Di Rienzo Giulia
Centre for Philosophical Psychology, Department of Philosophy, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Front Psychol. 2023 Jan 13;13:1058845. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1058845. eCollection 2022.
In this study, I will claim that we need to rearticulate the so-called "knowledge-to-action" (KTA) gap metaphor in clinical research as a discontinuity of practices. In clinical research, there is a significant delay between the production of research results and their application in policy and practice. These difficulties are normally conceptualized through the metaphor of the KTA gap between scientific knowledge and practical applications. I will advise that it is important to reformulate the terms of the problem, as they suggest the difficulty lies only in the results generated on one side (the laboratory), not reaching the other side (the clinic), and that crossing the gap requires us to simply optimize the transfer and exchange of knowledge. This perspective considers knowledge separate from the practices from which it was generated, making it into a thing that can be transported and transferred largely independently from the communities that produce or "possess" it. The paper then revises the terms of the problem, shifting the focus from knowledge understood as independent from practical circumstances to the situated practices of knowing. Knowledge will then be understood as enacted in practice, emerging as people interact recurrently in the context of established practices. When people coming from different domains and with different "ends-in-view" must coordinate, they have to deal with conceptual and practical tensions, different ways of doing things with their surroundings, and different normative practices. Considering that, the KTA gap will be revised, not as a gap between scientific results and their application in clinical practice, but as a discontinuity in how communities engage with their local contexts and what they perceive as relevant for their activities.
在本研究中，我认为我们需要将临床研究中所谓的“知识到行动”（KTA）差距隐喻重新表述为实践的不连续性。在临床研究中，研究结果的产生与其在政策和实践中的应用之间存在显著延迟。这些困难通常通过科学知识与实际应用之间的KTA差距隐喻来概念化。我将建议，重新表述问题的术语很重要，因为它们表明困难仅在于一方（实验室）产生的结果未到达另一方（临床），并且跨越差距只需要我们简单地优化知识的转移和交流。这种观点将知识与其产生的实践分离开来，使其成为一种可以在很大程度上独立于产生或“拥有”它的社区进行运输和转移的东西。然后，本文重新表述了问题的术语，将重点从被理解为独立于实际情况的知识转移到情境化的认知实践。知识将被理解为在实践中得以体现，随着人们在既定实践的背景下反复互动而产生。当来自不同领域且有着不同“目标”的人们必须进行协调整合时，他们不得不应对概念和实践上的紧张关系、与周围环境互动的不同方式以及不同的规范实践。考虑到这一点，KTA差距将被重新定义，不是作为科学结果与其在临床实践中的应用之间的差距，而是作为不同群体在与当地环境互动以及他们认为与其活动相关的事物方面的不连续性。
