Cribb Alan
Centre for Public Policy Research, King's College London, Waterloo Bridge Wing FWB, London, SE1 9NH, UK.
Health Care Anal. 2018 Jun;26(2):109-123. doi: 10.1007/s10728-017-0354-6.
In this editorial essay I explore the possibilities of 'improvement scholarship' in order to set the scene for the theme of, and the other papers in, this issue. I contrast a narrow conception of quality improvement (QI) research with a much broader and more inclusive conception, arguing that we should greatly extend the existing dialogue between 'problem-solving' and 'critical' currents in improvement research. I have in mind the potential for building a much larger conversation between those people in 'improvement science' who are expressly concerned with tackling the problems facing healthcare and the wider group of colleagues who are engaged in health-related scholarship but who do not see themselves as particularly interested in quality improvement, indeed who may be critical of the language or concerns of QI. As one contribution to that conversation I suggest that that the increasing emphasis on theory and rigour in improvement research should include more focus on normative theory and rigour. The remaining papers in the issue are introduced including the various ways in which they handle the 'implicit normativity' of QI research and practice, and the linked theme of combining relatively 'tidy' and potentially 'unruly' forms of knowledge.
在这篇社论文章中,我探讨了“改进学术研究”的可能性,以便为本刊的主题及其他论文搭建背景。我将质量改进(QI)研究的狭义概念与更宽泛、更具包容性的概念进行对比,认为我们应大幅拓展改进研究中“解决问题”与“批判性”流派之间现有的对话。我想到的是,在“改进科学”中那些明确关注解决医疗保健问题的人与更广泛的从事健康相关学术研究但不认为自己对质量改进特别感兴趣、甚至可能对质量改进的语言或关注点持批评态度的同事群体之间,有可能展开更大规模的对话。作为对该对话的一项贡献,我建议改进研究中对理论和严谨性日益增加的强调应更多地关注规范理论和严谨性。本期的其余论文也会被介绍,包括它们处理QI研究与实践中“隐含规范性”的各种方式,以及将相对“整齐”和可能“杂乱”的知识形式相结合的相关主题。