Negotiating science and experience in medical knowledge: Gynaecologists on endometriosis

Emma Whelan, Whelan E
Social science & medicine (1982) · 2009 · vol. 68(8) , pp. 1489–1497 · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.032 · PMID:19268414 · W2023911741
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 12 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-06 ⓘ

This paper explores how gynecologists integrate scientific research with their clinical experience when diagnosing and managing endometriosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

This paper analyses the gynaecological literature on endometriosis, particularly endometriosis classification, to evaluate the epistemological concepts it uses. A qualitative content analysis was conducted on a sample of gynaecological literature published between 1985 and 2000, a period that witnessed the explosion of both evidence-based and patient-centred models of medicine, with their dwelling emphases on science and experience. It was found that the discourse of science is used strategically in this literature as a formal epistemology to lend weight to authors' claims and to guide medical thinking and research. However, gynaecologists also use the notion of experience to assert their own credibility and to question the credibility of other experts. In fact, accounts of their own experience and the experiential accounts of their patients are foundational to gynaecologists' claims-making activities, including their engagement with scientific research.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Gynecology Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice Biomedical Research Evidence-Based Medicine Female Humans Pain Measurement Patient-Centered Care

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (100)

Cited by (12)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-27T06:15:28.040536+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:14:11.755070+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK