Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Promoting interdisciplinary research through transversality—an aid to communicating more effectively with health sociologists

Promoting interdisciplinary research through transversality—an aid to communicating more... Background Interdisciplinary collaborations are an important part of primary care research. Often ‘interdisciplinary’ refers to colleagues from different clinical backgrounds (nursing, pharmacy or medicine) coming together to work on a common research problem. Less familiar is ‘cross-discipline’ research involving academics from outside health care to collaborate on understanding complex health issues and behaviours. And yet, cross-discipline collaborations have the potential to open up new questions and generate new knowledge. Sociologists are a discipline group who have a lot to offer primary care research. We recently worked on a cross-disciplinary project exploring the nature of food consumption practices among rural Australians, and how these were influenced by local community structures and impacted on their bodies in different ways. This entailed three social scientists (including two sociologists) working with three health care scholars. In the course of this work, we noticed that there was confusion around sociological terminology and this hindered our team’s capacities to collaborate effectively. This paper outlines some of the common terminology used by sociologists that can have relevance for health care researchers, and we hope this paper will stimulate readers to further investigate the potentials of such collaboration (1). When cross-discipline groups research together, communication—or what is also known as ‘transversality’—can be problematic. Transversality is used in the sociological literature (2) to refer to the process of values, ideas, languages, conceptual frameworks or approaches moving across cultural or epistemological boundaries. It relates to the frictions that are integral to specialized practices (or disciplinary knowledge) becoming mobile, as they intersect with other ways of knowing. The Internet is the par exemplar infrastructure that has amplified processes of transversality by connecting up in real time diverse individuals and communities who are spatially distributed and culturally distinct, to generate new ways of understanding, communicating and engaging, as well as generating and reinforcing many hostilities. In our own work, transversality has meant team members communicating their understanding of issues from their own disciplinary perspectives while at the same time reflecting critically on knowledge gaps and enriching their viewpoint by exposure to other modes of thinking and doing. Each academic field has its own terminology and way of expressing meaning. There are established conventions around what counts as knowledge, what the aims and objectives of research should be, and what the optimal approaches are for deriving and then mobilizing this knowledge. This is evident in the published literature where we see extraordinarily different word count requirements across different fields, alongside terminology that is utterly specific to—and contingent on—different disciplinary contexts for its significance. Difficulties with these differences in communication, and disciplinary expectations and conventions, can pose a roadblock to addressing cross-disciplinary knowledge gaps, identifying holistic research questions and adaptable methods, and the dissemination of knowledge that could have wider implications beyond the specific field in which it was created. What is sociology? Sociology is a discipline concerned with understanding the social relations that underpin human societies and practices across various time periods and geographical regions. It focuses on the analysis of social and historical forces that are responsible for the differentiated distribution of wealth in our societies, as well as the impacts of social institutions on the social identities and experiences of individuals and vice versa. At the heart of the discipline, various social theories and research methods help sociologists connect the personal to the public, to explain complex social phenomena. Sociologists pay attention to how the economy and the state impact on the nature and arrangement of civil society, especially by emphasizing how they exercise forms of power over the lives of people. A major area of inquiry has been understanding the structure and experience of health care, and framing medicine as a complex biosocial process that is affected by social factors such as age, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, as well as by political and economic forces and biological processes. Why is sociology important in primary care research? Health care is a social entity which fundamentally involves people, their actions, feelings and meanings, and the interaction of these with various institutions. Health care also incorporates ideas and ideals around bodies (how they should appear, feel and be), arrangements of expertise, power and vulnerability, technologies such as diagnostic scanners and pharmaceutical medicines, all of which are socially produced and experienced. Without people and the technological artefacts they make and use, there would be no health care system. Context plays a decisive role in health outcomes and people’s diverse experiences of care. Based on a long and rich tradition of theoretical and empirical engagement with the social dimensions of health, sociologists are able to bring a complementary perspective to how everyday health care issues are socially scripted, experienced and managed. However, sociologists typically frame their analyses in language and argumentation which may be foreign to the clinician, health provider or patient. We thus seek to outline a few of the key concepts used. Transversality on sociological terms There are a number of commonly used terms in sociological research that have relevance to primary care research. We present some sociological terms that proved to be troubling in our own research collaboration so that others might learn from our experience. Embodiment Embodiment is a key term in sociology and refers to two interrelated social processes. First, it describes the different ways that individuals experience and ‘live in’ their bodies as social entities: entities that are socially located and produced. As a result of how they are socially situated and constituted, peoples’ bodies get worked on, modified, commodified, concealed, exhibited, sexualized, sick, stigmatized, inseminated, medicalized, tracked and so on. As a simple example, notions of beauty are socially constructed so that not every culture shares an identical vision of bodily attractiveness and aesthetics. These ideals are heavily mediated by age, gender and ethnicity, and also shaped by transnational corporations that are in the business of selling aspirational models of beauty and thus beauty-making products and weight loss services. Dominant conceptions of a beautiful or ugly body can impact heavily on the psychologies of individuals, especially those who are deemed—or who deem themselves—to not have a body that is conventionally perceived as beautiful. They can become alienated from the physical prism of their bodies, and this can have significant implications for their mental wellbeing. The same is true of those with bodily incapacities or dysfunctions. Second, embodiment describes the ways in which individuals—as a consequence of the body types they inhabit and manifest—come to be seen as different or ‘Other’ (3) based on discriminatory understandings and classifications of race, gender or sexuality. Significant waves of sociological research have explored how people of colour, women and those with LGBTIQA+ identities are marginalized in a variety of institutional and everyday settings. Thus, embodiment also refers to the ways in which bodies are both deliberately and inadvertently coded and treated differentially by various systems of power (e.g. processes of medicalization, etc.). So embodiment refers to how people subjectively (often ambivalently) perceive and present their physical bodies and bodily symptoms, and how these states are impacted by social context. A useful example of how embodiment relates to primary care is depicted in recent research by Grew and Svendsen (4). They looked at the experiences of patients who are using implantable cardioverter defibrillators to monitor and modulate heart function. They found that wearers of these technologies experienced ambivalence about the devices, as many felt that the clinicians were more interested in what the device communicated than in what patients expressed. As the two write (ibid: 80 & 84), ‘the device is no longer secondary to the embodied person but becomes the “real patient” from which the embodied person is derived … [D]ata become dominant and patient testimonies are marginalized, generating experiences of being secondary to data and not belonging in the clinic’. Practices Practice/s is a term that is commonly used in the general community but has a specific meaning within sociological and humanities research. The term is used to refer to the everyday habits, routines or doings of a person and how these intersect with, and are affected by, other practices: and therefore the broader social contexts, milieu and networks in which they are enacted. A common theorization of practices sees three elements: The materials involved in practices, and this includes the human body and technologies; Competence or skill required to carry out the practices; and Meaning which encompasses the symbolic significance of practices for the person or society (5). Individuals may practice one set of values or moralities in their profession before entirely contradicting these in their personal practices: evidently, what people do in their leisure time can be quite at odds with their work roles. Similarly, a person’s everyday food consumption practices do not occur in isolation. Rather, we have to begin disentangling how buying and eating food is part of a much larger system of practices that include food marketing practices, food production practices, industry practices affecting the location of food outlets and food affordability, policy practices, work practices which structure when, what, where and how a person eats and so on. ‘Social practices theory’ is based on the key premise that by disentangling practices, researchers can develop interventions to disrupt problematic, habitual practices. In practices theory, ‘behaviours are considered to be the result of bundles of socially organized activity known as social practices—and it is these bundles of activity, rather than individuals or society, that are the primary unit of investigation’ (6). This concept has been effectively used by Delormier et al. (7) to theorize the complex intersections of social circumstances, food choices and obesity trends. Attempting to transcend reductionist and individualized explanations, they point to the myriad of social factors that shape what and how people eat (their consumption practices), stating: ‘Public health lacks theoretical frameworks to guide our understanding of population eating patterns as integrally related to context’ (7, p. 225). Assemblage An ‘assemblage’ is a way of conceptualizing a heterogeneous collective of people, practices, systems, technologies and objects and their intricate relations with one another in a given field or domain. For example, a hospital is an assemblage with its interconnected material structures; hierarchies of clinical and non-clinical staff; diverse demographic mix of patients and families; fiscal budget; operating procedures and governance frameworks; physician practices and cultures; and diagnostic technologies and medicines. Each of these entities has the capacity to shape the nature and quality of health care administered and experienced at multiple levels, from individual patient care to the everyday management of wards. One of the key dimensions of the assemblage idea is the ongoing fluidity of relations between and among the various components. The theory assumes the indeterminate and processual nature of relationships between people and things, and ascribes social agency to non-human technologies like drugs and algorithms. This theory has been effectively used by Gagnon and Holmes (8) to map the side effects of antiretroviral drugs for people living with HIV. Their analysis reveals that side effects are contingent on the interactivity between the chemistry of the drugs and the physicality of the users’ bodies. But they are also significantly influenced by the agency of the virus itself and the wider network of ‘physicians, medical specialists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, nurses, peers, tests, assistive devices, monitoring devices, health discourses, additional drugs, supplements, food’ contributing to the treatment program (8, p. 255). This approach, they argue, ‘works in opposition to rigid grids that are typically used to define what this [i.e. side effects] experience entails’ (8). Normative Normative refers to the dominant, socially accepted or usual way of doing things among a particular group of people (9). Social norms are usually established by elites or authorities in society, before becoming the situated framework, rule or customary convention that governs social conduct. When a system of beliefs or practices are taken for granted in a social group, they have accrued a ‘normative status’, where to think or do something different is perceived as deviant, and will attract censure or even punishment. As an example, nutritional guidelines are promoted by primary care clinicians as the best way to eat to optimize health outcomes. It is interesting that ‘normative practices’ are not always aligned with the most common behaviour seen in a community. This is the case with nutrition where, for example, most people do not eat the recommended servings of vegetables each day and medical practitioners are urged to encourage people to eat more vegetables, where vegetable intake has been reduced to a numbers game (i.e. the 5-a-day principle). Even when we could argue that the broader environment is a key driver of a person’s vegetable intake, patients are still seen as ‘deviant’ when not conforming to the normative guidelines for nutrition. Conclusion Having an appreciation of sociological language will assist clinical researchers to better engage with sociology ideas and papers, communicate in more collaborative and open-ended ways with sociologists, and extend their horizons of understanding to include the complex, socially situated character of personal health. Funding This work was funded by a Research School of Social Sciences Grant from the Australian National University (2017, GS). Ethical approval None. Conflict of interest None. Acknowledgements Nicholas Elmitt, Helen Keane, Sarath Burgis-Kasthala, Cathy Banwell, Rebecca Williamson Smith and Kristal Coe are acknowledged for their role in the original work of this team. References 1. Key Concepts in Medical Sociology . 55 City Road, London 2013. http://sk.sagepub.com/books/key-concepts-in-medical-sociology-second-edition (accessed on 13 January 2020). 2. Wise A . Everyday multiculturalism: transversal crossings and working class cosmopolitans . In: Wise A , Velayutham S (eds). Everyday Multiculturalism . London : Palgrave Macmillan , 2009 , pp. 21 – 45 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 3. Beauvoir SD , Parshley HM. The Second Sex . Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK : Penguin Books , 1949 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 4. Grew J , Svendsen M . Wireless heart patients and the quantified self . Body Soc 2017 ; 23 ( 1 ): 64 – 90 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 5. Shove E . Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption? In: Ropke I , Reisch L (eds). Consumption—Perspectives from Ecological Economics . Cheltenham : Elgar , 2005 , pp. 111 – 32 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 6. Harries T , Rettie R , Gabe J . Shedding new light on the (in)compatibility of chronic disease management with everyday life—social practice theory, mobile technologies and the interwoven time-spaces of teenage life . Sociol Health Illn 2019 ; 41 : 1396 – 409 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Delormier T , Frohlich KL , Potvin L . Food and eating as social practice—understanding eating patterns as social phenomena and implications for public health . Sociol Health Illn 2009 ; 31 ( 2): 215 – 28 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8. Gagnon M , Holmes D . Body-drug assemblages: theorizing the experience of side effects in the context of HIV treatment . Nurs Philos 2016 ; 17 ( 4): 250 – 61 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Cohen S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers . London : Routledge , 1972 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Family Practice Oxford University Press

Promoting interdisciplinary research through transversality—an aid to communicating more effectively with health sociologists

Family Practice , Volume Advance Article – Mar 25, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/promoting-interdisciplinary-research-through-transversality-an-aid-to-FtudA9Z27M

References (10)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
0263-2136
eISSN
1460-2229
DOI
10.1093/fampra/cmz095
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background Interdisciplinary collaborations are an important part of primary care research. Often ‘interdisciplinary’ refers to colleagues from different clinical backgrounds (nursing, pharmacy or medicine) coming together to work on a common research problem. Less familiar is ‘cross-discipline’ research involving academics from outside health care to collaborate on understanding complex health issues and behaviours. And yet, cross-discipline collaborations have the potential to open up new questions and generate new knowledge. Sociologists are a discipline group who have a lot to offer primary care research. We recently worked on a cross-disciplinary project exploring the nature of food consumption practices among rural Australians, and how these were influenced by local community structures and impacted on their bodies in different ways. This entailed three social scientists (including two sociologists) working with three health care scholars. In the course of this work, we noticed that there was confusion around sociological terminology and this hindered our team’s capacities to collaborate effectively. This paper outlines some of the common terminology used by sociologists that can have relevance for health care researchers, and we hope this paper will stimulate readers to further investigate the potentials of such collaboration (1). When cross-discipline groups research together, communication—or what is also known as ‘transversality’—can be problematic. Transversality is used in the sociological literature (2) to refer to the process of values, ideas, languages, conceptual frameworks or approaches moving across cultural or epistemological boundaries. It relates to the frictions that are integral to specialized practices (or disciplinary knowledge) becoming mobile, as they intersect with other ways of knowing. The Internet is the par exemplar infrastructure that has amplified processes of transversality by connecting up in real time diverse individuals and communities who are spatially distributed and culturally distinct, to generate new ways of understanding, communicating and engaging, as well as generating and reinforcing many hostilities. In our own work, transversality has meant team members communicating their understanding of issues from their own disciplinary perspectives while at the same time reflecting critically on knowledge gaps and enriching their viewpoint by exposure to other modes of thinking and doing. Each academic field has its own terminology and way of expressing meaning. There are established conventions around what counts as knowledge, what the aims and objectives of research should be, and what the optimal approaches are for deriving and then mobilizing this knowledge. This is evident in the published literature where we see extraordinarily different word count requirements across different fields, alongside terminology that is utterly specific to—and contingent on—different disciplinary contexts for its significance. Difficulties with these differences in communication, and disciplinary expectations and conventions, can pose a roadblock to addressing cross-disciplinary knowledge gaps, identifying holistic research questions and adaptable methods, and the dissemination of knowledge that could have wider implications beyond the specific field in which it was created. What is sociology? Sociology is a discipline concerned with understanding the social relations that underpin human societies and practices across various time periods and geographical regions. It focuses on the analysis of social and historical forces that are responsible for the differentiated distribution of wealth in our societies, as well as the impacts of social institutions on the social identities and experiences of individuals and vice versa. At the heart of the discipline, various social theories and research methods help sociologists connect the personal to the public, to explain complex social phenomena. Sociologists pay attention to how the economy and the state impact on the nature and arrangement of civil society, especially by emphasizing how they exercise forms of power over the lives of people. A major area of inquiry has been understanding the structure and experience of health care, and framing medicine as a complex biosocial process that is affected by social factors such as age, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, as well as by political and economic forces and biological processes. Why is sociology important in primary care research? Health care is a social entity which fundamentally involves people, their actions, feelings and meanings, and the interaction of these with various institutions. Health care also incorporates ideas and ideals around bodies (how they should appear, feel and be), arrangements of expertise, power and vulnerability, technologies such as diagnostic scanners and pharmaceutical medicines, all of which are socially produced and experienced. Without people and the technological artefacts they make and use, there would be no health care system. Context plays a decisive role in health outcomes and people’s diverse experiences of care. Based on a long and rich tradition of theoretical and empirical engagement with the social dimensions of health, sociologists are able to bring a complementary perspective to how everyday health care issues are socially scripted, experienced and managed. However, sociologists typically frame their analyses in language and argumentation which may be foreign to the clinician, health provider or patient. We thus seek to outline a few of the key concepts used. Transversality on sociological terms There are a number of commonly used terms in sociological research that have relevance to primary care research. We present some sociological terms that proved to be troubling in our own research collaboration so that others might learn from our experience. Embodiment Embodiment is a key term in sociology and refers to two interrelated social processes. First, it describes the different ways that individuals experience and ‘live in’ their bodies as social entities: entities that are socially located and produced. As a result of how they are socially situated and constituted, peoples’ bodies get worked on, modified, commodified, concealed, exhibited, sexualized, sick, stigmatized, inseminated, medicalized, tracked and so on. As a simple example, notions of beauty are socially constructed so that not every culture shares an identical vision of bodily attractiveness and aesthetics. These ideals are heavily mediated by age, gender and ethnicity, and also shaped by transnational corporations that are in the business of selling aspirational models of beauty and thus beauty-making products and weight loss services. Dominant conceptions of a beautiful or ugly body can impact heavily on the psychologies of individuals, especially those who are deemed—or who deem themselves—to not have a body that is conventionally perceived as beautiful. They can become alienated from the physical prism of their bodies, and this can have significant implications for their mental wellbeing. The same is true of those with bodily incapacities or dysfunctions. Second, embodiment describes the ways in which individuals—as a consequence of the body types they inhabit and manifest—come to be seen as different or ‘Other’ (3) based on discriminatory understandings and classifications of race, gender or sexuality. Significant waves of sociological research have explored how people of colour, women and those with LGBTIQA+ identities are marginalized in a variety of institutional and everyday settings. Thus, embodiment also refers to the ways in which bodies are both deliberately and inadvertently coded and treated differentially by various systems of power (e.g. processes of medicalization, etc.). So embodiment refers to how people subjectively (often ambivalently) perceive and present their physical bodies and bodily symptoms, and how these states are impacted by social context. A useful example of how embodiment relates to primary care is depicted in recent research by Grew and Svendsen (4). They looked at the experiences of patients who are using implantable cardioverter defibrillators to monitor and modulate heart function. They found that wearers of these technologies experienced ambivalence about the devices, as many felt that the clinicians were more interested in what the device communicated than in what patients expressed. As the two write (ibid: 80 & 84), ‘the device is no longer secondary to the embodied person but becomes the “real patient” from which the embodied person is derived … [D]ata become dominant and patient testimonies are marginalized, generating experiences of being secondary to data and not belonging in the clinic’. Practices Practice/s is a term that is commonly used in the general community but has a specific meaning within sociological and humanities research. The term is used to refer to the everyday habits, routines or doings of a person and how these intersect with, and are affected by, other practices: and therefore the broader social contexts, milieu and networks in which they are enacted. A common theorization of practices sees three elements: The materials involved in practices, and this includes the human body and technologies; Competence or skill required to carry out the practices; and Meaning which encompasses the symbolic significance of practices for the person or society (5). Individuals may practice one set of values or moralities in their profession before entirely contradicting these in their personal practices: evidently, what people do in their leisure time can be quite at odds with their work roles. Similarly, a person’s everyday food consumption practices do not occur in isolation. Rather, we have to begin disentangling how buying and eating food is part of a much larger system of practices that include food marketing practices, food production practices, industry practices affecting the location of food outlets and food affordability, policy practices, work practices which structure when, what, where and how a person eats and so on. ‘Social practices theory’ is based on the key premise that by disentangling practices, researchers can develop interventions to disrupt problematic, habitual practices. In practices theory, ‘behaviours are considered to be the result of bundles of socially organized activity known as social practices—and it is these bundles of activity, rather than individuals or society, that are the primary unit of investigation’ (6). This concept has been effectively used by Delormier et al. (7) to theorize the complex intersections of social circumstances, food choices and obesity trends. Attempting to transcend reductionist and individualized explanations, they point to the myriad of social factors that shape what and how people eat (their consumption practices), stating: ‘Public health lacks theoretical frameworks to guide our understanding of population eating patterns as integrally related to context’ (7, p. 225). Assemblage An ‘assemblage’ is a way of conceptualizing a heterogeneous collective of people, practices, systems, technologies and objects and their intricate relations with one another in a given field or domain. For example, a hospital is an assemblage with its interconnected material structures; hierarchies of clinical and non-clinical staff; diverse demographic mix of patients and families; fiscal budget; operating procedures and governance frameworks; physician practices and cultures; and diagnostic technologies and medicines. Each of these entities has the capacity to shape the nature and quality of health care administered and experienced at multiple levels, from individual patient care to the everyday management of wards. One of the key dimensions of the assemblage idea is the ongoing fluidity of relations between and among the various components. The theory assumes the indeterminate and processual nature of relationships between people and things, and ascribes social agency to non-human technologies like drugs and algorithms. This theory has been effectively used by Gagnon and Holmes (8) to map the side effects of antiretroviral drugs for people living with HIV. Their analysis reveals that side effects are contingent on the interactivity between the chemistry of the drugs and the physicality of the users’ bodies. But they are also significantly influenced by the agency of the virus itself and the wider network of ‘physicians, medical specialists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, nurses, peers, tests, assistive devices, monitoring devices, health discourses, additional drugs, supplements, food’ contributing to the treatment program (8, p. 255). This approach, they argue, ‘works in opposition to rigid grids that are typically used to define what this [i.e. side effects] experience entails’ (8). Normative Normative refers to the dominant, socially accepted or usual way of doing things among a particular group of people (9). Social norms are usually established by elites or authorities in society, before becoming the situated framework, rule or customary convention that governs social conduct. When a system of beliefs or practices are taken for granted in a social group, they have accrued a ‘normative status’, where to think or do something different is perceived as deviant, and will attract censure or even punishment. As an example, nutritional guidelines are promoted by primary care clinicians as the best way to eat to optimize health outcomes. It is interesting that ‘normative practices’ are not always aligned with the most common behaviour seen in a community. This is the case with nutrition where, for example, most people do not eat the recommended servings of vegetables each day and medical practitioners are urged to encourage people to eat more vegetables, where vegetable intake has been reduced to a numbers game (i.e. the 5-a-day principle). Even when we could argue that the broader environment is a key driver of a person’s vegetable intake, patients are still seen as ‘deviant’ when not conforming to the normative guidelines for nutrition. Conclusion Having an appreciation of sociological language will assist clinical researchers to better engage with sociology ideas and papers, communicate in more collaborative and open-ended ways with sociologists, and extend their horizons of understanding to include the complex, socially situated character of personal health. Funding This work was funded by a Research School of Social Sciences Grant from the Australian National University (2017, GS). Ethical approval None. Conflict of interest None. Acknowledgements Nicholas Elmitt, Helen Keane, Sarath Burgis-Kasthala, Cathy Banwell, Rebecca Williamson Smith and Kristal Coe are acknowledged for their role in the original work of this team. References 1. Key Concepts in Medical Sociology . 55 City Road, London 2013. http://sk.sagepub.com/books/key-concepts-in-medical-sociology-second-edition (accessed on 13 January 2020). 2. Wise A . Everyday multiculturalism: transversal crossings and working class cosmopolitans . In: Wise A , Velayutham S (eds). Everyday Multiculturalism . London : Palgrave Macmillan , 2009 , pp. 21 – 45 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 3. Beauvoir SD , Parshley HM. The Second Sex . Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK : Penguin Books , 1949 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 4. Grew J , Svendsen M . Wireless heart patients and the quantified self . Body Soc 2017 ; 23 ( 1 ): 64 – 90 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 5. Shove E . Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption? In: Ropke I , Reisch L (eds). Consumption—Perspectives from Ecological Economics . Cheltenham : Elgar , 2005 , pp. 111 – 32 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC 6. Harries T , Rettie R , Gabe J . Shedding new light on the (in)compatibility of chronic disease management with everyday life—social practice theory, mobile technologies and the interwoven time-spaces of teenage life . Sociol Health Illn 2019 ; 41 : 1396 – 409 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Delormier T , Frohlich KL , Potvin L . Food and eating as social practice—understanding eating patterns as social phenomena and implications for public health . Sociol Health Illn 2009 ; 31 ( 2): 215 – 28 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8. Gagnon M , Holmes D . Body-drug assemblages: theorizing the experience of side effects in the context of HIV treatment . Nurs Philos 2016 ; 17 ( 4): 250 – 61 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9. Cohen S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers . London : Routledge , 1972 . Google Preview WorldCat COPAC © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Journal

Family PracticeOxford University Press

Published: Mar 25, 2020

There are no references for this article.