Search results

Although research on reproductive technologies such as IVF and egg freezing has traditionally been rather separated from the work on contraceptives and abortion, analysing reproductive and nonreproductive technologies together, as this volume proposes, can provide the basis for a broader contemporary politics of reproductive control. This chapter analyses this politics of integrating reproductive and nonreproductive technologies by focusing specifically on IVF-based fertility (preservation) treatments and (medical) abortion. More specifically, it explores both technologies' interrelated research trajectories and the financial and platformised dimensions of their clinical implementation. With a dual focus on egg freezing and medical abortion, this project seeks to explore how processes of platformisation and financialisation shape the clinical and commercial infrastructures that govern twenty-first-century reproduction. The chapter's broadened analytic scope that incorporates both reproductive and nonreproductive technologies highlights how a contemporary biopolitics of reproductive control may be expressed through these technologies' interrelated regulatory practices, shared politicised reference points (e.g. the embryo), opposite investment practices and mutually reinforcing social effects.

The technological innovations in the field of human reproduction which have been advancing at a dizzying pace, especially in Israel, have posed complex ethical dilemmas for social workers and social scientists. Do these developments, particularly in vitro fertilisation, offer a feasible solution for infertile couples or are they at the same time creating difficult, intricate problems whose outcome has yet to be clarified? Is it not paradoxical that attempts to “assist” nature by artificial means have led to such results as the birth of a child to a 60‐year‐old woman from eggs donated by another woman?

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) defines the act of travelling abroad to undergo reproductive medical treatments, including assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatments as cross-border reproductive care. The experiences of patients seeking affordable reproductive care abroad have been widely studied in the last decades (Bergman, 2011a, 2011b; Blyth, 2010; Bracewell-Milnes et al., 2016; Culley et al., 2011; Guerzoni, 2017; Hudson, 2017, 2020; Hudson & Culley, 2011; Kroløkke, 2014a, 2014b; Rodino, Goedeke, & Nowoweiski, 2014; Salama et al., 2018; Shenfield et al., 2010; Van Hoof, Pennings, & De Sutter, 2016; Whittaker, Inhorn, & Shenfield, 2019; Zanini, 2011). However, French women and couples pursuing ART treatments abroad have received little scholarly attention until now. In this chapter, we aim to address this gap in the literature with the results from an ethnographic study conducted with French women and couples who seek ART treatments in Barcelona (Spain) using data from participant observation and in-depth interviews. We begin by discussing the European reproscape, introducing French and Spanish ART legislation, to explain why a large number of citizens are excluded from the French system of reproductive governance and why they choose Spain as their destination. Then, we will discuss the obstacles faced during the reproductive journey, and the impacts of this journey on the embodiment of the treatments are explored, in order to show how French women and couples handle the physical, emotional and cultural displacements that their reproductive project entails.

This study aims to compare similarities and differences in library and information science (LIS) and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions and perceptions of smart libraries via drawing analysis.

In this study, a total of 156 undergraduate students described their perceptions of smart libraries as drawings and textual descriptions. A modified coding scheme with 8 categories and 51 subcategories was used to analyse the undergraduate students’ drawings.

Most of the undergraduate students’ conceptions of smart libraries still involve self-checkout and learning/reading, focusing on information appliances, technical services, activities and objects. The differences are that the LIS undergraduates’ drawings showed smart libraries with robots, interactive book borrowing with technology tools, intelligent services, location-aware services or mobile applications, whereas non-LIS undergraduates presented smart libraries as readers (learners), other activities and no smart technology services. LIS undergraduates focused on providing patron services with technologies. Non-LIS undergraduates were more likely to draw a complex space with immediate access to books or digital resources, quiet reading and the freedom to engage in library activities.

The results provide a baseline for future research on the topic and provide preliminary evidence of using the methods to discern LIS and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions of smart libraries.