Affective Labor in Integrative STS Research

Abstract

Science and technology studies (STS) practitioners regularly use qualitative research methods to describe the structures and practices of science. Despite a long history of collaborative inter- and transdisciplinary research in the field, key aspects of this type of research remain underexplored. For example, much of the literature on positionality has focused on the vulnerable position of participants and there is considerably less work on how investigators can be vulnerable. We examine how investigators in collaborative sociotechnical integration (CSTI) are vulnerable by presenting two examples of CSTI research that require researcher vulnerability. This vulnerability has an emotional dimension, which also necessitates affective labor. We integrate recommendations from feminist-scholarship to minimize the affective cost to investigators and explore how they might apply to qualitative research more broadly.

Lessons from the 'Dark' Side

“…As we show in the methods section, there were likewise limitations in terms of how we could analyse a collaboration. The paper thus contributes to ongoing discussions within science and organisation studies inspired by the strand of research that has explored emotions in collaborations in the practice of science (Hillersdal et al, 2020;Branch and Duché, 2022;Smolka et al, 2021). We therefore pose the following research question: What role does emotional labour play in cross-sectoral/transdisciplinary research collaborations and how are positions negotiated in this process?…”

“…In the exploration of emotional labour, we draw on a particular part of STS research that studies the role of emotion in scientific knowledge production and cross-collaboration (Branch and Duché, 2022;Hillersdal et al, 2020;Pickersgill, 2012;Smolka et al, 2021). Affective tensions arise in collaborative situations involving different knowledge production practices.…”

“…Emotional displays occur within the interpersonal context of the relationships between researchers, participants, topic and place (Cylwik, 2001). For example, Branch and Duché (2022) show that vulnerability felt by researchers is at times necessary to be able to guide emotional reflexivity and should be taken into consideration when defining and managing emotional labour. While they focus on how emotional labour is about masking the emotional difficulties researchers experience in collaborations, we see vulnerability in collaborations as a dynamic that can contain both potentials and pitfalls in strengthening collaborative outputs.…”

“…However, less attention is paid to the interpersonal dynamics of collaboration and the emotional labour among collaborators, with some few exceptions (cf. Branch and Duché, 2022;Hillersdal et al, 2020;Resch et al, 2021;Smolka et al, 2021). Hence 'the dark side' was chosen as part of the title of this article, as an attempt to communicate our focus on the interpersonal dynamics within collaborations that are kept hidden and not often directly verbalised and dealt with.…”

“…Emerald and Carpenter (2015) describe emotions as assets that can focus or amplify important elements of an interaction. This focus is helpful to societally engaged researchers tasked with promoting reflexivity, because it can Science & Technology Studies XX(X) guide them towards themes that situate science in society (e.g., values) (Branch and Duché, 2022). Consideration of the excitement, awkwardness or bewilderment of traveling in new collaborative territories may stimulate a sensitivity to meaningful differences (Haraway, 2016).…”