IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/journl/v5y2017i12p10-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Doctor Distrust: Pragmatism, Intersectionality, and the Confluence of Expertise and Interests

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence H. Williams

Abstract

The idea that only experts can be privy to knowledge about the world has been strongly contested throughout recent history. Using interviews with 39 British seniors tasked to discuss the role of doctors in matters of life and death, I argue that distrust for expert knowledge stems largely from the belief that knowledge is deeply shaped by personal experience. However, such distrust is not absolute as respondents still hold some faith in medical expertise due to their own perceived lack of medical knowledge and experiences with the medical field. As such, I assert that respondents demonstrate ambivalence towards medical expertise due to the confluence of expertise and interests that they find in the role that doctors play in assisting individuals with their health. I connect my findings to the theoretical traditions of American pragmatism and intersectionality to demonstrate how the ambivalence demonstrated by respondents signals their tacit use of a combination of these theories or what I term pragmatic intersectionality.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence H. Williams, 2017. "Doctor Distrust: Pragmatism, Intersectionality, and the Confluence of Expertise and Interests," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(12), pages 10-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:journl:v:5:y:2017:i:12:p:10-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/ijsss/article/view/2748/2894
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/ijsss/article/view/2748
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Evans, 2012. "Spot the difference: distinguishing between two kinds of processing," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 121-131, June.
    2. Trow, Martin, 1996. "Trust, Markets and Accountability in Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt6q21h265, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2014. "The interpretative heuristic in insight problem solving," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 13(1), pages 97-108, June.
    2. Małgorzata Dzimińska & Justyna Fijałkowska & Łukasz Sułkowski, 2018. "Trust-Based Quality Culture Conceptual Model for Higher Education Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Bago, Bence & Rosenzweig, Leah & Berinsky, Adam & Rand, David, 2021. "Emotion may predict susceptibility to fake news but emotion regulation does not help," IAST Working Papers 21-127, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    4. Yu-Hsin Lo & Dian-Fu Chang & Angel Chang, 2022. "Exploring Concurrent Relationships between Economic Factors and Student Mobility in Expanding Higher Education Achieving 2030," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás, 2021. "Awarding PhD Powers to Polytechnics: An Academic Trap?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    6. Deiaco, Enrico & Melin, Göran, 2006. "Considerations On University Alliances: Motives, Risks And Characteristics," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 64, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    7. Leveille, David E., 2005. "An Emerging View on Accountability in American Higher Education," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt89b2b1zt, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    8. Sarrico, Cláudia S. & Teixeira, Pedro N. & Rosa, Maria J. & Cardoso, Margarida F., 2009. "Subject mix and productivity in Portuguese universities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 287-295, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    expertise; pragmatism; intersectionality; death and dying;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rfa:journl:v:5:y:2017:i:12:p:10-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.