Habermasian Patient Involvement Exploration
The following is an essay review of the article “Exploring Difference or Just Watching the Experts at Work? Interrogating Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in a Cancer Research Setting Using the Work of Jurgen Habermas”, by Paul Bissell, Jill Thompson, and Barry Gibson
Communication activity examined by the authors. How they have, they defined the activity and expressed their research question
The author examines open dialogue communication activity. The open dialogue is regarded for its ability to eradicate possible manipulation of data from particular interests, which could corrupt the process of decision making. The authors defined this communication activity as the basis that provides the chance to the patients and the public to present their ideas, and hence the best argument is deemed valid for final decision. The author expressed his research question by pointing out a scenario between doctors and patients whereby, the latter’s opinions are frequently relegated during medical consultations. On this note, doctors overlook chances for patient conversation by using stories about illness.
The theory used by the author to examine this activity and how they used it
The authors employ Jurgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action to examine open dialogue activity. Habermas’ work about the concepts of system and life-world played a significant role in exploring patient and public involvement (PPI). According to him, speakers coordinate their actions and pursuit of individual or joint goals based on a shared understanding that the goals are inherently reasonable. In an open dialogue, the participants are liable to express their views freely. At the same time, Habermas claims that the speakers base their opinions on common goals and a shared understanding of the phenomena (Bissell et al., 2018). The authors used this theory to explore the work of Habermas and his claims regarding how the idea of open dialogue affects doctors and patients. Seemingly, the authors sought to investigate whether the patients just watch the doctors as they attend to them, or their participation impacts the activities. Consequently, the competence to contribute to the research setting retrieves on their authentic experiences with cancer around the quality of patient care.
According to Bissell et al. (2018), direct experience with cancer provided the basis to conversationally differentiate the participants from ‘professional’ researchers and hence claiming an area of competence. While the research was based on the National Cancer Research Network and Institute, the authors tested this theory using observation, interviews, and document analysis methods. Through these methods, the authors indicated that two-way dialogue might be ineffective in incidences, where the researchers are sensitive about individual strains from living with cancer effects (Bissell et al., 2018). As such, the ability of participants to communicate willingly in the system language was of paramount importance. Habermas’ theory of communicative action relates to the competence of each participant in the NCRN and NCRI (Bissell et al., 2018). According to the article, PPI provides a critical opportunity for patients to negotiate positive self-identities regarding cancer-diagnosis. As such, they benefit from improving the outcomes.
Evaluation of the results. How the research stands up against the evaluative criteria
According to the authors, the personal experiences of patients allows them a privilege to contribute to a research setting. Such is because the PPI opens opportunities for the patients to express what they feel is acceptable to them as compared to the suggested modes of treatment. The experiences of patients contribute a lot to a healthcare research setting, in this case, cancer. Additionally, the authors claimed that training in research methods aided in the fluency of the participants in conversing with the researchers (Bissell et al., 2018). Generally, the voice of the life-world was disregarded, although research techniques were described in more straightforward language to benefit the PPI participants. Nonetheless, such communication activities expedited one-sided encounters. Importantly to note, the research failed to mention the limitations and the gap for future study. The assessment evaluation criteria for the best method of analysis used was also not mentioned.