scholarly journals Conceptual analysis and empirical research in medical philosophy and medical ethics

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim Dekkers ◽  
Bert Gordijn
2021 ◽  
pp. 095935432110462
Author(s):  
Joel Michell

In his article, “‘Are Psychological Attributes Quantitative?’ is not an Empirical Question: Conceptual Confusions in the Measurement Debate,” Franz (2021) concludes that psychological measurement does not rest on empirical hypotheses but rather on linguistic deceptions. His major premise is that psychometrics is inherently Cartesian. History shows otherwise: the mantras of operationism and the rituals of construct validity were intended to exorcise psyche from psychometrics. These mainstays of psychometrics ensured that theoretical constructs were more frequently dispositional concepts than they were mental concepts. It is with the latter, however, especially with attempts to measure currently occurring mental states, such as anxiety, that Franz’s argument looks more promising, but nevertheless it fails because it rests upon Wittgenstein’s views about the grammar of mental discourse. I conclude that conceptual analysis, realistically construed and applied to mental concepts, may show that they exclude quantitative structure. Despite that, it is always possible that empirical research might elicit quantitative-friendly revisions of mental concepts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Aagaard

The word “multitasking” gets thrown around a lot these days. For years it was touted as the cognitive default for a new generation of digital natives, but psychologists are increasingly warning us against its harmful effects on many different forms of human activity. What exactly is meant by the concept of multitasking, however, remains peculiarly taken-for-granted. The purpose of this article is therefore to analyze, evaluate, and interpret how the word “multitasking” is currently being used in scientific practice. Taking departure in the domain of media multitasking research, the article reveals an unacknowledged normativity in the empirical research literature: Multitasking does not in fact denote a quantitative enumeration of tasks, but a qualitative distinction between on- and off-task activity. In other words, multitasking is functionally equivalent to distraction. This article discusses how this insight challenges the scientific rationality of current media multitasking research and concludes with implications for future research.


Author(s):  
Nina Bonderup Dohn

What roles can (educational) philosophy have within educational research? This question concerns the ways in which one can do philosophy as philosophy, not as something else with inspiration or data from philosophy. Further, it concerns doing philosophy within the field of educational research, that is, with the deliberate intention of engaging with educational research. The question is not how to do “philosophy of” education as a separate, outside reflection on the domain of education; instead, what is at stake is delineating the forms of cooperation that philosophy can engage in with educational research on matters of common interest. This question raises the further question of what kind of endeavor philosophy is in comparison with other kinds of investigations. A traditional answer to this question has been the claim that philosophizing consists of conceptual analysis and that philosophical analyses are a priori, providing the conceptual framework for a posteriori empirical investigations. There are several problems with the clear-cut distinction between a priori and a posteriori, but it can be made sense of if understood in a more relative sense rather than as designating absolute categories. Four different views on what philosophy is as regards other kinds of investigations are delineated, and it is pointed out which role each view correspondingly ascribes to philosophy in its cooperation with empirical educational research. The four roles are philosophy as (a) provider of a priori conceptual analyses, (b) clarifier of educational research concepts and their implications, (c) interpreter of educational research results, and (d) dialogue partner with a voice of its own. The first view of philosophy is the educational variant of the traditional view that philosophy is “queen of the sciences,” acting as conceptual legislator on what it makes sense to say. Philosophy does the conceptual groundwork a priori, as a prerequisite for empirical study and practice implementation, and research and practice then a posteriori investigate the phenomenon delimited by philosophy. Philosophers often take on this role in practice through what they write: they provide analyses of concepts that are significant within educational research, such as “knowledge,” “learning,” “value,” “Bildung,” or “becoming,” and explications of the relationships of these concepts to one another or to other concepts. The second view of philosophy is the educational variant of the opposing traditional designation of philosophy as “handmaiden to the sciences.” Here, philosophy takes a posteriori state-of-the-art educational research as its premise and outset and provides help in clarifying a priori conceptual issues within these a posteriori bounds. The third view of philosophy also takes a posteriori state-of-the-art educational research as its outset but does not content itself with being a helper. Instead, philosophy’s role is to assist educational research in interpreting its results by engaging philosophical methods. In addition to conceptual analysis, this can involve, for example, phenomenological, hermeneutical, and critical-theory analyses. Both a priori and a posteriori philosophical investigations can be undertaken in intertwinement within the a posteriori bounds. The fourth view of philosophy sees the relationship between philosophy and empirical research as symmetrical. Each party can question, challenge, support, inspire, and develop the claims set forth by the other. In this view, philosophy and empirical research within education are concerned with the same subject matter, namely, the actual empirical phenomena of education, such as human knowledge and learning; educational practice; and design of education, curricula, and activities. The research aims of philosophy and empirical research do not coincide, however: Philosophy pursues normative and foundational questions that transcend empirical accounts, and engages intertwined a priori and a posteriori investigations, whereas the various strands of empirical research investigate empirical phenomena in much greater detail.


Author(s):  
Alireza Monajemi ◽  
Hamidreza Namazi

In this paper, we reflect on the COVID-19 pandemic based on medical philosophy. A critical examination of the Corona crisis uncovers that in order to understand and explain the unpreparedness of the health systems, we need a new conceptual framework. This helps us to look at this phenomenon in a new way, address new problems, and come up with creative solutions. Our proposal is that “health lag” is a concept that could help frame and explain this unpreparedness and unreadiness. The term “health lag” refers to the failure of health systems to keep up with clinical medicine. In other words, health issues in most situations fall behind clinical medicine, leading to social, cultural, and economic problems. In the first step to define health lag, we have to explain the distinction between clinical medicine and health and address the role of individual health, public health, and epidemic in this dichotomy. Thereafter, the reasons behind health lag will be analyzed in three levels: theoretical, practical, and institutional. In the third step, we will point out the most important consequences of health lag: the medicalization of health, the inconsistency of biopolitics, inadequate ethical frameworks, and public sphere vulnerabilities. Finally, we try to come up with a set of recommendations based on this philosophical-conceptual analysis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 1024-1039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Äyväri ◽  
Annukka Jyrämä

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual analysis on value proposition tools to be used in future empirical research and in building managerial insight. The conceptual analysis focusses on a living lab framework and recent theoretical developments around the concept of value that are reflected in the context of three managerial tools for creating value propositions. Design/methodology/approach Using abductive reasoning, the descriptions of the tools were analysed as cultural texts, as language-in-use in a social context. Findings In the context of the living labs approach, the Value Proposition Builder™ (VPB) seems to conflict with the ideas and premises of user-centric innovation processes. In the Value Proposition Canvas (VPC), the co-creation aspect is rather vague, as the enterprise and its offerings are presented as creators of value for the customer. Thus, this tool somewhat contradicts the living lab approach. The People Value Canvas (PVC) is aligned with the service-dominant logic and the premises of living labs. However, all three tools largely neglect a deeper acknowledgement of the role of the wider context, the service ecosystem, and the role of networked actors as resource integrators. Moreover, none of the tools explicitly point out the role of enterprises as intermediaries in constructing invitations for value co-creation. Originality/value The paper contributes to the SDL and living labs literature by conceptual analysis on different value proposition tools; the VPB™, the PVC, and the VPC which are relevant for academics as well as practitioners creating new understanding and insights on the connectedness of the living labs framework and SDL as well as their relationship to managerial tools. By identifying the absent elements of S-D logic from managerial value proposition tools, the paper contributes to current discussions by giving attention from scholars towards investigating managerial tools and by providing a new conceptual analysis for future empirical research. The critical analysis of the managerial tools contributes to managerial practice by emphasising the need to consciously evaluate the benefits and failures of tools for developing their organisations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document