Éthique et culture : plaidoyer pour l’approche à double-perspective en recherche en santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’approche dite à « double-perspective » ( Two-Eyed Seeing ), originaire du Canada, postule l’égalité et la complémentarité des savoirs et modes de connaissance autochtones et occidentaux. Ce faisant, elle postule l’égalité et la complémentarité, non seulement de la conception que les humains peuvent avoir de leurs réalités objectives, mais aussi de la réalité de leurs conceptions subjectives, puisque toute vision du monde reflète le monde qui se donne à voir tel qu’il est, en même temps qu’elle l’institue dans un processus dialectique. L’approche à double-perspective s’inscrit, à cet égard, dans une démarche décolonisatrice susceptible de contribuer à changer radicalement la manière d’appréhender le concept de santé et de faire de la recherche en santé, substituant à l’universalisme de l’objectivité et au réductionnisme de la science de tradition positiviste un universalisme de la subjectivité et une complexité riches en questionnements ontologiques, épistémologiques, et méthodologiques. La portée effective de l’approche à double-perspective dépend, toutefois, de la prise en compte de sa dimension fondamentalement éthique : en appelant à se décentrer pour s’ouvrir à la plénitude de l’altérité culturelle, elle laisse en effet aux chercheurs la responsabilité d’opérer l’indispensable travail réflexif sur eux-mêmes pour être en mesure de réparer à leur niveau les injustices historiques produites par leur profession. Une approche potentiellement fertile, dans le contexte français, pour poser les jalons de sociétés plus inclusives dans les territoires d’outre-mer ayant des populations autochtones, tels que la Nouvelle-Calédonie ou la Guyane. The “ Two-Eyed Seeing ” approach, originating from Canada, postulates the equality and complementarity of Indigenous and Western knowledge and ways of knowing. In doing so, it postulates the equality and complementarity, not only of the conception that humans can have of their objective realities, but also of the reality of their subjective conceptions, since any vision of the world reflects the world which is visible as it establishes at the same time its own world in reality in a dialectical process. In this regard, the Two-Eyed Seeing approach is part of a decolonizing process likely to contribute radically to changing the way of understanding the concept of health and of carrying out health research by replacing the universalism of objectivity and the reductionism of positivist science with a universalism of subjectivity and a complexity both rich in ontological, epistemological, and methodological questionings. The effective scope of the Two-Eyed Seeing approach, however, depends on taking into account its fundamentally ethical dimension: by calling for the decentering of the researchers in order to open up to the full extent of cultural otherness, it in fact leaves them with the responsibility to carry out the essential reflective work on themselves to be able to repair at their level the historical injustices produced by their profession. A potentially fertile approach, in the French context, to lay the foundations for more inclusive societies in overseas territories with Indigenous populations, such as New Caledonia or French Guyana.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".