Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 183–198 | Cite as

The legitimacy of clinical knowledge: Towards a medical epistemology embracing the art of medicine

  • Kirsti Malterud


The traditional medical epistemology, resting on a biomedical paradigmatic monopoly, fails to display an adequate representation of medical knowledge. Clinical knowledge, including the complexities of human interaction, is not available for inquiry by means of biomedical approaches, and consequently is denied legitimacy within a scientific context. A gap results between medical research and clinical practice. Theories of knowledge, especially the concept of tacit knowing, seem suitable for description and discussion of clinical knowledge, commonly denoted “the art of medicine.” A metaposition allows for inquiry of clinical knowledge, inviting an expansion of the traditional medical epistemology, provided that relevant criteria for scientific knowledge within this field are developed and applied. The consequences of such approaches are discussed.

Key words

clinical knowledge epistemology scientific knowledge art of medicine tacit knowing validity criteria 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sassower R, Grodin MA. Scientific uncertainty and medical responsibility.Theoretical Medicine 1987;8:221–234.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McWhinney IR. Are we on the brink of a major transformation of clinical method?CMAJ 1986;135:873–878.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC.A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice. Towards a Philosophy and Ethic of the Health Profession. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foss L. The challenge to biomedicine: A foundations perspective.J Medicine and Philosophy 1989;14:165–191.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Malterud K. Women's undefined disorders — A challenge for clinical communication.Family Practice 1992;9:299–303.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Malterud K.Allmennpraktikerens møte med kvinnelige pasienter (The Encounter between the General Practitioner and the Female Patients (In Norwegian, English summary). Thesis. Oslo: TANO, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malterud K. Key questions — a strategy for modifying clinical communication. Transforming tacit skills into a clinical method.Scand J Prim Health Care 1994;12:121–127.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gorovitz S, MacIntyre A. Toward a theory of medical fallibility.J Medicine and Philosophy 1976;1:51–71.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Sassower and Grodin, 1987Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latour B, Woolgar S.Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986 (first edition 1979).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foss, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pellegrino, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munson R. Why medicine cannot be a science.J Medicine and Philosophy 1981;6:183–208.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wulff HR. Rational diagnosis and treatment.J Medicine and Philosophy 1986;11:123–124.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Schön DA.The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. London: Avebury, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stein HF. The role of some nonbiomedical parameters in clinical decision-making: An ethnographic approach.Qualitative Health Research 1991;1:6–26.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuire CH. Medical problem-solving: A critique of the literature.J Med Educ 1985;60:587–595.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science 1974;185:1124–1131.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Detmer DE, Fryback DG, Gassner K. Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making.J Med Educ 1978;53:682–683.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stein, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Pellegrino, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McWhinney IR. “An acquaintance with particulars ...”Family Medicine 1989;21:296–298.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McWhinney IR. Medical knowledge and the rise of technology.J Medicine and Philosophy 1978;3:293–304.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hunter KM.Doctor's Stories. The Narrative Structure of Medical Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Polanyi M.The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johannessen KS. Rule following intransitive understanding, and tacit knowledge. An understanding of the Wittgensteinian concept of practice as regards tacit knowing. In Høibraaten H, ed.Essays in Pragmatic Philosophy. Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1990;101–127.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schön, 1991.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Putting computers in their place.Social Research 1986;53:57–76.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Balint M.The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. London: Pitman Medical, 1964.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Budd MA, Zimmerman ME. The potentiating clinician: Combining scientific and linguistic competence.Advances 1986;3:40–55.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Helman C. The role of context in primary care.J Royal Coll Gen Pract 1984;34:547–550.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hunter, 1991.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gross R, Lorenz W. Intuition in surgery as a strategy of medical decision-making: Its potency and limitations.Theor Surg 1990;5:54–59.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Feinstein AR. An analysis of diagnsotic reasoning, II. The strategy of intermediate decisions.Yale J Biol Med 1973;46:264–283.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Albert DA, Munson R, Resnik MD.Reasoning in Medicine. An Introduction to Clinical Inference. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wulff, 1986.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC.For the Patient's Good. The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gorovitz and MacIntyre, 1976.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    McWhinney, 1989.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Widdershoven-Heerding I. Medicine as a form of practical understanding.Theoretical Medicine 1987;8:179–185.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Foss, 1989.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pellegrino ED. Philosophy of medicine: Problematic and potential.J Medicine and Philosophy 1976;1:5–31.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pellegrino, 1981.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pellegrino, 1988.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Munson, 1981.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gorovitz and MacIntyre, 1976.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kuhn TS.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Polkinghorne DE. Postmodern epistemology of practice. In Kvale S, ed.Psychology and Postmodernism. London: Sage, 1992.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Polkinghorne D.Methodology for the Human Sciences. Systems of Inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pellegrino, 1981.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gorovitz and MacIntyre, 1976.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gatens-Robinson E. Clinical judgment and the rationality of the human sciences.J Medicine and Philosophy 1986;11:167–178.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
  60. 60.
    Johannessen KS. The concept of practice in Wittgenstein's later philosophy.Inquiry 1988;31:357–369.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schön, 1991.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Polkinghorne, 1992.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schön, 1991.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kvale S. To validate is to question. In Kvale S, ed.Issues of Validity in Qualitative Research. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1989:73–92.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Keller EF.Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Malterud, 1990.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Malterud, 1994.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kvale, 1989.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Polkinghorne, 1992.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stein, 1991.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    McWhinney, 1986.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    McWhinney, 1989.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pellegrino, 1988.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Polanyi, 1983.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gorovitz and MacIntyre, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsti Malterud
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Health CareUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations