Reference : Co-producing evidence: Ethnographic inquiry of a "wild" search for causation
Scientific congresses and symposiums : Unpublished conference/Abstract
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Multidisciplinary, general & others
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Anthropology
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Sociology & social sciences
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/201483
Co-producing evidence: Ethnographic inquiry of a "wild" search for causation
English
Duysens, Fanny mailto [Université de Liège > Département de science politique > Anal. et éval. des politiques publ.-Méthod. de sc. politique >]
3-Sep-2016
No
International
4S/EASST Conference BCN-2016: Science and technology by other means. Exploring collectives, spaces and futures
31/08-03/09/2016
4S/EASST
Barcelona
Spain
[en] Patients' organizations ; Genetic disorder ; Wild research ; Science and Technology Studies ; Anthropology of Health and Disease ; Ethnographic fieldwork
[en] Drawing on a multi-sited ethnography which explores the field of patients’ organizations (POs) concerned with genetic disorders within the Belgian context, this communication is interested in some knowledge-related collaboration between POs and scientific and medical experts, or “wild research” projects (Callon & Rabeharisoa, 2003). Especially, it examines an informant's narrative of the "wild" search for causation of the disorder by which his family is concerned and the inherent forms and modalities of knowledge production, circulation and validation. While STS scholars have traditionally seen POs as epistemic communities, they currently point out an increasing engagement in such novel forms of collaboration over the last decades. This leads to the emergence of a certain “evidence-based activism” (EBA) among POs, characterized by a growing articulation of credential and more “experiential” knowledge to define common epistemologies of the conditions they are concerned with. The springs of this articulation remain to be explored. Thus, the aim is to flesh out the recent concept of EBA, to empirically question what it covers, and how new biomedical knowledge is generated by “evidence activists”. Rather than provoking “radical openings in technoscientific practice”, our observations show a continuous co-production of knowledge taking place within POs engaged in EBA. So, this paper will take stock of these transformations and envisage the affordances and blind spots for STS of the use of new concepts such as EBA.
Researchers
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/201483

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

FileCommentaryVersionSizeAccess
Open access
4S_EASST_BCN_2016_FannyDuysens.pdfPublisher postprint441.34 kBView/Open

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.