{"title":"观察员 8:实验鼠福利定性行为评估中的异常值、注意力和情景知识","authors":"Maisie Tomlinson","doi":"10.1177/01622439241248499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how an innovative animal welfare methodology (Qualitative Behavior Assessment) negotiates subjectivism and objectivism in its distinctive epistemology, as it strives to produce a certain kind of laboratory mouse—a complex, social subject. Through an ethnographic study of the development of a Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) tool for laboratory mouse welfare, I show how QBA foregrounds the animal’s lived emotional experience by using qualitative language to assess their welfare, while also relying on statistical methods of validation. Drawing on Mol et al.’s understanding of care as something that parses, handles, and balances diverse “goods,” I argue that QBA practitioners’ care for the data must balance competing priorities and values. I take particular interest in what makes a “good” assessor as they transform between subject and object. When two observers are found to be outliers, with their divergent judgments marring the successful statistical validation of the QBA mouse tool, the situated nature of knowledge is brought to the fore. I argue that turning to the embodied practice of attention, as distinct from care, helps us understand why, and raises questions about the epistemic culture of conventional animal welfare science and the extent to which the human observer risks reification within QBA’s formal methodological practice.","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observer 8: Outliers, Attention, and Situated Knowledge in a Qualitative Behavioral Assessment of Laboratory Mouse Welfare\",\"authors\":\"Maisie Tomlinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01622439241248499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores how an innovative animal welfare methodology (Qualitative Behavior Assessment) negotiates subjectivism and objectivism in its distinctive epistemology, as it strives to produce a certain kind of laboratory mouse—a complex, social subject. Through an ethnographic study of the development of a Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) tool for laboratory mouse welfare, I show how QBA foregrounds the animal’s lived emotional experience by using qualitative language to assess their welfare, while also relying on statistical methods of validation. Drawing on Mol et al.’s understanding of care as something that parses, handles, and balances diverse “goods,” I argue that QBA practitioners’ care for the data must balance competing priorities and values. I take particular interest in what makes a “good” assessor as they transform between subject and object. When two observers are found to be outliers, with their divergent judgments marring the successful statistical validation of the QBA mouse tool, the situated nature of knowledge is brought to the fore. I argue that turning to the embodied practice of attention, as distinct from care, helps us understand why, and raises questions about the epistemic culture of conventional animal welfare science and the extent to which the human observer risks reification within QBA’s formal methodological practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Technology & Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241248499\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241248499","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Observer 8: Outliers, Attention, and Situated Knowledge in a Qualitative Behavioral Assessment of Laboratory Mouse Welfare
This article explores how an innovative animal welfare methodology (Qualitative Behavior Assessment) negotiates subjectivism and objectivism in its distinctive epistemology, as it strives to produce a certain kind of laboratory mouse—a complex, social subject. Through an ethnographic study of the development of a Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA) tool for laboratory mouse welfare, I show how QBA foregrounds the animal’s lived emotional experience by using qualitative language to assess their welfare, while also relying on statistical methods of validation. Drawing on Mol et al.’s understanding of care as something that parses, handles, and balances diverse “goods,” I argue that QBA practitioners’ care for the data must balance competing priorities and values. I take particular interest in what makes a “good” assessor as they transform between subject and object. When two observers are found to be outliers, with their divergent judgments marring the successful statistical validation of the QBA mouse tool, the situated nature of knowledge is brought to the fore. I argue that turning to the embodied practice of attention, as distinct from care, helps us understand why, and raises questions about the epistemic culture of conventional animal welfare science and the extent to which the human observer risks reification within QBA’s formal methodological practice.
期刊介绍:
As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.