Commentary on Abrahamson and Rubin (2012) “Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 826-851
| Date | 09 March 2015 |
| Published date | 09 March 2015 |
| Pages | 216-223 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2014-0036 |
| Author | Christine Urquhart,Alexander H. Urquhart |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management |
Commentary on Abrahamson and
Rubin (2012) “Discourse
structure differences in lay and
professional health
communication”,Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 826-851
Christine Urquhart
Department of Information Studies, Aberystwyth University,
Aberystwyth, UK, and
Alexander H. Urquhart
Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to criticise the paper by Jennie A. Abrahamson and Victoria L.
Rubin (2012) “Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication”,
Journal of Documentation, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 826-851.
Design/methodology/approach –The author reviewed the antecedents of Rhetorical Structure
Theory (RST) in discourse analysis, and paid close attention to the differences between the original
formulation of RST, later formulations of the RST model and the application of RST in this paper.
The author also reviewed the literature on physician-patient communication, and patient-patient
support to contextualise the findings of Abrahamson and Rubin.
Findings –The paper shows evidence of over-simplification of RST since its initial formulation.
Next, the Motivation relationship in the original Mann/Thompson formulation of RST appears
problematic. This makes the authors’RST findings that patient-patient (or consumer-consumer)
information sharing appear to be more effective than physician-consumer information sharing rather
tenuous. An important additional flaw is that there was only one physician participant in this study.
A practical limitation to the study is that physicians mostly interact face-to-face with patients and use
of consumer advice web sites may not fit well with the current practice of medicine.
Research limitations/implications –The author had limited examples in the paper to examine
how the authors had categorised the binary unit relationships.
Originality/value –RST is promising for discourse analysis of information advice web sites but
simplifications in its application can lead to unwarranted claims.
Keywords Health care, Language, Communication
Paper type Viewpoint
Corrigendum
It has come to our attention that Alexander H. Urquhart was not named as an author of
“Commentary on Abrahamson and Rubin (2012) ‘Discourse structure differences in lay
and professional health communication’,Journal of Documentation, Vol. 68 No. 6,
pp. 826-851”which was published in the Journal of Documentation, Vol. 71 No. 2, 2014.
This occurred through an author and Publisher error. The authors and the Publisher
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 71 No. 2, 2015
pp. 216-223
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-02-2014-0036
Received 26 February 2014
Revised 26 February 2014
Accepted 3 March 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
216
JDOC
71,2
To continue reading
Request your trial