Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief
    • Past Issues in Brief
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
    • Associate Editor Opening
    • Current Opportunities
    • Job Board
  • COVID-19
    • Preprint Collection
    • Casenotes Blog
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleReflections

General Medical Practitioners Need to Be Aware of the Theories on Which Our Work Depend

Paul Thomas
The Annals of Family Medicine September 2006, 4 (5) 450-454; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.581
Paul Thomas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Medical Epistemology or Personal Epistemological Beliefs?
    Adolfo Pena
    Published on: 12 February 2007
  • Continuing the debate
    Paul R Thomas
    Published on: 15 December 2006
  • Researching a complex whole through mixed methods
    Elizabeth A. Bayliss
    Published on: 10 October 2006
  • Critical realism as a metatheory
    Dan Munday
    Published on: 09 October 2006
  • Does philosophy make you a better practitioner?
    Richard Schmitt
    Published on: 08 October 2006
  • Reflections on Dr. Thomas' treatise
    Anton J Kuzel
    Published on: 02 October 2006
  • Published on: (12 February 2007)
    Medical Epistemology or Personal Epistemological Beliefs?
    • Adolfo Pena, Cincinnati, US

    In his article(1) Dr Thomas explores theories on which our work as physicians is based on. Such mental exercise offers us a great example of metacognition. I read with particular interest since it is most likely one of few publications in this subject. It seems that even when physicians use every day “theories” they are not fully aware of them.

    Like any other modern technology, medicine uses scientific knowledge...

    Show More

    In his article(1) Dr Thomas explores theories on which our work as physicians is based on. Such mental exercise offers us a great example of metacognition. I read with particular interest since it is most likely one of few publications in this subject. It seems that even when physicians use every day “theories” they are not fully aware of them.

    Like any other modern technology, medicine uses scientific knowledge (medical evidence) but philosophical knowledge as well. Medical thought and medical practice pose a number of philosophical dilemmas; these include the characterization of medicine itself as knowledge and praxis. Distinct sophisticated philosophical views about epistemology of medicine exist. Although, I have some discrepancies regarding Dr.Thomas’ ideas respect to positivism and constructivism, the principal point that I would like to emphasize is what we can achieve from cognitive sciences in relationship to theories on which our work depends.

    Learning theories postulate that people learn by constructing contexts for new knowledge based on what they know, believe and have experienced(2). There is a group of beliefs related to what we think knowledge is, how we trust on knowledge and how we justify it; they have been studied by cognitive sciences as a theoretical construct called “epistemological beliefs”. Personal epistemology is described as a system of independent, personal, non-formal education beliefs about the simplicity, certainty, source of knowledge as well as ideas about the control and speed of knowledge acquisition(3). These beliefs have been found to influence learning and may guide our professional work(3). It seems that individuals mature in their epistemological growth when they move from their originating source towards a more sophisticated beliefs as Thomas’s ideas for instance. That area of research is new in medical field; only few articles have been published so far(4-5).

    Different from epistemology, which is a system of statements and ideas about science, developed over generations by expert philosophers; epistemological beliefs belong to the individual. Few physicians, medical and college students have studied philosophy in a formal and academic way. Therefore, it is difficult to develop a strong epistemology in our minds. However, because we have to deal with knowledge and cognitive process every day, we have to create our own beliefs about knowledge. It may be important to describe these beliefs among physicians, they will give us better insights into our way to learn and practice medicine.

    1.Thomas P. General medicine practitioners need to be aware of the theories on which our work depends. Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4:450–54.

    2.Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR, Donovan SM, Bransford JD, Pellegrino JW, eds. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Expanded ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002

    3.Hofer BK, Pintrich PR. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research 1997; 67: 88-140.

    4.Knight LV, Mattick K. When I first came here, I thought medicine was black and white: making sense of medical students ways of knowing. Social Science & Medicine 2006, 63: 1084-96.

    5.Robert NJ. Developing resident learning profiles: Do scientific evidence epistemology beliefs, EBM self-efficacy beliefs and EBM skills matter? A dissertation for degree of PhD in Education, George Mason University, Fairfax VA. July 2006.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (15 December 2006)
    Continuing the debate
    • Paul R Thomas, London, UK

    Thank you Elizabeth Bayliss, Dan Munday, Richard Schmitt and Anton Kunzel for taking the trouble to submit a response about my paper on the theory of knowledge. I mostly agree with everything you say, but I would also like to clarify a few points.

    Dan hit the nail on the head when he said that I am applying three theories which are ‘mutually incompatible’. I think of them as different universes of meaning. They...

    Show More

    Thank you Elizabeth Bayliss, Dan Munday, Richard Schmitt and Anton Kunzel for taking the trouble to submit a response about my paper on the theory of knowledge. I mostly agree with everything you say, but I would also like to clarify a few points.

    Dan hit the nail on the head when he said that I am applying three theories which are ‘mutually incompatible’. I think of them as different universes of meaning. They are incompatible in the same way that sight, hearing and touch are incompatible. What I can’t agree with is that we should ‘fear’ this. Surely it is an opportunity to see the world in color rather than black and white. Do any of us go into a garden and say “what a terrible and confusing thing, I can, see, hear and feel – I must get rid of two of these senses?” I prefer to say that my stance challenges scientific orthodoxy that promotes reductionist, single-solution thinking. Instead we must learn how to describe truth as a process of crystallizing meaning from complementary insights, as well as triangulating data to find correct answers.

    I agree with Richard that studying philosophy does not necessarily lead to a good place. But I didn’t say that it did. Instead I advocate paying attention to the breadth of things people are struggling to say, and purposefully using theories that help to do this in the best way. The dominant theory used in medicine does not help to do this. Consequently I, and other GPs, are morally obliged to explore philosophy to the extent that we find or develop more appropriate theories. The three fundamental theories I have described help me surface hidden and interconnected phenomena as well as consider presenting complaints, and also stimulate creative, often humorous, discussion about what it all means. I find this helpful in almost every consultation. By the way my name is Thomas, not Taylor.

    I completely agree with Elizabeth that these are equal but different ways of looking at wholes, and complexity can always be found if you have a mind to look for it. But so can simplicity and complicated things always be found, if you care to look for them. I think that these three terms (simple, complicated and complex) make the same assumptions about the way the world works as the three paradigms I explore in my paper. But I did not, and would not, use the word ‘spectrum’ when describing them. Spectrum implies to me a continuous connection between different things. They are different kinds of light, when shone on the same situation reveal quite different things. I agree with your other comments, including N=1 studies.

    Anton makes a point similar to Dan’s that the way I have portrayed critical theory and constructivism overly simplifies those traditions. I have to agree. And further - I have also simplified positivism. One reason for doing this is to relate to the ideas of Egon Guba who, in the Paradigm Dialog, distinguishes the different ontology, epistemology and methodology of three paradigms that carry these names. It was not my intention to fully describe these specific traditions, nor relate them to other traditions, but to use them as good examples of the strengths and weaknesses of the three different paradigms I have described.

    What I don’t say in my paper is my belief that these three paradigms reflect three fundamentally different operations of a human mind, perhaps required to retain and develop a sense of self. I develop this idea in my book. I think that these paradigms are fundamental not because of what there is to find in the world, but because of how our minds construct ideas. At some point or other in all new ideas there is a need to acknowledge that there is a present known situation (positivism), to explore uncertainty (critical theory), and to play around to find new connections (constructivism). From time to time I examine a specific case that claims one of these three paradigmatic approaches. I find the other two approaches are always discernable. They are rarely highlighted and usually applied with appalling rigor - but they are there in some form. Consequently I am not a fan of any one particular research tradition in isolation, and advocate a sensitive combination of whatever is realistic and appropriate to the concerns of the moment.

    Thank you for this opportunity to continue the debate.

    Competing interests:   I wrote the original paper

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (10 October 2006)
    Researching a complex whole through mixed methods
    • Elizabeth A. Bayliss, Denver, CO, USA

    Dr. Thomas provides a useful and explanatory framework to describe a process of care many primary care physicians have been using intuitively for years. (It may be safe to say that it is partly the inclination to think in these terms that causes many physicians to select a primary care specialty in the first place.) As Dr. Thomas points out, the combination of the three described ‘ways of knowing’ lend themselves well to...

    Show More

    Dr. Thomas provides a useful and explanatory framework to describe a process of care many primary care physicians have been using intuitively for years. (It may be safe to say that it is partly the inclination to think in these terms that causes many physicians to select a primary care specialty in the first place.) As Dr. Thomas points out, the combination of the three described ‘ways of knowing’ lend themselves well to the study and care of the complex patients (and complexities of patients) seen in primary care. Based on the multidimensional needs of patients and clinicians, he calls for less emphasis on quantitative (‘positivist’) methodology and more on ‘multimethod’ (incorporating critical theory and constructivist) approaches to research as well as practice.

    The good news is that mixed-method research is alive and well and being practiced (not surprisingly) by primary care researchers in multiple areas of study. Several of these are nicely illustrated by Drs. Katerndahl and Crabtree in the current issue of Annals. (1) I see the above three methodologies as part of an iterative cycle in which quantitative investigations are informed from qualitative investigations and vice versa.

    If these methodologies are seen as an iterative process, it may be a bit simplified to portray the ‘spectrum’ of positivism to critical theory to constructivism as analogous to theories that are simple, complicated and complex respectively. I would argue that they are different and equally important ways of looking at parts of the same whole and that the whole is always complex. Both critical theory and constructivism inform the choice of which areas to study with positivist methodology—critical theory by piquing our interest through meaningful anecdote, and constructivism by building consensus and agreement. Positivism uses a high -power lens to discern the ‘truth’ as we manipulate the variability of the process (under study) to approach zero. This ‘truth’ can then be re- analyzed through the low-powered lenses of qualitative methods to assess it’s usefulness in a meaningful context and adapted accordingly. All steps are required to understand the whole.

    Most would agree that ‘best evidence’ in any given situation is not necessarily the applied result of meta-analyses of multiple low- variability positivist studies. ‘Best evidence’ probably results from the most strategic use of multiple methodologies to explore a question. Once upon a time, the ‘N of one clinical trial’ was considered best evidence. It could be argued that these rare studies used all three of the above theories: they were the application of very specific results (positivist) to an agreed-upon question (constructionist) in a relevant context (critical theory). The challenge then is to incrementally make it the norm to consider ‘truth’ in context for large and complex populations. Primary care researchers comfortable with mixed-method research are the ones to start this process.

    (1) Katerndahl, D and Crabtree,B. Creating Innovative Research Designs: The 10-Year Methodological Think Tank Case Study. Annals of Family Medicine 4:443-449 (2006)

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (9 October 2006)
    Critical realism as a metatheory
    • Dan Munday, Warwick

    Paul Thomas' reflections form a useful review of the complexities involved in health care and the need for a broad theoretical approach to aid practice.

    However, I am concerned that he may be applying three theories which are mutually incompatible. Further from my reading of critical realism, I would question his definition of the term. I would in fact go further and suggest that all he is arguing for, in terms...

    Show More

    Paul Thomas' reflections form a useful review of the complexities involved in health care and the need for a broad theoretical approach to aid practice.

    However, I am concerned that he may be applying three theories which are mutually incompatible. Further from my reading of critical realism, I would question his definition of the term. I would in fact go further and suggest that all he is arguing for, in terms of developing a broad and flexible approach to practicing primary care, is consistent with critical realism.

    Critical realists understand the world to be complex and that our knowledge of it is fallible (the transitive domain). However, they argue for the existence of reality external to our knowledge of it (the intransitive domain). They suggest that positivists and constructivists alike fall into the "epistemological fallacy" not recognising this distinction and by reducing ontology to epistemology.

    As with critical theory, critical realism recognises an ontological depth which is necessary to appreciate relations of power and structural influences on human agency. This aspect is ignored in positivism, where explanations remain close to the surface e.g. in examining for empirical regularities in scientific explantion. However a critical realist approach allows for simple systems and the methods (such as RCTs) to test them (and critical realists get out of the way of buses!)

    In addition, by understanding ontological depth and the influence of pespectives on knowledge, a creative potential is released. However this cocreativity is still grounded in a realist ontology. Different perspectives are relevant and potentially valuable in aiding understanding, but it is possible to judge between them (otherwise science is impossible), although such understanding remains fallible.

    Those of us who want to widen the debate from the narrow positivist stance of EBM (I am not sure that it is even postpositivist)need to offer an alternative which is coherent and persuasive. I do not think that this will be achieved by adopting a realist ontology for one issue and a relativist one for another, although I agree, insights from constructivism can be extremely helpful. However, espousing a metatheoretical approach with a realist ontology and a relativist epistemology as in critical realism does provide a framework for developing theoretical and practical understanding of the complexity of primary health care.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (8 October 2006)
    Does philosophy make you a better practitioner?
    • Richard Schmitt, Worcester

    Dr. Taylor claims that knowing about positivism, critical theory and constructivism makes him a better practitioner. He is the best judge of that and I do not want to dispute his understanding of his own history.

    But having been a practitioner of philosophy for 50 years I want to suggest some reasons for being sceptical of any general recommendation that many or all family physicians improve their practice by s...

    Show More

    Dr. Taylor claims that knowing about positivism, critical theory and constructivism makes him a better practitioner. He is the best judge of that and I do not want to dispute his understanding of his own history.

    But having been a practitioner of philosophy for 50 years I want to suggest some reasons for being sceptical of any general recommendation that many or all family physicians improve their practice by studying philosophy.

    1. I have known many professional philsophers who acquired deserved fame in the profession for their subtle understanding of many controversies in ethics. A significant number of them were completely unreliable persons. The ethics they studied did not direct their actions.

    2. We must remember the gap between knowing and doing. Knowing that smoking causes lung cancer does not always suffice to motivate persons to give up smoking. In similar ways a sophisticated understanding of the importance of contexts in understanding persons may not always suffice to make practitioners truly understanding in their examination room.

    3. Philosophers like to refer to their views as "theories" without always admitting that philosophical theories are different from scientific ones in at least one important respect: some scientific theories, at least, rest on a large body of carefully tested evidence. Not so philosophical theories--they are claims to truth that rest on sometimes ingenious argumentation, that always has equally ingenious opponents. Philosophical theories are, at best, a series of tentative answers to interesting, but often also quite esotheric questions. The life of philosophical theories is in controversies--sometimes enormously interesting, at other times excessively esotheric.

    Knowing any philosophical theory is not like knowing a theory in physics, for instance. Knowing a philosophical theory is being able to participate in the arguments philosophers have with one another.

    There seems to me to be no obvious connection between, say, being able to argue on a professional level about the claim that only scientifically verifiable statements have meaning and being a physicvian whose grounding in contemporary evidenced based medicine is exemplary.

    Richard Schmitt

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (2 October 2006)
    Reflections on Dr. Thomas' treatise
    • Anton J Kuzel, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    This is an interesting, artful approach to reflective practice, and appropriately draws in three major traditions of inquiry and shows how they inform practice at its best. My own journey of learning about these traditions has created a slightly different understanding of the distinctions between critical science and constructivism. The author seems to suggest that critical science is primarily about surfacing hidden a...

    Show More

    This is an interesting, artful approach to reflective practice, and appropriately draws in three major traditions of inquiry and shows how they inform practice at its best. My own journey of learning about these traditions has created a slightly different understanding of the distinctions between critical science and constructivism. The author seems to suggest that critical science is primarily about surfacing hidden assumptions and relationships, and it certainly is, but constructivism also has that same agenda. My sense is that critical science is different from constructivism in that it is particularly sensitive to power differentials in social situations and how these differentials can lead to oppression. The task of critical science, often through participatory action research, is to discern this oppression and its root causes and work to create a more just social environment. Now this sort of understanding of critical science and constructivism can still have the same relevance to how we do our work as clinicians as the author has suggested in his essay. We have all experienced patients who are “stuck in the webs of significance which they themselves have made” (Max VanMannen), and so are victims of a kind of auto-oppression. And then there are the many who are victims of a variety of social injustices with resulting enormous psychosocial and medical morbidities. I have a few more detailed comments about certain assertions in the paper. The statement that critical theory is the way to best understand the context of a phenomenon would be cheered by critical theory fans, but is probably an overstatement. Indeed, the author’s premise seems to be that using all three ways of knowing (and maybe more!) is the“best” way of understanding context. I also don’t think its ontology is typically critical realist as in postpositivism, but rather relativist (as in constructivism), and if anyone thinks that reality is a social construct, it is a critical scientist! Validity is achieved by empowering action and personal and group development, not so much by triangulation. I am generally comfortable with the section on constructivism, but would point out that PAR is also a prime means for inquiry within critical traditions. But these are relatively minor issues for me as I read the paper. I absolutely agree that the best clinicians artfully and consciously employ many ways of knowing and many kinds of truths in order to provide the best possible care to their patients, families, and communities, and I compliment Dr. Thomas for his fine treatise.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 4 (5)
The Annals of Family Medicine
Vol. 4, Issue 5
1 Sep 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
General Medical Practitioners Need to Be Aware of the Theories on Which Our Work Depend
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
General Medical Practitioners Need to Be Aware of the Theories on Which Our Work Depend
Paul Thomas
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2006, 4 (5) 450-454; DOI: 10.1370/afm.581

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
General Medical Practitioners Need to Be Aware of the Theories on Which Our Work Depend
Paul Thomas
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2006, 4 (5) 450-454; DOI: 10.1370/afm.581
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • Positivism, Critical Theory, and Constructivism
    • Positivism, Critical Theory, and Constructivism Provide Complementary Insights Into Stories in Evolution
    • IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERALIST MEDICAL PRACTICE
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Understanding the Context of Health for Persons With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Moving From What Is the Matter to What Matters
  • Ways of Knowing, Learning, and Developing
  • On TRACK: Challenges and Insights
  • In This Issue: Capacity for Caring and Generating New Knowledge
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Dear White People
  • What Are You? A Biracial Physician on Nuanced Racism
  • Family Medicine, Community, and Race: A Minneapolis Practice Reflects
Show more Reflections

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Translational research
  • Other topics:
    • Research capacity building
    • Communication / decision making

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Online First

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine