IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i6p659-665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological controversies between social and medical sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Niklas, Darek

Abstract

If doctors find sociological methods unreliable, the results unsound, and the approach irrelevant, this is due to the essential differences between the procedures and interests of the exact and the social sciences. When sociologists raise doubts concerning the one-sidedness of the medical approach, its exaggerated professionalism, lack of concern for the social context of cure, those are latent requirements which do not match the current paradigm of medical knowledge. It is assumed here that the difference between experimental method and the interpretive procedures of sociology has a basic character and cannot be overcome by the methodological refinement of the latter. Understanding sociological knowledge must be based only against a background of a special interest in practical social affairs. Doubst are raised whether such an interest can develop within the prevailing paradigm of medical practice. Nevertheless, some improvements in the presentation of sociological research and in its method, especially as related to conclusiveness and applicability, can enhance the chances of its effective use in medical practice. Possible postulates addressed to medical research do not have methodological consequences requiring a change in the organization of medical services or in the relations with associated industry for the needs of the health care system.

Suggested Citation

  • Niklas, Darek, 1982. "Methodological controversies between social and medical sciences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 659-665, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:6:p:659-665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90455-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:6:p:659-665. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.