The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The meaning of evidence: can practitioners be researchers?

The meaning of evidence: can practitioners be researchers?
The meaning of evidence: can practitioners be researchers?
Our research group at Southampton contains a combination of non-clinical researchers as well as CAM and conventional clinicians who have become researchers. The transition from practitioner to practitioner-researcher has led us to question, challenge and re-consider the paradigmatic differences in our practices compared to conventional medicine and how we might understand and interpret evidence derived from both quantitative and qualitative research. We very much value the randomised controlled trial (RCT) but have all come to understand its limitations and constraints when trying to encapsulate a complete, rigorous, and honest understanding of our complex interventions and how they are delivered in practice. Equally, our expertise in qualitative research leads us to understand the patient's perspective and to value a more individual agenda. We believe that we share these tensions with clinicians working in primary care. We appreciate that we need to understand contextual effects so we can better utilise and research them appropriately, rather than dismiss them as mere placebo. These issues represent both personal and transcendent conflicts that we have expressed as a series of vignettes each written by a practitioner/researcher working in that filed. Our principle aim in writing this essay is to offer our practical experience and insight as issues for thoughtful debate for those clinicians and academics involved in clinical research in controversial areas such as CAM.
complementary medicine, practitioner, researcher, evidence
1661-4119
343-347
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Brien, Sarah
4e8e97cd-7bc3-4efd-857e-20790040b80f
Barlow, Fiona
4acd979b-0420-4003-9422-e2f87f3ec5d4
Eyles, Caroline
f8518cbb-669f-4cf6-bacb-4a174e385483
Flower, Andrew
5256a2c8-6e74-49be-acc8-463ed3c18c6a
Hall, Sue
0fd070f4-6194-49fc-9a91-98e3cbbdfeaa
Hill, Clare
bdfbb4a0-499e-4ab1-9174-52f70dbd6ca0
Hopwood, Val
1cd3d7f0-247b-4f30-b61d-9a0d65f35519
Lewith, George
0fc483fa-f17b-47c5-94d9-5c15e65a7625
Brien, Sarah
4e8e97cd-7bc3-4efd-857e-20790040b80f
Barlow, Fiona
4acd979b-0420-4003-9422-e2f87f3ec5d4
Eyles, Caroline
f8518cbb-669f-4cf6-bacb-4a174e385483
Flower, Andrew
5256a2c8-6e74-49be-acc8-463ed3c18c6a
Hall, Sue
0fd070f4-6194-49fc-9a91-98e3cbbdfeaa
Hill, Clare
bdfbb4a0-499e-4ab1-9174-52f70dbd6ca0
Hopwood, Val
1cd3d7f0-247b-4f30-b61d-9a0d65f35519

Lewith, George, Brien, Sarah, Barlow, Fiona, Eyles, Caroline, Flower, Andrew, Hall, Sue, Hill, Clare and Hopwood, Val (2009) The meaning of evidence: can practitioners be researchers? Complementary Medicine Research, 16 (5), 343-347. (doi:10.1159/000235542).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Our research group at Southampton contains a combination of non-clinical researchers as well as CAM and conventional clinicians who have become researchers. The transition from practitioner to practitioner-researcher has led us to question, challenge and re-consider the paradigmatic differences in our practices compared to conventional medicine and how we might understand and interpret evidence derived from both quantitative and qualitative research. We very much value the randomised controlled trial (RCT) but have all come to understand its limitations and constraints when trying to encapsulate a complete, rigorous, and honest understanding of our complex interventions and how they are delivered in practice. Equally, our expertise in qualitative research leads us to understand the patient's perspective and to value a more individual agenda. We believe that we share these tensions with clinicians working in primary care. We appreciate that we need to understand contextual effects so we can better utilise and research them appropriately, rather than dismiss them as mere placebo. These issues represent both personal and transcendent conflicts that we have expressed as a series of vignettes each written by a practitioner/researcher working in that filed. Our principle aim in writing this essay is to offer our practical experience and insight as issues for thoughtful debate for those clinicians and academics involved in clinical research in controversial areas such as CAM.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: October 2009
Keywords: complementary medicine, practitioner, researcher, evidence

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 73245
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/73245
ISSN: 1661-4119
PURE UUID: 0c4318d9-3193-449b-a4ac-d62ef90f7c9d

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 03 Mar 2010
Last modified: 19 Jul 2019 23:41

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×