Research Article


DOI :10.26650/sdsl2020-0002   IUP :10.26650/sdsl2020-0002    Full Text (PDF)

How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum

Hans Gıessen

Web 2.0 is often referred to as ‘social’ or participatory. A genre of Web 2.0 to which this certainly applies is forums. Every user can take part in communication exchange and publish his or her knowledge, experience and his or her very own opinions. This study focuses on the genre of forums. I qualitatively (and according to discourse- or content-analytical criteria) analyzed the special features of such lay communication in the context of a specific forum. In terms of content, I am referring to a forum from Germany that deals with health issues. The aim was to examine how medical professionals and medical knowledge are valued. Since it is difficult to access exact numbers of users in the context of such a forum, I selected a specific website that appears in the list of the most visited websites, and that already has a special probability of being accessed due to its URL (hence the name): www.gesundheit.de (according to the legal notice, this forum is operated by Alliance Healthcare Germany, based in Frankfurt am Main). The topics were selected from posts published between December 2018 and April 2019. The contributions were transferred unchanged, i.e. including the orthographic and grammatical errors found in the original.

DOI :10.26650/sdsl2020-0002   IUP :10.26650/sdsl2020-0002    Full Text (PDF)

Zur Bewertung der Ärzteschaft und des medizinischen Wissens in einem Gesundheitsforum

Hans Gıessen

Das Web 2.0 wird oft als „sozial“ oder partizipativ bezeichnet. Ein Genre des Web 2.0, für das dies sicherlich und vom Grundsatz her uneingeschränkt gilt, sind Foren. Jeder Benutzer kann am Kommunikationsaustausch teilnehmen und sein Wissen, seine Erfahrungen und seine Meinung frei und unbegrenzt veröffentlichen. Diese Studie konzentriert sich daher auf das Genre der Foren. Ich habe die Besonderheiten einer solchen Laienkommunikation im Kontext eines bestimmten Forums qualitativ und nach diskurs- oder inhaltsanalytischen Kriterien analysiert. Inhaltlich beziehe ich mich auf ein Forum aus Deutschland, das sich mit Gesundheitsfragen befasst. Ziel war es zu untersuchen, wie medizinisches Fachpersonal und medizinisches Wissen geschätzt werden. Da es im Kontext eines solchen Forums schwierig ist, auf eine genaue Anzahl von Benutzern zuzugreifen, habe ich eine bestimmte Website ausgewählt, die in der Liste der am häufigsten besuchten Websites aufgeführt ist und die aufgrund ihrer URL bereits eine besondere Wahrscheinlichkeit für den Zugriff aufweist (daher: der Name): www.gesundheit.de (laut rechtlichem Hinweis wird dieses Forum von Alliance Healthcare Germany mit Sitz in Frankfurt am Main betrieben). Die Forenbeiträge wurden dann aufgenommen und untersucht, wenn der jeweils letzte Forenbeitrag in der Zeit zwischen Dezember 2018 und April 2019 veröffentlicht wurde. Die Beiträge wurden unverändert übernommen, d. h. einschließlich der im Original gefundenen orthografischen und grammatikalischen Fehler.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Web 2.0 is often referred to as ‘social’ or participatory. A genre of Web 2.0 to which this certainly applies is forums. Every user can take part in the communication exchange and publish his or her knowledge, experience and his or her very own opinions. This study focuses on the genre of forums. I qualitatively (and according to discourse or contentanalytical criteria) analyzed the special features of such lay communication in the context of a specific forum. In terms of content, I am referring to a forum from Germany that deals with health issues. The aim was to examine how medical professionals and medical knowledge are valued. Since it is difficult to access exact numbers of users in the context of such a forum, I selected a specific website that appears in the list of the most visited websites, and that already has a special probability of being accessed due to its URL (hence the name): www.gesundheit.de (according to the legal notice this forum is operated by Alliance Healthcare Germany, based in Frankfurt am Main). The topics were selected from posts published between December 2018 and April 2019. The contributions were transferred unchanged, i.e. including the orthographic and grammatical errors found in the original. It was reasonable to assume that a forum in which users meet to inform themselves about diseases in order to prepare themselves for or to follow-up visits at the doctor will also be looking for alternative treatments and that users who are disappointed with medical reactions will express themselves accordingly. Thus, it is the medium itself that suggests that critical positions on doctors, but possibly on clinical medicine as a whole, may dominate. The result, however, was that there is broad basic trust in medicine, at least in Germany. Against the background described, this is quite surprising. In the context of the forum examined, there was also a fundamental acceptance of the medical system as a whole. Whilst the purpose of this forum was assumed to be to absorb criticism and to seek alternative opinions (and, if necessary, to seek alternative therapy), there was little to no fundamental criticism. Thus, whilst this forum seems to be designed with the intent of enabling the expression of anger and frustration, there still is a dominant acceptance of medical science and even the medical profession. There is rarely criticism of individual doctors, too. If an individual physician is criticized, the authors in this forum keep their criticism with the respective doctors and very rarely propose alternative healing methods. Even with medication, there is little or no rejection of standard or conventional medicine. My hypothesis is that the function and associated seriousness that is expressed in the name of the forum may thus lead to an indeed fundamentally medicine-oriented form of discussion. As a research article, the paper of course does not and doesn’t want to make any assumptions about the reasons why (at least in the context of this forum) rationality is so fundamentally accepted. As I said, alternative methods are almost irrelevant, be they are close to the medical system, like homeopathy; be they remote to the system, such as magic. As a research article, the paper is limited to examining the facts and describing the dominance of the scientific belief system even in situations of crises and under unpleasant to lethal conditions. Another not insignificant observation is that in almost all contributions on this health forum, the assessment of the trustworthiness and the expertise of the forum authors were particularly important. This is obviously not just about the assessment of the communication partners, but also about the picture that one gives about oneself. Contributors are probably afraid of only being taken seriously if they can credibly demonstrate their own dismay or their own expertise. This may lead to problems in the relationship between ‘actual experts’ (i.e. medical professionals) and laypersons. However, here, too, it was found that surprisingly few problems have arisen.


PDF View

References

  • Angermüller, J., Bunzmann, K. & Nonhoff, M. (Hrsg.) (2001). Diskursanalyse: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen. Hamburg: Argument-Verlag google scholar
  • Alexa (2019). Top Sites in Germany. URL: https://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/DE. google scholar
  • Bertelsmann-Stiftung (Ed.) (2018). Das Internet: Auch Ihr Ratgeber für Gesundheitsfragen? Bevölkerungsumfrage zur Suche von Gesundheitsinformationen im Internet und zur Reaktion der Ärzte. Gütersloh 2018, Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. URL: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/ GrauePublikationen/VV_Studie_Das-Internet-auch-Ihr-Ratgeber_Befragung.pdf. google scholar
  • Bitkom (2011). Das Internet wird zum Gesundheitsratgeber. Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. URL: http://www. bitkom.org/de/markt_statistik/64026_69111.aspx. google scholar
  • Bromme, R., Jucks, R. & Runde, A. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-laypersoncommunication. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds.) (2005). Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. And How They May Be Overcome (S. 89-118). Dordrecht: Kluwer. google scholar
  • Busch, A. (2015). Medizindiskurse: Mediale Räume der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation. In A. Busch & T. SpranzFogasy (Eds.). Handbuch Sprache in der Medizin. (S. 369-388). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. google scholar
  • Dilthey, W. (1900/1964). Die Entstehung der Hermeneutik. In Dilthey, W (1964), Gesammelte Schriften, Band V. (S. 317-331) (Original: 1900). Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. google scholar
  • Ehrhardt, C. (2011). Höflichkeitsbegriffe – am Beispiel von Höflichkeit und Höflichkeitsbewusstsein in Internetforen. In C. Ehrhardt, E. Neuland & H. Yamashita (Hgg.), Sprachliche Höflichkeit zwischen Etikette und kommunikativer Kompetenz (S. 27-44). Frankfurt/Main: Lang. google scholar
  • Ehrhardt, C. (2014). Politeness and face work in German forum communication. In K. Bedijs, G. Held, & C. Maaß (Hrsg.), Face Work and Social Media. Münster: LIT. google scholar
  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Verlag. google scholar
  • Gillies, J. & Cailliau, R. (2000). How the Web Was Born: The Story of the World Wide Web. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Kaltenborn, K.-F. (2001). Medizin- und gesundheitlicher Wissenstransfer durch Medien. In K. Hurrelmann & A. Leppin (Eds.). Moderne Gesundheitskommunikation. Vom Aufklärungsgespräch zur E-Health. (S. 36-69). Bern: Huber. google scholar
  • Kassner, K. (2003). Soziale Deutungsmuster – über aktuelle Ansätze zur Erforschung kollektiver Sinnzusammenhänge. In S. Geideck & W.-A. Liebert (Eds.). Sinnformeln. Linguistische und soziologische Analysen von Leitbildern, Metaphern und anderen kollektiven Orientierungsmustern. (pp. 37–57). Berlin. New York: de Gruyter. google scholar
  • Kleinke, S. (2015). Internetforen: Laiendiskurs Gesundheit. In A. Busch & T. Spranz-Fogasy (Eds.). Handbuch Sprache in der Medizin. (S. 405-422). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. google scholar
  • Kristiansen, S. & Bonfadelli, H. (2013). E-Health: Gesundheit im Internet. In C. Rossmann & M. Hastall (Eds.). Medien und Gesundheitskommunikation. Befunde, Entwicklungen, Herausforderungen. (S. 237-255). Baden-Baden: Nomos. google scholar
  • Kuckartz, Udo (2016). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 3. Auflage. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Juventa. google scholar
  • Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. google scholar
  • Myers, G. (2015). Social Media and professional Practice in Medical Twitter. In M. Gotti, S. Maci & M. Sala (Eds.). Insights into Medical Communication. (S. 51-69). Bern: Lang. google scholar
  • O’Reilly, T. (September 30., 2005). What Is Web 2.0. Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. URL: https://www.oreilly.com/ pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. google scholar
  • Rentel, N (2015). Sprachnormen, Community Building und Identity Management in der deutschen und französischen Forenkommunikation. Positiv wertende Kommentare in Diskussionsforen zu Schwangerschaft und Geburt. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, tome 2, 197-214. google scholar
  • Statista (2017). Volumen des ehealth-Marktes. Hamburg: Statistica. Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. URL: statistic_ id712698_volumen-des-ehealth-merktes-weltweit-bis-2020-pdf. google scholar
  • Statista (2019). Mediennutzung in Europa. Hamburg: Statistica. Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. URL: https://de. statista.com/statistik/studie/id/24564/dokument/mediennutzung-in-europa-statista-dossier. www.gesundheit.de (2019). Abgerufen am 17. Januar 2020. Frankfurt: Alliance Healthcare Deutschland. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Gıessen, H. (2020). How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 0(43), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


AMA

Gıessen H. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur. 2020;0(43):1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


ABNT

Gıessen, H. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 43, p. 1-17, 2020.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Gıessen, Hans,. 2020. “How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum.” Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 0, no. 43: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


Chicago: Humanities Style

Gıessen, Hans,. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum.” Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 0, no. 43 (Dec. 2024): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


Harvard: Australian Style

Gıessen, H 2020, 'How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum', Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 0, no. 43, pp. 1-17, viewed 22 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Gıessen, H. (2020) ‘How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum’, Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 0(43), pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002 (22 Dec. 2024).


MLA

Gıessen, Hans,. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum.” Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 0, no. 43, 2020, pp. 1-17. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


Vancouver

Gıessen H. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur [Internet]. 22 Dec. 2024 [cited 22 Dec. 2024];0(43):1-17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002 doi: 10.26650/sdsl2020-0002


ISNAD

Gıessen, Hans. How Physicians and Medical Knowledge is Assessed in a Health Forum”. Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur 0/43 (Dec. 2024): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.26650/sdsl2020-0002



TIMELINE


Submitted05.01.2020
Accepted26.03.2020
Published Online22.06.2020

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.