (2015). 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, 4(10), 641–644. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.116
Chicago author-date
Ooms, Gorik. 2015. “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 4 (10): 641–44. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.116.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Ooms, Gorik. 2015. “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 4 (10): 641–644. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2015.116.
Vancouver
1.
Ooms G. 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. 2015;4(10):641–4.
IEEE
[1]
G. 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, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 641–644, 2015.
@article{8515402,
  abstract     = {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.},
  author       = {Ooms, Gorik},
  issn         = {2322-5939},
  journal      = {INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT},
  keywords     = {Global Health,Humanities,Social Sciences,Norms,Politics,Power},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {10},
  pages        = {641--644},
  title        = {Navigating between stealth advocacy and unconscious dogmatism : the challenge of researching the norms, politics and power of global health},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.116},
  volume       = {4},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric