What the pregnancy test is testing.
gender
pregnancy
reproduction
test
women
Journal
The British journal of sociology
ISSN: 1468-4446
Titre abrégé: Br J Sociol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373126
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
revised:
27
01
2020
accepted:
23
03
2020
pubmed:
24
4
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
entrez:
24
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Is the test result positive or negative? Tests that occur in labs and doctors' offices pose specific questions to try to obtain specific information. But what happens in the social world when these tests never see the inside of a lab or doctor's office, and instead they are used in a house, in a Walmart bathroom, or in a dormitory bathroom stall? Putting the diagnosis aside, what does the presence of these tests do to social life? This paper examines one such test, the home pregnancy test, and specifically, its use in contemporary intimate life of people who do not want to be pregnant. Pregnancy tests test for pregnancy. But what else is the pregnancy test putting to the test? To investigate this, I spent 8 years studying American pregnancy tests using a qualitative mixed methods approach. This paper draws on some of my research materials, specifically, 85 life history interviews. Each participant was asked to recall, in full, all of their experiences with home pregnancy tests throughout their lives, resulting in well over 300 narratives of home pregnancy test usage which I qualitatively analyzed. I find that more than just a test for a pregnancy, the use of the home pregnancy test is a test of roles, relationships, and responsibilities in social life. These findings suggest implications for social life as more biomedical tests move out of the purview of the medical establishment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32323866
doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12758
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
460-473Subventions
Organisme : Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
ID : GG009686
Informations de copyright
©2020 London School of Economics and Political Science.
Références
Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Almeling, R. (2015). Reproduction. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 423-442.
Almeling, R. (2018). Presentation, “Whither GUYnecology? The missing science of men’s health and how it matters for reproduction”. ASA Regular Sessions: Considering Men and Partners, August 12.
Almeling, R., & Waggoner, M. R. (2013). More and less than equal: How men factor in the reproductive equation. Gender and Society, 27(6), 821-842.
Balasubramanian, S. (2018). Motivating men: Social science and the regulation of men’s reproduction in postwar India. Gender and Society, 32(1), 34-58.
Casper, M. (1998). The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Childerhose, J. E., & MacDonald, M. E. (2013). Health consumption as work: The home pregnancy test as a domesticated health tool. Social Science and Medicine, 86, 1-8.
Cowan, R. S. (1983). More work for mother: The ironies of household technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cowan, R. S. (1987). The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 261-280). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Beauvoir, S. ([1949] 2011). The second sex. New York, NY: Vintage.
Denbow, J. (2015). Governed through choice: Autonomy, technology, and the politics of reproduction. New York, NY: NYU Press.
DeVault, M. L. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Duden, B. (1999). The fetus on the “farther shore”: Toward a history of the unborn. In L. M. Morgan & M. W. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal subjects, feminist positions (pp. 13-25). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Fessler, A. (2006). The girls who went away: The hidden story of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Franklin, S., & H. Ragone (Eds.) (1997). Reproducing reproduction: Kinship, power, and technological innovation. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gálvez, A. (2011). Patient citizens, immigrant mothers: Mexican women, public prenatal care, and the birth-weight paradox. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Gutiérrez, E. R. (2008). Fertile matters: The politics of Mexican-origin women’s reproduction. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599.
Haraway, D. J. (1990). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2001). Domestica: Immigrant workers cleaning and caring in the shadows of affluence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Jutel, A. (2009). Sociology of diagnosis: A preliminary review. Sociology of Health and Illness, 31(2), 278-299.
Jutel, A. (2011). Putting a name to it: Diagnosis in contemporary society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jutel, A. (2015). Beyond the sociology of diagnosis. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 841-852.
Lappé, M. (2016). The maternal body as environment in autism science. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 675-700.
Layne, L. (2003). Motherhood lost: A feminist account of pregnancy loss in America. New York, NY: Routledge.
Layne, L. L. (2009). The home pregnancy test: A feminist technology? Women’s Studies Quarterly, 37(1 & 2), 61-79.
Leavitt, S. A. (2006). “A private little revolution”: The home pregnancy test in American culture. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 80(2), 317-345.
Lopez, I. (2008). Matters of choice: Puerto Rican women’s struggle for reproductive freedom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Luker, K. (1995). Dubious conceptions: The politics of the teenage pregnancy crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mamo, L. (2007). Queering reproduction: Achieving pregnancy in an age of technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Markens, S. (2007). Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Morris, T. (2013). Cut it out: The C-section epidemic in America. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Morris, T., & Robinson, J. H. (2017). Forced and coerced C-sections in the United States. Contexts, 16(2), 24-29.
Murphy, M. (2013). Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nelson, A. (2008). Bio science: Genetic genealogy testing and the pursuit of African ancestry. Social Studies of Science, 38(5), 759-783.
Nelson, A. (2016). The social life of DNA: Race, reparations, and reconciliation after the genome. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nelson, A. (2018). The social life of DNA: Racial reconciliation and institutional morality after the genome. British Journal of Sociology, 69(3), 522-537.
Nelson, A., & Robinson, J. H. (2014). The social life of DTC genetics: The case of 23andMe. In D. L. Kleinman & K. Moore (Eds.), Routledge handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 108-123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oudshoorn, N. (1990). On the making of sex hormones: Research materials and the production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 20(1), 5-33.
Oudshoorn, N. (2008). Diagnosis at a distance: The invisible work of patients and health-care professionals in cardiac telemonitoring technology. Sociology of Health and Illness, 30(2), 272-295.
Oudshoorn, N. (2011). Telecare technologies and the transformation of healthcare (1st ed.). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rapp, R. (2000). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Riessman, C. K. (2000). Stigma and everyday resistance practices: Childless women in South India. Gender and Society, 14(1), 111-135.
Roberts, D. (1998). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York, NY: Vintage.
Robinson, J. H. (2016). Bringing the pregnancy test home from the hospital. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 649-674.
Rock-Singer, C. (2018). Prophetesses of the body: American Jewish women and the politics of embodied knowledge (Doctoral Dissertation). Columbia University.
Rosenbaum, S. (2017). Domestic economies: Women, work, and the American dream in Los Angeles. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rothman, B. K. (1985). The products of conception: The social context of reproductive choices. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11, 188-192.
Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination (pp. 26-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stevens, L. M. (2015). Planning parenthood: Health care providers’ perspectives on pregnancy intention, readiness, and family planning. Social Science and Medicine, 139, 44-52.
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Waggoner, M. (2015). Cultivating the maternal future: Public health and the prepregnant self. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 40(4), 939-962.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the internet. In N. Oudshoorn, & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 67-79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.