Fabricated data bodies: Reflections on 3D printed digital body objects in medical and health domains

by | Apr 23, 2015 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Deborah Lupton

Abstract:

The advent of 3D printing technologies has generated new ways of representing and conceptualising health and illness, medical practice and the body. There are many social, cultural and political implications of 3D printing, but a critical sociology of 3D printing is only beginning to emerge. In this article I seek to contribute to this nascent literature by addressing some of the ways in which 3D printing technologies are being used to convert digital data collected on human bodies and fabricate them into tangible forms that can be touched and held. I focus in particular on the use of 3D printing to manufacture non-organic replicas of individuals’ bodies, body parts or bodily functions and activities. The article is also a reflection on a specific set of digital data practices and the meaning of such data to individuals. In analysing these new forms of human bodies, I draw on sociomaterialist perspectives as well as the recent work of scholars who have sought to theorise selfhood, embodiment, place and space in digital society and the nature of people’s interactions with digital data. I argue that these objects incite intriguing ways of thinking about the ways in digital data on embodiment, health and illnesses are interpreted and used across a range of contexts. The article ends with some speculations about where these technologies may be headed and outlining future research directions.

Document:

https://doi/org/10.1145/2800835.2800963

References:
  1. Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, and M. C. Schraefel. (2015). Revealing Visualization Insights from Quantified-Selfers’ Personal Data Presentations, Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, vol. PP, no.99, pp.1,1
  2. Eun Kyoung Choe, Nicole B. Lee, Bongshin Lee, Wanda Pratt, and Julie A. Kientz. (2014, April). Understanding quantified-selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. In Proc. 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1143–1152).
  3. Emily Collins, Jon Bird, Anna L. Cox, and Daniel Harrison. (2014). Social networking use and RescueTime: The issue of engagement. In Proc. 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication. (pp. 687–690).
  4. Tilman Dingler, Alireza Sahami and Niels Henze. (2014). There is More to Well-being than Health Data: Holistic Lifelogging through Memory Capture. CHI 2014 – Workshop Beyond Quantified Self: Data for Wellbeing
  5. Stephen Few. (2006). “Common Pitfalls in Dashboard Design.” Perceptual Edge.
  6. Hamed Haddadi and Ian Brown. (2014). Quantified self and the privacy challenge. Technology Law Futures.
  7. Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. (2010, April). A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 557–566). ACM.
  8. Ian Li, Jon Froehlich, Jakob E. Larsen, Catherine Grevet, and Ernesto Ramirez. (2013). Personal informatics in the wild: hacking habits for health & happiness. InCHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3179–3182). ACM.
  9. Ian Li. (2015). Beyond Reflecting on Personal Data: Predictive Personal Informatics. CHI 2015 Workshop – Beyond Personal Informatics: Designing for Experiences with Data.
  10. Shalom H. Schwartz. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
  11. Christopher Trickler. (2013). An overview of self-monitoring systems. In Proc. Southern Association for Information Systems Conference (pp. 197–202).
  12. Konrad Tollmar, Frank Bentley, Cristobal Viedma, and I. L. Libertyville. (2012). “Mobile health mashups.” Proc. PervasiveHealth 12.
  13. Hongbin Zhuang. (2014). Was I productive? Examining the reliability of the Quantified Self technology. Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London.