The politics of care in technoscience

Martin, Aryn; Myers, Natasha; Viseu, Ana

doi:10.1177/0306312715602073

Cited by 407 publications

(289 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

264

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, she describes this assumption as a 'curiously implausible image of human subjectivity' and argues that, on the contrary, knowing requires caring about what and how one knows (see also Myers, 2015). For Code, caring, affect and knowing are intimately interwoven: empathy does not compromise the ability to care; rather, care entails an 'affectively charged' mode of attention (Martin et al, 2015). Similarly, de Zulueta (2013) asserts the need to rethink biomedical ethics as everyday practices that are interdependent with and productive of social relations and context.…”

Section: Coupling Compassion and Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

AbstractCare has become a focus of debate in feminist technoscience studies, with a recent call for researchers to be care-full about the politics of research and theorising and also to challenge 'care' as a taken-for-granted good (Martin et al, 2015). Care is a current focus of concern in Britain, where a crisis has been declared in national health and social care, and where previous policy has focused on quantity at the expense of quality (Keogh, 2013).

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical compassion: Affect, discretion and policy–care relations

Singleton

Mee

2017

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Care has become a focus of debate in feminist technoscience studies, with a recent call for researchers to be care-full about the politics of research and theorising and also to challenge 'care' as a taken-for-granted good (Martin et al., 2015). Care is a current focus of concern in Britain, where a crisis has been declared in national health and social care, and where previous policy has focused on quantity at the expense of quality (Keogh, 2013). The influential, government-commissioned Francis Report documents 'appalling and unnecessary patient suffering' and calls for action to put 'compassion at the heart of healthcare' (DOH, 2013a, p. 3-4). The report's conclusions are widely supported, and there are new policy interventions to promote compassionate care (DOH, 2013b(DOH, , 2013c(DOH, , 2013d DOH, 2014). However, policy/care tensions exist; for example, the legislative responses are critiqued as meaningless to the realities of practice and as attempting to control rather than to support practitioners. In order to explore how compassion is being done differently in diverse instantiations and enactments, we juxtapose feminist technoscience studies on the politics of care with an analysis of health policy and with vignettes of located practices. The vignettes articulate affects, materials and relations of compassion in locations of practice and explore not only the good of what is considered compassion, but also possible harms, contestation and vulnerabilities. Thereby, the analytical approach aligns with Martin et al.'s (2015, p. 627) call for 'critical care' research that understands care as an 'affectively charged and selective mode of attention' and that exposes the dark side of care. The analysis also reflects on possibilities for formulating policy as a form of care that attends to situatedness and to affective and discretionary aspects of compassion as ethical relating.

show abstract

Section: Coupling Compassion and Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical compassion: Affect, discretion and policy–care relations

Singleton

Mee

2017

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, rigid policies and interventions could be 'blocking' rather than enabling ways of becoming-other. Second, by understanding subject formation as 'event-full', this requires 'response-ability' (Barad, 2012;Haraway, 2008) in research and policy to attend to and bring into being more careful forms (Martin, Myers, & Viseu, 2015;Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011). We must learn to attune to these different forms and what they can tell us about the world, as well as being accountable for what gets made, in order to bring bodies together in 'healthier' ways.…”

Section: Harm Reduction Beyond the Human: What Does This Look Like Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The injecting ‘event’: harm reduction beyond the human

Dennis

2017

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1980s, the primary public health response to injecting drug use in the UK has been one of harm reduction. That is, reducing the harms associated with drug use without necessarily reducing consumption itself. Rooted in a post-Enlightenment idea of rationalism, interventions are premised on the rational individual who, given the right means, will choose to avoid harm. This lies in stark contrast to dominant addiction models that pervade popular images of the 'out of control' drug user, or worse, 'junkie'. Whilst harm reduction has undoubtedly had vast successes, including challenging the otherwise pathologising and often stigmatising model of addiction, I argue that it has not gone far enough in addressing aspects of drug use that go beyond 'rational' and 'human' control. Drawing on my doctoral research with people who inject drugs, conducted in London, UK, this paper highlights the role of the injecting 'event', which far from being directed or controlled by a pre-defined individual or 'body' was composed by a fragile assemblage of bodies, human and nonhuman. Furthermore, in line with the 'event's' heterogeneous and precarious make-up, multiple ways of 'becoming' through these events were possible. I look here at these 'becomings' as both stabilising and destabilising ways of being in the world, and argue that we need to pay closer attention to these events and what people are actually in the process of becoming in order to enact more accountable and 'response-able' harm reduction.

show abstract

“…It provides an important contrast to other terminologies so often used to describe the quality of academic work--such as excellence and impact--that aim to tie themselves to the objective and the measurable. Akin to care, meaning is a relational practice, a doing and not a quality to be possessed (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011; Martin, Myers and Viseu 2015). Fourth, for me, to raise the question of meaning is to express the frivolous desire to remain respons-able (Barad 2007) to the question "cui boni?"…”

Section: Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crafting a Career in STS: Meaning Making, Assessment, and Interdisciplinary Engagement

Müller

2017

Engaging STS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on her own biography, Ruth Müller opens her contribution by reminding us of the strong interdisciplinary roots and entanglements of STS as a field, as well as of its emancipatory political agenda. This rich history creates multiple valences for defining the worth of work in our field, ranging from scholarly excellence over successful interdisciplinary collaborative engagement to assembling matters of care and concern. Building on this, she analyzes how current indicatorized career dynamics render it increasingly difficult to derive a sense of meaning from one's own work that builds on a successful integration of these multiple valences. She calls for developing "standards of our own," that is, ways of defining quality and processes of accountability that do better justice to the multiple valences of our field. KeywordsSTS; care; meaning; metrics; evaluation; interdisciplinarity; academic career Origin StoriesWhat does it mean to be an STS scholar in a contemporary university? What are the demands of building a career in this field at a time of quantitative, indicator-based academic assessment? To me, some of the answers to these questions are entangled with another set of questions: What is STS? What is its purpose? Why should it be part of teaching and research in contemporary universities?In

show abstract

The politics of care in technoscience

Cited by 407 publications

References 59 publications

Critical compassion: Affect, discretion and policy–care relations

Critical compassion: Affect, discretion and policy–care relations

The injecting ‘event’: harm reduction beyond the human

Crafting a Career in STS: Meaning Making, Assessment, and Interdisciplinary Engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About