To What Extent Do the Characteristics of the Object of Evaluation Influence the Choice of Epistemological Framework? The Case of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online July, 2004
To What Extent Do the Characteristics of the Object of Evaluation Influence the Choice of Epistemological Framework? The Case of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
In this article, the authors explore the role that characteristics and circumstances attendant on the object of an evaluation might play in the choice of epistemological framework underpinning research design. They consider examples from the consumer-focused evaluation of the introduction of universal newborn hearing screening in England. In particular, they look at how screen-and program-specific issues exerted influence at the levels of epistemology and method, arguing that these choices are not simply a product of values and questions that underpinned one kind of approach to knowledge production in comparison with another.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beazley, S., & Moore, M. (1995). Deaf children, their families and professionals. London, UK: David Fulton.
2.
Clemens, C. J., Davis, S. A., & Bailey, A. R. (2000). The false positive in universal newborn hearing screening. Pediatrics, 106(1), e7.
3.
Davis, A., Bamford, J., Wilson, I., Ramkalawan, T., Forshaw, M., & Wright, S. (1997). A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment. Health Technology Assessment, 1(10), 1-176.
4.
Fouk, J. (2003). Critical social work: The current issues. Qualitative Social Work, 2(2), 123-130.
5.
Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 530-544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Gregory, S. (1995). Deaf children and their families. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Gregory, S., Bishop, J., & Sheldon, L. (1995). Deaf young people and their families. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth-generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Magnuson, M., & Hergils, L. (1999). The parents’ view on hearing screening in newborns: Feelings, thoughts and opinions on otoacoustic emissions screening. Scandinavian Audiology, 28(1), 47-56.
10.
Silverman, D. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
11.
Tishelman, C., Forss, A., Sachs, L., Lundgren, E.-L., Widmark, C., & Tšrnberg, S. (1999). Research on risk and risk in research: Theoretical and practical experiences from a multidisciplinary study on cervical cancer screening in urban Sweden. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 45-60.
12.
Uilenberg, N. N., Kauffman-deBoer, M. A., de Ridder-Sluiter, J. G., van der Ploeg, C. P. B., Lanting, C. I., & Verkerk, P. H. (2002, May/June). Parents’ opinions on neonatal hearing screening and diagnostic research after a positive screening. Paper presented at Second International Conference on Newborn Hearing Screening, Diagnosis and Intervention, Villa Erba (Como), Italy.
13.
Van der Ploeg, C. P. B., Lanting, C. I., de Ridder-Sluiter, J. G., Kauffman-deBoer, M. A., & Verkerk, P. H. (2002, May/June). Parental concern after positive results of neonatal hearing screening. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Newborn Hearing Screening, Diagnosis and Intervention. Villa Erba (Como), Italy.
14.
Vohr, B. R., Singh, K., Bansal, N., Letourneau, K. S., & McDermott, C. (2001). Maternal worry about neonatal hearing screening. Journal of Perinatology, 21(1), 15-20.
15.
Voysey, M. (1975). A constant burden: The reconstitution of family life. London, UK: RKP.
16.
Watkin, P. M., Baldwin, M., Dixon, R., & Beckman, A. (1998). Maternal anxiety and attitudes to universal neonatal hearing screening. British Journal of Audiology, 32(1), 27-37.
17.
Watkin, P., Beckman, A., & Baldwin, M. (1995). The views of parents of hearing impaired children on the need for neonatal hearing screening. British Journal of Audiology, 29(5), 259-262.
18.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2002). The social emotional ramifications of universal newborn hearing screening, early identification and intervention of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. In R. C. Seewald & J. Gravel (Eds.), A sound foundation through early amplification 2001: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (pp. 221-232). Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak.
19.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). From screening to early intervention: Discovering predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11-30.
20.
Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Apuzzo, M. L. (1998). Identification of hearing loss after age eighteen months is not early enough. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(5), 380-387.
21.
Young, A. M. (2002). Factors affecting communication choice in the first year of life—Assessing and understanding an on-going experience. Deafness and Education International, 4(1), 2-11.
22.
Young, A. M. (2003). Parenting and deaf children. London, UK: National Deaf Children’s Society.
