The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) makes babies and parents at once. Drawing on science and technology studies, feminist theory, and historical and ethnographic analyses of ART clinics, Charis Thompson explores the intertwining of biological with the personal, political, and technological meanings of reproduction. She analyzes the at ART clinics -- the dynamics by which technical, scientific, kinship, gender, emotional, legal, political, financial, and other matters are coordinated -- using ethnographic data to address questions usually treated in the abstract. Reproductive technologies, says Thompson, are part of the increasing tendency to turn social problems into questions and can be used as a lens through which to see the resulting changes in the relations between science and society. After giving an account of the book's disciplinary roots in science and technology studies and in feminist scholarship on reproduction, Thompson comes to the ethnographic heart of her study. She develops her concept of ontological choreography by examining ART's normalization of miraculous technology (including the etiquette of technological sex); gender identity in the assigned roles of mother and father and the conservative nature of gender relations in the clinic; the naturalization of technologically assisted kinship and procreative intent; and patients' pursuit of agency through objectification and technology. Finally, Thompson explores the economies of reproductive technologies, concluding with a speculative and polemical look at the biomedical mode of reproduction as a predictor of future relations between science and society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Gieryn, T. F. (1983) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095325 · Cited by 4,838
Anderson, K., & Davis, A. Y. (1982) · The Journal of American History · doi:10.2307/1903191 · Cited by 1,087
Cited by
(2006) · Cited by 2,256
Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality
Adams, V., Murphy, M., & Clarke, A. E. (2009) · Subjectivity · doi:10.1057/sub.2009.18 · Cited by 1,083
The experience of infertility: a review of recent literature
Greil, A. L., Slauson-Blevins, K., & McQuillan, J. (2010) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01213.x · Cited by 867
Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2158 · Cited by 709
Assemblage thinking and actor‐network theory: conjunctions, disjunctions, cross‐fertilisations
Müller, M., & Schurr, C. (2016) · Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers · doi:10.1111/tran.12117 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2006-04-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 43-4741-43-4741
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1525308417
- Cited by
- 1,359
- References
- 3
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.43-4741
- The paper
- Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. (2006). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-4741
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.