| dc.description.abstract |
Our culture provides the lay public with both biomedical and psychosocial information, both of which guide medical understanding, reasoning and decision-making (Gentner, 2002). However, biomedical as opposed to psychosocial information is typically more difficult for untrained individuals to fully comprehend because of the dynamic, abstract, and sometimes imperceptible nature of a complex system such as the body (Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000). Researchers may study mental models and understanding through the analysis of language (Carley & Palmquist, 1992). Two ways that individuals use language to convey coherence, meaning, and understanding are through the construction of narrative (Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999) and figurative language (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The present study examines these indicators of understanding in the use of biomedical content articulated in the lay dialogue of internet discussion forums, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. We hypothesized that, because of the complex nature of biomedical phenomena, posts higher in biomedical content would contain less figurative language and narrative than posts lower in biomedical content. We found that although posts with high biomedical content containing figurative language and narrative do exist, they were the exception to the rule. Posts high in psychosocial content contained more figurative language and narrative than posts high in biomedical content. The results suggest a dearth of understanding of the biomedical domain, as measured by figurative language and narrative usage. Exceptions to the rule demonstrate that it is indeed possible to relay biomedical information and experiences through figurative language and narrative. Individuals’ struggles with the integration of understanding-based figurative language and narrative into their dialogue may be due to the tensions associated with shifting identities (i.e., healthy to ill) (Holland & Lave,2009). Individuals that are not well-adapted to this new medical culture may not be adopting the biomedical model as effortlessly as the psychosocial model. |
|
