Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7873. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7873. Epub 2023 Mar 13.
This commentary examines the claim made by Borst et al that knowledge translation (KT) should look to Science and Technology Studies (STS), the sociology of translation, and constructionist views on knowledge, and begin to think of the sustainability of a certain practice as construction work in continuous progress, and not as states to be reached once and for all. While endorsing this claim, the present commentary also argues that what it calls the "epistemic reframing" behind the new construal of KT in Borst must be supplemented with approaches that goes beyond the sociology of translation. The commentary claims that this epistemic shift hinges upon a shift in the narrative framing of KT, and that we need to consider the broader narrative and historical ideology of knowledge dissemination behind KT, and that a failure to do so, leaves us with KT seen as a linear transmission of "true" knowledge to peoples and places lacking such knowledge.
本评论探讨了 Borst 等人提出的观点,即知识转化(KT)应该借鉴科学技术研究(STS)、翻译社会学以及知识的建构主义观点,并开始将某种实践的可持续性视为不断进行的建设性工作,而不是一劳永逸地达到的状态。虽然赞同这一观点,但本评论还认为,Borst 对 KT 的新解释背后的所谓“认识论重构”必须辅以超越翻译社会学的方法。该评论声称,这种认识论的转变取决于 KT 的叙事框架的转变,我们需要考虑 KT 背后更广泛的叙事和历史知识传播意识形态,如果不这样做,我们就会认为 KT 是将“真正的”知识线性地传递给缺乏这种知识的人群和地方。