NAVIGATING BETWEEN STEALTH ADVOCACY AND UNCONSCIOUS DOGMATISM: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCHING THE NORMS, POLITICS AND POWER OF GLOBAL HEALTH

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

OOMS GORIK

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: International Journal of Health Policy and Management Year:2015 | Volume:4 | Issue:10 Page(s): 641-644

Download Full-Text

View:

240

Download:

128

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

NAVIGATING BETWEEN STEALTH ADVOCACY AND UNCONSCIOUS DOGMATISM: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCHING THE NORMS, POLITICS AND POWER OF GLOBAL HEALTH

Author(s)

OOMS GORIK | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

GLOBAL HEALTH

HUMANITIES

SOCIAL SCIENCES

NORMS

POLITICS

POWER

Abstract

GLOBAL HEALTH research is essentially a normative undertaking: we use it to propose policies that ought to be implemented. To arrive at a normative conclusion in a logical way requires at least one normative premise, one that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone. But there is no widely accepted normative premise for GLOBAL HEALTH, and the actors with the POWER to set policies may use a different normative premise than the scholars that propose policies – which may explain the ‘implementation gap’ in GLOBAL HEALTH. If GLOBAL HEALTH scholars shy away from the normative debate – because it requires normative premises that cannot be derived from empirical evidence alone – they not only mislead each other, they also prevent and stymie debate on the role of the POWERhouses of GLOBAL HEALTH, their normative premises, and the rights and wrongs of these premises. The HUMANITIES and SOCIAL SCIENCES are better equipped – and less reluctant – to approach the normative debate in a scientifically valid manner, and ought to be better integrated in the interdisciplinary research that GLOBAL HEALTH research is, or should be.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

OOMS, GORIK. (2015). NAVIGATING BETWEEN STEALTH ADVOCACY AND UNCONSCIOUS DOGMATISM: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCHING THE NORMS, POLITICS AND POWER OF GLOBAL HEALTH. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 4(10), 641-644. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/338162/en

Vancouver: Copy

OOMS GORIK. NAVIGATING BETWEEN STEALTH ADVOCACY AND UNCONSCIOUS DOGMATISM: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCHING THE NORMS, POLITICS AND POWER OF GLOBAL HEALTH. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT[Internet]. 2015;4(10):641-644. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/338162/en

IEEE: Copy

GORIK OOMS, “NAVIGATING BETWEEN STEALTH ADVOCACY AND UNCONSCIOUS DOGMATISM: THE CHALLENGE OF RESEARCHING THE NORMS, POLITICS AND POWER OF GLOBAL HEALTH,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 641–644, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/338162/en

Related Journal Papers

No record.

Related Seminar Papers

No record.

Related Plans

No record.

Recommended Workshops