The tinkering m-patient: Co-constructing knowledge on how to live with type 1 diabetes through Facebook searching and sharing and offline tinkering with self-care
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2020
The tinkering m-patient: Co-constructing knowledge on how to live with type 1 diabetes through Facebook searching and sharing and offline tinkering with self-care
Danish adults with type 1 diabetes value peer-to-peer interaction through the social media platform Facebook as a way to quickly exchange knowledge on essential everyday self-care for chronic illness. In this praxiographic study, following informants into online and offline social dimensions, I explore how they use Facebook to exchange self-care knowledge based on practical experiments and negotiations between bodies, technologies and daily lives. When in doubt about how to self-care on a daily basis, Danish adults with type 1 diabetes look to Facebook for inspiration and peer support. A synergistic process of online searching and sharing and offline tinkering with self-care generates person-centred knowledge about how to live with illness that is situated to individual needs and unique daily lives. Facebook can be viewed as an emergent space for biosociality through which knowledge about how to self-care become co-constructed by peers based on their pragmatic experiences of self-care on a daily and ongoing basis.
BarakAMBoniel-NissimMSulerJ (2008) Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior24(5): 1867–1883.
2.
BarbotJ (2006) How to build an ‘active’ patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Social Science and Medicine62(3): 538–551.
3.
BarryERobertsSOkeJ, et al. (2017) Efficacy and effectiveness of screen and treat policies in prevention of type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis of screening tests and interventions. BMJ356: i6538.
4.
BjoernesCDLaursenBSDelmarC, et al. (2012) A dialogue-based web application enhances personalized access to healthcare professionals – An intervention study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making12: 96.
5.
BrittenNMaguireK (2016) Lay knowledge, social movements and the use of medicines: Personal reflections. Health20(2): 77–93.
6.
BroomA (2009) Intuition, subjectivity and Le bricoleur: Cancer patients’ accounts of negotiating plurality of therapeutic options. Qualitative Health Research19(8): 1050–1059.
7.
BrüggerN (2015) A brief history of Facebook as a media text: The development of an empty structure. First Monday20(5). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i5.5423
8.
BuegerC (2014) Pathways to practice: Praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review6(3): 383–406.
9.
CallonMRabeharisoaV (2003) Research ‘in the wild’ and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society25(2): 193–204.
10.
ChaykoM (2008) Portable Communities: The Social Dynamics of Online and Mobile Connectedness. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
11.
DalgasK (2016) Au pairs on Facebook: Ethnographic use of social media in politicised fields. Nordic Journal of Migration Research6(3): 175–183.
DumitJ (2012) Drugs for Life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define Our Health. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
14.
EysenbachGTillJE (2001) Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities. BMJ323: 1103–1105.
15.
FarmerABrucknerCEHoltR, et al. (2009) Social networking sites: A novel portal for communication. Postgraduate Medical Journal85(1007): 455–459.
16.
FoxNJ (2017) Personal health technologies, micropolitics and resistance: A new materialist analysis. Health21: 136–153.
17.
FoxNJWardKO’RourkeA (2005) The ‘expert patient’: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Social Science and Medicine60(6): 1299–1309.
18.
FunnellMAndersonR (2004) Empowerment and self-management of diabetes. Clinical Diabetes22(3): 123–127.
19.
GoodBJ (1994) Medicine, Rationality, and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GreeneJAChoudryNKKilabukE, et al. (2011) Online social networking by patients with diabetes: A qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. Journal of General Internal Medicine26(3): 287–292.
21.
GuellC (2012) Self-care at the margins: Meals and meters in migrants’ diabetes tactics. Medical Anthropology Quarterly26(4): 518–533.
22.
HernandezC (1996) Integration: The experience of living with insulin dependent (type 1) diabetes mellitus. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research28(4): 37–56.
23.
HesterJ (2005) Bricolages and bodies of knowledge: Exploring consumer responses to controversy about the third generation oral contraceptive pill. Body & Society11(3): 77–95.
HineC (2015) Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
26.
JonesEJSinclairMHoltRI, et al. (2013) Social networking and understanding alcohol-associated risk for people with type 1 diabetes: Friend or foe?Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics15(4): 308–314.
27.
KingodNClealBWahlbergA, et al. (2017) Online peer-to-peer communities in the daily lives of people with chronic illness: A qualitative systematic review. Qualitative Health Research27(1): 89–99.
28.
KivitsJ (2004) Researching the informed patient. Information, Communication & Society74(4): 510–530.
29.
KleinmanA (1981) Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30.
LuptonD (2012) M-health and health promotion: The digital cyborg and surveillance society. Social Theory & Health10(3): 229–244.
31.
LuptonD (2014) The commodification of patient opinion: The digital patient experience economy in the age of big data. Sociology of Health and Illness36(6): 856–869.
32.
LuptonD (2016) The Quantified Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
LyonD (2010) Surveillance, power and everyday life. In: Kalantzis-CopePGherab-MartinK (eds) Emerging Digital Spaces in Contemporary Society. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–120.
34.
MarkhamABuchananE (2012) Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (accessed 2 March 2017).
35.
MattinglyC (1998) Healing Dramas and Clinical Plots: The Narrative Structure of Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MattinglyCGrønLMeinertL (2011) Chronic homework in emerging borderlands of healthcare. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry35(3): 347–375.
37.
MillerDCostaEHaynesN, et al. (2016) How the World Changed Social Media. London: UCL Press.
38.
MogensenHO (2005) Medicalized experience and the active use of biomedicine. In: SteffenVJenkinsRJessenH (eds) Managing Uncertainty: Ethnographic Studies of Illness, Risk, and the Struggle for Control. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 225–245.
39.
MolA (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology on Medical Practice. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.
40.
MolA (2008) The Logic of Care: Health and Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge.
41.
MolALawJ (2004) Embodied action, enacted bodies. The example of hypoglycaemia. Body & Society10(2–3): 43–62.
42.
NielsenAGrønL (2012) Standardising the lay. Culture Unbound4: 425–224.
43.
NørskovSRaskM (2011) Observation of online communities: A discussion of online and offline observer roles in studying development, cooperation and coordination in an open source software environment. Forum: Qualitative Social Research12(3): 5.
44.
OxlundBWhyteS (2014) Measuring and managing bodies in the later life course. Journal of Population Ageing7(3): 217–230.
45.
PattonQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
PolsJ (2010) Bringing bodies – And health care – Back in: Exploring practical knowledge for living with chronic disease. Medishe Anthropologie22(2): 413–427.
47.
PolsJ (2012) Care at a Distance: On the Closeness of Technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
48.
PolsJ (2013) The patient 2. Many: About diseases that remain and the different forms of knowledge to live with them. Science and Technology Studies26(2): 80–97.
49.
PolsJ (2014) Knowing patients: Turning patient knowledge into science. Science, Technology, and Human Values39(1): 73–97.
50.
RabeharisoaVMoreiraTAkrichM (2014) Evidence-based activism: Patients’, users’, and activists’ group in knowledge society. BioSocieties9(2): 111–128.
51.
RabinowP (1996) Making PCR. A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
ResnickMRosenbaumE (2013) Designing for tinkerability. In: HoneyMKanterD (eds) Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 163–181.
53.
SchafferRKuczynskiKSkinnerD (2008) Producing genetic knowledge and citizenship through the Internet: Mothers, pediatric genetics, and cybermedicine. Sociology of Health and Illness30(1): 145–149.
54.
SchoenD (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Maurice Temple Smith.
55.
ShawJBakerM (2004) ‘Expert patient’ – Dream or nightmare?BMJ328(7442): 723–724Social Science and Medicine 20(1): 29–37.
56.
Van SomerenMBarnardYSandbergJ (1994) The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
57.
WhyteS (2005) Uncertain undertaking: Practicing health in the subjunctive mood. In: SteffenVJessenHJenkinsR (eds) Managing Uncertainty: Ethnographic Studies of Illness, Risk, and the Struggle for Control (Critical Anthropology). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 245–264.
58.
WikgrenM (2001) Health discussions on the Internet: A study of knowledge communication through citations. Library & Information Science Research23: 305–317.
59.
WinanceM (2010) Care and disability: Practices of experimenting, tinkering with, and arranging people and technical aids. In: MolAMoserIPolsJ (eds) Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag, pp. 93–117.
ZieblandSWykeS (2012) Health and illness in a connected world: How might sharing experiences on the internet affect people’s health?The Millbank Quarterly90(2): 219–249.
