CorText Manager around the world

@article{Louvel2022,

title = {Biological embedding vs. embodiment of social experiences: How these two concepts form distinct thought styles around the social production of health inequalities},

author = {Séverine Louvel and Alexandra Soulier},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953622007766?via%3Dihub},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115470},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-10-01},

urldate = {2022-10-01},

journal = {Social Science & Medicine},

volume = {314},

issue = {115470},

abstract = {Objectives



This article compares research on biological embedding and the embodiment of social experiences, two concepts proposed in the 1990s to introduce a new perspective on the social production of health inequalities. We draw on Ludwig Fleck's concept of ‘thought style’ (1935/2008) to question the possible emergence of a common research program around the processes by which the social becomes biological.



Methods

We compiled a corpus of 322 articles referring to either biological embedding or to the embodiment of social experiences, identified in the Web of Science core collection and published from 1990 to 2021. We analyzed the articles’ use of these concepts using scientometric indicators and qualitative content analysis.



Results

Initial differences between the research agendas associated with biological embedding and embodiment are strengthened as both concepts circulate around scientific communities studying the social production of health inequalities. Thought styles formed around embedding and embodiment differ significantly in terms of shared references, sets of methods and research questions, and policy recommendations. Research on biological embedding forms a thought style shared by researchers in the biomedical and public health sciences. Conversely, the concept of embodiment of social experiences connects perspectives from biomedical, public health, human and social sciences, and gathers three thought styles, one identical to that of biological embedding and two formed in social epidemiology and in medical anthropology.



Conclusions

Acknowledging the differences between the concepts and divergences in their evolution provides an opportunity for identification of topics where thought styles are either complementary or in tension.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{leblond2016performing,

title = {Performing an Invisibility Spell: Global Models, Food Regimes and Smallholders},

author = {Nelly Leblond and Julie Trottier},

url = {http://www.redgtd.org/CENTRODOC/BD_ARCHIVOS/02_Leblond&Trottier_Global_Models_Food_Regimes&Smallholders_2016.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

urldate = {2016-01-01},

journal = {International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food},

volume = {23},

number = {1},

pages = {21-40},

abstract = {The present construction of global representations of food and farming is problematic. For example, how can we 'know' the world needs to double food production even though we cannot foresee a food crisis? How can we estimate investment opportunities while failing to quantify their impacts on smallholders? Global models constrain the manner in which we perceive the food regime while producing such representations. We need to identify the causal relations embedded inside models' equations and why they are arrayed in this fashion. This article combines actor-network theory and structuration theory to analyse a sample of 70 global models. It locates the modules and equations of these black boxes in the sociotechnical and political context of their production. Finally, a bibliometric analysis sketches the overall epistemic community that drove models into success or extinction. Dominant global models recycle equations, modules and databases to effectuate narrow worlds. They make smallholder farming invisible in spite of its prevalence around the world. They do not address food needs and construct pixellated representations of underutilized land. They systematically favour large-scale agricultural trade and investments in production and productivity. This reflects the structure of signification modellers adhere to as well as the structure of domination they are embedded in. Securing clients ensures the success of global models independently from their validation. The article demonstrates the manner in which modelling is a social practice embedded in power relations. Considering simultaneously the structure of domination formalized inside models and surrounding modelling is crucial. Future research should investigate how various actors resort to global models to champion their goals. It should question the policy recommendations drawn from such models and their relevance as decision support tools.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}