Credibility and the 'professionalized' lay expert: reflections on the dilemmas and opportunities of public involvement in health research.

Health (London, England : 1997) Pub Date : 2012-11-01 Epub Date: 2012-04-25 DOI:10.1177/1363459312441008
Jill Thompson, Paul Bissell, Cindy Cooper, Chris J Armitage, Rosemary Barber
{"title":"Credibility and the 'professionalized' lay expert: reflections on the dilemmas and opportunities of public involvement in health research.","authors":"Jill Thompson,&nbsp;Paul Bissell,&nbsp;Cindy Cooper,&nbsp;Chris J Armitage,&nbsp;Rosemary Barber","doi":"10.1177/1363459312441008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Contemporary health policy in England places increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and health research. With regard to the latter, it has been suggested that PPI brings 'different' perspectives to research decision-making spaces, based on what has been referred to as 'experiential expertise'. This article presents findings from a qualitative study of PPI in cancer research settings in England. We argue that participants highlighted specific forms of expertise in their accounts about involvement, above and beyond experiential expertise, which they felt legitimated their claims to be credible participants within cancer research settings. We report here on the various strategies by which participants sought to accomplish this and highlight, in particular, a concomitant process of 'professionalization' of some within our group of participants. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent debates around the status of experiential expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":231462,"journal":{"name":"Health (London, England : 1997)","volume":" ","pages":"602-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1363459312441008","citationCount":"85","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health (London, England : 1997)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459312441008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 85

Abstract

Contemporary health policy in England places increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and health research. With regard to the latter, it has been suggested that PPI brings 'different' perspectives to research decision-making spaces, based on what has been referred to as 'experiential expertise'. This article presents findings from a qualitative study of PPI in cancer research settings in England. We argue that participants highlighted specific forms of expertise in their accounts about involvement, above and beyond experiential expertise, which they felt legitimated their claims to be credible participants within cancer research settings. We report here on the various strategies by which participants sought to accomplish this and highlight, in particular, a concomitant process of 'professionalization' of some within our group of participants. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent debates around the status of experiential expertise.

信誉和“专业化”的外行专家:对公众参与卫生研究的困境和机会的思考。
英国当代卫生政策越来越强调病人和公众参与卫生和卫生研究。关于后者,有人认为,基于所谓的“经验专长”,PPI为研究决策空间带来了“不同”的视角。这篇文章提出了在英国癌症研究设置PPI定性研究的结果。我们认为,参与者在他们关于参与的描述中强调了特定形式的专业知识,超越了经验专业知识,他们认为这使他们声称自己是癌症研究环境中可信的参与者是合理的。我们在这里报告了参与者试图实现这一目标的各种策略,并特别强调了我们参与者群体中一些人的“专业化”过程。我们在最近围绕经验专家地位的辩论的背景下讨论这些发现的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信