Search

This paper explores what happens to care, and decisions about ending and extending life, when research animals become pets and pets become research animals. To do this, we draw on in-depth qualitative research on (i) rehoming of laboratory animals, (ii) veterinary clinical research, and (iii) the role of the Named Veterinary Surgeon (NVS) in UK animal research. We begin by exploring how (in theory and practice) the ethical, affective, and practical elements of care are split in the research laboratory. We then investigate arguments for and against ending and extending animal life via clinical research and rehoming, highlighting how these activities bring norms and dilemmas around animal death in the laboratory and veterinary clinic to the fore. We conclude by demonstrating the value of investigating borders between animal categories for understanding dilemmas around care and death, and for contributing to emerging literatures within geography around animal care, death, and categorisation. Key contributions of our work include highlighting: how care roles can be split; the importance of considering speculative and in-practice elements of care; the context-dependency and multiplicity of practices of killing in the veterinary clinic and laboratory; and the flexibility and changing nature of animal categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A good culture of care, empowering individuals within organisations to care and reflecting wider social expectations about care, is now a well-documented aspiration in managing practices of laboratory animal research and establishing priorities for patient and public health. However, there is little attention to how different institutional cultures of care interact and what happens to the accountabilities of caring roles and the entanglements of caring practices when institutional cultures meet. Drawing on research exploring the increasing practices of patient and public involvement (PPI) within animal research in the UK, we identify three ways in which cultures of care are changing in encounters between biomedical researchers and people affected by health conditions. Firstly, patient involvement in animal research brings additional bodies to care for within research facilities. Secondly, patient and public groups are seen as an increasingly important group to convey a culture of care to. Thirdly, involvement brings opportunities for patients and publics to connect care for both human and animals. However, more attention is required to understand how shifts towards cultures of care distribute power and responsibility to care within institutions and at their boundaries, where responsibilities to care may be disconnected from the power to effect meaningful changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Those fleeing domestic violence often have complex and diverse needs but central for all is access to a 'place of safety'. Caring for victims/survivors is largely predicated on the availability of secure housing but an absence of stock together with competition in the private rented sector has significantly reduced the chances of victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) being housed. In this paper, I explore the 'cultures of care' that shape responses to the housing needs of victims/survivors of DVA by those working in housing and other support services, showing that, in an environment of limited resource, an understanding of the experiences and choices of victims/survivors becomes highly significant. Drawing on research undertaken in the UK, I argue that attitudes towards victims/survivors of DVA are shaped by notions of romantic love and constructions of the abused body as unruly, unpredictable and self-destructive. Within this context survivors' 'poor choices' may serve to limit their access to safe housing and to wider cultures of care and support. The paper provides a theoretically informed contribution to understandings of the relationship between violence, love and care and how this plays out in safe housing provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of care and its associated practices remain a key subject of debate in human geography, as they continue to evolve in response to changing norms and expections of who does and should provide care, how, and where care takes place. With the growing politics of austerity shaping welfare and support provision across the Global North, these norms and expectations are once again being reviewed and reconfigured. New spaces and relationships of care are unfolding, as austerity intensifies many debates over the role of the state vis-a-vis the private, informal and third sectors. This paper examines the changing geographies of care that are unfolding within this context of austerity and frames a collection of papers on this subject. It offers a short review of the concept of care in the discipline of geography before examining the shifting landscapes of care provision overtime. It considers where these new spaces of care are unfolding. After identifying the boundaries of this scholarship, it then outlines the key themes within and across the four papers in this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, geographers have paid attention to the practices and spaces of care, yet museums rarely feature in this body of literature. Drawing on research conducted with two large museum services - one in England, and one in Scotland - this paper frames museums’ community engagement programmes as spaces of care. We offer insights into the practice of community engagement, and note how this is changing as a result of austerity. Our focus is on the routine, everyday caring practices of museum community engagement workers. We further detail the new and renewed strategic partnerships that have been forged as a result of cutbacks in the museum sector and beyond. We note that museums’ community engagement workers are attempting to position themselves relative to a number of other institutions and organisations at the current moment. Drawing on empirical material from the two case study sites, we suggest that museums’ community engagement programmes could be seen as fitting within a broader landscape of care, and we conceptualise their activities as expressions of progressive localism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalisation in adult social care, allied with more ‘austere’ funding of social services, is leading to a sharp decline in day care services. Support is becoming less placement-driven and instead woven into everyday spaces within the community. Consequently, support is being re-framed from ‘care’ in formal settings towards a broader effort at enabling meaningful lives nested in local neighbourhoods and ordinary spaces. This article explores what it means to live in a ‘welcoming community’ within the context of declining social care services from the perspective of adults with learning disabilities. It draws on empirical data collected from focus groups and photo diaries with adults with learning disabilities on their experiences of negotiating a life in the community. We identify a process of ‘self-building’ safe havens in ordinary British spaces, including allotments, marinas and ‘fish and chip shops’, and argue that adults with learning disabilities are reclaiming the welcoming communities agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The family is often considered the foundation of moral learning in society, responsible for caring and parenting, and transmitting morals to children and young people, while a lack of moral guidance from family is associated with antisocial behaviour. Despite this deep moralizing of family life, very little is known about how morals are understood in the context of family, how family members form their moral outlooks, and how morals and difference are negotiated within everyday family practices. This paper addresses some of these burgeoning questions around the moral geographies of family. Drawing on two years of ethnographic research with six families in the UK, I consider normative assumptions about what morals mean to families, which parts of family life morals are drawn from, and how morals are transmitted by and within families. In the conclusion I outline my contributions to both established and emerging areas of geographical interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 2,552 organs from deceased donors were transplanted in the UK in 2009, yet more than 1,000 people die each year waiting for an organ transplant. The metaphor of the ‘gift of life’ remains the rubric under which increasing the availability of organs for transplant is commonly organised. Like all gifts, the ‘gift of life’ must be reciprocated. Reviewing the advice given by, and for, transplant recipients in self-help and autobiographical literature aimed at those waiting for or who have just received a new organ we argue that reciprocity is circumscribed through projects of ‘care’ articulated at a range of scales including the organ, the self, the donor and the transplant community itself. We argue that the scarcity of organs available for transplant is used to compel recipients into adopting practices of self-care, to embodying the promise of the gift of life and to articulate a set of ethical responses to the new geography of embodiment that emerge from the movement of organs from one body and their transplantation into another. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]