Division of Social Sciences, Alfred University, Alfred, New York 14802, USA.
Sociol Health Illn. 2010 Jan;32(1):140-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01213.x. Epub 2009 Dec 9.
About 10 years ago Greil published a review and critique of the literature on the socio-psychological impact of infertility. He found at the time that most scholars treated infertility as a medical condition with psychological consequences rather than as a socially constructed reality. This article examines research published since the last review. More studies now place infertility within larger social contexts and social scientific frameworks although clinical emphases persist. Methodological problems remain but important improvements are also evident. We identify two vigorous research traditions in the social scientific study of infertility. One tradition uses primarily quantitative techniques to study clinic patients in order to improve service delivery and to assess the need for psychological counselling. The other tradition uses primarily qualitative research to capture the experiences of infertile people in a sociocultural context. We conclude that more attention is now being paid to the ways in which the experience of infertility is shaped by social context. We call for continued progress in the development of a distinctly sociological approach to infertility and for the continued integration of the two research traditions identified here.
大约 10 年前,Greil 对关于不孕不育的社会心理影响的文献进行了回顾和批判。他当时发现,大多数学者将不孕不育视为一种具有心理后果的医学状况,而不是一种社会构建的现实。本文考察了自上次综述以来发表的研究。尽管临床重点仍然存在,但现在有更多的研究将不孕不育置于更大的社会背景和社会科学框架内。方法学问题仍然存在,但也明显有了重要的改进。我们在不孕不育的社会科学研究中确定了两个活跃的研究传统。一个传统主要使用定量技术来研究诊所患者,以改善服务提供并评估心理咨询的需求。另一个传统主要使用定性研究来捕捉在社会文化背景下不孕不育者的经历。我们得出结论,现在更多地关注了社会环境对不孕不育经历的影响方式。我们呼吁继续发展一种独特的社会学方法来研究不孕不育,并继续整合这里确定的两种研究传统。