Two models for defining the relationship between theory and practice in nutrition education: is the scientific method meeting our needs?
This article describes two models for linking theory and practice in nutrition education and traces how concerns about the validity of different types of research drive the choice of models. In the scientific model, theory is defined in terms of statements from which one can deduce hypotheses, which can then be tested in experimental research designs. In the scientific model, practitioners are expected to replicate the methods used by researchers to effect targeted changes in the dependent variable of interest, usually health or eating behaviors. The ethical and epistemological shortcomings of the scientific model are then examined. The report goes on to describe an alternative approach, termed the humanistic model. In the humanistic model, theory is defined in terms of statements that seek to clarify basic social values. In the humanistic model, practitioners use theory as a stimulus for dialogue about the role of eating habits in living the kind of life that community members find most valuable. Examples of humanistic research relevant to nutrition education are presented, and the limitations of establishing the certainty of claims made using humanistic criteria are discussed. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the humanistic model for professional preparation.
Buchanan
David
D
Community Health Education, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA. buchanan@schoolph.umass.edu
D006266:Health Education; D006801:Humans; D017145:Models, Educational; D008960:Models, Psychological; D052756:Nutritional Sciences / Q000193:education*; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design