• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >004 OP: THE USE OF USELESSNESS: COLLABORATIVE FAILURES AS POTENTIAL
【24h】

004 OP: THE USE OF USELESSNESS: COLLABORATIVE FAILURES AS POTENTIAL

机译：004 OP：无用的使用：潜在的协作失败

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Collaborations between individuals with different training and intellectual genealogies often build upon expectations of what the other can offer. This paper is based on one such collaborative experience with rehabilitative experts in Helsinki, Finland, who at first welcomed my participation as a trained ethnographer who could, they proposed, uncover and analyze for them how their patients ?￠????really felt?￠???? about their program for burnout. But later, what I provided for these clinical and rehabilitative experts was to prove a disappointment. ?￠????It's useless,?￠???? they said of an article I had published based on my fieldwork at their center. What they had expected was a text that either verified or critiqued the effectiveness of the rehabilitative program that they had developed. Instead, the analysis I had produced as well as the ethnographic detail I had emphasized neither supported nor suggested what they could do to do better. Disappointment on my part came when the crisis of knowledge and of knowing I had hoped would emerge to spur discussion about the premises of the rehabilitative treatment failed to occur amongst my clinical collaborators. What, then, is collaborative work when the co-laboring fails to produce a vantage point from which each member finds ?￠????use?￠????? And while being found useless is indeed the limit of collaboration, what potential can we find in ethnography that refuses to corroborate with the telos of clinical imperatives? What use can we find in uselessness? What kind of a ?￠????tool?￠???? is ethnography when found useless?
机译：摘要受过不同训练和知识谱系的个人之间的协作通常建立在对他人可以提供的期望之上。本文基于与芬兰赫尔辛基的康复专家的这种合作经验，他们首先欢迎我作为受过训练的人种志专家的参与，他们可以提出建议，向他们揭示并分析他们的患者的真正感觉如何？ ￠ ????关于他们的职业倦怠计划。但是后来，我为这些临床和康复专家提供的证明却令人失望。没用，没用他们谈到我根据我在他们中心的田野调查发表的文章。他们所期望的是验证或批评他们制定的康复计划有效性的文本。相反，我所进行的分析以及我所强调的人种学细节既不支持也不建议他们可以做得更好。当我希望在临床合作者中未能出现关于康复治疗前提的讨论时，我希望发生的知识危机和知识危机使我感到失望。那么，当共同工作未能产生有利于每个成员从中找到“利用”的优势时，协作工作又是什么呢？尽管被发现毫无用处的确是协作的局限性，但在人种学中我们发现什么潜力，无法与临床要务的目的相佐证呢？我们可以在无用中找到什么用？什么样的工具？发现民族志是没有用的吗？

著录项

  • 来源
    《BMJ Open》 |2017年第2期|共页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类 临床医学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号