The sacred and the profane in life science work: The case of assisted reproduction laboratories

References

• Almeling, Rene. 2007. “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material.” American Sociological Review 72 (3): 319–340. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anteby, Michel. 2008. Moral Gray Zones: Side Productions, Identity, and Regulation in an Aeronautic Plant. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Best, Jacqueline. 2012. “Bureaucratic Ambiguity.” Economy and Society 41 (1): 84–106. doi: 10.1080/03085147.2011.637333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, Brian P. 1991. “The Role of Information Systems in the UK National Health Service: Action at a Distance and the Fetish of Calculation.” Social Studies of Science 21 (4): 701–734. doi: 10.1177/030631291021004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caillois, Roger 2001. Man and the Sacred. Translated by M. Barash. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cussins, Charis. 1996. “Ontological Choreography: Agency Through Objectification in Infertility Clinics.” Social Studies of Science 26 (3): 575–610. doi: 10.1177/030631296026003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cussins, Charis. 1998. “Reproducing Reproduction: Techniques of Normalization and Naturalization in Infertility Clinics.” In Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power, and Technological Innovation, edited by S. Franklin, and H. Ragoné, 86–101. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Das, Veena. 2000. “The Practice of Organ Transplants: Networks, Documents, Translations.” In Living and Working with new Medical Technologies: Intersections of Inquiry, edited by M. Lock, A. Young, & A. Cambrosio, 263–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• David, Mathew, ed. 2006. Case Study Research, Vol. 1. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dickenson, Donna. 2008. Body Shopping: The Economy Fuelled by Flesh and Blood. Oxford: Oneworld.
   Google Scholar
• Downer, John. 2011. “‘737-Cabriolet’: The Limits of Knowledge and the Sociology of Inevitable Failure.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (3): 725–762. doi: 10.1086/662383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkheim, Émile. [1912]1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edelman, Lauren. 1992. “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights law.” American Journal of Sociology 97: 1531–1576. doi: 10.1086/229939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrich, Kathryn, Clare Williams, and Bobbie Farsides. 2010. “Fresh or Frozen? Classifying “Spare” Embryos for Donation to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Social Science & Medicine 71 (12): 2204–2211. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.045
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, Steven P. 2004. “The Culture of Objectivity: Quantification, Uncertainty, and the Evaluation of Risk at NASA.” Human Relations 57 (6): 691–718. doi: 10.1177/0018726704044952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, Gary Alan. 1996. Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fleischer, Anne. 2009. “Ambiguity and the Equity of Rating Systems: United States Brokerage Firms, 1995–2000.” Administrative Science Quarterly 54 (4): 555–574. doi: 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.4.555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1970. The Order of Things. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, Sarah. 2012. “Five Million Miracle Babies Later: The Biocultural Legacies of IVF.” In Reproductive Technologies as Global Form, edited by Michi Knecht, Maren Klotz, & Stefan Beck, 27–58. Frankfurt-on-Main: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, Sarah, and Helena Ragoné, eds. 1998. Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power, and Technological Innovation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grint, Keith. 2010. “The Sacred in Leadership: Separation, Sacrifice and Silence.” Organization Studies 31 (1): 89–107. doi: 10.1177/0170840609347054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosz, Elizabeth. 2011. Becoming Undone: Darwinian Reflections on Life, Politics, and Art. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, Spencer H., Blake E. Ashforth, and Kevin G. Corley. 2009. “Organizational Sacralization and Sacrilege.” Research in Organizational Behavior 29: 225–254. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmreich, Stefan. 2011. “What Was Life? Answers from Three Limit Biologies.” Critical Inquiry 37 (4): 671–696. doi: 10.1086/660987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeyer, Klaus, Sniff Nexoe, Mette Hartlev, and Lene Koch. 2009. “Embryonic Entitlements: Stem Cell Patenting and the Co-Production of Commodities and Personhood.” Body & Society 15 (1): 1–24. doi: 10.1177/1357034X08100143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. “The Idiom of Co-Production.” In States of Knowledge: The co-Production of Science and Social Order, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, 1–12. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kamoche, Ken. 2000. “Developing Managers: the Functional, the Symbolic, the Sacred and the Profane.” Organization Studies 21 (4): 747–774. doi: 10.1177/0170840600214004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiner, Kristian, and Kjell Tryggestad. 2002. “The Co-Production of Chip and Society: Unpacking Packaged Knowledge.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 18 (3): 421–449. doi: 10.1016/S0956-5221(01)00006-9
   Google Scholar
• Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, Margaret M. 2002. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lock, Margaret M. 2007. “Biosocialities and Susceptibility Genes: A Cautionary Tale.” In Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities, edited by S. Gibbon, and C. Novas, 56–78. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, Helen E. 1992. “Knowledge, Bodies, and Values: Reproductive Technologies and Their Strategic Context.” Inquiry 35 (3–4): 323–340. doi: 10.1080/00201749208602297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markens, Susan. 2007. Surrogate Motherhood and the Politics of Reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Medical-Ethical Board of Directors' [SMER in Swedish]. 2013. Assisterad befruktning — etiska aspekter. Report 2013:1. Stockholm: the Government Offices.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, Richard W. 2000. The Coming Biotech age: The Business of Biomaterials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Pande, Amrita. 2009. “‘It May Be Her Eggs But It’s My Blood’: Surrogates and Everyday Forms of Kinship in India.” Qualitative sociology 32 (4): 379–397. doi: 10.1007/s11133-009-9138-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parry, Bronwyn. 2004. Trading the Genome: Investigating the Commodification of bio-Information. London: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, Keith. 1992. “Accounting Numbers as “Inscription”: Action at a Distance and the Development of Accounting.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (7): 685–708. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90019-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sliwa, Martyna, Sverre Spoelstra, Bent Meier Sørensen, and Christopher Land. 2012. “Profaning the Sacred in Leadership Studies: A Reading of Murakami’s A Wild Sheep Chase.” Organization 20 (6): 860–880. doi: 10.1177/1350508412455837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spar, Deborah. 2006. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spar, Deborah L. 2010. “Free Markets, Free Choice? A Market Approach to Reproductive Rights.” In Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families, edited by Michele Goodwin, 177–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rineharrt and Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, Anselm L, and Juliet M Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, Mette N., and Lene Koch. 2008. “Unpacking the “Spare Embryo” Facilitating Stem Cell Research in a Moral Landscape.” Social Studies of Science 38 (1): 93–110. doi: 10.1177/0306312707082502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thacker, Eugene. 2006. The Global Genome: Biotechnology, Politics and Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Twine, France Winddance. 2012. Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Gennep, Arnold. 1960. The Rites of Passage. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby, Catherine, and Melinda Cooper. 2008. “The Biopolitics of Reproduction: Post-Fordist Biotechnology and Women’s Clinical Labour.” Australian Feminist Studies 23 (55): 57–73. doi: 10.1080/08164640701816223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zaloom, Caitlin. 2003. “Ambiguous Numbers: Trading Technologies and Interpretation in Financial Markets.” American Ethnologist 30 (2): 258–272. doi: 10.1525/ae.2003.30.2.258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar