A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF OBJECTIVITY CLAIMS IN MEDICAL DISCOURSE: UNVEILING POWER DYNAMICS AND LANGUAGE MANIPULATION

Abstract

This study examines the use of scientific language in the medical field and questions its claim of objectivity. The researchers conducted a qualitative analysis using the Van Dijk model to analyze the language and discursive practices of different medical domains, such as associations and research papers. The focus of the The analysis focused on the impact of diet on cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The researchers analyzed eight medical research papers and four association guidelines, including those from WHO, AHA, HFSA, and ESC. At the meso level, the researchers examined the ideology behind both the associations and the researchers and found that the discursive practices of the associations had more authority. At the macro level, the researchers analyzed the global meaning of the associations' and researchers' texts and how power influenced this meaning. The analysis concluded that associations used authoritative and direct language, while researchers' language was more generalized. However, this generalization raised concerns that associations may omit important information due to personal agendas or political and social advantages. The study raises questions about the objectivity of scientific research. It also highlights the need for future research to further analyze the objectivity of scientific language and uncover any hidden agendas that shape it.