↓ Skip to main content

Cultivating Medical Intentionality: The Phenomenology of Diagnostic Virtuosity in East Asian Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Cultivating Medical Intentionality: The Phenomenology of Diagnostic Virtuosity in East Asian Medicine
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11013-016-9505-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taewoo Kim

Abstract

This study examines the perceptual basis of diagnostic virtuosity in East Asian medicine, combining Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology and an ethnographic investigation of Korean medicine in South Korea. A novice, being exposed to numerous clinical transactions during apprenticeship, organizes perceptual experience that occurs between him or herself and patients. In the process, the fledgling practitioner's body begins to set up a medically-tinged "intentionality" interconnecting his or her consciousness and medically significant qualities in patients. Diagnostic virtuosity is gained when the practitioner embodies a cultivated medical intentionality. In the process of becoming a practitioner imbued with virtuosity, this study focuses on the East Asian notion of "Image" that maximizes the body's perceptual capacity, and minimizes possible reductions by linguistic re-presentation. "Image" enables the practitioner to somatically conceptualize the core notions of East Asian medicine, such as Yin-Yang, and to use them as an embodied litmus as the practitioner's cultivated body instinctively conjures up medical notions at clinical encounters. In line with anthropological critiques of reductionist frameworks that congeal human existential and perceptual vitality within a "scientific" explanatory model, this article attempts to provide an example of various knowing and caring practices, institutionalized external to the culture of science.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 33%
Psychology 3 25%
Unspecified 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,505,282
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#226
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,133
of 319,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.