東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Account/Ability: Disability and Agen...

Monteleone, Rebecca.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization./
作者:	Monteleone, Rebecca.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2020,
面頁冊數:	375 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-12.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International81-12.
標題:	Disability studies. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27834442
ISBN:	9798645456665

Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization.
Monteleone, Rebecca.

Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 375 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-12.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Over the last half century, global healthcare practices have increasingly relied on technological interventions for the detection, prevention, and treatment of disability and disease. As these technologies become routinized and normalized into medicine, the social and political dimensions require substantial consideration. Such consideration is particularly critical in the context of ableism, in which bodily and cognitive differences such as disabilities are perceived as deviance and demand intervention. Further, neoliberalism, with its overwhelming tendency to privatize and individualize, creates conditions under which social systems abdicate responsibility for social issues such as ableism, shifting accountability onto individuals to prevent or mitigate difference through individualized means.It is in this context that this dissertation, informed by critical disability studies and feminist science and technology studies, examines the understanding and enactment of disability and responsibility in relation to biomedical technologies. I draw from qualitative empirical data from three distinct case studies, each focused on a different biomedical technology: prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis, deep brain stimulation, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems. Analyzing semi-structured interviews and primary documents through an inductive framework that takes up elements of Grounded Theory and hermeneutic phenomenology, this research demonstrates a series of tensions. As disability becomes increasingly associated with discrete biological characteristics and medical professionals claim a growing authority over disabled bodyminds, users of these technologies are caught in a double bind of personal responsibility and epistemic invalidation. Technologies, however, do not occupy either exclusively oppressive or liberatory roles. Rather, they are used with full acknowledgement of their role in perpetuating medical authority and neoliberal paradigms as well as their individual benefit. Experiential and embodied knowledge, particular when in tension with clinical knowledge, is invalidated as a transgression of expert authority. To reject these invalidations, communities cohering around subaltern knowledges emerge in resistance to the mismatched priorities and expectations of medical authority, creating space for alternative disabled imaginaries.

ISBN: 9798645456665Subjects--Topical Terms:

543687
Disability studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Biomedical technology

Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization.
LDR:03599nmm a2200385 4500 001 2278870
005 20210712062641.5
008 220723s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798645456665
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI27834442
035 $a AAI27834442
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Monteleone, Rebecca. $3 3557271
245 1 0 $a Account/Ability: Disability and Agency in the Age of Biomedicalization.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 375 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-12.
500 $a Advisor: Fonow, Mary Margaret.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Over the last half century, global healthcare practices have increasingly relied on technological interventions for the detection, prevention, and treatment of disability and disease. As these technologies become routinized and normalized into medicine, the social and political dimensions require substantial consideration. Such consideration is particularly critical in the context of ableism, in which bodily and cognitive differences such as disabilities are perceived as deviance and demand intervention. Further, neoliberalism, with its overwhelming tendency to privatize and individualize, creates conditions under which social systems abdicate responsibility for social issues such as ableism, shifting accountability onto individuals to prevent or mitigate difference through individualized means.It is in this context that this dissertation, informed by critical disability studies and feminist science and technology studies, examines the understanding and enactment of disability and responsibility in relation to biomedical technologies. I draw from qualitative empirical data from three distinct case studies, each focused on a different biomedical technology: prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis, deep brain stimulation, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems. Analyzing semi-structured interviews and primary documents through an inductive framework that takes up elements of Grounded Theory and hermeneutic phenomenology, this research demonstrates a series of tensions. As disability becomes increasingly associated with discrete biological characteristics and medical professionals claim a growing authority over disabled bodyminds, users of these technologies are caught in a double bind of personal responsibility and epistemic invalidation. Technologies, however, do not occupy either exclusively oppressive or liberatory roles. Rather, they are used with full acknowledgement of their role in perpetuating medical authority and neoliberal paradigms as well as their individual benefit. Experiential and embodied knowledge, particular when in tension with clinical knowledge, is invalidated as a transgression of expert authority. To reject these invalidations, communities cohering around subaltern knowledges emerge in resistance to the mismatched priorities and expectations of medical authority, creating space for alternative disabled imaginaries.
590 $a School code: 0010.
650 4 $a Disability studies. $3 543687
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
650 4 $a Gender studies. $3 2122708
653 $a Biomedical technology
653 $a Disability
653 $a Feminist epistemologies
653 $a Medical sociology
653 $a Qualitative research
653 $a Science and technology studies
690 $a 0201
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0733
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology. $3 3175256
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 81-12.
790 $a 0010
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=27834442