| Title |
Scientism as a Social Response to the Problem of Suicide
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9662-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott J. Fitzpatrick |
| Abstract |
As one component of a broader social and normative response to the problem of suicide, scientism served to minimize sociopolitical and religious conflict around the issue. As such, it embodied, and continues to embody, a number of interests and values, as well as serving important social functions. It is thus comparable with other normative frameworks and can be appraised, from an ethical perspective, in light of these values, interests, and functions. This work examines the key values, interests, and functions of scientism in suicidology and argues that although scientism has had some social benefit, it primarily serves to maintain political and professional interests and has damaging implications for suicide research and prevention. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,778,896
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#500
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,347
of 387,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.