Fieldworkers (FWs) are community members employed by research teams to support access to participants, address language barriers, and advise on culturally appropriate research conduct. The critical role that FWs play in studies, and the range of practical and ethical dilemmas associated with their involvement, is increasingly recognised. In this paper, we draw on qualitative observation and interview data collected alongside a six month basic science study which involved a team of FWs regularly visiting 47 participating households in their homes. The (...) qualitative study documented how relationships between field workers and research participants were initiated, developed and evolved over the course of the study, the shifting dilemmas FWs faced and how they handled them. Even in this one case study, we see how the complex and evolving relationships between fieldworkers and study participants had important implications for consent processes, access to benefits and mutual understanding and trust. While the precise issues that FWs face are likely to depend on the type of research and the context in which that research is being conducted, we argue that appropriate support for field workers is a key requirement to strengthen ethical research practice and for the long term sustainability of research programmes. (shrink)
This is a very useful book, a programmed course of the ‘linear’ type, carrying the student along in short steps and continuously testing him by its question-answer format. It provides a considerable amount of solid practice in the areas of logical relations in general, the logic of unanalysed statements and the logic of predicates The kind of selftuition it makes possible should lighten the load of tutorial work.
The papers in this volume were written over a period of nine years. Thematically they represent Hintikka’s great interest in what can be said, in formal terms, about philosophically important concepts. Since these concepts are embedded in ordinary language their logic may be viewed as an explanatory model displaying an aspect of the rationale of ordinary language. This model is not simply a mirror: ‘As the case is with theoretical models in general, it does not seem to be derivable from (...) any number of observations concerning ordinary language. It has to be invented rather than discovered’. Hintikka’s own work on the central epistemic concepts of knowledge and belief convinced him that in the final analysis of philosophical concepts, syntactical methods have to be supplemented by semantical ones: ‘We have to ask what conditions the truth of a set of statements imposes on the world, or what kinds of “possible worlds” there must be in order for a set of statements to be consistent. Such a semantical analysis often gives us deeper insights into the logic of philosophically important notions. It seems to me that the critics of formal logic as a weapon of philosophical analysis have often overlooked the force of semantical methods and in effect spoken of syntactical methods only’. (shrink)
The title reminds us that scientific enquiry is a predominantly heuristic enterprise, with its logical roots in probability theory. This suggests the possibility of taking the purely cognitive process, inductive inference, and handling it as a behavioural process of decision-making under risk of uncertainty i.e. as a process of deciding what to believe. It is certainly worth considering whether similar conditions of rationality are present in both practical deliberation and scientific inference, in both real action and academic belief. Such is (...) an aim of this book. Its particular character is perhaps better presented as an endeavour to build a model which, in situations of inductive inference, will guide us to the best belief. (shrink)
The inter-war period was quite remarkable in the intellectual and cultural life of Poland. ‘Philosophy in particular was the field where talent was abundant and the calibre of contributions surprisingly high. Analytical Philosophy was the embodiment of what was best and most accomplished in the Polish philosophy of that time’. With complete lucidity Professor Skolimowski traces its origins and development, linking it with the entire contemporary analytical movement and following it after the war to the point of its decline in (...) the 1950’s and of its emasculation in the 1960’s. The finest achievements of this movement and the work of its major figures are thoroughly described. (shrink)
This is an excellent book, providing a broad understanding ‘of the ways of thinking of those contemporary philosophers who apply the tools of symbolic logic to classical philosophical problems’, with a very complete, exact analysis of contemporary problems that bear on the correlation of language and reality. The book should be of great value to the logician, the technical linguist, the mathematician and the philosopher.
This is the paperback edition of Dr Reeves’ valuable book: in the four years since its original publication it has received merited attention and praise for correlating, in substantial detail, the old ‘inspectionist’, ‘picture’ view of thinking with the contemporary ‘action’, ‘process’ conceptions. ‘In the empirical tradition at any rate, and in this tradition much early systematic psychologizing was rooted, interest tended to be focused on the content of thinking, sensation was considered a fundamental source of that content, and thinking, (...) so far as it was an activity, approximated to some form of visual inspection. Ideas, images, their permutations and combinations constituted that which came under this conscious scrutiny’. Excellent chapters on Locke, Spinoza, Freud, Gestalt Psychology and Binet detail the breakdown and rejection of this simple associationist treatment of thought. However ‘in assimilating thinking to action and moving away from the inspectionist viewpoint, we must be careful not to throw away key processes such as recognition, without which it seems impossible to derive constructive, realistic and logical thinking from that which is governed by immediate stimulus and motive’. (shrink)