skip to main content
research-article

reVITALize gynecology: reimagining apparent feminism's methodology in participatory health intervention projects

Published:17 September 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

As state and federal legislation continues to regulate women's reproductive health, it follows that the field of technical communication must continue to develop methodologies to facilitate stakeholder participation in health policymaking practices. Scott's (2003) scholarship on HIV testing and his "ethic of responsiveness" serve as a foundation for methods to broaden stakeholder participation. Yet, as current legislation attempts to regulate health decisions of female bodies, more explicit feminist methods inviting feminist perspectives to resist such anti-feminist legislation must be developed. Frost's (2013, 2014a, 2014b) apparent feminism serves as a useful methodology that builds upon Scott's methods to enact feminist interventional methods. This article provides a case study of the reVITALize Gynecology infertility initiative, a health intervention project that appears to function as an ally of apparent feminism. Applying an apparent feminist analysis to the initiative reveals limitations of the project's feminist commitments. To address the limitations of the initiative, the article articulates the need to expand apparent feminism's methodology by accounting for stakeholder participation throughout health intervention projects. This article posits that expanding feminist approaches to designing public stakeholder input is vital to upholding technical communication's commitment to advocacy and an ethical feminist commitment to facilitating spaces for all citizens to contribute as public intellectuals.

References

  1. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). www.acog.org. Retrieved April 14, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Balsamo, A. (1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham: Duke University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bordo, S. (2003). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Britt, E. (2000). Medical Insurance as Bio-Power: Law and the Normalization of (In)Fertility. In M. Lay, L. Gurak, C. Gravon, & C. Myntti (Eds.) Body talk: Rhetoric, technology, reproduction(pp. 207--225). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis-Floyd, R., & Dumit, J. (1998). Cyborg babies: From techno-sex to techno-tots. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. De Hertogh, L. B. (2015). Reinscribing a New Normal: Pregnancy, Disability, and Health 2.0 in the Online Natural Birthing Community, Birth Without Fear. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, (7).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubriwny, T. (2012). The vulnerable empowered woman: Feminism, postfeminism, and women's health. Rutgers University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1978) The history of sexuality: Volume 1. New York: Vintage Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Frost, E. (2013). Theorizing an apparent feminism in technical communication. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Order No. 3574642).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Frost, E. (2014a). Apparent Feminist Pedagogies: Interrogating Technical Rhetorics at Illinois State University. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1), 110--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Frost, E. (2014b). An Apparent Feminist Approach to Transnational Technical Rhetorics: The Ongoing Work of Nujood Ali. Peitho, 16(2), 183--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabill, J. & Simmons, W. (1998). Toward a critical rhetoric of risk communication: Producing citizens and the role of technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 415--441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gregory, R. (2012). A womb with a view: Identifying the Culturally Iconic Fetal Image in Prenatal Ultrasound Provisions. Present Tense, 2(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurunath, S., Pandian, Z., Anderson, R. A., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Defining infertility---a systematic review of prevalence studies. Human Reproduction Update, 17(5), 575--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Harraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Keränen, L. (2014). Public engagements with health and medicine. Journal of Medical Humanities, 35(2), 103--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Koerber, A. (2006). Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 87--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Koerber, A. (2013). Breast or Bottle?: Contemporary Controversies in Infant-Feeding Policy and Practice. University of South Carolina Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreps, G. L., & Neuhauser, L. (2010). New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient education and counseling, 78(3), 329--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lay, M. (2000). The Rhetoric of Midwifery: Gender, Knowledge, and Power. New Brunswick, N. J: Rutgers University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lay, M., Gurak, L., Gravon, C., & Myntti, C. (2000). Body talk: Rhetoric, technology, reproduction. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lay, M. (2002). Feminist Criticism & Technical Communication Research. In L. Gurak & M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 165--182). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, E. (2001). The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Beacon Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Murphy, M. (2012). Seizing the means of reproduction. Durham: Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Owens, K. H. (2009). Confronting Rhetorical Disability A Critical Analysis of Women's Birth Plans. Written Communication, 26(3), 247--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Owens, K. H. (2015). Writing childbirth: Women's rhetorical agency in labor and online. Southern Illinois University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Royster, J. & Kirsch, G. (2012) Feminist rhetorical practices: New horizons for rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies. Southern Illinois University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott, J. B. (2003). Risky rhetoric: AIDS and the cultural practices of HIV testing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Seigel, M. (2013). The rhetoric of pregnancy. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Teston, C., Graham, S., Baldwinson, R., Li, A., & Swift, J. (2014). Public voices in pharmaceutical deliberations: Negotiating "clinical benefit" in the FDA's Avastin Hearing. Journal of Medical Humanities, 35(2), 149--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Walters, S. (2005). Review of the book Risky Rhetoric: AIDS and the Cultural Practices of HIV Testing. JAC, 25(4), 845--849.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wells, S. (2010). Our bodies, ourselves and the work of writing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. reVITALize gynecology: reimagining apparent feminism's methodology in participatory health intervention projects

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Communication Design Quarterly
      Communication Design Quarterly  Volume 3, Issue 4
      August 2015
      90 pages
      EISSN:2166-1642
      DOI:10.1145/2826972
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2015 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 September 2015

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader