49. årgang, 3 Juni 2012 Tema: EVIDENS – et eftersyn

Charlotte Ringsmose
Hvordan ser man om interventionen virker?

Keld Torgård
Evidensbevægelsen – en bevægelse i konflikt med sig selv

Leif Olsen
Evidensbaseret praksis mellem vision og mystifikation

Lene Tanggaard og Klaus Nielsen
Evidens mellem kontrol og kreativitet

Thomas Aastrup Rømer
Pædagogik og evidens

Leon Lerborg
Styring, kontrol og evidens

150,00 kr. Inkl. moms

Varenummer PPT123 Kategori


Ringsmose, Charlotte (Professor at the University of Aarhus). How Do You See If Intervention Works? Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 2012, Vol.49, 3, 145 – 150. The practices in educational psychology are based on different theoretical, methodological and empirical perspectives. Evidence-based practice in educational psychology can be important, but evidence-based practice may narrow the way we see children. Different fields of research have different standards of quality. When working with children in educational settings from early childhood, it is important to consider the context of the child’s development. – Charlotte Ringsmose

Thorgård Keld (Lecturer at the University of Aarhus). The Evidence Movement – A Movement in Conflict With Itself. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift,2012, Vol. 49, 3, 151 – 158. – This article illustrates that the evidence movement contains several, different tracks. It is probably agreed upon that it strives to found practice within social, educational, administrative, and health areas on as strong evidence as possible. Many also point out that there is a need in concrete situations to apply evaluation and “judgment”, because scientific evidence does not in itself lead to decisions. At the same time, however, the movement also mirrors a widespread societal and administrative skepticism towards more personal judgments. It is concluded that there is a need to distinguish between “judgments” and the status of more personal evaluations in scientific matters, in the application of scientific results, and in relation to practices as something different and more than a context for the application of instrumental knowledge. – Keld Thorgård

Olsen Leif (Senior researcher at AKF, applied research in municipal matters). Evidence Based Practice Between Vision and Mystification. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 2012, Vol.49, 3, 159 – 165.- The article focuses on three aspects, which according to the author appear to contribute to the mystification of the vision to solve social problems through evidence-based practice: 1) the semantic magnetism and inclusive character of the concepts of evidence and practice, 2) recognition of legitimate and relevant types of knowledge, which might be included in evidence-based practice and 3) the differences among politicians’, administrators’, researchers’, specialists’ and citizens’ positions and interests related to evidence-based practice. The conclusion of the article is that frustrations seem to be increased in the aftermath of rhetoric and practical efforts to simplify the understanding of how evidence-based practice could and should be realised. Therefore, there is a need of subtle and differentiated strategies and practical solutions, which should find their form and content in critical dialog and co-operation among actors on the arena of evidence politics. The critical dialogues between the actors – politicians, specialists, citizens and researchers – should contribute to constructive processes of co-operation, where evidence-based practice will consist of a range of different solutions e.g.: 1) firmly defined programmes and packages of solutions used to solve well-defined “tame” problems by identical means and 2) flexible professional efforts, which are capable to handle and solve “wild” problems in unique settings.– Leif Olsen

Tanggard, Lene & Nielsen, Klaus (Professor at the University of Aalborg & Professor at the University of Aarhus).  Evidence – Between Control and Creativity. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 2012, Vol. 49, 3, 166 – 175- This paper highlights the tension between control and creativity in the new evidence-based movement within research and in relation to practitioners work. On the one hand, evidence is concerned with legitimate intentions to ensure control and security and the need to guarantee value for money when it comes to social work, therapy or medicine. On the other hand, if evidence means that practitioners cannot rely on their experience or need to obey strictly to research based models, it might hinder necessary creative responses to unforeseen situations within their work. As such, this paper advocates the use of terms such as democratic evidence and evidence-informed practice to avoid a one-sided technocratic model of evidence. – Lene Tanggaard og Klaus Nielsen

Rømer; Thomas, Astrup (Lecturer at the University of Aarhus). Education and Evidence. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 2012, vol. 49, 3, 176 – 186. – It is argued that evidence and education are concepts that are difficult to combine. It is even the case that the more evidence you introduce, the less education you get. Evidence escapes from the cultural complexity of education and seeks new mates in the form of a far too simple research model, international ranking lists, and global capitalism before finally returning to education, demanding clear and unequivocal goals and standardized fact sheets. The consequence is in this article called pure education which is a process leading to the separation of education from central cultural categories such as democracy, tradition, knowledge and criticism. – Thomas Astrup Rømer

Lerborg, Leon (Chief consultant at Metropol). Steering, Control, and Evidence. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, 2012, Vol. 49, 3, 187 – 216. This article esplores the Danish words “styring”, “kontrol” and “evidens”– which approximately means: Managing by systems; controlling as the act of checking if intended results actually occur; and if there is scientific evidence that professional activities cause intended results. Those three basic concepts from administrative politics are related to general management paradigms, especially to New Public Management, which in turn is defined as three separate logics of management.  The purpose of the article is to clarify the three basic concepts by drawing attention to possible analytical differentiations and by relating them to general management paradigms.– Leon Lerborg

Relaterede varer