Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical specificity and the non-generalities of science

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How to improve clinical practice and, in particular, that of physical therapy? Currently, several strategies are used which all fit the label ‘scientification.’ These scientific strategies have to make physical therapy's clinical practice more homogeneous. Sometimes this homogenization is thought to be necessary for other strategies of innovation including effectiveness research. But it has also been suggested that more homogeneity in the clinic is already itself an improvement. In this article we comment on these strategies. More specifically, we direct our attention at attempts in physical therapy to establish a uniform, generally adopted scientific language. We argue that these attempts fail to appreciate the specificity of therapeutic work. The effectiveness research that follows is therefore liable to take irrelevant variables into account. We illustrate this argument with examples taken from analyses of diverging therapies for stroke patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. See for example: Apeldoorn AT, Meijer OG, Oort van M. Verwetenschappelijking van de fysiotherapie, een kritische analyse van de discussies (Scientification of physical therapy, a critical analysis of the discussions), Nederlands, Tijdschrift voor Fysiotherapie 1984; 94/95: 105–111; Jette AM. Outcome research: shifting the dominant research paradigm in physical therapy, Physical Therapy 1995; 75: 965–970; Newham DJ. Physiotherapy for the best effect, Physiotherapy 1997; 83: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See for example: Carr JH, Shepherd R, eds. Movement Science: Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation, Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, 1987.

  3. See for example: Jette AM. Physical disablement concepts for physical therapy research and clinical practice, Physical Therapy 1994; 74: 380–386; Heerkens YF, Brandsma JW, Lakerveld-Heyl K, Ravensberg CD. Impairments and disabilities – The difference: Proposal for adjustment of the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps, Physical Therapy 1994; 74: 430–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. See for other analyses of differences in medicine: Berg M, Mol A, eds. Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices, Techniques and Bodies, Durham: Brunel, 1998; Mol A, Berg M. Principles and practices of medicine: the co-existence of various anemias, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 1994; 18: 247–265; Mol A, Law J. Regions, networks and fluids: Anemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 1994; 24: 641–671. See for a critical reflection on unitarian approaches in this journal: Richter D. Existentialism and postmodernism. Continuities, breaks, and some consequences for medical theory, Theoretical Medicine, 1994; 15: 253–265.

  5. For more background to our sociological informed conception of science see: Latour B. Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987; Pickering A, ed. Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See: Latour B. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See: Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See for more insight in the relationship between compensatory and integrative approaches: Lettinga AT, Siemonsma P, Veen van M. Entwinement of theory and practice in physiotherapy: a comparative analysis of two approaches to hemiplegia in physiotherapy, Physiotherapy 1999; 85: 476–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Landau WM. Clinical Neuromythology II; Parables of palsy pills and PT pedagogy: A spastic dialectic. Neurology, 1988; 38: 1496–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. See for example: Dickstein R, Hocherman S, Pillar T, Shaman R. Stroke rehabilitation, three exercise approaches. Physical Therapy, 1986: 66: 1233–1238; Lord J, Hall K. Neuromuscular re-education versus traditional programs for stroke rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1986; 67: 88–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. See for example: Logigian MK, Samuels M, Falconer J. Clinical exercise trial for stroke patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1983; 64: 1233–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See for example: Bohannan RW. Is the measurement of muscle strength appropriate in patients with brain lesions? A special communication. Physical Therapy 1989; 69: 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Several articles have been published in which differences between old and new therapies are explicated. But these authors did not analyze the language in which the content of the diverging therapies are formulated. See for an interesting 'Whig' historical review: Gordon J. Assumptions underlying physical therapy intervention: historical perspectives. In: Carr JH, Shepherd RB, eds. Movement Science Foundations for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation, Rockville,Maryland: Aspen Publishers, 1987.

  14. Different competing approaches emerged at that time such as the Bobath and Brunnstrom therapy. See for an analysis of the differences and similarities between these two approaches: Lettinga AT, Mol A, Helders PJM, Rispens P. Differentiation as a qualitative research strategy: a comparative analysis of Bobath and Brunnstrom approaches to treatment of stroke patients. Physiotherapy 1997; 83: 538–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bobath B. Adult Hemiplegia Evaluation and Treatment. London: Heineman, 2nd edn. 1978, 3rd edn. 1990; Bobath B. The treatment of neuromuscular disorders by improving patterns of coordinaion. Physiotherapy, 1969; 55: 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See reference 15: B 1978, p. 63.

  17. See reference 15: B 1978, p. 19.

  18. Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A Motor Relearning Programme for Stroke. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd (first edition 1982, second edition 1987a); Carr JH, Shepherd RB.Motor Training Following stroke. In: Stroke international perspectives in physical therapy 2, Banks, MA, Churchill Livingstone, 1986; 48–79; Carr JH, Shepherd RB. Movement Science, Foundation for Physical Therapy in Rehabilitation. Rockville Maryland: Aspen Publishers, 1987b; Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A motor learning model for stroke rehabilitation. Physiotherapy, 1989; 7, 372–380; Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Ada L. spasticity: research findings and implications for intervention. Physiotherapy, 1995; 81: 421–429.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See reference 18: C&S 1987a, p. 155.

  20. See reference 18: C&S 1986, p. 67.

  21. See reference 18: C&S 1987a, p. 159.

  22. See also the associates of Carr and Shepherd: Ada L, Canning C, Anticipating and avoiding muscle shortening. In: Ada L & Canning C, eds. Key Issues in Neurological Physiotherapy. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman Ltd. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See reference 18: C&S, et al., 1995, p. 421s.

  24. See reference 3: J 1994, p. 380.

  25. See reference 18: C&S et al., 1995, p. 421.

  26. Lance JW. Symposium Synopsis, In: Feldman RG, Young RR, Koella WP, eds. Spasticity: Disordered Motor Control. Chicago, London: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1980; 485–500.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See for example; Davies PM. Steps to Follow – A Guide to the Treatment of Adult Hemiplegia, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo: Springer-Verlag, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See reference 15: B 1990, p. 4.

  29. See for an interesting example: Dwyer NJO, Ada L, Neilson PD. Spasticity and muscle contracture following stroke. Brain, 1996; 119: 1737–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. See reference 18: C et al., 1995, p. 427.

  31. See reference 18: C et al., 1995, p. 424.

  32. See reference 18: C et al., 1995, p. 423.

  33. See reference 15: B 1990, p. 35.

  34. See for example: Lettinga AT. Diversiteit in de fysiotherapie, een conceptuele analyse van de Brunnstrom/NDT controverse (Diversity within physiotherapy: An conceptual analysis of Brunnstrom/NDT controversy). Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fysiotherapie, 1989; 99: 200–206; Lettinga AT. Divergentie in de fysiotherapie en de consequenties voor effectonderzoek: De Brunnstrom-en NDT-methode vergelijkenderwijs (Divergence in physical therapy and he consequences for effectiveness research), Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fysiotherapie 1991; 101: 163–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lettinga, A., Mol, A. Clinical specificity and the non-generalities of science. Theor Med Bioeth 20, 517–535 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009947524766

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009947524766

Navigation