Through Narrative Theory, the book offers an engaging panorama of the construction of specialised discourses and practices within academia and diverse professional communities. Its chapters investigate genres from various fields, such as aircraft accident reports, clinical cases and other scientific observations, academic conferences, academic blogs, climate-change reports, university decision-making in public meetings, patients’ oral and written accounts of illness, corporate annual reports, journalistic obituaries, university websites, narratives of facts in legal cases, narrative processes in arbitration hearings, briefs, and witness examination accounts. In addition to exploring narration in this wide range of contexts, the volume uses narrative as a powerful tool to gain a methodological insight into professional and academic accounts, and thus it contributes to research into theoretical issues. Under the lens of Narratology, Discourse and Genre Analysis, fresh research windows are opened on the study of academic and professional interactions.
FRANÇOISE SALAGER-MEYER / MARÍA ÁNGELES ALCARAZ ARIZA /MARIANELA LUZARDO BRICEÑO The Medical Narrative from a Diachronic Perspective (1840-2009): Titling Practices and Authorship - 293
FRANÇOISE SALAGER-MEYER / MARÍA ÁNGELES ALCARAZ ARIZA / MARIANELA LUZARDO BRICEÑO The Medical Narrative from a Diachronic Perspective (1840-2009): Titling Practices and Authorship* 1. Introduction Since before Hippocrates, case report narratives (hereafter abbreviated as CRs) have made a valuable contribution to the advancement of medical science (Simpson/Griggs 1985, Morris 1989). Given the unpredictable nature of medicine, many medical professionals will indeed have come across a patient who has not been a textbook case. The patient may have had a strange pathology, or reacted to a medical intervention in a manner that has not been seen before. The publica- tion of such novelties and curiosities as CRs has for many centuries been a fundamental way of sharing knowledge and conveying medical experience, and throughout history there have been famous CRs that have helped shape the way we view health and disease (Jamjoom/ Nikkar-Esfahani/Fitzgerald 2010). In recent years, though, and especially since the 1990s (Maison- neuve et al. 2010), CRs have come under scrutiny and disfavor among some members of the medical scientific community, and they are now frequently relegated to the lowest ring of the hierarchy of study design. There are those who argue, for example, that CRs are passé, trivial (Rose/Corn 1984), and that they are even increasingly irrelevant in current medical practice and education (Yadav 2006) because their * This research was supported by Grant M-1039-13-06-B from the Scientific, Technological, Humanistic and Artistic Research Center (CDCHT) from the University of The Andes, Mérida, Venezuela. Françoise...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.