Knowledge And Evidence

Philosophers have sought to define knowledge since the time of Plato. This inquiry outlines a theory of rational belief by challenging prominent skeptical claims that we have no justified beliefs about the external world.

Health care systems worldwide are faced with the challenge of improving the quality of care. Providing evidence from health research is necessary but not sufficient for the provision of optimal care and so knowledge translation (KT), the scientific study of methods for closing the knowledge-to-action gap and of the barriers and facilitators inherent in the process, is gaining significance. Knowledge Translation in Health Care explains how to use research findings to improve health care in real life, everyday situations. The authors define and describe knowledge translation, and outline strategies for successful knowledge translation in practice and policy making. The book is full of examples of how knowledge translation models work in closing the gap between evidence and action. Written by a team of authors closely involved in the development of knowledge translation this unique book aims to extend understanding and implementation worldwide. It is an introductory guide to an emerging hot topic in evidence-based care and essential for health policy makers, researchers, managers, clinicians and trainees.

Knowledge Translation in Nursing and Healthcare provides authoritative guidance on the implementation of evidence-informed practice, covering issue identification and clarification, solution building and implementation, evaluation, and sustainment. Integrating theory, empirical research, and experiential knowledge, this hands-on resource assists nurses and healthcare practitioners in collecting quality evidence, transforming it into a useable, customized recommendation, and then applying best practice in various point-of-care settings. Written by highly experienced implementation researchers working with practitioners, the book demonstrates how the synthesis and translation of evidence supports improvement of existing care and service delivery models, and produces increased benefit for both patients and health services. Examples drawn from the authors' first-hand experience—such as pressure injury prevention in acute care, transition of care for people with heart failure, and community leg ulcer care—illustrate the use of best practice in addressing care and quality issues. This important reference and guide: Outlines a planning framework that activates research and evidence in practice settings, moving knowledge into action and sustaining the use of best practice Introduces the framework that enables effective evidence-informed methodology and decision-making Features numerous illustrative field examples of both successful and unsuccessful implementations in a variety of practical situations Offers perspectives on best practice implementation from experienced practitioners and researchers Knowledge Translation in Nursing and Healthcareis a must-have for those wanting to implement, evaluate, and sustain best practice in the delivery of evidence-informed healthcare to patients, families, and communities.

Expanding on the evidence-based practice approach, this book incorporates diverse perspectives on best practices that include qualitative research, professional practice wisdom, and consumer values and experiences.

Historical Knowledge approaches the topic of historical knowledge in depth and from various angles. It seeks to offer theoretical and methodological building blocks for the use of anyone pursuing historical research. This book brings novel insights into classic and topical issues currently under debate: the importance of theory in historical thinking, the dialectic of “text” and “annotation”, the actor and observer levels, the relationship between the general and the individual, the issue of comparison, and the problem of sporadic sources and of understanding the singularity of each one. The overall theme of the book, the possibility of historical knowledge, reflects the very issue that makes historical research distinctive: the challenges of evidence and the problems, both concrete and conceptual, with deciphering and interpreting remnants of the past. This book refreshes the discussion about sources and proper evidence, two issues that the linguistic turn and the postmodern challenge pushed into the background. The book addresses these issues in an easily accessible way and serves as an introduction and guide to the role of theory, method and evidence in historical research not only for students and scholars of history, but also for anyone outside the field with an interest in the topic. Historical Knowledge is the first book to include texts by the three eminent historians, Professors Natalie Zemon Davis, Carlo Ginzburg and Giovanni Levi. The other contributors, Professors Risto Alapuro, Janken Myrdal and Matti Peltonen, are active debaters in current theoretical and methodo-logical discussion.

Negotiating Knowledge draws on a diversity of scholarly and practitioner research across three continents, and a number of case study civil society organisations, operating within local, national and global spheres, to illuminate challenges for practitioners, scholars, donors and policy-makers.

Tracking Truth presents a unified treatment of knowledge, evidence, and epistemological realism and anti-realism about scientific theories. A wide range of knowledge-related phenomena, especially but not only in science, strongly favour the idea of tracking as the key to what makes something knowledge. A subject who tracks the truth - an idea first formulated by Robert Nozick - has the ability to follow the truth through time and changing circumstances. Epistemologistsrightly concluded that Nozick's theory was not viable, but a simple revision of that view is not only viable but superior to other current views. In this new tracking account of knowledge, in contrast to the old view, knowledge has the property of closure under known implication, and troublesome counterfactualsare replaced with well-defined conditional probability statements. Of particular interest are the new view's treatment of skepticism, reflective knowledge, lottery propositions, knowledge of logical truth, and the question why knowledge is power in the Baconian sense.Ideally, evidence indicates a hypothesis and discriminates it from other possible hypotheses. This is the idea behind a tracking view of evidence, and Sherrilyn Roush provides a defence of a confirmation theory based on the Likelihood Ratio. The accounts of knowledge and evidence she offers provide a deep and seamless explanation of why having better evidence makes one more likely to have knowledge. Roush approaches the question of epistemological realism about scientific theories through thequestion what is required for evidence, and rejects both traditional realist and traditional anti-realist positions in favour of a new position which evaluates realist claims in a piecemeal fashion according to a general standard of evidence. The results show that while anti-realists were immodest indeclaring a priori what science could not do, realists were excessively sanguine about how far our actual evidence has so far taken us.

What strength of evidence is required for knowledge? Ordinarily, we often claim to know something on the basis of evidence which doesn't guarantee its truth. For instance, one might claim to know that one sees a crow on the basis of visual experience even though having that experience does not guarantee that there is a crow (it might be a rook, or one might be dreaming). As a result, those wanting to avoid philosophical scepticism have standardly embraced "fallibilism": one can know a proposition on the basis of evidence that supports it even if the evidence doesn't guarantee its truth. Despite this, there's been a persistent temptation to endorse "infallibilism", according to which knowledge requires evidence that guarantees truth. For doesn't it sound contradictory to simultaneously claim to know and admit the possibility of error? Infallibilism is undergoing a contemporary renaissance. Furthermore, recent infallibilists make the surprising claim that they can avoid scepticism. Jessica Brown presents a fresh examination of the debate between these two positions. She argues that infallibilists can avoid scepticism only at the cost of problematic commitments concerning evidence and evidential support. Further, she argues that alleged objections to fallibilism are not compelling. She concludes that we should be fallibilists. In doing so, she discusses the nature of evidence, evidential support, justification, blamelessness, closure for knowledge, defeat, epistemic akrasia, practical reasoning, concessive knowledge attributions, and the threshold problem.