Family medicine’s stated philosophy is consistent with the philosophical basis of naturalistic inquiry, a research paradigm from the social sciences. However, the majority of published family medicine research more nearly resembles traditional biomedical research, here termed rationalistic inquiry. Adding naturalistic inquiry to family medicine’s research armamentarium would be consistent with the specialty’s stated philosophy and would foster investigation in areas not well addressed by the traditional biomedical approach.

Special Series: Classics From Family Medicine
(Fam Med 1998;30(9):665-71.)

Ways of Knowing in Family Medicine: Contributions From a Feminist Perspective
Lucy M. Candib, MD

Feminist psychologists have recently drawn a distinction between separate and connected knowing, two different ways of finding out about the world. Family medicine practice uses connected knowing to discover, through empathy, what another person may be experiencing; in contrast, family medicine research, in order to gain academic credibility, relies on separate knowing, typical of scientific thinking. These two ways of knowing have been variously described by Bruner as paradigmatic versus narrative, by Kuzel as rationalistic versus naturalistic, and by Stephens as seeing versus hearing. The two ways of knowing vary in their use of context, time span, believability, and empathy. Family medicine, in a parallel with women who are finding their voice in a world that has not respected them, must come to blend the two ways of knowing. We can begin reframing our research questions by drawing on knowledge of our intimate, long-term connections with patients, thus underscoring the importance of the knower and the relationship with the known.

Special Series: Classics From Family Medicine
(Fam Med 1998;30(9):672-6.)