WEKO3
アイテム
多義的シンボルとしてのEBM の形成
http://hdl.handle.net/2298/0002000894
http://hdl.handle.net/2298/000200089402ad5be0-6599-437a-94e0-e0989d1ce3cc
| 名前 / ファイル | ライセンス | アクション |
|---|---|---|
JBR0006_035-052.pdf (1.5 MB)
|
|
| Item type | 紀要論文 / Departmental Bulletin Paper(1) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 公開日 | 2025-03-27 | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | 多義的シンボルとしてのEBM の形成 | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | タギテキ シンボル トシテ ノ EBM ノ ケイセイ | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ja-Kana | |||||||||||
| タイトル | ||||||||||||
| タイトル | The Formation of EBM as an Ambiguous Symbol | |||||||||||
| 言語 | en | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ||||||||||||
| 言語 | jpn | |||||||||||
| キーワード | ||||||||||||
| 主題 | EBM プロフェッショナリズム, 意味論 |
|||||||||||
| 資源タイプ | ||||||||||||
| 資源タイプ識別子 | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 | |||||||||||
| 資源タイプ | departmental bulletin paper | |||||||||||
| 著者 |
中川, 輝彦
× 中川, 輝彦
|
|||||||||||
| 内容記述 | ||||||||||||
| 内容記述タイプ | Abstract | |||||||||||
| 内容記述 | Sociology has viewed EBM (evidence-based medicine) as a threat to medical professionalism. However, EBM is an ambivalent symbol for medical professionalism: there are various versions of EBM, and both negative and positive proponents of professionalism have justified their claims by citing convenient versions as legitimate models of medicine. This paper examines how EBM has come to be established as such a polysemous symbol. It focuses on the semantics (Semantik) that underpins communication in the global medical world and examines what meaning EBM has been given there. The analysis will focus on EBM discourse from the early to mid-1990s. EBM was proposed as a medical practice that relies on both clinical expertise based on clinical experience and clinical research that incorporates speculative statistical methods. However, proponents of EBM could not unambiguously define the relationship between clinical knowledge and clinical research. On the one hand, they argued that decisions based on clinical knowledge are inferior to those based on clinical research, while on the other hand, they argued that the two are mutually irreplaceable and that there are no higher and lower levels. How to relate clinical knowledge and clinical research was left to individual proponents and critics. This is where the ambiguity of EBM arose. If one emphasized the importance of clinical knowledge, EBM became a symbol that justified claims to defend discretionary authority to reflect clinical knowledge in the content of practice, and conversely, if one emphasized the importance of probabilistic clinical research, it became a symbol that justified negative claims against professionalism. | |||||||||||
| 書誌情報 |
ja : 人文科学論叢 en : Kumamoto journal of humanities 巻 6, p. 35-52, 発行年 2025-03-31 |
|||||||||||
| ISSN | ||||||||||||
| 収録物識別子 | 2435-0052 | |||||||||||
| NCID | ||||||||||||
| 収録物識別子タイプ | NCID | |||||||||||
| 収録物識別子 | AA12888532 | |||||||||||
| 著者版フラグ | ||||||||||||
| 出版タイプ | VoR | |||||||||||
| 出版タイプResource | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 | |||||||||||
| 日本十進分類法 | ||||||||||||
| 主題Scheme | NDC | |||||||||||
| 主題 | 492 | |||||||||||
| 出版者 | ||||||||||||
| 出版者 | 熊本大学大学院人文社会科学研究部(文学系) | |||||||||||
| 言語 | ja | |||||||||||
