The Role and Influence of Traditional and Scientific Knowledge in Naturopathic Education: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the perceptions, experiences, and attitudes toward scientific and traditional knowledge within contemporary naturopathic education. DESIGN: A qualitative focus group and semistructured individual interview study. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Naturopathic educational organizations and institutions in North America (United States/Canada) and Australia. SUBJECTS: Seven focus groups (three in Australia and four in the United States/Canada) involving a total of 29 students, and one-on-one interviews with 28 faculty and professional leaders of the naturopathic profession from Australia, Canada, and the United States. RESULTS: Four themes have been identified in this study, including finding the balance between traditional and scientific knowledge; supporting the balance through critical appraisal in the curriculum; the exception of traditional knowledge in the critical gaze; and focusing on critical thinking in the naturopathic curriculum. Both naturopathic students and leaders highlight the significance of balancing tradition and science in the naturopathic educational context, although they hold diverse differing viewpoints. The importance of critical appraisal skills as well as the differentiation between critical thinking and critical appraisal have also been emphasized by participants with regard to the future development of naturopathic curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study focusing on the interface between traditional and scientific knowledge within the naturopathic education setting. The development of a framework for the critical appraisal of traditional naturopathic knowledge is required to help navigate the variety of knowledge sources available to naturopathic students and to help deliver the best outcomes for their future clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".