Table 2 Gee’s tools used for this study
From: Legitimizing incapacity: discursive choices in Norwegian sickness certificates
Tools | Definition/question |
|---|---|
1. The Subject Tool | Was used to examine how key elements, such as a patient’s diagnosis, symptoms, or work limitations, are selected and presented within the SCs. Which aspects are foregrounded or backgrounded?. It allows us to not only see what is said but also how emphasis is placed on certain issues or topics |
2. The Vocabulary Tool | Was included to examine the balance between medical terminology and non-medical language, revealing how word choices might shape accessibility and readability of the information |
3. The Significance Building Tool | Was used to examine how language is used to emphasize or downplay specific aspects, thereby constructing a particular narrative of work ability. It helps identify how GPs use language to boost or hedge certain aspects |
4. The Figured Worlds Tool | Was applied to identify and analyze metaphors and other figurative language that constructs specific social realities around illness and recovery. By understanding the “worlds” the SCs create, we gain insights into larger discourses of mental health and disability |
5. The Fill-In Tool | Was chosen to identify implicit meaning that requires non-medical readers to infer what is left unstated. While it is impossible to predict every “unknown unknown”, we flagged specialized jargon, elliptical phrasing, or implied causal links that presuppose medical knowledge not provided in the SC |
6. The Doing And Not Just Saying Tool | Was employed to analyze how language not only describes a patient’s condition but also actively justifies or enacts an administrative outcome. Rather than merely emphasizing severity, as explored with Tool 3, this tool aims to identify discourse that advocates a specific course of action, effectively doing something beyond simply saying it |
7. The Collaboration Tool | Was used to examine how SCs address or encourage cooperation between healthcare providers, NAV, and other stakeholders. It aims to identify gaps or strengths in the SCs’ texts that could either foster or impede actionable collaboration in welfare assessments and planning |