Abstract
AbstractThis chapter describes how expertise about bipolar disorder is performed by The National Institute of Mental Health and La Haute Autorité de Santé. Using an innovative methodological approach which combines insights from Latour (Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987) and media studies with a dramaturgical perspective (Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, London, Penguin, 1959/1990), it is argued that both institutions perform expertise in a conservative fashion, which allows them to articulate knowledge on bipolar disorder as stable and precise. While both institutions use similar performative techniques, they adapt them to subtly redefine bipolar disorder in ways that are aligned to the priorities characterizing their national health system and their institutional prerogatives and goals.
Publisher
Springer Nature Singapore
Reference81 articles.
1. Barak, A. (1999). Psychological Applications on the Internet: A Discipline on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 8, 231–245.
2. Barak, A., & Grohol, J. (2011). Current and Future Trends in Internet-Supported Mental Health Interventions. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(3), 155–196.
3. Bennett, G., & Glasgow, R. (2009). The Delivery of Public Health Interventions Via the Internet: Actualizing Their Potential. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 273–292.
4. Bernstein, R. (2006). A Seat at the Table: Trend or Illusion? Health Affairs, 25(3), 730–733.
5. Bijker, W., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). The Paradox of Scientific Authority. The Role of Scientific Advice in Democracies. The MIT Press.