We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Mary S. Morgan, London School of Economics and Political Science,Kim M. Hajek, London School of Economics and Political Science,Dominic J. Berry, London School of Economics and Political Science
This chapter examines the criteria exposed by Stephen Jay Gould’s original paper on just-so stories to sustain such a charge. I show that Gould’s concerns were neither directed to narrative explanations nor were they ineluctably linked to their narrative quality. Then I analyse how advocates of narrative science have met the challenge. I identify two basic defensive approaches: the vindication of explanatory narratives in cases where the historical, contingent and causally complex nature of the phenomena demand a narrative approach and an unveiling strategy showing how there’s a narrative behind each law-like generalization or nomological explanatory formula. The chapter’s concentration on the argumentative moves of the discussants helps clarify their positions. Moreover, the argumentative quality of their object of study (scientific reason-giving practices) is also emphasized. I claim that the dialectical requirement of openness to collective survey and discussion is what may prevent just-so charges for any kind of explanatory model.
The term “two-eyed seeing” is spreading across North America as a concept for explanatory pluralism. The concept was brought into academic science by Albert Marshall, a M’iqmaq from Nova, Scotia, Canada. It speaks to the idea that indigenous knowledge is an equally valid way of conceptualizing a phenomenon as is contemporary science. Marshall’s famous example compares a traditional M’iqmaq story about the origins of the large tides in the Bay of Fundy with contemporary oceanographic geology findings and simulations.
Objectives
We wanted to explore how this two-eyed seeing model could be applied to mental health to facilitate a dialogue between psychiatry and traditional cultural healers.
Methods
We reviewed the existing literature on two-eyed seeing within mental health care using PubMed, IndexMedicus, OneSearch, and Google Scholar. We presented a course on two-eyed seeing for indigenous mental health services and two-eyed seeing for addressing trauma in indigenous communities and surveyed the participants about the two-eyed seeing concept. We offered this course primarily to providers within indigenous communities and also for other interested counsellors.
Results
Participants in our trainings were enthusiastic about the role of two-eyed seeing for improving communication among indigenous providers and patients and non-indigenous providers. Most indigenous counselors had not heard of two-eyed seeing and were quite enthusiastic about its affirming nature and how it gave them a basis for dialogue with non-indigenous practitioners.
Conclusions
Two-eyed seeing allows a rich dialogue between European-derived practitioners and indigenous people that enabls each to appreciate the other’s perspectives, leading to greater cooperation and collaborative treatment.
Disclosure
No significant relationships.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.