Advertisement

Evidence-Based Medicine: Contesting the Phaco-Regime

Chapter

Abstract

The challengers disrupted the existing regime’s rules, policies, and technological trajectories in a process of contestation. The contestation flow of science and technology involves social conflict. Community ophthalmologists created new operating theater management practices and aseptic techniques in a process of challenging knowledge hierarchies. Clinical ophthalmologists fiercely and acrimoniously objected to these new practices and techniques. Contestation involves challenging the incumbent regime’s: research agenda; and science, technology, and management practices. Interlocking innovations provide a strong base from which the challengers can launch repeated attempts to contest the existing regime. This repeated contestation factures the old regime into an incumbent regime and new regime.

Keywords

Community Ophthalmology Innovation Engagement Sical Regime Ophthalmic Assistants Aurolab 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adams, Vincanne. 1998. Doctors for Democracy: Health Professionals in the Nepal Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aravind E-News. 2013. “Aravind News.” Aravind E-News, December. http://www.aravind.org/default/aravindnewscontent/NI00000133.
  3. Coleman, Kate. 2011. “Proof of Sustainable Eye Care Systems in Africa, the Only Way to V2020.” Unite for Sight 2011 Global Health & Innovation Conference, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Retrieved January 17, 2013. http://www.uniteforsight.org/conference/speaker-schedule-2011.
  4. Collins, Randall. 2012. “C-Escalation and D-Escalation: A Theory of the Time-Dynamics of Conflict.” American Sociological Review 77 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, Randall, and Sal Restivo. 1983. “Robber Barons and Politicians in Mathematics: A Conflict Model of Science.” Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie 8: 199–227.Google Scholar
  6. de Laet, Marianne. 2002. “Introduction: Knowledge and Technology Transfer or the Travel of Thoughts and Things.” In Research in Science and Technology Studies: Knowledge and Technology Transfer, Vol. 13, Knowledge and Society, edited by Marianne de Laet, 1–9. New York: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Delborne, Jason A. 2008. “Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice.” Social Studies of Science 38 (4): 509–41.Google Scholar
  8. Dotson, Kristie. 2014. “Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression.” Social Epistemology 28 (2): 115–38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585.
  9. Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels, Cees Leeuwis, and Barbara van Mierlo. 2011. “Normative Contestation in Transitions ‘in the Making’: Animal Welfare Concerns and System Innovation in Pig Husbandry.” Research Policy 40 (2): 263–75.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, Steven. 1995. “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials.” Science, Technology & Human Values 20 (4): 408–37.Google Scholar
  11. Fanon, Frantz. 2004 [1961]. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore, eds. 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Geels, Frank W. 2010. “Ontologies, Socio-Technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the Multi-level Perspective.” Research Policy, Special Section on Innovation and Sustainability Transitions, 39 (4): 495–510.Google Scholar
  14. Gogate, Parikshit, and Anil Kulkarni. 2011. “Pearls and Pitfalls of High Quality High Volume Cataract Surgery.” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 59 (5): 414.Google Scholar
  15. Grameen Trust. 2003. Notes from Grameen Dialogues. Dhaka: Grameen Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Griffith, Belver C., and Nicholas C. Mullins. 1972. “Coherent Social Groups in Scientific Change.” Science 177 (4053): 959–64.Google Scholar
  17. Grosfoguel, Ramón, and Ana Margarita Cervantes-Rodríguez, eds. 2002. The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World-System in the Twentieth Century: Global Processes, Antisystemic Movements, and the Geopolitics of Knowledge. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hård, Mikael. 1993. “Beyond Harmony and Consensus: A Social Conflict Approach to Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 18 (4): 408–32.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, Sandra. 1992. “After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and ‘Strong Objectivity.’” Social Research 59 (3): 567–87.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2009. “Postcolonial and Feminist Philosophies of Science and Technology: Convergences and Dissonances.” Postcolonial Studies 12 (4): 401–21.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2015. Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Healy, S. 2003. “Epistemological Pluralism and the ‘Politics of Choice.’” Futures 35 (7): 689–701.Google Scholar
  23. Hess, David J. 2005. “Technology- and Product-Oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movement Studies and Science and Technology Studies.” Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (4): 515.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2016. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hess, David J., Sulfikar Amir, Scott Frickel, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Kelly Moore, and Logan D. A. Williams. 2016. “11. Structural Inequality and the Politics of Science and Technology.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 4th ed., 319–47. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Houck, Kristine. 2009. “Physician Works to Improve Several Educational Programs in Ophthalmology.” Ocular Surgery News India Edition, March 2009. https://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/news/print/ocular-surgery-news-india-edition/%7B0d87d543-3673-40b6-a330-12636ec08a74%7D/physician-works-to-improve-several-educational-programs-in-ophthalmology.
  27. Hwang, K. 2008. “International Collaboration in Multilayered Center-Periphery in the Globalization of Science and Technology.” Science Technology & Human Values 33 (1): 101–33.Google Scholar
  28. Jasper, James M. 1988. “The Political Life Cycle of Technological Controversies.” Social Forces 67 (2): 357–77.Google Scholar
  29. Khanna, Rohit C., and Chandrasekhar Garudadri. 2010. “Incidence of Post-cataract Endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital.” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 58 (6): 562.Google Scholar
  30. Ku, Janice J. Y., Michael C. Wei, Shahriar Amjadi, Jessica M. Montfort, Ravjit Singh, and Ian C. Francis. 2012. “Role of Adequate Wound Closure in Preventing Acute Postoperative Bacterial Endophthalmitis.” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 38 (7): 1301–1302.Google Scholar
  31. Larkin, Howard. 2010. “What Can Be Learned from the Developing World?” European Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery EUROTIMES 15 (10): 4–6.Google Scholar
  32. Lawhon, Mary, and James T. Murphy. 2012. “Socio-Technical Regimes and Sustainability Transitions: Insights from Political Ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (3): 354–78.Google Scholar
  33. Lenski, Gerhard E. 1954. “Status Crystallization: A Non-vertical Dimension of Social Status.” American Sociological Review 19 (4): 405–13.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1956. “Social Participation and Status Crystallization.” American Sociological Review 21 (4): 458.Google Scholar
  35. Mazur, Allan. 1975. “Opposition to Technological Innovation.” Minerva 13 (1): 58–81.Google Scholar
  36. Mehta, Pavithra K., and Suchitra Shenoy. 2011. Infinite Vision: How Aravind Became the World’s Greatest Business Case for Compassion. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Mendelsohn, Everett. 1987. “The Political Anatomy of Controversy in the Sciences.” In Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by Hugo Tristram Engelhardt and Arthur L. Caplan, 93–124. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Merton, Robert K. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1988. “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property.” Isis 79 (4): 606–23.Google Scholar
  40. Mullins, Nicholas C. 1975. “New Causal Theory: An Elite Specialty in Social Science.” History of Political Economy 7 (4): 499–529.Google Scholar
  41. Nelkin, Dorothy, ed. 1992. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Nieusma, Dean. 2007. “Challenging Knowledge Hierarchies: Working Toward Sustainable Development in Sri Lanka’s Energy Sector.” Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 3: 32–44.Google Scholar
  43. Nye, David E. 2013. America’s Assembly Line. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pershing, S., and A. Kumar. 2011. “Phacoemulsification Versus Extracapsular Cataract Extraction: Where Do We Stand?” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 22 (1): 37–42.Google Scholar
  45. Pigg, Stacy L. 1992. “Inventing Social Categories Through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34: 491–513. Google Scholar
  46. Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas Parke Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 159–87. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Prentice, Rachel. 2018. “How Surgery Became a Global Public Health Issue.” Technology in Society, Technology and the Good Society 52 (February): 17–23.Google Scholar
  48. Quark, Amy A. 2012. “Scientized Politics and Global Governance in the Cotton Trade: Evaluating Divergent Theories of Scientization.” Review of International Political Economy 19 (5): 895–917.Google Scholar
  49. Rangan, V. Kasturi 2004. “Lofty Missions, Down-to-Earth Plans.” Harvard Business Review 82 (3): 112–19.Google Scholar
  50. Ravindran, Ravilla D., Rengaraj Venkatesh, David Chang, and Sabyasachi Sengupta. 2011. “Reply to ‘Reducing Endophthalmitis in India: An Example of the Importance of Critical Appraisal’.” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 59 (5): 412–14.Google Scholar
  51. Ravindran, Ravilla D., Rengaraj Venkatesh, David F. Chang, Sabyasachi Sengupta, Jamyang Gyatsho, and Badrinath Talwar. 2009. “Incidence of Post-cataract Endophthalmitis at Aravind Eye Hospital: Outcomes of More Than 42,000 Consecutive Cases Using Standardized Sterilization and Prophylaxis Protocols.” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 35 (4): 629–36.Google Scholar
  52. Riaz, Yasmin, Samantha R. de Silva, and Jennifer R. Evans. 2013. “Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery (MSICS) with Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens Versus Phacoemulsification with Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens for Age-Related Cataract.” Edited by The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 10 (October).Google Scholar
  53. Roy, Ananya. 2010. Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Ruit, Sanduk, Geoffrey Tabin, David Chang, Leena Bajracharya, Daniel C. Kline, William Richheimer, Mohan Shrestha, and Govinda Paudyal. 2007. “A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Phacoemulsification vs Manual Sutureless Small-Incision Extracapsular Cataract Surgery in Nepal.” American Journal of Ophthalmology 143 (1): 32–38. e2.Google Scholar
  55. Sackett, David L., William M. C. Rosenberg, J. A. Muir Gray, R. Brian Haynes, and W. Scott Richardson. 1996. “Evidence Based Medicine: What It Is and What It Isn’t.” BMJ 312 (7023): 71–72.Google Scholar
  56. Samsky, Ari. 2012. “Scientific Sovereignty: How International Drug Donation Programs Reshape Health, Disease, and the State.” Cultural Anthropology 27 (2): 310–32.Google Scholar
  57. Schumacher, Ernst F. 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.Google Scholar
  58. Solomon, Miriam. 2015. Making Medical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Thiel, Cassandra L., Emily Schehlein, Thulasiraj Ravilla, R. D. Ravindran, Alan L. Robin, Osamah J. Saeedi, Joel S. Schuman, and Rengaraj Venkatesh. 2017. “Cataract Surgery and Environmental Sustainability: Waste and Lifecycle Assessment of Phacoemulsification at a Private Healthcare Facility.” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 43 (11): 1391–98.Google Scholar
  60. Thomas, Ravi. 2009. “Role of Small Incision Cataract Surgery in the Indian Scenario.” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 57 (1): 1.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2010. “Reducing Endophthalmitis in India: An Example of the Importance of Critical Appraisal.” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 58 (6): 560–62.Google Scholar
  62. Timmermans, Stefan, and Marc Berg. 2003. The Gold Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-Based Medicine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Trivedy, Jyotee. 2011. “Outcomes of High Volume Cataract Surgeries at a Lions SightFirst Eye Hospital in Kenya.” Nepalese Journal of Ophthalmology: A Biannual Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal of the Nepal Ophthalmic Society: NEPJOPH 3 (5): 31–38.Google Scholar
  64. Venkatesh, Rengaraj, Colin S. H. Tan, Sabyasachi Sengupta, Ravilla D. Ravindran, Krishnan T. Krishnan, and David F. Chang. 2010. “Phacoemulsification Versus Manual Small-Incision Cataract Surgery for White Cataract.” Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 36 (11): 1849–54.Google Scholar
  65. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16: 387–415.Google Scholar
  66. West, Emily S., Ashley Behrens, Peter J. McDonnell, James M. Tielsch, and Oliver D. Schein. 2005. “The Incidence of Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Among the U.S. Medicare Population Increased Between 1994 and 2001.” Ophthalmology 112 (8): 1388–94.Google Scholar
  67. Williams, Logan D. A. 2012, June 21. Participant Observation Fieldnotes. Lunch. Inspiration Hostel. Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai, India.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2012, June 27. Participant Observation Fieldnotes. Community Ophthalmology NGOs and Transnational Circulation of Innovation Produced in LEDCs. Lions Aravind Institute of Community Ophthalmology, Madurai.Google Scholar
  69. ———. 2012, July 16. Direct Observation Fieldnotes. Cataract Operating theater. Aravind Eye Hospital—“Free Hospital”, Madurai.Google Scholar
  70. ———. 2017. “Getting Undone Technology Done: Global Techno-Assemblage and the Value Chain of Invention.” Science, Technology and Society 22 (1): 38–58.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 2018. “Mapping Superpositionality in Global Ethnography.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43 (2): 198–223.Google Scholar
  72. Wynne, Brian. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Logan Williams Consultancy Services, LLCCumberlandUSA

Personalised recommendations