Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37305353›Full record

ArticleHumanities & social sciences communications2023

Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation.

Matthew Tieu, Michael Lawless, Sarah C Hunter, Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza, Francis Darko, Alexandra Mudd, Lalit Yadav, Alison Kitson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Matthew TieuCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Michael LawlessCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Sarah C HunterCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Maria Alejandra Pinero de PlazaCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5421-9604
Francis DarkoCollege of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Alexandra MuddCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Lalit YadavCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.
Alison KitsonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the "scientific logos" per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good.

Indexed as

Complex networksPhilosophyScience, technology and society

Identifiers

PMID37305353
PMCPMC10238234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.