Mobilizing Knowledge in Physiotherapy

Abstract

In this chapter, we explore recovery as knowledge and practices. In health sciences, clinical practice and public debates, the understanding of recovery relates to various interpretations of disease, illness and health. Our analytical perspective is inspired by theories of knowledge production; in particular, Jasanoff's work on co-production of knowledge. In the present chapter, we unpack two ideal-typical understandings of recovery. According to the first understanding, recovery is disease-oriented and relates to the treatment's curative effects (recovery as outcome), and knowledge production is separated from the persons and situations involved. The second, meanwhile, sees recovery in terms of a personal experiential process focusing on illness experience and the process of overcoming or coming to terms with illness in real-life situations (recovery as experience). Here, knowledge production integrates persons, contexts and culture.Recovery as outcome concerns health professionals' responsibility to choose the most effective treatment for patients, informed by quantitative effect studies.Recovery as experience embraces the process undertaken and valued by the individual person in the act of living that can be informed by qualitative interview studies. In the third section, we elaborate on how these two understandings of recovery are integrated into contemporary clinical practice (recovery as coproduction).

Om ROPIT-prosjektet, teoretisk forankring og metode

“…Prinsippene har hatt en tendens til å bli modifisert eller splittet opp i ulike retninger, med tilhørende fagmiljøer. Eksempler på dette er normaliseringsparadigmet, men også recovery-perspektivet har vaert gjenstand for ulike tilnaerminger, for eksempel der en skiller mellom bedringsprosesser basert på brukernes subjektive opplevelser (recovery som prosess) og en mer behandlingsorientert tilnaerming, der fokus er objektive målinger av bedring i pasientens helsetilstand (recovery som resultat) (Mengshoel & Feiring, 2020). Et annet trekk er at de generelle beskrivelser som danner utgangspunkt for perspektivene, kan fremstå som idealistiske og lite konkrete.…”

“…Et annet trekk er at de generelle beskrivelser som danner utgangspunkt for perspektivene, kan fremstå som idealistiske og lite konkrete. Dette har medført arbeid med å operasjonalisere de overordnete begrepene som ofte innebaerer en teknologisering og instrumentering for å skape bedre muligheter til iverksetting (og evaluering) av endringsprosesser (Freeman & Sturdy, 2011;Mengshoel & Feiring, 2020;Smith-Merry et al, 1987).…”