Cargando…

Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making

‘Experiential knowledge’ is increasingly recognised as an important influence on reproductive decision-making. ‘Experiential knowledge of disability’ in particular is a significant resource within prenatal testing/screening contexts, enabling prospective parents to imagine and appraise future lives...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Boardman, Felicity K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7610975/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28926777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.013
_version_ 1783605247754633216
author Boardman, Felicity K.
author_facet Boardman, Felicity K.
author_sort Boardman, Felicity K.
collection PubMed
description ‘Experiential knowledge’ is increasingly recognised as an important influence on reproductive decision-making. ‘Experiential knowledge of disability’ in particular is a significant resource within prenatal testing/screening contexts, enabling prospective parents to imagine and appraise future lives affected by disability. However, the concept of ‘experiential knowledge’ has been widely critiqued for its idiosyncrasy, its impermanence and consequently its perceived inferiority to (medical) knowledge. This paper explores some of these key critiques of experiential knowledge through an analysis of its constitution and uses in the context of reproductive decision-making. Seventeen UK-resident women with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), or with SMA in their family, took part in two in-depth interviews: one in 2007–9 and the other in 2013–4. By comparing and contrasting these women’s accounts at two time points, this paper demonstrates the stark contrast between ‘lived experience’ of SMA (the visceral everyday realities of life with the condition) and the various way(s) this experience was transformed into, and presented as, ‘knowledge’ through the processes of making, and accounting, for reproductive decisions. The analysis highlights that multiple, distinct and sometimes competing experiential frameworks are used to conceptualise SMA across time and context. However, rather than evidence of its fallibility, this finding highlights that ‘knowledge’ is an inappropriate vessel with which to capture and transfer ‘experiential knowledge’. Rather, we need to consider how to value such insight in ways that harnesses its inherent strength without leaving it vulnerable to the epistemological critiques attracted by labelling it ‘knowledge’.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7610975
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76109752021-06-14 Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making Boardman, Felicity K. Soc Sci Med Article ‘Experiential knowledge’ is increasingly recognised as an important influence on reproductive decision-making. ‘Experiential knowledge of disability’ in particular is a significant resource within prenatal testing/screening contexts, enabling prospective parents to imagine and appraise future lives affected by disability. However, the concept of ‘experiential knowledge’ has been widely critiqued for its idiosyncrasy, its impermanence and consequently its perceived inferiority to (medical) knowledge. This paper explores some of these key critiques of experiential knowledge through an analysis of its constitution and uses in the context of reproductive decision-making. Seventeen UK-resident women with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), or with SMA in their family, took part in two in-depth interviews: one in 2007–9 and the other in 2013–4. By comparing and contrasting these women’s accounts at two time points, this paper demonstrates the stark contrast between ‘lived experience’ of SMA (the visceral everyday realities of life with the condition) and the various way(s) this experience was transformed into, and presented as, ‘knowledge’ through the processes of making, and accounting, for reproductive decisions. The analysis highlights that multiple, distinct and sometimes competing experiential frameworks are used to conceptualise SMA across time and context. However, rather than evidence of its fallibility, this finding highlights that ‘knowledge’ is an inappropriate vessel with which to capture and transfer ‘experiential knowledge’. Rather, we need to consider how to value such insight in ways that harnesses its inherent strength without leaving it vulnerable to the epistemological critiques attracted by labelling it ‘knowledge’. 2017-10-01 2017-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7610975/ /pubmed/28926777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.013 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Boardman, Felicity K.
Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title_full Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title_fullStr Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title_full_unstemmed Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title_short Experience as knowledge: Disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
title_sort experience as knowledge: disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7610975/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28926777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.09.013
work_keys_str_mv AT boardmanfelicityk experienceasknowledgedisabilitydistillationandreprogeneticdecisionmaking