放弃调查问卷

Anna Mann
{"title":"放弃调查问卷","authors":"Anna Mann","doi":"10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Care-concepts have proliferated over the past couple of years, and have been used tostudy all kinds of practices, situations and sites. This begs the question: What is gained bystudying practices in terms of care? The paper addresses this question by using a specificcare-approach, which is the study of daily life dealings (Mol et al., 2010). It mobilises thisapproach to investigate a particular object, namely a good provision of haemodialysistreatment in nephrology practice. It does so in a given place, a dialysis unit in Austria.Based on ethnographic fieldwork with a focus on how patients' quality of life was improved,the paper reports how, in this dialysis unit, a quality of life questionnaire was introducedbut soon abandoned. It first analyses how the prominent ideal that quality of life is to bemeasured with a questionnaire arrived in the goings-on in the unit. It then teases out howconnecting and disconnecting patients to dialysis machines, and seeing them during thedaily round enacted knowing, improving and quality of life in other ways than the prominentpractice. It argues that questionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice theyare part of may not only be made to fit into daily clinical practices or that daily life dealingsare other to prominent practices. Daily clinical practices may also be the basis upon whichquestionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice they are part of are evaluated,abandoned, and forgotten. Recommending further investigation into the conditions ofpossibilities for alternative enactments of a good provision of health care to thrive, thepaper concludes that what has been gained by using this specific care-approach to studythis particular object are insights into daily life practices that have so far been othered innephrology practice and STS.","PeriodicalId":91145,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"53-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abandoning questionnaires\",\"authors\":\"Anna Mann\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Care-concepts have proliferated over the past couple of years, and have been used tostudy all kinds of practices, situations and sites. This begs the question: What is gained bystudying practices in terms of care? The paper addresses this question by using a specificcare-approach, which is the study of daily life dealings (Mol et al., 2010). It mobilises thisapproach to investigate a particular object, namely a good provision of haemodialysistreatment in nephrology practice. It does so in a given place, a dialysis unit in Austria.Based on ethnographic fieldwork with a focus on how patients' quality of life was improved,the paper reports how, in this dialysis unit, a quality of life questionnaire was introducedbut soon abandoned. It first analyses how the prominent ideal that quality of life is to bemeasured with a questionnaire arrived in the goings-on in the unit. It then teases out howconnecting and disconnecting patients to dialysis machines, and seeing them during thedaily round enacted knowing, improving and quality of life in other ways than the prominentpractice. It argues that questionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice theyare part of may not only be made to fit into daily clinical practices or that daily life dealingsare other to prominent practices. Daily clinical practices may also be the basis upon whichquestionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice they are part of are evaluated,abandoned, and forgotten. Recommending further investigation into the conditions ofpossibilities for alternative enactments of a good provision of health care to thrive, thepaper concludes that what has been gained by using this specific care-approach to studythis particular object are insights into daily life practices that have so far been othered innephrology practice and STS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic journal of science and technology studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"53-64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic journal of science and technology studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在过去的几年里,护理概念激增,并被用于研究各种实践、情况和场所。这就引出了一个问题:从护理的角度研究实践可以获得什么?本文通过使用一种特殊的护理方法来解决这个问题,即对日常生活事务的研究(Mol等人,2010)。它调动了这种方法来研究一个特定的目标,即在肾脏病实践中提供良好的血液透析治疗。这是在一个特定的地方,奥地利的一个透析单位。基于民族志实地调查,重点关注患者的生活质量是如何提高的,本文报道了在这个透析单位,生活质量问卷是如何被引入但很快被放弃的。它首先分析了生活质量这一突出的理想是如何用问卷来衡量的。然后,它调侃了如何将患者与透析机连接和断开,并在日常生活中看到他们以其他方式而不是突出的实践来实现了解、改善和生活质量。它认为,问卷、表格、协议及其所属的突出实践可能不仅适合日常临床实践,也可能是日常生活交易与突出实践无关。日常临床实践也可能是评估、放弃和遗忘问卷、表格、协议及其所属的重要实践的基础。该论文建议进一步调查替代性提供良好医疗保健的可能性条件,得出结论,通过使用这种特定的护理方法来研究这一特定对象所获得的是对日常生活实践的深入了解,而这些实践迄今为止在肾科实践和STS中是不同的。
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
Abandoning questionnaires
Care-concepts have proliferated over the past couple of years, and have been used tostudy all kinds of practices, situations and sites. This begs the question: What is gained bystudying practices in terms of care? The paper addresses this question by using a specificcare-approach, which is the study of daily life dealings (Mol et al., 2010). It mobilises thisapproach to investigate a particular object, namely a good provision of haemodialysistreatment in nephrology practice. It does so in a given place, a dialysis unit in Austria.Based on ethnographic fieldwork with a focus on how patients' quality of life was improved,the paper reports how, in this dialysis unit, a quality of life questionnaire was introducedbut soon abandoned. It first analyses how the prominent ideal that quality of life is to bemeasured with a questionnaire arrived in the goings-on in the unit. It then teases out howconnecting and disconnecting patients to dialysis machines, and seeing them during thedaily round enacted knowing, improving and quality of life in other ways than the prominentpractice. It argues that questionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice theyare part of may not only be made to fit into daily clinical practices or that daily life dealingsare other to prominent practices. Daily clinical practices may also be the basis upon whichquestionnaires, forms, protocols, and the prominent practice they are part of are evaluated,abandoned, and forgotten. Recommending further investigation into the conditions ofpossibilities for alternative enactments of a good provision of health care to thrive, thepaper concludes that what has been gained by using this specific care-approach to studythis particular object are insights into daily life practices that have so far been othered innephrology practice and STS.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
With microbes No rose on this one? construction of matches in dating platforms Money, time, or saving the world Incorporation work
×
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