折衷主义
上诉
对话
口译(哲学)
偏爱
对比度(视觉)
心理学
医学教育
医学
计算机科学
政治学
历史
语言学
哲学
数学
人工智能
法学
考古
统计
沟通
出处
期刊:Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks
[Palgrave Macmillan UK]
日期:2011-01-01
卷期号:: 15-31
被引量:69
标识
DOI:10.1057/9780230316874_2
摘要
In this chapter we reconsider the design, implementation and dissemination of an NIH-funded study of unmet patient concerns that we conducted in 2005–6 and published in 2007 (Heritage et al., 2007). The study took an aspect of preference organisation that has, to our knowledge, never been systematically studied, and applied it to a well-known problem in primary-care visits: the fact that patients frequently do not voice the full range of their concerns. We review the decisions we made about the design and implementation of the study and about the interpretation of its results. We also contrast this study with ‘regular’ CA studies and conclude with an appeal for eclecticism in the application of CA to real-world problems. We begin with some comments on the distinction between conversation-analytic studies and their applied counterparts.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI