IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v66y2008i12p2506-2519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Best research - For what? Best health - For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shaw, Sara E.
  • Greenhalgh, Trisha

Abstract

Health research is fundamental to the development of improved health and healthcare. Despite its importance, and the role of policy in guiding the kind of research that gets addressed, there are very few empirical studies of health research policy. This paper redresses this, exploring the means by which one area of health research policy is shaped, enabled and constrained. We ask: what are the historical, social and political origins of research policy in primary care in England? What are the key discourses that have dominated debate; and what are the tensions between discourses and the implications this raises for practitioners and policymakers? To answer these questions we employed a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis to explicitly recognise the historical, social and ideological origins of policy texts; and the role of power and knowledge in policy development. We adapted Parker's framework for distinguishing discourses as a means of selecting and analysing 29 key policy documents; 16 narrative interviews with historical and contemporary policy stakeholders; and additional contextual documents. Our analysis involved detailed deconstruction and linking across texts to reveal prevailing storylines, ideologies, power relations, and tensions. Findings show how powerful policy discourses shaped by historical and social forces influence the type of research undertaken, by whom and how. For instance, recent policy has been shaped by discourse associated with the knowledge-based economy that emphasises microscopic 'discovery', exploitation of information and the contribution of highly technological activities to 'UK plc' and has re-positioned primary care research as a strategic resource and 'population laboratory' for clinical research. Such insights challenge apolitical accounts of health research and reveal how health research serves particular interests.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaw, Sara E. & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2008. "Best research - For what? Best health - For whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2506-2519, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:12:p:2506-2519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00108-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. May, Carl & Mort, Maggie & Williams, Tracy & Mair, Frances & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 697-710, August.
    2. Daniel Barben, 2007. "Changing regimes of science and politics: Comparative and transnational perspectives for a world in transition," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 55-69, February.
    3. Williams, Tracy & May, Carl & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie & Gask, Linda, 2003. "Normative models of health technology assessment and the social production of evidence about telehealth care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 39-54, April.
    4. Josephine Anne Stein, 2002. "Globalisation, science, technology and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(6), pages 402-408, December.
    5. Paul Stoneman, 1999. "Government spending on research and development in the UK," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 223-259, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Farchi, Tomas & Salge, Torsten-Oliver, 2017. "Shaping innovation in health care: A content analysis of innovation policies in the English NHS, 1948–2015," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 143-151.
    2. Shaw, Sara E. & Petchey, Roland P. & Chapman, Jenifer & Abbott, Stephen, 2009. "A double-edged sword? Health research and research governance in UK primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 912-918, March.
    3. Ferlie, Ewan & Mcgivern, Gerry & FitzGerald, Louise, 2012. "A new mode of organizing in health care? Governmentality and managed networks in cancer services in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 340-347.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bee, Penny Elizabeth & Lovell, Karina & Lidbetter, Nicola & Easton, Katherine & Gask, Linda, 2010. "You can't get anything perfect: "User perspectives on the delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy by telephone"," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1308-1315, October.
    2. May, Carl & Finch, Tracy & Mair, Frances & Mort, Maggie, 2005. "Towards a wireless patient: Chronic illness, scarce care and technological innovation in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(7), pages 1485-1494, October.
    3. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    4. Baptiste Isabet & Maribel Pino & Manon Lewis & Samuel Benveniste & Anne-Sophie Rigaud, 2021. "Social Telepresence Robots: A Narrative Review of Experiments Involving Older Adults before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-26, March.
    5. Myriam Le Goff-Pronost & Claude Sicotte, 2010. "The added value of thorough economic evaluation of telemedicine networks," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 45-55, February.
    6. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    7. Chuka Emezue & Jo‐Ana D. Chase & Tipparat Udmuangpia & Tina L. Bloom, 2022. "Technology‐based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), September.
    8. Hendy, Jane & Barlow, James, 2012. "The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 348-355.
    9. Alan Serrano & Javier Garcia-Guzman & Georgios Xydopoulos & Ali Tarhini, 2020. "Analysis of Barriers to the Deployment of Health Information Systems: a Stakeholder Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 455-474, April.
    10. Erik Thorstensen, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Views on Responsible Assessments of Assistive Technologies through an Ethical HTA Matrix," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, June.
    11. Andreassen, Hege K. & Dyb, Kari & May, Carl R. & Pope, Catherine J. & Warth, Line L., 2018. "Digitized patient–provider interaction: How does it matter? A qualitative meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 36-44.
    12. Robin Eagle & Aled Jones & Alison Greig, 2017. "Localism and the environment: A critical review of UK Government localism strategy 2010–2015," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 32(1), pages 55-72, February.
    13. Goodridge, PR & Haskel, J & Wallis, G, 2014. "The "C" in ICT: communications capital, spillovers and UK growth," Working Papers 18382, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    14. Farchi, Tomas & Salge, Torsten-Oliver, 2017. "Shaping innovation in health care: A content analysis of innovation policies in the English NHS, 1948–2015," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 143-151.
    15. Chuka Emezue & Tina L. Bloom, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Technology‐based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A meta‐analysis and systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    16. Peine & Moors, 2013. "Valuing Health Technology – New Value Spaces For Personal Health Systems To Support Active Ageing," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 13-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Sep 2013.
    17. Massazza, Alessandro & May, Carl R. & Roberts, Bayard & Tol, Wietse A. & Bogdanov, Sergiy & Nadkarni, Abhijit & Fuhr, Daniela C., 2022. "Process evaluations of mental health and psychosocial support interventions for populations affected by humanitarian crises," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:66:y:2008:i:12:p:2506-2519. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.