liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Doganova, Liliana
    et al.
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Giraudeau, Martin
    London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
    Helgesson, Claes-Fredrik
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Kjellberg, Hans
    Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.
    Lee, Francis
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Mallard, Alexandre
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Mennicken, Andrea
    London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
    Muniesa, Fabian
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Sjögren, Ebba
    Stockholm School of Economics, France.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Valuation Studies and the Critique of Valuation2014In: Valuation Studies, ISSN 2001-5992, Vol. 2, no 2, p. 87-96Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Doganova, Liliana
    et al.
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Giraudeau, Martin
    London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom.
    Kjellberg, Hans
    Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.
    Helgesson, Claes-Fredrik
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Lee, Francis
    Department of History of Science and Ideas, Uppsala University, Sweden.
    Mallard, Alexandre
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Mennicken, Andrea
    London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom.
    Muniesa, Fabian
    Mines ParisTech, France.
    Sjögren, Ebba
    Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Five years! Have we not had enough of valuation studies by now?2018In: Valuation Studies, ISSN 2001-5992, Vol. 5, no 2, p. 83-91Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Grit, Kor
    et al.
    Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Making Markets in Long-Term Care: Or How a Market Can Work by Being Invisible2017In: Health Care Analysis, ISSN 1065-3058, E-ISSN 1573-3394, Vol. 25, no 3, p. 242-259Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Many Western countries have introduced market principles in health- care. The newly introduced financial instrument of ‘‘care-intensity packages’’ in the Dutch long-term care sector fit this development since they have some character- istics of a market device. However, policy makers and care providers positioned these instruments as explicitly not belonging to the general trend of marketisation in healthcare. Using a qualitative case study approach, we study the work that the two providers have done to fit these instruments to their organisations and how that enables and legitimatises market development. Both providers have done various types of work that could be classified as market development, including creating accounting systems suitable for markets, redefining public values in the context of markets, and starting commercial initiatives. Paradoxically, denying the existence of markets for long-term care and thus avoiding ideological debates on the marketi- sation of healthcare has made the use of market devices all the more likely. Making the market invisible seems to be an operative element in making the market work. Our findings suggest that Dutch long-term care reform points to the need to study the ‘making’ rather than the ‘liberalising’ of markets and that the study of healthcare markets should not be confined to those practices that explicitly label themselves as such.

  • 4.
    Harder, Thomas
    et al.
    Robert Koch Institute, Germany.
    Abu Sin, Muna
    Robert Koch Institute, Germany.
    Bosch-Capblanch, Xavier
    Swiss Trop and Public Health Institute, Switzerland.
    Coignard, Bruno
    Institute Veille Sanitaire, France.
    de Carvalho Gomes, Helena
    European Centre Disease Prevent and Control ECDC, Sweden.
    Duclos, Phillippe
    WHO, Switzerland.
    Eckmanns, Tim
    Robert Koch Institute, Germany.
    Elder, Randy
    Centre Disease Control and Prevent, GA USA.
    Ellis, Simon
    National Institute Health and Care Excellence NICE, England.
    Forland, Frode
    Norwegian Institute Public Heatlh, Norway.
    Garner, Paul
    University of Liverpool, England.
    James, Roberta
    SIGN, Scotland.
    Jansen, Andreas
    European Centre Disease Prevent and Control ECDC, Sweden.
    Krause, Gerard
    Helmholtz Centre Infect Research, Germany.
    Levy-Bruhl, Daniel
    Institute Veille Sanitaire, France.
    Morgan, Antony
    National Institute Health and Care Excellence NICE, England.
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    German Cochrane Centre, Germany.
    Norris, Susan
    WHO, Switzerland.
    Rehfuess, Eva
    University of Munich, Germany.
    Sanchez-Vivar, Alex
    HPS, Scotland; Scottish Health Protect Network HPN, Scotland.
    Schuenemann, Holger
    McMaster University, Canada.
    Takla, Anja
    Robert Koch Institute, Germany.
    Wichmann, Ole
    Robert Koch Institute, Germany.
    Zingg, Walter
    Hop Cantonal University of Geneva, Switzerland.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health2015In: Health Policy, ISSN 0168-8510, E-ISSN 1872-6054, Vol. 119, no 6, p. 732-736Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) is an international collaboration of public health institutes and universities which has been funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) since 2012. Main objective is to define a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in the field of public health, with particular focus on infectious disease prevention and control. As part of the peer review process, an international expert meeting was held on 13-1 4 June 2013 in Berlin. Participants were members of the PRECEPT team and selected experts from national public health institutes, World Health Organization (WHO), and academic institutions. The aim of the meeting was to discuss the draft framework and its application to two examples from infectious disease prevention and control. This article introduces the draft PRECEPT framework and reports on the meeting, its structure, most relevant discussions and major conclusions.

  • 5.
    Harder, Thomas
    et al.
    RKI, Germany.
    Takla, Anja
    RKI, Germany.
    Eckmanns, Tim
    RKI, Germany.
    Ellis, Simon
    National Institute Health and Care Excellence NICE, England.
    Forland, Frode
    Norwegian Institute Public Heatlh, Norway.
    James, Roberta
    SIGN, Scotland.
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    University of Freiburg, Germany.
    Morgan, Antony
    Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland.
    Rehfuess, Eva
    University of Munich, Germany.
    Schuenemann, Holger
    McMaster University, Canada.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    de Carvalho Gomes, Helena
    European Centre Disease Prevent and Control ECDC, Sweden.
    Wichmann, Ole
    RKI, Germany.
    PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control2017In: Eurosurveillance, ISSN 1025-496X, E-ISSN 1560-7917, Vol. 22, no 40Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

  • 6.
    Harder, Thomas
    et al.
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
    Takla, Anja
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
    Rehfuess, Eva
    University of Munich, Germany .
    Sanchez-Vivar, Alex
    Health Protection Scotland (HPS); Scottish Health Protection Network (HPN), Glasgow, UK.
    Matysiak-Klose, Dorothea
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
    Eckmanns, Tim
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
    Krause, Gerard
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
    de Carvalho Gomes, Helena
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ECDC, Stockhom, Sweden.
    Jansen, Andreas
    European Centre Disease for Prevention and Control ECDC, Stockhom, Sweden.
    Ellis, Simon
    National Institute Health and Care Excellence NICE, London, UK.
    Forland, Frode
    Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Norwegian Institute of Public Heatlh, Oslo, Norway.
    James, Roberta
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), Edinburgh, UK.
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany .
    Morgan, Antony
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), London, UK.
    Schuenemann, Holger
    McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Wichmann, Ole
    Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany .
    Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools2014In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, ISSN 1471-2288, E-ISSN 1471-2288, Vol. 14, no 69Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    BACKGROUND:

    The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach.

    METHODS:

    Through team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed.

    RESULTS:

    In total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    The results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

  • 7.
    Lee Downey, Gary
    et al.
    Department of Science and Technology in Society, Virginia Tech, USA.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Making and doing: engagement and reflexive learning in STS2017In: Handbook of science and technology studies / [ed] Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, Laurel Smith-Doerr, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017, 4, p. 223-251Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Postma, Jeroen
    et al.
    Erasmus University, Netherlands.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Beyond Volume Indicators and Centralization: Toward a Broad Perspective on Policy for Improving Quality of Emergency Care2017In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, ISSN 0196-0644, E-ISSN 1097-6760, Vol. 69, no 6, p. 689-697Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Study objective: Policymakers increasingly regard centralization of emergency care as a useful measure to improve quality. However, the clinical studies that are used to justify centralization, arguing that volume indicators are a good proxy for quality of care (practice makes perfect), have significant shortcomings. In light of the introduction of a new centralization policy in the Netherlands, we show that the use of volume indicators in emergency care is problematic and does not do justice to the daily care provided in emergency departments (EDs). Methods: We conducted an ethnographic study in 3 EDs, a primary care facility, and an ambulance call center in the Netherlands, including 109 hours of observation, more than 30 ethnographic interviews with professionals and managers, and 5 semistructured follow-up interviews. Results: We argue that emergency care is a complex, multilayered practice and distinguish 4 different repertoires: acute and complex care, uncertain diagnostics, basic care, and physical, social, and mental care. A repertoire entails a definition of what good care is, what professional skills are needed, and how emergency care should be organized. Conclusion: The first repertoire of acute and complex care might benefit from centralization. The other 3 repertoires, however, equally deserve attention but are made invisible in policies that focus on the first repertoire and extrapolate the idea of centralization to emergency care as a whole. Emergency care research and policies should take all repertoires into account and pay more attention to alternative measures and indicators beyond volume, eg, patient satisfaction, professional expertise, and collaboration between EDs and other facilities.

  • 9.
    van de Bovenkamp, Hester
    et al.
    Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings2015In: Health Expectations, ISSN 1369-6513, E-ISSN 1369-7625, Vol. 18, no 5, p. 942-955Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Background Patient participation on both the individual and the collective level attracts broad attention from policy makers and researchers. Participation is expected to make decision making more democratic and increase the quality of decisions, but empirical evidence for this remains wanting.

    Objective To study why problems arise in participation practice and to think critically about the consequence for future participation practices. We contribute to this discussion by looking at patient participation in guideline development.

    Methods Dutch guidelines (n = 62) were analysed extended version of the AGREE instrument. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with actors involved in guideline development (n = 25).

    Results The guidelines analysed generally scored low on the item of patient participation. The interviews provided us with important information on why this is the case. Although some respondents point out the added value of participation, many report on difficulties in the participation practice. Patient experiences sit uncomfortably with the EBM structure of guideline development. Moreover, patients who develop epistemic credibility needed to participate in evidence-based guideline development lose credibility as representatives for ‘true’ patients.

    Discussion and conclusions We conclude that other options may increase the quality of care for patients by paying attention to their (individual) experiences. It will mean that patients are not present at every decision-making table in health care, which may produce a more elegant version of democratic patienthood; a version that neither produces tokenistic practices of direct participation nor that denies patients the chance to contribute to matters where this may be truly meaningful. 

  • 10.
    van Loon, Esther
    et al.
    Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
    Bal, Roland
    Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
    Diagnostic Work through Evidence-Based Guidelines: Avoiding Gaps Between Development and Implementation of a Guideline for Problem Behaviour in Elderly Care2014In: Science as Culture, ISSN 0950-5431, E-ISSN 1470-1189, Vol. 23, no 2, p. 153-176Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Diagnostic work is the reflexive work of figuring out what issues are at stake and determining the scope for action. This work is not generally accommodated by evidence-based guidelines, which generally promote a uniform, predefined approach to solving healthcare problems that risk narrowing the opportunities for diagnostic work in healthcare practice. Consequently, guidelines are often criticised as too general to solve situated, individual healthcare problems and gaps between guidelines and their implementation are often reported. The Netherlands has developed a guideline for problem behaviour in elderly care, explicitly designed for diagnostic work, thus stimulating a situated approach. Relational problem behaviour is highly embedded in its context. The guideline stimulates diagnostic work, which helps to unravel problem behaviour and is opening alternatives in elderly care. Diagnostic work does not transfer guideline development problems to healthcare practice, but simply structures the decision-making process without giving a predefined answer. Diagnostic work is thus important to consider in order to avoid a gap between guideline development and implementation.

  • 11.
    Wieringa, Sietse
    et al.
    Department of Health Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
    Dreesens, Dunja
    School CAPHRI, department of General Practice, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
    Forland, Frode
    Division for Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
    Hulshof, Carel
    Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    Lukersmith, Sue
    Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Australia.
    Macbeth, Fergus
    Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
    Shaw, Beth
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
    van Vliet, Arlène
    Leiden University Medical Center/Dutch Working Party on Infection Prevention, Leiden, The Netherlands.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Different knowledge, different styles of reasoning: a challenge for guideline development2018In: BMJ evidence-based medicine, ISSN 2515-446X, Vol. 23, no 3, p. 87-91Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    n/a

  • 12.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    If Intervention Is Method, What Are We Learning?: A Commentary on Brian Martin’s “STS and Researcher Intervention Strategies”2016In: Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, ISSN 2413-8053, Vol. 1, no 2, p. 73-82Article, review/survey (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In STS and Researcher Intervention Strategies, Brian Martin expresses his concern about the lack of strategic guidance STS offers for intervening in controversies in which actors are being marginalized. This is an interesting contrast with some classic critiques of Actor-Network Theory. Leigh Star famously argued that the over-emphasis of ANT on strategic  action made it particularly poorly equipped to study heterogeneity––an analytical and political problem at once. I argue that guidance on intervention as research method should actively resist the urge to make intervention “strategic.” Considering intervention as a scholarly method  for producing novel insights about our topics is diametrically opposed to considering intervention strategically , that is, as means to achieving predefined scholarly or normative goals. Drawing on previous, recent, and ongoing work on intervention as an equally non-strategic and nondetached method for developing new knowledge and new normativities, I explore how such work would speak to Martin’s challenge of intervening in controversies and what could be some interesting lessons such an experiment might spark. A strategic take on intervention is important for Martin because it challenges a linear model of STS knowledge production: scholars prioritizing the development of greater understanding of phenomena, hoping that such knowledge can then be beneficial for society later on. Approaching intervention as method, however, challenges problematic linear models of STS knowledge, not by inverting the linearity (from areas of social importance to knowledge production), but by extending non-linear scholarship to our own and others’ normativities. This allows STS scholars to take their concerns about the practices they are involved in seriously without violating their equal attachment to reflexivity, unpredictability, and situatedness. Such a prospect may help STS scholars to explore what it means to live the multiple membership of societally and academically concerned communities, which is what considering intervention strategically would make us lose.

  • 13.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Situated Intervention: Response to Comments2016In: Science & Technology Studies, ISSN 2243-4690, Vol. 2, no 1, p. 70-73Article, book review (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In STS and Researcher Intervention Strategies, Brian Martin expresses his concern about the lack of strategic guidance STS offers for intervening in controversies in which actors are being marginalized. This is an interesting contrast with some classic critiques of Actor-Network Theory. Leigh Star famously argued that the over-emphasis of ANT on strategic action made it particularly poorly equipped to study heterogeneity––an analytical and political problem at once. I argue that guidance on intervention as research method should actively resist the urge to make intervention “strategic.” Considering intervention as a scholarly method for producing novel insights about our topics is diametrically opposed to considering intervention strategically, that is, as means to achieving predefined scholarly or normative goals. Drawing on previous, recent, and ongoing work on intervention as an equally non-strategic and nondetached method for developing new knowledge and new normativities, I explore how such work would speak to Martin’s challenge of intervening in controversies and what could be some interesting lessons such an experiment might spark. A strategic take on intervention is important for Martin because it challenges a linear model of STS knowledge production: scholars prioritizing the development of greater understanding of phenomena, hoping that such knowledge can then be beneficial for society later on. Approaching intervention as method, however, challenges problematic linear models of STS knowledge, not by inverting the linearity (from areas of social importance to knowledge production), but by extending non-linear scholarship to our own and others’ normativities. This allows STS scholars to take their concerns about the practices they are involved in seriously without violating their equal attachment to reflexivity, unpredictability, and situatedness. Such a prospect may help STS scholars to explore what it means to live the multiple membership of societally and academically concerned communities, which is what considering intervention strategically would make us lose.

  • 14.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Situated Intervention: sociological experiments in health care2015Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this book, Teun Zuiderent-Jerak considers how the direct involvement of social scientists in the practices they study can lead to the production of sociological knowledge. Neither “detached” sociological scholarship nor “engaged” social science, this new approach to sociological research brings together two activities often viewed as belonging to different realms: intervening in practices and furthering scholarly understanding of them. 

    Just as the natural sciences benefited from broadening their scholarship from theorizing to experiment, so too could the social sciences. Additionally, Zuiderent-Jerak points out, rather than proceeding from a pre-set normative agenda, scholarly intervention allows for the experimental production of normativity. Scholars are far from detached, but still may be surprised by the normative outcomes of the interactions within the experiment.

    Zuiderent-Jerak illustrates situated intervention research with a series of examples drawn from health care. Among the topics addressed are patient compliance in hemophilia home care, the organization of oncology care and the value of situated standardization, the relationship between standardization and patient centeredness, the development of patient-centered pathways, value-driven and savings-driven approaches to the construction of health care markets, and multiple ontologies of safety in care for older adults. 

    Finally, returning to the question of normativity in sociological research, Zuiderent-Jerak proposes an ethics of specificity according to which research adapts its sociological responses to the practices studied. Sociology not only has more to offer to the practices it studies; it also has more to learn from them.

  • 15.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    Grit, Kor
    Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
    Grinten, Tom van der
    Department of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
    Critical composition of public values: on the enactment and disarticulation of what counts in health-care markets2015In: Value practices in the life sciences and medicine / [ed] Isabelle Dussauge, Claes-Fredrik Helgesson, Francis Lee, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 119-135Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 16.
    Zuiderent-Jerak, Teun
    et al.
    Linköping University, The Tema Institute, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
    van Egmond, Stans
    Dutch Thrombosis Foundation.
    Ineffable Cultures or Material Devices: What Valuation Studies can Learn from the Disappearance of Ensured Solidarity in a Health Care Market2015In: Valuation Studies, ISSN 2001-5992, Vol. 3, no 1, p. 45-73Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Valuation studies addresses how values are made in valuation practices. A next —or rather previous—question becomes: what then makes valuation practices? Two oppositional replies are starting to dominate how that question can be answered: a more materially oriented focus on devices of valuation and a more sociologically inclined focus on ineffable valuation cultures. The debate between proponents of both approaches may easily turn into the kind of leapfrog debates that have dominated many previous discussions on whether culture or materiality would play a decisive role in driving history. This paper explores a less repetitive reply. It does so by analyzing the puzzling case of the demise of solidarity as a core value within the recent Dutch health care system of regulated competition. While “solidarity among the insured” was both a strong cultural value within the Dutch welfare-based health system, and a value that was built into market devices by health economists, within a fairly short time “fairness” became of lesser importance than “competition”. This makes us call for a more historical, relational, and dynamic understanding of the role of economists, market devices, and of culture in valuation studies. 

1 - 16 of 16
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf