↓ Skip to main content

Disease, Communication, and the Ethics of (In) Visibility

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Disease, Communication, and the Ethics of (In) Visibility
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11673-014-9588-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Monika Pietrzak-Franger, Martha Stoddard Holmes

Abstract

As the recent Ebola outbreak demonstrates, visibility is central to the shaping of political, medical, and socioeconomic decisions. The symposium in this issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry explores the uneasy relationship between the necessity of making diseases visible, the mechanisms of legal and visual censorship, and the overall ethics of viewing and spectatorship, including the effects of media visibility on the perception of particular "marked" bodies. Scholarship across the disciplines of communication, anthropology, gender studies, and visual studies, as well as a photographer's visual essay and memorial reflection, throw light on various strategies of visualization and (de)legitimation and link these to broader socioeconomic concerns. Questions of the ethics of spectatorship, such as how to evoke empathy in the representation of individuals' suffering without perpetuating social and economic inequalities, are explored in individual, (trans-)national, and global contexts, demonstrating how disease (in)visibility intersects with a complex nexus of health, sexuality, and global/national politics. A sensible management of visibility-an "ecology of the visible"-can be productive of more viable ways of individual and collective engagement with those who suffer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 19%
Social Sciences 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,506,195
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#110
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,375
of 260,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.