Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Making of Self-Monitoring Asthma Patients: Mending a Split Reality with Comparative Ethnography

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

For content published from 1960-2001, see International Journal of Comparative Sociology.

Those calling for more evidence to support ever-increasing efforts to use information and communication technologies (ICT) in medical work argue that rigorous facts are necessary to make viable in practice substantiated use of these technologies. By contrast, socio-technical studies researchers, who focus on the use of ICT in everyday clinical practices, argue against the need for evidence produced under controlled, thus "unrealistic" conditions. Proponents of both positions, however, seem to operate with "a split reality," whereby they assume the "pseudo" can be readily distinguished from the "real," the "situated" from the "scientific." A comparative ethnographic approach can help mend this split reality approach. We compare how the same internet-based self-monitoring tool for asthmatics was used in a general practice setting and in a randomized clinical study, and thereby show how different effects were produced in these two settings. We propose that these effects are better conceptualized as enacting different assemblages of bodies, identities, and technologies, as opposed to creating either evidence or failed implementation.

Affiliations: 1: Institute of Public Health, Health Services Research, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen K;, Email: h.langstrup@pubhealth.ku.dk; 2: Design of Organizational IT, IT University of Copenhagen Rued Langgaards Vej 7, DK-2300 Copenhagen S;, Email: brwi@itu.dk

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156913308x306663
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156913308x306663
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156913308x306663
2008-06-01
2016-12-03

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Comparative Sociology — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation