IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v68y2009i8p1489-1497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating science and experience in medical knowledge: Gynaecologists on endometriosis

Author

Listed:
  • Whelan, Emma

Abstract

This paper analyses the gynaecological literature on endometriosis, particularly endometriosis classification, to evaluate the epistemological concepts it uses. A qualitative content analysis was conducted on a sample of gynaecological literature published between 1985 and 2000, a period that witnessed the explosion of both evidence-based and patient-centred models of medicine, with their duelling emphases on science and experience. It was found that the discourse of science is used strategically in this literature as a formal epistemology to lend weight to authors' claims and to guide medical thinking and research. However, gynaecologists also use the notion of experience to assert their own credibility and to question the credibility of other experts. In fact, accounts of their own experience and the experiential accounts of their patients are foundational to gynaecologists' claims-making activities, including their engagement with scientific research.

Suggested Citation

  • Whelan, Emma, 2009. "Negotiating science and experience in medical knowledge: Gynaecologists on endometriosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1489-1497, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:8:p:1489-1497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00052-5
    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. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Weir, Lorna, 2004. "The problem of evidence-based medicine: directions for social science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 1059-1069, 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. Thomas, Felicity & Aggleton, Peter & Anderson, Jane, 2010. "'Experts', 'partners' and 'fools': Exploring agency in HIV treatment seeking among African migrants in London," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 736-743, March.

    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. Perrotta, Manuela & Geampana, Alina, 2020. "The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    2. Timmermans, Stefan & Almeling, Rene, 2009. "Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 21-27, July.
    3. Cavanagh, Alice & Shamsheri, Tahmina & Shen, Katrina & Gaber, Jessica & Liauw, Jessica & Vanstone, Meredith & Kouyoumdjian, Fiona, 2022. "Lived experiences of pregnancy and prison through a reproductive justice lens: A qualitative meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    4. Hogarth, Stuart & Löblová, Olga, 2022. "Regulatory niches: Diagnostic reform as a process of fragmented expansion. Evidence from the UK 1990–2018," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    5. Moes, Floortje & Houwaart, Eddy & Delnoij, Diana & Horstman, Klasien, 2020. "Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Paul S. Adler & Seok-Woo Kwon, 2013. "The Mutation of Professionalism as a Contested Diffusion Process: Clinical Guidelines as Carriers of Institutional Change in Medicine," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 930-962, July.
    8. Broom, Alex & Adams, Jon & Tovey, Philip, 2009. "Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 192-200, January.
    9. Behague, Dominique & Tawiah, Charlotte & Rosato, Mikey & Some, Télésphore & Morrison, Joanna, 2009. "Evidence-based policy-making: The implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 1539-1546, November.
    10. Lambert, Helen, 2006. "Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2633-2645, June.
    11. Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Armstrong, Pat & Armstrong, Hugh & Bourgeault, Ivy & Choiniere, Jackie & Lexchin, Joel & Peters, Suzanne & White, Jerry, 2008. "Qualitative research and the politics of knowledge in an age of evidence: Developing a research-based practice of immanent critique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 195-203, July.
    12. Rhodes, Tim & Lancaster, Kari, 2019. "Evidence-making interventions in health: A conceptual framing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Chandler, Clare I.R. & Mangham, Lindsay & Njei, Abanda Ngu & Achonduh, Olivia & Mbacham, Wilfred F. & Wiseman, Virginia, 2012. "‘As a clinician, you are not managing lab results, you are managing the patient’: How the enactment of malaria at health facilities in Cameroon compares with new WHO guidelines for the use of malaria ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1528-1535.
    14. Teghtsoonian, Katherine, 2009. "Depression and mental health in neoliberal times: A critical analysis of policy and discourse," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 28-35, July.
    15. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.
    16. Baeza, Juan I. & Boaz, Annette & Fraser, Alec, 2016. "The roles of specialisation and evidence-based practice in inter-professional jurisdictions: A qualitative study of stroke services in England, Sweden and Poland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 15-23.
    17. Rock, Melanie & Mykhalovskiy, Eric & Schlich, Thomas, 2007. "People, other animals and health knowledges: Towards a research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1970-1976, May.
    18. Quinn Grundy & Cliodna Cussen & Craig Dale, 2020. "Constructing a problem and marketing solutions: A critical content analysis of the nature and function of industry‐authored oral health educational materials," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4697-4707, December.
    19. Prussing, Erica & Newbury, Elizabeth, 2016. "Neoliberalism and indigenous knowledge: Māori health research and the cultural politics of New Zealand's “National Science Challenges”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 57-66.
    20. Sinding, Christina & Hudak, Pamela & Wiernikowski, Jennifer & Aronson, Jane & Miller, Pat & Gould, Judy & Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna, 2010. ""I like to be an informed person but..." negotiating responsibility for treatment decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1094-1101, September.

    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:68:y:2009:i:8:p:1489-1497. 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.