‘Not in our Name’

Emily Jay Nicholls, J. V. Henry, Fay Dennis
{"title":"‘Not in our Name’","authors":"Emily Jay Nicholls, J. V. Henry, Fay Dennis","doi":"10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nIn this paper, we draw on our collaborative work running a salon for thinking about care in STS research, which quickly became more about fostering an ethico-politics for thinking with care as a mode of academic intervention. Not dissimilar to the origins of the salon in nineteenth-century France, the salon provided a provocative and disruptive space for early career researchers (ECRs) to think together.\nAs attention and critique increasingly point towards the unequal distribution of harms arising from marketization and the vulnerability of ECRs in the ‘neoliberal university,’ we have witnessed a surge in activities that promise a supportive space, such as pre-conference conferences, seminar series, discussion forums and self-care workshops. In this paper, we ask not only what these modes of care might make possible, but also what exclusionary practices and patterns they mask or render more palatable (Ahmed, 2004; Duclos & Criado, 2020; Martin et al., 2015; Murphy, 2015).\nReflecting on our experiences of organizing and participating in the salon, with the stated purpose to explore ‘ecologies of care’ as an embodied socio-material practice (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017), we move from care ‘out there’ in STS research to care ‘in here’. We follow threads spun by and out from the group to rethink our own academic care practices and how to do the academy otherwise.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":91145,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"65-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.3549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this paper, we draw on our collaborative work running a salon for thinking about care in STS research, which quickly became more about fostering an ethico-politics for thinking with care as a mode of academic intervention. Not dissimilar to the origins of the salon in nineteenth-century France, the salon provided a provocative and disruptive space for early career researchers (ECRs) to think together. As attention and critique increasingly point towards the unequal distribution of harms arising from marketization and the vulnerability of ECRs in the ‘neoliberal university,’ we have witnessed a surge in activities that promise a supportive space, such as pre-conference conferences, seminar series, discussion forums and self-care workshops. In this paper, we ask not only what these modes of care might make possible, but also what exclusionary practices and patterns they mask or render more palatable (Ahmed, 2004; Duclos & Criado, 2020; Martin et al., 2015; Murphy, 2015). Reflecting on our experiences of organizing and participating in the salon, with the stated purpose to explore ‘ecologies of care’ as an embodied socio-material practice (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017), we move from care ‘out there’ in STS research to care ‘in here’. We follow threads spun by and out from the group to rethink our own academic care practices and how to do the academy otherwise.
“不是以我们的名义”
在本文中,我们借鉴了我们的合作工作,举办了一个沙龙,以思考STS研究中的护理,这很快就变成了培养一种伦理政治,以思考护理作为一种学术干预模式。与19世纪法国沙龙的起源没有什么不同,沙龙为早期职业研究人员(ecr)提供了一个具有挑衅性和破坏性的空间,让他们一起思考。随着越来越多的关注和批评指向市场化和“新自由主义大学”中ecr的脆弱性所带来的危害的不平等分配,我们目睹了承诺提供支持空间的活动激增,例如会前会议,研讨会系列,讨论论坛和自我保健讲习班。在本文中,我们不仅询问这些护理模式可能使什么成为可能,而且还询问它们掩盖或使其更容易接受的排他性实践和模式(Ahmed, 2004;Duclos & Criado, 2020;Martin et al., 2015;墨菲,2015)。反思我们组织和参与沙龙的经验,以明确的目的探索“护理生态”作为体现社会物质实践(Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017),我们从STS研究中的“外面”护理转向“这里”护理。我们跟随小组的线索,重新思考我们自己的学术护理实践,以及如何做学院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信