Alan Petersen (AP) and Kiran Pienaar (KP): Thank you, David, for agreeing to share your perspectives in this interview. It is a pleasure and honour to have this opportunity to engage with your insights and scholarly contributions on surveillance medicine and the sociology of diagnosis. Looking back to your early contributions on surveillance medicine, these seem to anticipate recent diagnostic trends. What, if anything, has changed in the interim period?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongD. (1995). The rise of Surveillance Medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness, 17(3), 393–404.
2.
ArmstrongD. (2009). Origins of the problem of health-related behaviours: A genealogical study. Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 909–926.
3.
ArmstrongD. (2011). Diagnosis and nosology in primary care. Social Science and Medicine, 73(6), 801–807.
4.
ArmstrongD. (2014). Chronic illness: A revisionist account. Sociology of Health and Illness, 36(1), 15–27.
5.
ArmstrongD. (2017a). Clinical prediction and the idea of a population. Social Studies of Science, 47(2), 229–288.
6.
ArmstrongD. (2017b). Molecularisation and metaphor. Sociology of Health and Illness, 39(7), 1195–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12579
7.
ArmstrongD. (2019). The social life of data points: Antecedents of digital technologies. Social Studies of Science, 49(1), 102–117.
8.
DigeserP. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 977–1007.
