University of Sheffield, UK.
Health (London). 2012 Nov;16(6):602-18. doi: 10.1177/1363459312441008. Epub 2012 Apr 25.
Contemporary health policy in England places increasing emphasis on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and health research. With regard to the latter, it has been suggested that PPI brings 'different' perspectives to research decision-making spaces, based on what has been referred to as 'experiential expertise'. This article presents findings from a qualitative study of PPI in cancer research settings in England. We argue that participants highlighted specific forms of expertise in their accounts about involvement, above and beyond experiential expertise, which they felt legitimated their claims to be credible participants within cancer research settings. We report here on the various strategies by which participants sought to accomplish this and highlight, in particular, a concomitant process of 'professionalization' of some within our group of participants. We discuss the significance of these findings in the context of recent debates around the status of experiential expertise.
当代英国的卫生政策越来越强调患者和公众参与（PPI）在卫生和卫生研究中的作用。就后者而言，有人认为，基于所谓的“经验专长”，PPI 为研究决策领域带来了“不同”的视角。本文介绍了在英格兰癌症研究环境中进行的 PPI 定性研究的结果。我们认为，参与者在他们对参与的描述中强调了特定形式的专业知识，这些知识超出了经验专长，使他们认为自己有资格成为癌症研究环境中可信的参与者。我们在此报告参与者为实现这一目标而采取的各种策略，并特别强调我们研究小组内一些人同时经历的“专业化”过程。我们在最近关于经验专长地位的辩论背景下讨论了这些发现的意义。
