Public Health, Social Justice and Qualitative Research: Towards a Research Founded in Values
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.v33s1a18Keywords:
qualitative research, social justice, public health, dialectics, hermeneuticsAbstract
This paper is the result of a theoretical study aimed at problematizing the current procedure of using qualitative research in public health and justifying it through the type of its object (“qualitative”), thus grounding on a dichotomous conception of reality that gives rise to a dualistic qualitative/ quantitative nature of research. I start by acknowledging the existence of various axiological referents which determine the diversity in qualitative research on public health and in the conceptions of social justice underlying the different schools of thought in the discipline. Since we don't conduct research in a disciplinary vacuum, I built two theoretical “edges” of public health that support different sets of values, to discuss how to think about qualitative research in different axiological scenarios. One edge corresponds to what can be called the classic Anglo-Saxon perspective of public health and the other has been constructed by taking into account the three Latin American public health schools of thought. The analysis was structured by contrasting the differences of the meaning that these two “edges” give to reality, science, the object of research, rationality, society, and social justice. This comparison made it possible to see how the instrumental perspective of qualitative research focused on the types of objects and on a dichotomous universe has no meaning for the dialectical and hermeneutical conceptions of reality. It is argued that the similarity between some trends of qualitative research and these Latin American schools of thought of public health is due more to the congruence among related sets of values, which serve as principles, than to the type of object. In this sense, an approach to research based on principles (values) is proposed, which overcomes the “quali” vs. “quanti” dichotomous views.
Downloads
References
(1). Denzin N, Giardina M. (2009). Introduction: Qualitative inquiry and social justice. Toward a politics of hope. En: N. Denzin, M. Giardina (Eds.). Qualitative inquiry and social justice. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009. p. 11-50.
(2). Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Preface. En: N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005. p. IX – XIX.
(3). Denzin N, Giardina M. Introduction: the elephant in the living room, or advancing the conversation about the politics of evidence. En: Denzin N, Giardina, M. Qualitative inquiry and the politics of evidence Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2008. p. 9 – 51.
(4). Christians C. Ethics and politics in qualitative research. En: N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005.p. 139 – 164.
(5). Schwandt T. Farewell to Criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry. 1996; 2(1): 58 – 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200109
(6). Bourdieu P. El oficio de científico. Ciencia de la ciencia y reflexividad. Barcelona: Anagrama.
(7). Cortina A, Navarro E.M. Ética. Madrid: Ediciones AKAL; 2005.
(8). Pieper A. Ética y moral: una introducción a la filosofía práctica. Barcelona: Crítica; 1991.
(9). Tugendhat E. Lecciones de ética. Barcelona: Gedisa; 1997.
(10). Rawls J. Liberalismo politico. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1995.
(11). Sandel M. Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e597132010-001
(12). Tornblom K, Vermunt R. Distributive and procedural justice: research and social applications. Burlington: Ashgate; 2007.
(13). Hernández M. Ponencia presentada a la mesa “Problemas éticos: desigualdad, inequidad e injusticia”. En: Taller Latinoamericano de Determinantes Sociales de la Salud; México DF sep 29 a oct 2. México DF: Asociación Latinoamericana de Medicina Social (ALAMES); 2008.
(14). Sen A. La idea de la justicia. México: Taurus; 2010.
(15). Nussbaum M. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. 1St Edition. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2011.
(16). Cortes, F. La justicia económica global en el sistema internacional de estados. Revista Estudios de Filosofía 2009; 39: 215 – 241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.12683
(17). Breilh J. La determinación social de la salud como herramienta de ruptura hacia la nueva salud pública (salud colectiva). Artículo preparado para el “VIII Seminario Internacional de Salud Pública: Saberes en Epidemiología en el Siglo XXI. Universidad Nacional de Colombia [internet]. [Consultado 2014 oct 18]. Disponible en: http://www.famg.com.ar/documentos/S1%20S2%20DSS%20JB%2002%202013%20Rev%20U%20Nacional%20Colombia.pdf
(18). Granda E. El saber en salud pública en un ámbito de pérdida de antropocentrismo y ante una visión de equilibrio ecológico. Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública. 2007; 26(Edición especial):65-90.
(19). Mardones JM. Filosofía de Las Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. Nota Histórica de una Polémica Incesante. Barcelona: Anthropos Editorial; 1991.
(20). Breilh J. Las tres ‘S’ de la determinación de la vida. En: R. Passos. Determinação Soc. Saúde E Reforma Sanitária. Rio de Janeiro: Centro Brasileiro de Estudos de Saúde (Cebes); 2010. p. 87-125.
(21). Carvalho S. Saude coletiva e promocao da saúde. Sujeito e modanca. Sao Paulo: Hicite; 2005.
(22). Venkatapuram S. Health justice. An argument from the capabilities approach. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2011.
(23). Benhabib S. El ser y el otro en la ética contemporánea. Feminismo, comunitarismo y posmodernismo. Barcelona: Gedisa; 1992.
(24). Breilh J. Epidemiología crítica. Ciencia emancipadora e interculturalidad. Buenos Aires: Lugar Editorial; 2003.
(25). Campos G. Método paideia: análisis y cogestión de colectivos. Buenos Aires: Lugar; 2009.
(26). Campos G. A clínica do sujeito: por uma clínica reformulada e ampliada [internet]. [Consultado 2014 oct 18]. Disponible en: http://www.pucsp.br/prosaude/downloads/bibliografia/CLINICAampliada.pdf
(27). Campos G, Cunha G, Figueiredo. Práxis e formação Paideia: apoio e cogestão em saúde. São Pablo: Hucitec; 2013.
(28). Adorno T. Introducción a la sociología (1968). Barcelona: Gedisa; 1996.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The contents of the articles are the responsibility of the authors
The editorial committee has editorial independence from the National School of Public Health "Héctor Abad Gómez" of the University of Antioquia.
The editorial committee is not responsible for aspects related to copying, plagiarism or fraud that may appear in the articles published in it.
When you are going to reproduce and disclose photographs or personal data in printed or digital format, informed consent is required. Therefore, this requirement is required of the author at the time of receipt of the manuscript.
Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions to reproduce any material protected by reproduction rights.
The authors preserve the moral rights and assign the economic rights that will correspond to the University of Antioquia, to publish it, distribute electronic copies, include them in indexing services, directories or national and international databases in Open Access, under the Creative Commons Attribution license -Not Commercial-Share Equal 4.0 International Commercial (CC BY-NC-SA) which allows others to distribute, remix, retouch, and create from the work in a non-commercial way, as long as the respective credit and license are granted. new creations under the same conditions.
The authors will sign the declaration of transfer of economic rights to the University of Antioquia, after the acceptance of the manuscript.
The editorial committee reserves the right to reject the articles whose authors do not offer satisfactory explanations about the contribution of each author, to meet the criteria of authorship in the submission letter. All authors must meet the four criteria of authorship according to ICMJE: "a) .- That there is a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the article or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data. b) That they have participated in the design of the research work or in the critical review of its intellectual content. c) .- That has been intervened in the approval of the final version that will be published.d). That they have the capacity to respond to all aspects of the article in order to ensure that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are adequately investigated and resolved. "
-- 
--
