Abstract
This article uses data obtained from a 2-year study—observation, survey, written- and verbal-artifact analysis, and interviews—of an interdisciplinary organization of pain management professionals to illustrate the analytic advantages of Mol and Latour's multiple-ontologies theories over incommensurability theory in understanding interdisciplinary practice. We demonstrate that pain science and medicine encompass a variety of practices that transcend disciplinary boundaries in ways not accounted for with incommensurability theory. After explicating multiple ontology theory and illustrating its analytic potential, we conclude by recommending a postplural model for inquiry into rhetoric of science.
Notes
Midwest Pain Group and all subject names are pseudonyms.
A major part of Collier's argument for increased attention to metacognitive issues in rhetoric of science includes an exhortation against the proliferation of new case studies. Although this article does, indeed, provide an additional case study, we argue that this stays true to Collier's suggestions in two ways: First, he argues against the proliferation of “rhetoric of x” case studies. This article does not provide an account of the rhetoric of pain to be added to rhetorics of physics, biology, and astronomy. Rather (and this is our second point), we use our case study as a crucible on which to hammer out our metacognitive suggestions.
This is a modified version of the IASP definition of pain and is found in this form (or similar) in countless journal articles.