Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHaigh, Rex
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-20T15:56:16Z
dc.date.available2017-09-20T15:56:16Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationHaigh, R. (2012). Being economical with the evidence. Group Analysis, 45 (1), pp.70-83.
dc.identifier.other10.1177/0533316411425323
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/10903
dc.description.abstractThe systematic review undertaken for the Group Analytic Community by Sheffield University is an excellent piece of work 'of its time', but it may not speak to everybody in the field. Some of the reasons for this are the precise methodology of such reviews, concerned with an exclusively rationalist model for selecting and appraising evidence in a framework, which excludes other schools of thought (particularly the social sciences, including critical theory, anthropology and economics). As many of those who work in group analysis have backgrounds in these and allied disciplines, rather than biomedical science, there is a risk of excluding much useful and scholarly collaboration with adjacent disciplines unless we hold an open mind about such methodologies. As group analysts, we are in a strong position to observe and criticize the 'evidence-based hegemony' when it becomes closer to dogma than science. This article is based on a talk given to a Group Analytic Society conference entitled 'Can Group Therapy Survive NICE?' held in London on 29 January 2010. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
dc.description.urihttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0533316411425323
dc.subjectResearch design
dc.titleBeing economical with the evidence
dc.typeArticle


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record