↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-1-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Thornton

Abstract

The paper outlines the role that tacit knowledge plays in what might seem to be an area of knowledge that can be made fully explicit or codified and which forms a central element of Evidence Based Medicine. Appeal to the role the role of tacit knowledge in science provides a way to unify the tripartite definition of Evidence Based Medicine given by Sackett et al: the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Each of these three elements, crucially including research evidence, rests on an ineliminable and irreducible notion of uncodified good judgement. The paper focuses on research evidence, drawing first on the work of Kuhn to suggest that tacit knowledge contributes, as a matter of fact, to puzzle solving within what he calls normal science. A stronger argument that it must play a role in research is first motivated by looking to Collins' first hand account of replication in applied physics and then broader considerations of replication in justifying knowledge claims in scientific research. Finally, consideration of an argument from Wittgenstein shows that whatever explicit guidelines can be drawn up to guide judgement the specification of what counts as correctly following them has to remain implicit.Overall, the paper sets out arguments for the claim that even though explicit guidelines and codifications can play a practical role in informing clinical practice, they rest on a body of tacit or implicit skill that is in principle ineliminable. It forms the bedrock of good judgement and unites the integration of research, expertise and values.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 7%
Brazil 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
India 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 84 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Other 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 33 32%
Unknown 5 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 37%
Social Sciences 15 14%
Philosophy 10 10%
Psychology 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 8 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,430,089
of 17,389,828 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#138
of 199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,241
of 166,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,389,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them