Search

This paper reviews the author's experience in becoming a medical sociologist before the field had become formalized. The contributions to medical sociology of sociologist Selden D. Bacon and physician and medical educator William R. Willard are described. The relationship of medical sociology to medical behavioral science, as experienced at the University of Kentucky, is discussed. Finally, the thesis of the author's 1957 paper on the nature and status of medical sociology is re-examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses current contentions that medical sociology is handicapped as both a scholarly and a policy science by its subordinate relationship to the more powerful field of medicine. An analysis of all research articles published in the JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR which focus upon patients reveals the following: (1) the presence, in the majority, of implicit and explicit medical value assumptions influencing all stages of the research process, from the definition of problems and variables through the application of findings to health policy; (2) a tendency for cases of "medical bias" to be associated with collaborative research in which the sociologist is wholly or partly dependent upon medical sponsorship and definition of the research situation. Consequences of this situation for the human subjects of research as well as for the field are discussed. A conclusion is that both our subjects' interests and the theoretic and political integrity of the field are best served by maximizing professional autonomy vis-à-vis medicine. A proposal for studying the structure of working arrangements concludes the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the social construction of diagnosis and illness in several ways. First, I discuss the centrality of social construction in medical sociology. Next I discuss the major role of diagnosis in social construction, leading to the need for a sociology of diagnosis. I emphasize controversial and conflictual diagnoses, as a first step toward a more general sociology of diagnosis. Then I put forth a typology of social construction, involving four combinations based on whether a condition is generally accepted and whether a biomedical definition is applied. Next I detail a series of stages in the social construction of a condition. In that process, my primary concern is the initial social discovery, which is essentially a matter of diagnosis, with a secondary emphasis on illness experience. This is followed by stages of treatment and outcome, which recursively affect social construction. I conclude by noting the health policy implications of the social constructionist perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a revision of the address given upon receipt of the Leo G. Reeder Award for distinguished Scholarship in Medical Sociology. It was presented on August 19, 1987 to the Medical Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association during its annual meeting held in Chicago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this thoughtful paper, Mechanic discusses the differences between quantitative and qualitative researchers, focusing on health-related issues. It should, of course, be evident to readers that the issues he discusses have applicability far beyond medical sociology. The same issues arise in all kinds of social research and the excellent examples he gives can be expanded easily to examples in areas including education, criminology, industrial relations, social stratification, and others. In my reading of his paper, Mechanic discusses both differences between methods at a single point in time and differences in measuring process across time. As a quantitative survey researcher, I will comment on my perceptions of the similarities and differences between observational and survey methods for cross-sectional research. I then discuss some methods for bridging the gap that do not involve diaries. Finally, I discuss procedures for measuring process using observational and diary methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]