By now, the laboratory tradition, crafting transportable knowledge that allows for comparison, has been amply studied. However, other knowledge traditions, notably that of the clinic, deserve further articulation. The authors contribute to this by unraveling some specificities of rehabilitation practice. How do laboratory and clinical traditions in rehabilitation relate to independence? The first seeks to quantify people's independence; the latter attends to qualitatively different ways of being independent. While measuring independence is a matter of aggregating scores on a priori established dimensions, clinical rehabilitation concerns coordinating different ways of being independent. While independence scales map a linear development in time, rehabilitation participants juggle with time, including uncertain futures in their present. In clinical practice, then, independence is neither a single, coherent, fact nor a clear-cut, stable goal. Instead, professionals as well as patients work by creatively doctoring with the large variety of elements that are relevant to daily life with long-term disabilities.
Akrich, M., and B. Pasveer.2000. Multiplying obstetrics: Techniques of surveillance and forms of coordination. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics21 (1): 63-83.
2.
Barnes, M.P., and A.B. Ward.2000. Textbook of rehabilitation medicine . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Berg, M., and A. Mol.1998. Differences in medicine: On practices, techniques and bodies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
4.
Bowker, G.C., and S.L. Star.1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. London: MIT Press .
5.
Canguilhem, G. [1963] 1989. The normal and the pathological . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Casper, M.J., and M. Berg.1995. Constructivist perspectives on medical works: Medical practices and science and technology studies (introduction) . Science, Technology, & Human Values20 (4): 395-407.
7.
Charmaz, K.1991. Good days, bad days: The self in chronic illness and time . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
Chen, C.C., A.W. Heinemann, C.V. Granger, and R.T. Linn.2002. Functional gains and therapy intensity during subacute rehabilitation: A study of 20 facilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation83 (11): 1514-23.
9.
Christiansen, C.H., and K.J. Ottenbacher .1998. Evaluation and management of daily self-care requirements. In Rehabilitation medicine: Principles and practice, ed. J. A. DeLisa and B. M. Gans, 137-63. Philadelphia : Lippincott-Raven.
10.
Cifu, D.X., J.S. Kreutzer, S.A. Kolakowsky-Hayner, J.H. Marwitz, and J. Englander.2003. The relationship between therapy intensity and rehabilitative outcomes after traumatic brain injury: A multicenter analysis . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation84 (10): 1441-48.
11.
DeJong, G.1979. Independent living: From social movement to analytic paradigm . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation60 (10): 435-46.
12.
Granger, C.V., M. Kelly-Hayes, M. Johnston, A. Deutsch, S. Braun, and R.C. Fiedler.1996. Quality and outcome measures for medical rehabilitation. In Physical medicine and rehabilitation, ed. R. L. Braddom, 239-53. Philadelphia : W. B. Saunders.
13.
Haraway, D.1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature . London: Routledge.
14.
Harbers, H., A. Mol, and A. Stollmeijer.2002. Food matters: Arguments for an ethnography of daily care. Theory, Culture and Society19 (5/6): 207-26.
15.
Healy, D.2002. The creation of psychopharmacology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Keith, R.A., and M.W. Lipsey.1993. The role of theory in rehabilitation assessment, treatment, and outcomes. In Improving assessment in rehabilitation and health, ed. R. L. Glueckauf , L. B. Sechrest, G. R. Bond, and E. C. McDonel, 33-58. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Kelly-Hayes, M.1996. Functional evaluation. In Rehabilitation nursing: Process and application, ed. S. P. Hoeman, 144-55. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
18.
Latour, B.1988. The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Law, J.2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
20.
Law, J., and V. Singleton.2003. Allegory and its others. In Organised worlds: Explorations in technology, organisation and modernity, ed. R. Chia.London: Routledge.
21.
Lettinga, A.T., and A. Mol.1999. Clinical specificity and the non-generalities of science: On innovation strategies in neurological physiotherapy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics20 (6): 517-35.
22.
Macciocchi, S.N., B. Bowman, J. Coker, D. Apple, and D. Leslie.2004. Effect of co-morbid traumatic brain injury on functional outcome of persons with spinal cord injuries. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation83 (1): 22-26.
23.
Mahony, F.I., and D. Barthel.1965. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index . Maryland State Medical Journal14 (2): 56-61.
24.
Marks, H.1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States 1900-1990. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Mol, A.2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26.
Mol, A.2006a. De logica van het zorgen. Actieve patiënten en de grenzen van het kiezen. Amsterdam: Van Gennep .
27.
Mol A.2006b. Proving or improving: On health care research as a form of self-reflection. Qualitative Health Research16 (3): 405-14.
28.
Moreira, T.2004. Coordination and embodiment in the operating room. Body & Society10 (1): 109-29.
29.
Moreira, T.2006. Heterogeneity and coordination of blood pressure in neurosurgery . Social Studies of Science36 (1): 69-97.
30.
Moser, I.2000. Against normalisation: Subverting norms of ability and disability. Science as Culture9 (2): 201-40.
31.
Moser, I.2006. Sociotechnical practices and difference on the interferences between disability, gender, and class. Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (5): 537-64.
32.
Moser, I., and J. Law.2003. "Making voices": New media technologies, disabilities, and articulation. In Digital media revisited: Theoretical and conceptual innovation in digital domains, ed. G. Liestol, A. Morrison, and T. Rasmussen, 491-520. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
33.
Nelis, A.2000. Genetics and uncertainty. In Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science, ed. N. Brown, B. Rappert , and A. Webster, 209-28. Aldershot , UK: Ashgate.
34.
Patti, F., M.R. Ciancio, M. Cacopardo, E. Reggio, T. Fiorilla, F. Palermo, A. Reggio, and A.J. Thompson.2003. Effects of a short outpatient rehabilitation treatment on disability of multiple sclerosis patients: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Neurology250 (7): 861-66.
35.
Pols, J.2006. Accounting and washing: Good care in long-term psychiatry . Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (4): 409-30.
36.
Rapp, R.1998. Refusing prenatal diagnosis: The meanings of bioscience in a multicultural world. Science, Technology, & Human Values23 (1): 45-70.
37.
Schlich, T.2007. The art and science of surgery: Innovation and concepts of medical practice in operative fracture care, 1960s-1970s. Science, Technology, & Human Values32 (1): 65-87.
38.
Singleton, V., and M. Michael.1993. Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science23 (2): 227-64.
39.
Struhkamp, R.2004. Goals in their setting: A normative analysis of goal setting in physical rehabilitation. Health Care Analysis12 (2): 131-55.
40.
Struhkamp, R.2005. Wordless pain: Dealing with suffering in physical rehabilitation . Cultural Studies19 (6): 701-18.
41.
Sunder Rajan, K.2006. Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
42.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg.2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardisation in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
43.
Van Dijk, A.2001. On rehabilitation medicine: A theory-oriented contribution to the assessment of functioning and individual experience. Twente, the Netherlands: Eburon.
44.
Vos, R., and D.L. Willems.2000. Technology in medicine: Ontology, epistemology, ethics and social philosophy at the crossroads. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics21 (1): 1-7.
45.
Wade, D.T.1997. Assessment of motor function: Impairment and disability . In Neurological rehabilitation, ed. R. Greenwood, M. P. Barnes, T. M. McMillan, and C. D. Ward, 147-60. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
46.
World Health Organization.2001. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
47.
Willems, D.2000. Managing one's body using self-management techniques: Practicing autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Ethics21 (1): 23-38.
48.
Winance, M.2006. Trying out the wheelchair: The mutual shaping of people and devices through adjustment. Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (1): 52-72.
