Arrangements of wash toilets and ageing bodies – an exploratory study

References

• Heilesen SB. Om internationale forsknings- og udviklingsprojekter inden for velfaerdsteknologi. [About international research- and innovation projects on assistive technology]. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Blaakilde AL. Alder, aldring og alderdom som kulturelt felt [age, ageing and old age]. In: Andersen PT, Jacobsen MH, editors. Kultursociologi og kulturanalyse. Latvia: Hans Reitzel; 2017. p. 525–553.
   Google Scholar
• Aceros JC, Pols J, Domènech M. Where is grandma? home telecare, good aging and the domestication of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:102–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peine A, Faulkner A, Jaeger B, et al. Moors E. Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’of ageing—understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joyce K, Peine A, Neven L, et al. Aging: the sociomaterial constitution of later life. In Felt U, Fouche R, Miller C, Smith-Doerr L, editors. Handbook of science and technology studies. 4th ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2016. p. 915–942.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi CL, Beasley C. Citizen bodies: is embodied citizenship a contradiction in terms? Crit Soc Policy. 2002;22(2):324–352.
   Google Scholar
• Mol A. The logic of care: health and the problem of patient choice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Gilleard C, Higgs P. Ageing abjection and embodiment in the fourth age. J Aging Stud. 2011;25(2):135–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandberg L. Affirmative old age: the ageing body and feminist theories on difference. Int J Ageing Later Life. 2013;8(1):11–40.
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ. Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organ Stud. 2007;28(9):1435–1448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regeringen, Kommunernes Landsforening & Regionerne. Digital velfaerd. En lettere hverdag. Faellesoffentlig strategi for digital velfaerd 2013-2020. [digital welfare. An easier everyday life. Public strategy for digital welfare, 2013-2020]. København: Digitaliseringsstyrelsen; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kling R. What is social informatics and why does it matter? Inf Soc. 2007;23(4):205–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law J. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Syst Pract. 1992;5(4):379–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B. Turning around politics: a note on gerard de vries’ paper. Soc Stud Sci. 2007;37(5):811–820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker W, Law J, editors. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1992. p. 225–258.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich M. The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J, editors. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1992. p. 205–224.
   Google Scholar
• Mol A. The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham and London: Duke University Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Law J, Hassard J. Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Gad C, Bruun Jensen C. On the consequences of post-ANT. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(1):55–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn N, Pinch TJ, editors. How users matter: the co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich M, Latour B. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In: Bijker W, Law J, editors. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1992. p. 259–264.
   Google Scholar
• Pols J, Moser I. Cold technologies versus warm care? on affective and social relations with and through care technologies. Alter. 2009;3(2):159–178.
   Google Scholar
• Law J. Traduction/trahison: notes on ANT. Convergencia. 2006;13(42):47–72.
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar S, Lezaun J. Missing the (question) mark? what is a turn to ontology? Soc Stud Sci. 2015;45(3):462–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callon M. Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In: Huges, T. & Pinch, T., editor. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge (MA): MIT press; 1987. p. 83–103.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez DL. Little arrangements that matter. rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:91–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen H. Technology and good dementia care. A study of technology and ethics in everyday care practice]. Oslo: Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture (TIK), University of Oslo; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Berg M, Akrich M. Introduction–bodies on trial: performances and politics in medicine and biology. Body Soc. 2004;10(2-3):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–1760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke AE. Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Shildrick M. Re-imagining embodiment: prostheses, supplements and boundaries. Somatechnics. 2013;3(2):270–286.
   Google Scholar
• Agich G. Dependence and autonomy in old age: an ethical framework for long-term care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez DL, Mantovani E, De Hert P. Autonomy in ICT for older persons at the crossroads between legal and care practices. In: Yves P, De Hert P, Ronald L, Serge G, editors. European data protection: Coming of age. Netherlands: Springer; 2013. p. 145–159.
   Google Scholar