Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation

TIEU, Matthew, LAWLESS, Michael, HUNTER, Sarah C., PINERO DE PLAZA, Maria Alejandra, DARKO, Francis, MUDD, Alexandra, YADAV, Lalit and KITSON, Alison (2023). Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1): 280.

41599_2023_Article_1789.pdf - Published Version
Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (580kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01789-6
Open Access URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01789-6... (Published version)
Link to published version:: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01789-6


The discipline of knowledge translation (KT) emerged as a way of systematically understanding and addressing the challenges of applying health and medical research in practice. In light of ongoing and emerging critique of KT from the medical humanities and social sciences disciplines, KT researchers have become increasingly aware of the complexity of the translational process, particularly the significance of culture, tradition and values in how scientific evidence is understood and received, and thus increasingly receptive to pluralistic notions of knowledge. Hence, there is now an emerging view of KT as a highly complex, dynamic, and integrated sociological phenomenon, which neither assumes nor creates knowledge hierarchies and neither prescribes nor privileges scientific evidence. Such a view, however, does not guarantee that scientific evidence will be applied in practice and thus poses a significant dilemma for KT regarding its status as a scientific and practice-oriented discipline, particularly within the current sociopolitical climate. Therefore, in response to the ongoing and emerging critique of KT, we argue that KT must provide scope for relevant scientific evidence to occupy an appropriate position of epistemic primacy in public discourse. Such a view is not intended to uphold the privileged status of science nor affirm the “scientific logos” per se. It is proffered as a counterbalance to powerful social, cultural, political and market forces that are able to challenge scientific evidence and promote disinformation to the detriment of democratic outcomes and the public good.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: ** From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications Router ** Licence for this article: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ** Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Professor Tiffany Conroy (and her “red pen”) for reviewing and providing feedback on an early draft of the manuscript. **Journal IDs: eissn 2662-9992 **Article IDs: publisher-id: s41599-023-01789-6; manuscript: 1789 **History: collection 12-2023; online 03-06-2023; published_online 03-06-2023; accepted 23-05-2023; registration 23-05-2023; submitted 24-02-2023
Identification Number: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01789-6
SWORD Depositor: Colin Knott
Depositing User: Colin Knott
Date Deposited: 05 Jun 2023 15:55
Last Modified: 11 Oct 2023 14:30
URI: https://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/31971

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item


Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics