六小时学习:医学教育的暂时性和无知。

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Anthropology & Medicine Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-12 DOI:10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943
Julia Knopes
{"title":"六小时学习:医学教育的暂时性和无知。","authors":"Julia Knopes","doi":"10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individual scientists, clinicians, and other experts cannot have absolute knowledge of all of the theories, methods, models, and findings in their field of practice. Rather, these individuals make choices about the kind of information that will be most meaningful and impactful in their work, while choosing - or being compelled to choose - what knowledge to overlook or ignore: a process identified as sufficient knowledge. In biomedicine, medical students are socialized to deliberately decide what information matters most; so, too, do practicing physicians openly acknowledge that they make choices around knowledge in daily practice. Within this process, time is a critical factor that mediates epistemological decision-making. In other words, how does time bound or restrict what forms and depth of medical knowledge that physicians and future physicians prioritize? When would someone intentionally limit time in order to constrain the amount and types of information he, she, or they acquire? To answer these questions, this study draws upon interviews and participant observation conducted with students at a medical school in the American Midwest. This article seeks to answer the aforementioned questions and to provide a new framework for, and expand discussions of, agnotology in the anthropology of medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":8240,"journal":{"name":"Anthropology & Medicine","volume":"28 4","pages":"429-444"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Six hours to study: temporality and ignorance in medical education.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Knopes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Individual scientists, clinicians, and other experts cannot have absolute knowledge of all of the theories, methods, models, and findings in their field of practice. Rather, these individuals make choices about the kind of information that will be most meaningful and impactful in their work, while choosing - or being compelled to choose - what knowledge to overlook or ignore: a process identified as sufficient knowledge. In biomedicine, medical students are socialized to deliberately decide what information matters most; so, too, do practicing physicians openly acknowledge that they make choices around knowledge in daily practice. Within this process, time is a critical factor that mediates epistemological decision-making. In other words, how does time bound or restrict what forms and depth of medical knowledge that physicians and future physicians prioritize? When would someone intentionally limit time in order to constrain the amount and types of information he, she, or they acquire? To answer these questions, this study draws upon interviews and participant observation conducted with students at a medical school in the American Midwest. This article seeks to answer the aforementioned questions and to provide a new framework for, and expand discussions of, agnotology in the anthropology of medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropology & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"429-444\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropology & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropology & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2021.1890943","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

个别科学家、临床医生和其他专家不可能对其实践领域的所有理论、方法、模型和发现都有绝对的了解。更确切地说,这些人选择对他们的工作最有意义和影响的信息,同时选择-或被迫选择-忽略或忽略哪些知识:一个被确定为充分知识的过程。在生物医学领域,医学生被社会化了,他们会有意识地决定哪些信息最重要;因此,执业医生也公开承认,他们在日常实践中会根据知识做出选择。在这一过程中,时间是调节认识论决策的关键因素。换句话说,时间是如何限制医生和未来医生优先考虑的医学知识的形式和深度的?什么时候某人会故意限制时间来限制他、她或他们获得的信息的数量和类型?为了回答这些问题,本研究对美国中西部一所医学院的学生进行了访谈和参与观察。本文试图回答上述问题,并为医学人类学中的不可知论提供一个新的框架,并扩大对其的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Six hours to study: temporality and ignorance in medical education.

Individual scientists, clinicians, and other experts cannot have absolute knowledge of all of the theories, methods, models, and findings in their field of practice. Rather, these individuals make choices about the kind of information that will be most meaningful and impactful in their work, while choosing - or being compelled to choose - what knowledge to overlook or ignore: a process identified as sufficient knowledge. In biomedicine, medical students are socialized to deliberately decide what information matters most; so, too, do practicing physicians openly acknowledge that they make choices around knowledge in daily practice. Within this process, time is a critical factor that mediates epistemological decision-making. In other words, how does time bound or restrict what forms and depth of medical knowledge that physicians and future physicians prioritize? When would someone intentionally limit time in order to constrain the amount and types of information he, she, or they acquire? To answer these questions, this study draws upon interviews and participant observation conducted with students at a medical school in the American Midwest. This article seeks to answer the aforementioned questions and to provide a new framework for, and expand discussions of, agnotology in the anthropology of medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
(In) visibility of health and illness: Instagram as an unregulated public health platform. 'We are not done': reclaiming care after mobile health in Burkina Faso. Digital technologies and the future of health: aspirations, care and data. Phantom data and the potentials of radical caretaking in reproductive health. The insensitivity of 'sensitive care': the bureaucracy of pregnancy tissue disposal in England, UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1