IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v255y2020ics0277953620301969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neural imaginaries at work: Exploring Australian addiction treatment providers’ selective representations of the brain in clinical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Barnett, Anthony I.
  • Pickersgill, Martyn
  • Dilkes-Frayne, Ella
  • Carter, Adrian

Abstract

Although addiction neuroscience hopes to uncover the neural basis of addiction and deliver a wide range of novel neuro-interventions to improve the treatment of addiction, the translation of addiction neuroscience to practice has been widely viewed as a ‘bench to bedside’ failure. Importantly, though, this linear ‘bench to bedside’ conceptualisation of knowledge translation has not been attentive to the role addiction treatment providers play in reproducing, translating, or resisting neuroscientific knowledge. This study explores how, to what extent, and for what purpose addiction treatment providers deploy neuroscientific representations and discuss the brain in practice. It draws upon interviews with 20 Australian treatment providers, ranging from addiction psychiatrists in clinics to case-workers in therapeutic communities. Our findings elucidate how different treatment providers: (1) invoke the authority and make use of neuroscience in practice (2) make reference to neuroscientific concepts (e.g., neuroplasticity); and sometimes represent the brain using vivid neurobiological language, metaphors, and stories; and, (3) question the therapeutic benefits of discussing neuroscience and the use of neuroimages with clients. We argue that neurological ontologies of addiction, whilst shown to be selectively and strategically invoked in certain circumstances, may also at times be positioned as lacking centrality and salience within clinical work. In doing so, we render problematic any straightforward assumption about the universal import of neuroscience to practice that underpins narratives of ‘bench to bedside’ translation.

Suggested Citation

  • Barnett, Anthony I. & Pickersgill, Martyn & Dilkes-Frayne, Ella & Carter, Adrian, 2020. "Neural imaginaries at work: Exploring Australian addiction treatment providers’ selective representations of the brain in clinical practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:255:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301969
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953620301969
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112977?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchbinder, Mara, 2015. "Neural imaginaries and clinical epistemology: Rhetorically mapping the adolescent brain in the clinical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 304-310.
    2. Broer, Tineke & Pickersgill, Martyn, 2015. "Targeting brains, producing responsibilities: The use of neuroscience within British social policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 54-61.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pérez-Centeno, Víctor, 2017. ""It takes three to tango": Brain, cognition and entrepreneurial enhancement," Working Papers 02/17, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    2. Pickersgill, Martyn & Broer, Tineke & Cunningham-Burley, Sarah & Deary, Ian, 2017. "Prudence, pleasure, and cognitive ageing: Configurations of the uses and users of brain training games within UK media, 2005–2015," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 93-100.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:255:y:2020:i:c:s0277953620301969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.