Donk - Praktijkonderzoek in zorg en welzijn

Ten geleide

Bridging the Gap with Practitioner Research Research and practice are typically portrayed as being two very different ac tivities, each with a language and a logic of its own. The gap is considered to be so wide, that new structures and academic positions have been created to study the problems of “translation” and “implementation” and to provide outreach to “the community”. Contrary to what the current state of affairs may imply, there is no inher ent conflict between research and practice. Rather, they stand in a dialecti cal relationship with each other. But this relationship is too seldom allowed to unfold due to entrenched points-of-view about which type of knowledge counts. The European/Western intellectual tradition has long recognized different, interdependent forms of knowledge for varying purposes. According to the classical Aristotelean distinction there is phronesis (a practical wisdom guid ing ethical action), techne (the knowledge needed to carry out activities suc cessfully, such as in a trade or a profession), and episteme (a more abstract, generalizable knowledge commonly associated with science). Over time the ways of categorizing knowledge have become numerous, with no typology being recognized as definitive. Terms such as emotional knowledge, physi cal knowledge, experiential knowledge, intuitive knowledge, and traditional knowledge have been variously defined and employed. The twentieth century saw the rise of the knowledge society , in which knowl edge has become a commodity that is increasingly associated with power and status. The advent of the internet has intensified and accelerated this devel opment, not only providing new opportunities for the generation and dis semination of knowledge, but also giving birth to new forms of propaganda, popularly discussed as fake news and alternative facts . The intricate relation ship between knowledge and power has been explored most vigorously in terms of epistemic justice as demanded by the post-colonial critique of science: the naïve view that more knowledge would lead to a better society has been tempered by the realization that not all knowledge counts equally. It has be come clear that the knowledge most considered “true” is a knowledge which is produced by academic institutions and which is based on “facts,” that is, quantifiable measures. Decisions in the sectors of education, healthcare, and social welfare should be “evidence-based,” preferably reflecting the re sults of controlled experiments using statistical analysis. Such numerically-