Koro-Ljungberg Mirka
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Qual Health Res. 2008 Jul;18(7):983-9. doi: 10.1177/1049732308318039.
In this article, I focus on two ways of conceptualizing validity and validation, by using reductionist and (e)pistemological approaches, respectively. I question some common understandings of reductionist validation and describe an (e)pistemological standpoint that provides an alternative to reductionist views. In addition, I argue that validity and validation, as concepts, are tools rather than reflections of truth. Furthermore, fallibility, which is embedded in all views of validity and validation, can be compensated with pluralism, as well as acceptance, coexistence, and collaboration with the Other.
在本文中,我分别聚焦于通过还原论方法和(认识论的)认识论方法来对有效性和验证进行概念化的两种方式。我对还原论验证的一些常见理解提出质疑,并描述一种为还原论观点提供替代的认识论立场。此外,我认为,作为概念的有效性和验证是工具而非真理的反映。再者,所有有效性和验证观点中都存在的易错性,可以通过多元主义以及与他者的接纳、共存和协作来弥补。