Biomedicalization theory argues that biomedicine is being transformed from the inside out by densely elaborating technoscientific interventions such as computer and information sciences as well as biosciences such as molecular biology, genetics, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and pharmacogenomics, and medical technologies such as visualization. Accompanied by growing responsibilities for our biological/somatic citizenship, these technosciences allow and provoke new kinds of interventions, changing how we think about and live “life itself.” The “bio” in the concept of biomedicalization signals the increasing importance of life sciences and technologies to biomedicine and the centrality of Foucauldian questions of biopolitics. There are five central (and overlapping) processes of biomedicalization: (1) major political economic shifts; (2) a new focus on health, risk, and surveillance; (3) the technoscientization of biomedicine; (4) transformations of biomedical knowledges; and (5) transformations of bodies and identities. While medicalization as the increasing jurisdiction of medicine over new areas of life continues, biomedicalization is expanding rapidly and transnationally. Biomedicalization is characterized by a strong orientation toward the future, socioculturally paralleling its bioeconomic/biopolitical focus on speculative biocapital development. Crucially, biomedicalization theory is neither inherently nor solely a critique of biomedicine. It is an insistence that the increasing centrality of sciences and technologies in biomedicine be addressed.

This chapter introduces the concept of biomedicalisation, developed in 2003 as a critique of the classic medical sociology concept of medicalisation, asserting that it insufficiently addresses the importance of sciences and technologies to the dramatic elaboration of biomedicine since c1985. It then traces the career of this concept including development of related concepts including pharmaceuticalisation and geneticisation. We then review studies of biomedicalisation in practice since 2010, including (1) biomedicalisation and the media, (2) biomedicalisation and biomedical technologies (e.g., algorithmic and predictive technologies; biomedical technologies and the expanding clinic; and biotechnologies in laboratory science), (3) biomedicalisation, precision medicine and precision public health, and (4) stratified biomedicalisation in/of precision medicine and precision public health. In conclusion, we briefly discuss two current issues in biomedicalisation: COVID-19, and climate change. We end by noting other anticipated future directions of biomedicalisation research.

This contribution argues that Kathy Charmaz's career did not burst into full intellectual bloom until the last 25 years of her life - from 55 to her death at 80. I examine why and how this scholarly blossoming happened so late in her life and the nature of its many manifestations, especially research on a wide variety of social justice issues. After her initial focus on medical sociology, specializing in chronic illness, Kathy became an innovative and renowned qualitative methodologist, developing constructivist grounded theory (CGT) method taken up in many amazingly heterogeneous scholarly fields transnationally.

Situational Analysis creates analytic maps of social processes and relationships identified using grounded theory. Creator of the method, award-winning sociologist Adele E. Clarke and two co-editors show how the method can be, and has been, used in a variety of critical qualitative studies. The book-Updates the basic concepts and methods of situational analysis, a methodology created by Clarke;-Provides five important case studies of its use in a variety of health and educational settings;-Offers reflections from the original researchers on the studies and their impact;-Includes lists of published articles and available websites focused on situational analysis.

Welcome to Part II of Situational Analysis in Practice, where we continue to introduce readers to Situational Analysis (SA). This valuable section of the book is composed of five new chapters, one written specifically for this volume, that collectively demonstrate the unique capacities of SA as an interpretive method.

Situational analysis (SA) is an extension of constructionist approaches to grounded theory (GT). Over the past half-century of GT in practice, major contributors have generated different emphases. 1 Glaserian GT sustains positivist functionalist traditions, while Straussian GT – always pragmatist and interactionist – also became increasingly constructionist. Kathy Charmaz (2000, 2006, 2009, 2014, 2017a) has most clearly developed the pragmatic interactionist line of GT through social constructivism, which has also become relentlessly critical and oriented toward social justice. It advances this project by 'locat[ing] the research process and product in historical, social and situational conditions', and 'excavating the structural contexts, power arrangements and collective ideologies' in the study focus (Charmaz, 2017a: 34–35). Justice and injustice are 'enacted processes' (Charmaz, 2005: 508). SA extends this critical interactionist approach to GT – rooted in coding – through additional analytical techniques that are rooted in mapping situations of inquiry.

Biomedicalization Revisited Adele E. Clarke,, Search for more papers by this authorMelanie Jeske,, Search for more papers by this authorLaura Mamo, and, Search for more papers by this authorJanet K. Shim, Search for more papers by this author Adele E. Clarke,, Search for more papers by this authorMelanie Jeske,, Search for more papers by this authorLaura Mamo, and, Search for more papers by this authorJanet K. Shim, Search for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):William C Cockerham, Search for more papers by this author First published: 05 February 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119633808.ch7 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology RelatedInformation

This contribution first describes early, largely progressive influences on STS and myself, sketching diverse groups concerned with sciences, technologies and especially medicines. I then turn to my own early activist concerns and their later scholarly and other manifestations, situating my feminist women's health activism and development as an early transdisciplinary STS scholar increasingly nourished transnationally. Last, I reflect on where I now stand, with feminist and other STS colleagues, and what we face at this point in the twenty-first century - some anguished yet hopeful intersections of history and autobiography.

In this interview, Adele Clarke and Isabel Fletcher discuss the different routes that led Clarke to science and technology studies (STS), the field’s increasing engagement with biomedical topics, and her perspectives on its character today. Clarke describes how women’s health activism and teaching feminist critiques of bioscience/biomedicine led her to participate in academic networks now known as feminist STS and trans-national reproduction studies. She reflects on the importance of inter-/trans-disciplinary collaboration in her work, but also raises concerns that the rapid expansion of the field has resulted in inadequate training for newcomers in the “theory-method packages” of STS, and hence poor quality scholarship. For her, the future of STS lies in approaches analyzing the complex intersections between technoscience, gender, race, (post)coloniality, and indigenous knowledges, and in its expansion beyond Europe and North America, to Asia, Central and South America, and Africa. In her following reflection, Isabel Fletcher considers the importance of inter/trans-disciplinarity for STS and highlights the role a politically engaged STS can play in imagining alternative and better worlds.

Introduction: Spreading proven or promising Aboriginal health programs and implementing them in new settings can make cost-effective contributions to a range of Aboriginal Australian development, health and wellbeing, and educational outcomes. Studies have theorized the implementation of Aboriginal health programs but have not focused explicitly on the conditions that influenced their spread. This study examined the broader political, institutional, social and economic conditions that influenced negotiations to transfer, implement, adapt, and sustain one Aboriginal empowerment program-the Family Wellbeing (FWB) program-to at least 60 geographical sites across Australia over 24 years. Materials and methods: A historical account of the spread of the FWB Program was constructed using situational analysis, a theory-methods package derived from a poststructural interpretation of grounded theory methods. Data were collected from published empirical articles, evaluation reports and project articles, and interviews with 18 key actors in the spread of FWB. Social worlds and arenas maps were used to determine the organizations and their representative agents who were involved in FWB spread and to analyze the enabling and constraining conditions. Results: The program was transferred through three interwoven social arenas: employment and community development; training and capacity development; and social and emotional wellbeing promotion and empowerment research. Program spread was fostered by three primary conditions: government policies and the availability and Aboriginal control of funding and support; Aboriginal leadership, associated informal networks and capability; and research evidence that built credibility for the program. Discussion and conclusion: The continued demand-driven transfer of empowerment programs requires policies that enable Aboriginal control of funding and Aboriginal leadership and networks. Flexible and sustained coordination of program delivery is best leveraged through regional innovation hubs that can work with partner organizations to tailor the program to local end-user needs. Associated research is also needed to evaluate, continually improve program quality, and build program credibility through evidence.

“Inter-capitalistic disputes, biomedicalization and hegemonic medical model”Comentarios sobre o texto de Iriart e Merhy: “Disputas inter-capitalistas, biomedicalizacao e modelo medico hegemonico”Comentarios sobre el texto de Iriart y Merhy: “Disputas inter-capitalistas, biomedicalizacion y modelo medico hegemonico”

the rise of Western scientific medicine fully established the medical sector of the U.S. political economy by the end of World War II, the first “social transformation of American medicine” (Starr 1982). Then, in an ongoing process called medicalization, the jurisdiction of medicine began expanding, redefining certain areas once deemed moral, social, or legal problems (such as alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity) as medical problems (e.g., Zola 1972). In this book, we argue that since around 1985, dramatic and especially technoscientific1 changes in the constitution, organization, and practices of contemporary biomedicine have coalesced into biomedicalization, the second major transformation of American medicine (Clarke et al. 2000, 2003). Biomedicalization continues today and is organized around five key interactive processes: