How the context of reception affects the meaning of RCT evidence.

This article takes as a case study a set of disagreements in the early 2000s about randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence for a newly developed drug in the field of intensive care medicine. The interpretation of RCT findings - and in particular, the application of these findings to clinical practice - were contested among research-active intensive care doctors, despite their shared professional and epistemic values. I examine the arguments about scientific interpretation and application to clinical practice advanced by two readily identifiable groups. The analysis documents how four particular aspects of scientific knowledge were perceived and portrayed differently by the two groups, and notes how each group was associated with different kinds of routine work practices and external networks. My argument is that these differences give rise to distinctive hermeneutic frames and orientations towards the scientific results and disparities in their consequential judgements regarding the legitimate use of the newly developed drug, and I extend Stones and Turner's concept situationally specific habitus to make the link between context and hermeneutic frames and orientations. The analysis has implications for furthering our understanding of how the clinical meaning attributed to scientific evidence is affected by the context of reception of results, even where epistemic and professional values are shared.