2017 Symposium – Rhetoricians of Health and Medicine University of Cincinnati

Abstract

Ambitions, Audience, Access, Anxieties, Analysis  Impact

Ellen Barton

Wayne State University

The field of Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (RHM) has fully emerged as “a field of inquiry guided by rhetoric but shaped by a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary bodies of scholarship” investigating “how symbolic patterns structure thought and action in health and medical texts, discourses, settings, and materials,” utilizing multiple configurations of methodologies: “RHM scholars have embraced the ‘messiness’ of methodological variation … Multiple methodological approaches are needed to understand and tackle health and medicine’s ‘wicked problems’.” These ambitions can be realized by many configurations of what Scott and Meloncon describe as RHM’s “turn to mixed methodologies,” suggesting that “Another way [RHM] studies could broaden their usefulness and agency is a version of what Barton (2001) calls ‘disciplined interdisciplinarity, calling for observational studies of medical discourse that contribute to both medicine and language studies … We add that such contributions might also be recognizable and valued by health publics, health and medicine policy-makers and practitioners, and other stakeholders involved. (Scott and Meloncon, 2017)

In this talk, I discuss my research on practitioners/patients and clinicians/clients on large, multi-disciplinary teams in medicine, a research setting colloquially known as team science. The working definition of disciplinary interdisciplinary I practice on these teams is “research that makes an acknowledged contribution to both of its fields (Barton, 2001), operationalized as publishing in the medical journals of the team as well as publishing in my own fields of linguistics (discourse analysis), professional/technical communication, and the rhetoric of health and medicine. I ask and answer two set of questions: pragmatic questions about how our research can change in a team science framework and how we can build productive collaborations with team doing this kind of research. The overarching question I ask this symposium is, “What do we bring to the table in team science investigating the face-to-face delivery of care in clinical interactions?

A team science framework in medicine utilizes outcome-based research design, often in communication clinical trials and pilots, and collects and analyzes naturalistic data (mostly transcribed video recordings) using mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) aimed at (inter)disciplinary dissemination in the literature and evidence-based impact on clinical practice. My goal in joining a team is to publish one peer-reviewed publication in the usual/aspirational journals of the team. I do this in the role of “lead” on one study in the set of publications written by the team for the grant project. I argue that this practice of disciplined interdisciplinarity makes me a valuable member on the team because this study/publication is one which the team would not have developed without me.

What changes when you do this?

  • You’ll occupy a niche role (I try to play the role of a post-doc).
  • You’ll work within the team’s problems, research questions and outcomes, and their standards of generalizability, validity, and reliability.
  • You’ll use their methods (e.g., content analysis) and add your own (e.g., DA).
  • You’ll have to come to terms with basic quantitative methods. If the quantitative methods are advanced, you may not fully understand parts of your own study.
  • You’ll write in their literature (4,000 words).
  • You’ll write theory in a paragraph (and that’s it).
  • You’ll develop the research collaboratively, but you’ll write most of the entire study yourself, and the manuscript feedback may be brutal.
  • You’ll need to publish within the authorship protocols of the team; however, teams will like publishing in linguistics, technical/professional communication, and, soon, the rhetoric of health and medicine.
  • You’ll have access to amazing clinical sites and observational data.
  • YOU’LL HAVE AN IMPACT IN THE LITERATURE AND ON CLINICAL COMMUNICATION.

How to do this, if it is your ambition?

  • Don’t rush – this is a long career arc.
  • Think carefully about what is the best time for you to move in this direction (Assistant Professors, the tenure-track is for disciplinary research, but you can do some of the groundwork and networking).
  • First and foremost, find your team(s):
  • Look for what’s available locally—your institution’s office of research, centers, talks, interdisciplinary mentors, referrals from colleagues, etc.
  • OFFER TO ANALYZE DATA FOR FREE.
  • Remember that METHODS ARE TRANSFERABLE, fully theorized methodologies perhaps less so.
  • Persuasion in ethical communication is an issue of vital importance for clinicians, but be cautious about going in with your full armamentarium. Start with rhetoric defined as persuasion: like theory, you’ll be writing rhetoric in a paragraph.
  • Work your way up in your teams, from data analysis to grant/project design.
  • You will have increasing access to team resources—statisticians, research assistants, etc.
  • Use authorship to your advantage (Associate Professors and Professors, you may be the study lead but not necessarily the first author; for karma, be generous with authorship).
  • Be confident—pitch your methods:
  • PI to EB: People have asked whether there’s anything about the language …
  • EB: Well, yes.
  • Be a valuable team member: PI to EB: Hurray for team science.

If you want to read a creative narrative about this journey, see Barton (in press).

References

Barton, E. (2001). Design in observational research on the discourse of medicine: Toward disciplined interdisciplinarity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 309-332.

Barton, E. (in press). Serendipity and the methodologically-prepared mind. In M. Goggin and P. Goggin (Eds.) Serendipity in Rhetoric, Writing, and Literacy Research. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Scott, J. B. & Meloncon, L. (2017). Manifesting methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine. In L. Meloncon and J. B. Scott (Eds.) Methodologies for the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (pp. 1-23) .New York: Routledge.