BioSocieties

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 129–152 | Cite as

Practising childbirth activism: A politics of evidence

  • Madeleine Akrich
  • Máire Leane
  • Celia Roberts
  • João Arriscado Nunes
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The literature on childbirth organisations focuses on their critique of medical definitions of birth practices, their efforts to promote ‘natural’ or ’normal’ birth, their espousal of choice rhetoric and their relationship to feminism. It says little, however, about the practices these organisations use to achieve their aims. Our study of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal and France explores the centrality of knowledge-based activities to childbirth activism. Through these activities, we show, organisations (i) elicit the emergence of a concerned public through constituting evidence about women’s experiences of childbirth and obstetric practices; (ii) produce evidence about obstetric practices from women’s perspectives; (iii) articulate this vision of obstetric practices with a critical appraisal of scientific literature; and (iv) make visible international networks of actors who share similar concerns and conceptions. Drawing upon our empirical data we propose the notion of evidence-based activism in order to capture the specificity of birth organisations’ modes of engagement and to describe what they bring about. Through evidence-based activism childbirth organisations get involved in policy making and become recognised as legitimate stakeholders; reframe the issues at stake; open debate with other stakeholders; and bring about changes in the health system. Knowledge-based activities also shape the missions and objectives of the organisations.

Keywords

childbirth activist groups France UK Ireland Portugal 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a European research project called EPOKS (European Patients’ Organizations in Knowledge Society), supported by the European Commission FP7. We warmly thank all the organisations that participated in our research, and especially those members who agreed to be interviewed and let us participate as observers in different meetings. Etaoine Howlett, postdoctoral researcher at University College Cork, conducted interviews and undertook a range of research tasks relating to the Irish element of the study. The UK case study was undertaken by Imogen Tyler, Celia Roberts and Candice Satchwell. Interviews cited here were conducted by Candice Satchwell. We also thank the anonymous reviewers who helped us to significantly strengthen our argument.

References

  1. AIMS Ireland (2007) Members eNewsletter 2(2).Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, M. (2010) From communities of practice to epistemic communities: Health mobilizations on the internet. Sociological Research Online 15 (2): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/2/10.html.
  3. Akrich, M. and Pasveer, B. (2004) Embodiment and disembodiment in childbirth narratives. Body & Society. Special Issue on Bodies on Trial 10 (June 2004): 63–84.Google Scholar
  4. Allsop, J., Jones, K. and Baggott, R. (2004) Health consumer groups in the UK: A new social movement? Sociology of Health and Illness 26 (6): 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anglin, M. (1997) Working from the inside out: Implications of breast cancer activism for biomedical policies and practices. Social Science & Medicine 44 (9): 1403–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong, E.M. and Declercq, E. (2011) Is it time to push yet? The challenges to advocacy in US childbirth. In: B. Hoffman, N. Tomes, R. Grob and M. Schlesinger (eds.) Patients as Policy Actors. London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 60–82.Google Scholar
  7. Baggott, R., Allsop, J. and Jones, K. (2005) Speaking for Patients and Carers. Health Consumer Groups and the Policy Process. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Barbot, J. (2006) How to build and ‘active’ patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Social Science & Medicine 62 (3): 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckett, K. (2005) Choosing cesarean: Feminism and the politics of childbirth in the United States. Feminist Theory 6 (3): 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beckett, K. and Hoffman, B. (2005) Challenging medicine: Law, resistance, and the cultural politics of childbirth. Law & Society Review 39 (1): 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beech, B.L. (1997) Normal birth: Does it exist? AIMS Journal 9 (2): 4–8.Google Scholar
  12. Beech, B.L. (2008) Making normal birth a reality. AIMS Journal 20 (4): 19–23.Google Scholar
  13. Beech, B.L. (2011) Challenging the medicalisation of birth. AIMS Journal 23 (2): 4–10.Google Scholar
  14. Bel, B. (2004) Protocoles obstétricaux et données probantes des études scientifiques: une panacée? Journées annuelles de santé publique. Conférence annuelle de l’Association pour la santé publique du Québec, Montréal, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Belghiti, J., Kayem, G., Dupont, C., Rudigoz, R.-C., Bouvier-Colle, M.-H. and Deneux-Tharaux, C. (2011) Oxytocin during labour and risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage: A population–based, cohort nested case–control study. BMJ Open 1: e000514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: The birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 343, bmj.d7400.Google Scholar
  17. Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006) On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, P., Zavestoski, S., McCormick, S., Mayer, B., Morello-Frosch, R. and Altman, R.G. (2004) Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness 26 (1): 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buechler, S.M. (1995) New social movement theories. Sociological Quarterly 36 (3): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Callon, M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: J. Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–223.Google Scholar
  21. Crossley, M.L. (2007) Childbirth, complications and the illusion of ‘choice’: A case study. Feminism Psychology 17 (4): 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darra, S. (2009) ‘Normal’, ‘natural’, ‘good’ or ‘good-enough’ birth: Examining the concepts. Nursing Inquiry 16 (4): 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dick-Read, G. (1956) The Natural Childbirth Primer. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Dodwell, M. and Newburn, M. (2010) Normal Birth as a Measure of the Quality of Care: Evidence on Safety, Effectiveness and Women’s Experiences. London: Natural Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
  25. Donovan, S. (2006) Inescapable burden of choice? The impact of a culture of prenatal screening on women’s experiences of pregnancy. Health Sociology Review 15 (4): 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Downe, S. (2004) Normal Childbirth: Evidence and Debate. London: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  27. Downe, S., McCormick, C. and Beech, B.L. (2001) Labour interventions associated with normal birth. British Journal of Midwifery 9 (10): 602–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. EPOKS partners (2009) European patient organizations in knowledge society. Project n° SIS-CT-2009-230307, European Commission, 7th Framework program.Google Scholar
  29. Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Epstein, S. (2008) Patient groups and health movements. In: E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn. Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 499–538.Google Scholar
  31. Epstein, S. (2011) Measuring success: Scientific, institutional, and cultural effects of patient advocacy. In: B. Hoffman, N. Tomes, R. Grob and M. Schlesinger (eds.) Patients as Policy Actors. London: Rutgers University Press, pp. 257–277.Google Scholar
  32. Gillis, S. and Munford, R. (2004) Genealogies and generations: The politics and praxis of third wave feminism. Women’s History Review 13 (2): 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goer, H. (2003) ‘Spin Doctoring’ the research. Birth 30 (2): 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goer, H. (2004) Humanizing birth: A global grassroots movement. Birth 31 (4): 308–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Graham, I.D. (1998) Processes of change in obstetrics: A cross-national case-study of episiotomy. Health 2 (4): 403–433.Google Scholar
  36. Gyte, G., Dodwell, M.J. and Macfarlane, A.J. (2011) Home birth metaanalysis: Does it meet AJOG’s reporting requirements? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 204 (4): e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gyte, G., Newburn, M. and Macfarlane, A. (2010) Critique of a meta-analysis by Wax and colleagues which has claimed that there is a three-times greater risk of neonatal death among babies without congenital anomalies planned to be born at home. 7 July 2010, http://www.scribd.com/doc/34065092/Critique-of-a-meta-analysis-by-Wax, accessed 30 March 2012.
  38. Halfon, S. (2010) Encountering birth: Negotiating expertise, networks, and my STS self. Science as Culture 19 (1): 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hausman, B.L. (2005) Risky business: Framing childbirth in hospital settings. Journal of Medical Humanities 6 (1): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hensley Owens, K. (2009) Confronting rhetorical disability: A critical analysis of women’s birth plans. Written Communication 26 (3): 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Homer, C. and Broom, A. (2012) Evidence-based paradigms and contemporary midwifery. In: A. Broom and J. Adams (eds.) Evidence-based Healthcare in Context: Critical Social Science Perspectives. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
  42. Hunter, B. (2007) The All Wales Clinical Pathway for Normal Labour: What Are the Experiences of Midwives, Doctors, Managers and Mothers? Swansea: School of Health Science, Swansea University. Final project report.Google Scholar
  43. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johanson, R. and Newburn, M. (2001) Promoting normality in childbirth. British Medical Journal 323 (7322): 1142–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johanson, R., Newburn, M. and Macfarlane, A. (2002) Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? British Medical Journal 324 (7342): 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kitzinger, S. (1975) Some Mothers’ Experiences of Induced Labour. London: National Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
  47. Kitzinger, S. (1987) Some Women’s Experiences of Epidurals: A Descriptive Study. London: Natural Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
  48. Kitzinger, S. and Walters, R. (1981) Some Women’s Experiences of Episiotomy. London: Natural Childbirth Trust.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. (2005) From realpolitik to dingpolitik or how to make things public. In: B. Latour and P. Weibel (eds.) Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy. Karlsruhe, Cambridge (MA): ZKM, MIT Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
  50. Latour, B. (2008) What Is the Style of Matters of Concern? Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy. Spinoza Lectures at the University of Amsterdam, April and May 2005. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  51. Loup, C. (2005) Accouchement à domicile, note préparée pour le groupe de travail de la HAS sur les grossesses physiologiques.Google Scholar
  52. Luna, Z. (2009) From rights to justice: Women of color changing the face of US reproductive rights organizing. Societies without Borders 4 (3): 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maternity Care Working Party (2007) Making normal birth a reality: Consensus statement from the Maternity Care Working Party. London: NCT/ RCM/ RCOG.Google Scholar
  54. Murphy-Lawless, J. (1998) Reading Birth and Death. A History of Obstetric Thinking. Bloomington & Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  55. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2007) Intrapartum Care: Management and Delivery of Care to Women in Labour. London: RCOG Press.Google Scholar
  56. NCT (2011) NCT Policy Briefing: Midwife-led Units, Community Maternity Units and Birth Centres. November London: NCT.Google Scholar
  57. Newburn, M. (2012) The best of both worlds: Patients’ motivation for using an alongside birth centre from an ethnographic study. Midwifery 28 (1): 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Newburn, M. and Singh, D. (2003) Creating a Better Birth Environment: Women’s Views About the Design and Facilities in Maternity Units: A National Survey. An Audit Toolkit. London: NCT.Google Scholar
  59. Phan, E. (2010) La remise en cause de pratiques médicales professionnelles de la part des usagers de la périnatalité. Quelle légitimité? Revue de médecine périnatale 2 (1): 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pichardo, N.A. (1997) New social movements: A critical review. Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1): 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rabeharisoa, V. and Callon, M. (2002) The involvements of patients’ associations in research. International Social Science Journal 54 (171): 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rabeharisoa, V. (2003) The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the ‘partnership model’ of patient organisation. Social Science & Medicine 57 (11): 2127–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reiger, K. (1999) Birthing in the postmodern moment: Struggles over defining maternity care needs. Australian Feminist Studies 14 (30): 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reiger, K. (2000) Reconceiving citizenship: The challenge of mothers as political activists. Feminist Theory 1 (3): 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reiger, K. and Dempsey, R. (2006) Performing birth in a culture of fear: An embodied crisis of late modernity. Heath Sociology Review 15 (4): 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Samerski, S. (2009) Genetic counselling and the fiction of choice: Taught self-determination as a new technique of social engineering. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34 (4): 735–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sanderson, I. (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration 80 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shaw, R. (2007) It’s your body, your baby, your birth’: Planning and achieving a home birth. Feminism Psychology 17 (4): 565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thoma, P. (2009) Buying up baby. Feminist Media Studies 9 (4): 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson, C. (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge MA, and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Tong, R. (2007) Feminist through in transition: Never a dull moment. The Social Science Journal 44 (1): 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trickey, H. and Newburn, M. (2014) Goals, dilemmas and assumptions in infant feeding education and support. Applying theory of constraints thinking tools to develop new priorities for action. Maternal and Child Nutrition 10 (1): 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tyler, S. (2002) Comparing the campaigning profile of maternity user groups in Europe – Can we learn anything useful? Health Expectations 5 (2): 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wagner, M. (1994) Pursuing the Birth Machine: The Search for Appropriate Birth Technology. New South Wales, Australia: Ace Graphics.Google Scholar
  75. Wax, J.R., Lucas, F.L., Lamont, M., Pinette, M.G., Cartin, A. and Blackstone, J. (2010) Maternal and newborn outcomes in planned home birth vs planned hospital births: A metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 203 (243): e1–8.Google Scholar
  76. Weiner, L.Y. (1994) Reconstructing motherhood: The La Leche League in postwar America. The Journal of American History 80 (4): 1357–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williamson, C. (2008) The patient movement as an emancipation movement. Health Expectations 11 (2): 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. World Health Organisation (1996) Safe Motherhood. Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  79. World Health Organisation (1997) Care in Normal Birth: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  80. Zwelling, E. (2002) Activist for change: An interview with Suzanne Arms. Journal of Perinatal Education 11 (4): 11–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine Akrich
    • 1
  • Máire Leane
    • 2
  • Celia Roberts
    • 3
  • João Arriscado Nunes
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre de sociologie de l’innovation, Mines-ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.School of Applied Social Studies, University College CorkCorkUK
  3. 3.Department of SociologyLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  4. 4.Centre for Social Studies, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations