| Title |
Mode 2 Knowledge Production in the Context of Medical Research: A Call for Further Clarifications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9822-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hojjat Soofi |
| 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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 17% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 February 2020.
All research outputs
#8,410,141
of 25,124,631 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#317
of 658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,048
of 452,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,124,631 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 452,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.