umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • 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
From Child Protection to Paradigm Protection-The Genesis, Development, and Defense of a Scientific Paradigm
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Forensic Medicine.
2019 (English)In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, ISSN 0360-5310, E-ISSN 1744-5019, Vol. 44, no 3, p. 378-390Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A scientific paradigm typically embraces research norms and values, such as truth-seeking, critical thinking, disinterestedness, and good scientific practice. These values should prevent a paradigm from introducing defective assumptions. But sometimes, scientists who are also physicians develop clinical norms that are in conflict with the scientific enterprise. As an example of such a conflict, we have analyzed the genesis and development of the shaken baby syndrome (SBS) paradigm. The point of departure of the analysis is a recently conducted systematic literature review, which concluded that there is very low scientific evidence for the basic assumption held by Child Protection Teams: when certain signs are present (and no other "acceptable" explanations are provided) the infant has been violently shaken. We suggest that such teams have developed more value-based than scientific-based criteria when classifying SBS cases. Further, we suggest that the teams are victims of "groupthink," aggravating the difficulties in considering critics' questioning the criteria established by the teams.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2019. Vol. 44, no 3, p. 378-390
Keywords [en]
child protection teams, circular reasoning, groupthink, shaken baby syndrome, value-based criteria
National Category
Forensic Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-155359DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhy015ISI: 000469817200007PubMedID: 30184158OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-155359DiVA, id: diva2:1278351
Available from: 2019-01-14 Created: 2019-01-14 Last updated: 2019-09-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(198 kB)39 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 198 kBChecksum SHA-512
543a54745d289d6b9c9e5489d96e08f0cb4d7b5db96b2f87219e662a9149a0a30989851c1ad0e10d39783c5f56e280c26677fd672f08d40ae16d1f9a6072c36e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Eriksson, Anders

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eriksson, Anders
By organisation
Forensic Medicine
In the same journal
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
Forensic Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 59 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 122 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • 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