29.1254, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Clinical Linguistics / Topoi (Jrnl)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-1254. Wed Mar 21 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.1254, Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Clinical Linguistics / Topoi (Jrnl)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sarah Robinson <srobinson at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:18:49
From: Fabrizio Macagno [fabrizio.macagno at fcsh.unl.pt]
Subject: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Clinical Linguistics / Topoi (Jrnl)

 
Full Title: Topoi 


Linguistic Field(s): Clinical Linguistics; Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics 

Call Deadline: 01-Sep-2018 

Topoi Special Issue on Evidence, Expertise and Argumentation in Evidence-Based
Medicine

Guest Editors: Fabrizio Macagno and Carlo Martini

As medical sciences are progressing towards more data-based methodologies, the
role of clinical judgment is often subsidiary to the quality and weight of
evidence, understood as a product of statistical and methodological analysis
of data. In this special issue we focus on: 1) the relationship between
statistical evidence and the justification of clinical judgments, and 2) the
communication of evidence by experts (clinicians). The process of retrieval
and analysis of scientific data and development of clinically relevant
research has a crucial communicative challenge to face. In order to use the
best evidence-based research to make decision about the care of patients, it
needs to be integrated with clinical expertise and more importantly with
patient values. Sharing information and making evidence available to patients
is regarded as fundamental for ''supporting patients to consider different
alternatives or priorities'' (Elwyn et al., 2014) namely making informed
decisions.

In this sense, evidence-based practice needs to address the problems of shared
decision making, grounded on the concepts of patient-centered care and patient
engagement. Not only needs evidence to be shared with the patients (that is,
adjusted to their background knowledge) but patient's unique preferences,
concerns, and expectations need to be integrated into clinical decision. 

The role of argumentation becomes pivotal in this framework. Evidence belongs
to any discourse in health care, as it plays a justificatory role. It provides
a means to support arguments and test assertions. Proposals need to be argued
for and against by relying on evidence; evidence, in turn, needs to be shared
and debated. For this reason, not only does a theory of argumentation and
argument evaluation become crucial in health communication, but also the
different types of dialectical purposes investigated in argumentation theory
can shed light on how evidence is discussed and used to achieve a
communicative goal. Depending on whether the interlocutors intend to share
information, make a decision, negotiate, or persuade each other, evidence is
used and evaluated in different ways.

This special issue will focus on the relationship between argumentation and
the critical use of evidence in medical decision-making. In particular, the
research question is whether the current concepts and accounts of evidence and
expertise are adequate for capturing the subjective, reason-based and
argumentative component of evidence-based medical science, as well as the role
of experts as mediators and communicators. 

The topics of interest include the following: 
- Evidence assessment in medical sciences
- Expertise and statistical judgment in medical sciences
- Effective communication of evidence in medical sciences
- Conflicting evidence and disagreement in medical decision-making
- Evidence and argumentation in medical sciences
- Medical decisions under uncertainty

Submission procedure:
We invite scholars to submit additional papers to be included in this Special
Issue. Articles should not exceed 7000 words. All papers will be subject to
double-blind peer-review, following international standard practice. 

Anonymised papers must be submitted through the editorial manager
http://www.editorialmanager.com/topo/default.aspx by selecting, under new
submission: S.I. : Evidence-Based Medicine (Martini/Macagno)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-1254	
----------------------------------------------------------