IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i6p623-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation, ideology and innocence

Author

Listed:
  • Maddison, David

Abstract

Innovative solutions are required to deal with the inadequacies of existing medical education programmes, in both the developed and developing countries, if we are to promote the evolution of more acceptable, more efficient and more effective health care. The newly formed Network of Community-oriented Educational Institutions for Health Sciences is attempting to promote a series of educational and organisational innovations, aimed at the preparation of health professionals who will be better equipped and better motivated to meet the real health needs of the populations they are to serve. Such innovations encounter many obstacles, of which ideologically-based infexibility of thought is the most important. Ideologies are here defined, in Barnett's words, as "patterns of belief...quasi-conceptual, quasi-affective sets assumed to be true", having the power to prohibit "rigorous or experimental examination of novel experience". Such systems of thought have 'negative, restrictive and pathological effects' on the development of innovative solutions to complex problems. A particularly destructive and inhibiting stereotype has flowed from an ideological commitment to the achievement of 'international excellence'. A state of what in this paper is called 'innocence' is regarded as mandatory for the implementation of studies based on a commitment to the empirical approach, to the null hypothesis, and above all to the evaluation of the process and outcome of educational and other interventions in the health care system.

Suggested Citation

  • Maddison, David, 1982. "Innovation, ideology and innocence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 623-628, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:6:p:623-628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90452-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:6:p:623-628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.