计算心灵的技术政治学:打开数字精神病学的黑匣子。

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1177/03063127241273067
Katerina Sideri,Niels van Dijk
{"title":"计算心灵的技术政治学:打开数字精神病学的黑匣子。","authors":"Katerina Sideri,Niels van Dijk","doi":"10.1177/03063127241273067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychiatry has recently witnessed the launch of digital phenotyping as a new research agenda. According to digital phenotyping's hypothesis, data about a patient's daily behavior can be continuously collected through wearable monitoring devices and used to build software that would send warnings of mental relapse or would tailor treatment choices. The research is exploratory, and the claims upon which it is based are contentious. Drawing on interviews, we followed a research team that aspired to build a digital system that could send such warnings to patients with mental health disorders like depression and epilepsy. This enabled us to learn how a new instrument to measure mental function becomes constructed and what translations take place in this process. Here we pay particular attention to the role of patients as research collaborators. We observed the frictions and debates in the research team between different mental health knowledge regimes, seeing them before they were black-boxed and lost from sight. We aimed to understand how actors anticipate software and data analytics to function alongside physicians and patients, as well as how different accounts reconstitute the 'mental', 'therapy', or the 'social' itself. We discuss several 'dissociations' that occur along the research trajectory regarding: less motivated and underrepresented patients, the role of clinical knowledge derived from patient self-reporting, and the social, political, and economic aspects of a patient's life affecting mental health. In this sense, we want to open the black box of this new behavioral technoscience.","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The techno-politics of computing the mind: Opening the black box of digital psychiatry.\",\"authors\":\"Katerina Sideri,Niels van Dijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03063127241273067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychiatry has recently witnessed the launch of digital phenotyping as a new research agenda. According to digital phenotyping's hypothesis, data about a patient's daily behavior can be continuously collected through wearable monitoring devices and used to build software that would send warnings of mental relapse or would tailor treatment choices. The research is exploratory, and the claims upon which it is based are contentious. Drawing on interviews, we followed a research team that aspired to build a digital system that could send such warnings to patients with mental health disorders like depression and epilepsy. This enabled us to learn how a new instrument to measure mental function becomes constructed and what translations take place in this process. Here we pay particular attention to the role of patients as research collaborators. We observed the frictions and debates in the research team between different mental health knowledge regimes, seeing them before they were black-boxed and lost from sight. We aimed to understand how actors anticipate software and data analytics to function alongside physicians and patients, as well as how different accounts reconstitute the 'mental', 'therapy', or the 'social' itself. We discuss several 'dissociations' that occur along the research trajectory regarding: less motivated and underrepresented patients, the role of clinical knowledge derived from patient self-reporting, and the social, political, and economic aspects of a patient's life affecting mental health. In this sense, we want to open the black box of this new behavioral technoscience.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241273067\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241273067","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精神病学最近推出了数字表型技术,将其作为一项新的研究议程。根据数字表型的假设,可以通过可穿戴监控设备持续收集患者的日常行为数据,并利用这些数据构建软件,在精神疾病复发时发出警告,或为患者量身定制治疗方案。这项研究是探索性的,其依据的主张也存在争议。通过访谈,我们跟踪了一个研究团队,该团队希望建立一个数字系统,向抑郁症和癫痫等精神疾病患者发出此类警告。这让我们了解到一种测量心理功能的新工具是如何构建的,以及在这一过程中发生了哪些转变。在此,我们特别关注病人作为研究合作者所扮演的角色。我们观察了研究团队中不同精神健康知识体系之间的摩擦和争论,在这些摩擦和争论被黑箱化和消失之前就已经看到了它们。我们旨在了解参与者如何预期软件和数据分析与医生和患者共同发挥作用,以及不同的说法如何重新构建 "心理"、"治疗 "或 "社会 "本身。我们讨论了在研究过程中出现的几种 "分离 "现象,它们涉及:积极性不高和代表性不足的患者、从患者自我报告中获得的临床知识的作用,以及影响心理健康的患者生活的社会、政治和经济方面。从这个意义上说,我们希望打开这一新行为技术科学的黑匣子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The techno-politics of computing the mind: Opening the black box of digital psychiatry.
Psychiatry has recently witnessed the launch of digital phenotyping as a new research agenda. According to digital phenotyping's hypothesis, data about a patient's daily behavior can be continuously collected through wearable monitoring devices and used to build software that would send warnings of mental relapse or would tailor treatment choices. The research is exploratory, and the claims upon which it is based are contentious. Drawing on interviews, we followed a research team that aspired to build a digital system that could send such warnings to patients with mental health disorders like depression and epilepsy. This enabled us to learn how a new instrument to measure mental function becomes constructed and what translations take place in this process. Here we pay particular attention to the role of patients as research collaborators. We observed the frictions and debates in the research team between different mental health knowledge regimes, seeing them before they were black-boxed and lost from sight. We aimed to understand how actors anticipate software and data analytics to function alongside physicians and patients, as well as how different accounts reconstitute the 'mental', 'therapy', or the 'social' itself. We discuss several 'dissociations' that occur along the research trajectory regarding: less motivated and underrepresented patients, the role of clinical knowledge derived from patient self-reporting, and the social, political, and economic aspects of a patient's life affecting mental health. In this sense, we want to open the black box of this new behavioral technoscience.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Beyond samplism: Rethinking the field in exposure science Making citizens, procedures, and outcomes: Theorizing politics in a co-productionist idiom. The techno-politics of computing the mind: Opening the black box of digital psychiatry. Categorical misalignment: Making autism(s) in big data biobanking. Marginalized measures: The harmonization of diversity in precision medicine research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1