Medical sociology has traditionally contrasted the bio-medical knowledge of healthcare professionals with the socially situated knowledge possessed by patients. These differences are particularly important in chronic conditions where patients can develop highly sophisticated understandings of their disease and its symptoms. In this paper we use a novel research method – The Imitation Game – to explore how far the experiential knowledge of patients can be appreciated and understood by medical professionals. We examine the extent to which professional dietitians were able to reproduce the discourse of people diagnosed with coeliac disease and show that dietitians were able to ‘pass' as patients with coeliac disease but that a control group of lay people could not. We also briefly explore the domains of knowledge in which dietitians tended to be more or less successful and reflect on the utility of the research for medical sociology and the training of healthcare professionals.
ArkseyH. (1998) RSI and the Experts, London: UCL Press.
2.
BDA – British Dietetic Association. (nd) The British Dietetic Association [Online]. Available at: http://www.bda.uk.com [Accessed: 26 June 2012].
3.
CollinsH.M. (2004) ‘Interactional Expertise as a Third Kind of Knowledge’, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(2) 125–143.
4.
CollinsH.M. (2011) ‘Language and Practice’, Social Studies of Science, 41(2): 271–300.
5.
CollinsH.M. and EvansR. (2002) ‘The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience’, Social Studies of Science, 32(2): 235–296.
6.
CollinsH.M. and EvansR. (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
CollinsH.M. and EvansR. (2013) ‘Quantifying the Tacit: The Imitation Game and Social Fluency.’Sociology (published as Online First article on 25 February 2013, doi: 10.1177/0038038512455735)
8.
CollinsH.M.EvansR.RibeiroR. and HallM. (2006) ‘Experiments with Interactional Expertise,’Studies In History and Philosophy of Science, 37(4): 656–674.
9.
EpsteinS. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
EpsteinRonald M. (1999) ‘Mindful Practice’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(9): 833–839.
11.
EvansR. and CollinsH.M. (2010) ‘Interactional Expertise and the Imitation Game’, in GormanM. (ed.) Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise, Chicago: MIT Press. pp. 53–70.
12.
FreundPeter ESMcGuireMeredith B and PodhurstLinda S (2003) Health, Illness and the Social Body: A Critical Sociology (4th Edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
GrinJ.van de GraafH. and HoppeR. (1997) Technology Assessment Through Interaction: A Guide, The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
15.
HallertCGrannoCHultenSMidhagenGStromMSvenssonHValdimarssonT. (2002) ‘Living with Coeliac Disease: Controlled Study of the Burden of Illness’, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 37: 39–42.
16.
House of Lords (2000) Science and Society: Science and Technology Select Committee, Third Report, London: HMSO.
17.
IrwinA. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London and New York: Routledge.
18.
LaytonD.JenkinsE.MacgillS. and DaveyA. (1993), East Yorkshire: Studies in Education Ltd.
19.
MartinGraham P. (2008) “Ordinary People Only’: Knowledge, Representativeness, and the Publics of Public Participation in Healthcare’, Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(1): 33–54.
20.
MazurD. (2002) The New Medical Conversation, Boulder; CT: Rowman and Littlefield
NICE – National Institute for Health and Medical Excellence. (2009) Coeliac Disease: Recognition and Assessment of Coeliac Disease (medical guideline 86) [Online]. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG86FullGuideline.pdf [Accessed: 06 August 2009].
23.
PopayJ. and WilliamsG. (1996) ‘Public Health Research and Lay Knowledge’, Social Science & Medicine, 42(5): 759–768
24.
PriorL. (2003) ‘Belief, Knowledge and Expertise: The Emergence of the Lay Expert in Medical Sociology’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 25(3): 41–57.
25.
ReidMargaret (1976) The Development of Medical Sociology in Britain, Discussion Papers in Social Research No 13, University of Glasgow. Available online at: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/medsoc/Medsoc+Origin.htm [Accessed 7 Jan 2011]
26.
RipArieMisaThomas J. and SchotJohn, (Eds) (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, London; New York: Pinter Publishers.
27.
SverkerA.HensingG. and HallertC. (2005) “Controlled by Food’ – Lived Experiences of Coeliac Disease’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 18(3): 171–180.
28.
SverkerA.ÖstlundG.HallertC. and HensingG. (2007) ‘Sharing Life with a Gluten-Intolerant Person: The Perspective of Close Relatives’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 20: 412–22.
29.
TuringA.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Mind, 49: 433–460.
30.
WhitakerJ.K.H.WestJ.HolmesG.K.T. and LoganR.F.A. (2009) ‘Patient Perceptions of the Burden on Coeliac Disease and its Treatment in the UK’, Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 29(10): 1131–1136.
31.
WilsdonJ. and WillisR. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos [in association with the Green Alliance, Environment Agency and RSA]. Available on line at http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/paddlingupstream/ [accessed 12 June 2005].
32.
WynneB. (1992) ‘Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science’, Public Understanding of Science, 1(3): 281–304.
33.
ZieblandS. (2004) ‘The Importance of Being Expert’, Social Science and Medicine, 59: 1783–1793.
