Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29230698›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2018

Mode 2 Knowledge Production in the Context of Medical Research: A Call for Further Clarifications.

Hojjat Soofi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hojjat SoofiAlumnus of Erasmus Mundus Master of Bioethics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, and Università Degli Studi di Padova, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, Australia. hojjat.soofi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7429-6970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional researcher-driven environment of medical knowledge production is losing its dominance with the expansion of, for instance, community-based participatory or participant-led medical research. Over the past few decades, sociologists of science have debated a shift in the production of knowledge from traditional discipline-based (Mode 1) to more socially embedded and transdisciplinary frameworks (Mode 2). Recently, scholars have tried to show the relevance of Mode 2 knowledge production to medical research. However, the existing literature lacks detailed clarifications on how a model of Mode 2 knowledge production can be constructed in the context of medical research. This paper calls for such further clarifications. As a heuristic means, the advocacy for a controversial experimental stem cell therapy (Stamina) is examined. It is discussed that the example cannot be considered a step towards Mode 2 medical knowledge production. Nonetheless, the example brings to the fore some complexities of medical knowledge production that need to be further examined including: (1) the shifting landscape of defining and addressing vulnerability of research participants, (2) the emerging overlap between research and practice, and (3) public health implications of revising the standard notions of quality control and accountability.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelKnowledgeResearch DesignResearch PersonnelBiomedical ResearchCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationPublic HealthQuality ControlSocial ResponsibilityStem Cell ResearchStem CellsBioethicsMedical researchMode 2 knowledge productionStamina

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.