Observer 8: Outliers, Attention, and Situated Knowledge in a Qualitative Behavioral Assessment of Laboratory Mouse Welfare

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Science Technology & Human Values Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1177/01622439241248499
Maisie Tomlinson
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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
本文探讨了一种创新的动物福利方法论(定性行为评估)如何在其独特的认识论中协商主观主义和客观主义,因为它致力于培养某种实验鼠--复杂的社会主体。通过对实验室小鼠福利定性行为评估(QBA)工具开发过程的人种学研究,我展示了定性行为评估如何通过使用定性语言评估动物福利,同时依靠统计方法进行验证,从而突出动物的生活情感体验。莫尔(Mol)等人将关爱理解为对不同 "物品 "的解析、处理和平衡,根据这一理解,我认为 QBA 实践者对数据的关爱必须平衡相互竞争的优先事项和价值观。当评估者在主体和客体之间转换时,我尤其关注如何才能成为 "好 "的评估者。当两名观察者被发现是异常值,他们的不同判断影响了 QBA 鼠标工具的成功统计验证时,知识的情景性质就凸显出来了。我认为,转而关注有别于照顾的体现性实践,有助于我们理解其中的原因,并对传统动物福利科学的认识论文化以及人类观察者在多大程度上有可能在 QBA 的正式方法论实践中被重新整合提出了疑问。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
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.
期刊最新文献
A Sustainable City Made By Resident-Experts - How Designerly Intervention Enacted Rights of the Public and Urban Infrastructure What's in the Blood? Temporalities at Play in Diet-Related Risk Management Testing Practices Underground Roots for Ancestral Futures: Exploring Lithium Through an Experimental Alliance between Chemistry and Anthropology Reflections on an Inclusive Boundary Worker Out of Sync: The Making and Remaking of Data and Regulations on Greenhouse Gases at the International Maritime Organization
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1