Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Ideas about lay and expert knowledge increasingly underscore debates within qualitative health research. In this article, the authors develop an exploratory synthesis of two qualitative studies in which they critique the lay-expert divide, suggesting instead a spectrum of knowledge(s) about health and scientific issues. In the original studies, the researchers examined food risks and alternative medicine, and they shared an interest in the lay-expert knowledge relationship. Reinterpreting each study in the light of the other led to greater conceptual development. Three mutual themes emerged and are presented with discussion of their contribution to wider theoretical debates. This worked example indicates that researchers can achieve valuable additional conceptual development through the cross-fertilization of ideas across qualitative studies united not by common health topics but by shared conceptual concerns.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732304273927 | DOI Listing |