CHAPTER 2. "Missionaries in the Rowboat" ? Ethnological Ways of Knowing as a Challenge to Social History

1995 ◽  
pp. 41-71
1987 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Medick

Investigations in social history confront a fundamental methodological difficulty: How is it possible to comprehend and to present the dual constitution of historical processes, the simultaneity of given and produced relationships, the complex interdependence of encompassing structures and the agency of “subjects,” the relationships obtaining among the circumstances of life, production, and authority, and the experiences and modes of behaviour of those affected by these circumstances?


2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Lee Ensalada

Abstract Illness behavior refers to the ways in which symptoms are perceived, understood, acted upon, and communicated and include facial grimacing, holding or supporting the affected body part, limping, using a cane, and stooping while walking. Illness behavior can be unconscious or conscious: In the former, the person is unaware of the mental processes and content that are significant in determining behavior; conscious illness behavior may be voluntary and conscious (the two are not necessarily associated). The first broad category of inappropriate illness behavior is defensiveness, which is characterized by denial or minimization of symptoms. The second category includes somatoform disorders, factitious disorders, and malingering and is characterized by exaggerating, fabricating, or denying symptoms; minimizing capabilities or positive traits; or misattributing actual deficits to a false cause. Evaluators can detect the presence of inappropriate illness behaviors based on evidence of consistency in the history or examination; the likelihood that the reported symptoms make medical sense and fit a reasonable disease pattern; understanding of the patient's current situation, personal and social history, and emotional predispositions; emotional reactions to symptoms; evaluation of nonphysiological findings; results obtained using standardized test instruments; and tests of dissimulation, such as symptom validity testing. Unsupported and insupportable conclusions regarding inappropriate illness behavior represent substandard practice in view of the importance of these conclusions for the assessment of impairment or disability.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-31
Author(s):  
Craig Alan Hassel

As every human society has developed its own ways of knowing nature in order to survive, dietitians can benefit from an emerging scholarship of “cross-cultural engagement” (CCE).  CCE asks dietitians to move beyond the orthodoxy of their academic training by temporarily experiencing culturally diverse knowledge systems, inhabiting different background assumptions and presuppositions of how the world works.  Although this practice may seem de- stabilizing, it allows for significant outcomes not afforded by conventional dietetics scholarship.  First, culturally different knowledge systems including those of Africa, Ayurveda, classical Chinese medicine and indigenous societies become more empathetically understood, minimizing the distortions created when forcing conformity with biomedical paradigms.  This lessens potential for erroneous interpretations.  Second, implicit background assumptions of the dietetics profession become more apparent, enabling a more critical appraisal of its underlying epistemology.  Third, new forms of post-colonial intercultural inquiry can begin to develop over time as dietetics professionals develop capacities to reframe food and health issues from different cultural perspectives.  CCE scholarship offers dietetics professionals a means to more fully appreciate knowledge assets that lie beyond professionally maintained parameters of truth, and a practice for challenging and moving boundaries of credibility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document