↓ Skip to main content

Holding blame at bay? ‘Gene talk’ in family members’ accounts of schizophrenia aetiology

Overview of attention for article published in BioSocieties, September 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Holding blame at bay? ‘Gene talk’ in family members’ accounts of schizophrenia aetiology
Published in
BioSocieties, September 2012
DOI 10.1057/biosoc.2012.12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicity Callard, Diana Rose, Emma-Louise Hanif, Jody Quigley, Kathryn Greenwood, Til Wykes

Abstract

We provide the first detailed analysis of how, for what purposes and with what consequences people related to someone with a diagnosis of schizophrenia use 'gene talk'. The article analyses findings from a qualitative interview study conducted in London and involving 19 participants (mostly women). We transcribed the interviews verbatim and analysed them using grounded theory methods. We analyse how and for what purposes participants mobilized 'gene talk' in their affectively freighted encounter with an unknown interviewer. Gene talk served to (re)position blame and guilt, and was simultaneously used imaginatively to forge family history narratives. Family members used 'gene talk' to recruit forebears with no psychiatric diagnosis into a family history of mental illness, and presented the origins of the diagnosed family member's schizophrenia as lying temporally before, and hence beyond the agency of the immediate family. Gene talk was also used in attempts to dislodge the distressing figure of the schizophrenia-inducing mother. 'Gene talk', however, ultimately displaced, rather than resolved, the (self-)blame of many family members, particularly mothers. Our article challenges the commonly expressed view that genetic accounts will absolve family members' sense of (self-)blame in relation to their relative's/relatives' diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Rwanda 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 34%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Philosophy 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,312,271
of 24,727,020 outputs
Outputs from BioSocieties
#98
of 415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,708
of 175,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioSocieties
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,727,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 175,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.