{"title":"Editorial: Care in STS","authors":"L. Lindén, Doris Lydahl","doi":"10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.4000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the last 10 years the Science and Technology Studies (STS) community has witnessed a flourishing, intense and multifaceted engagement around “care”. While care had been addressed already before in Joanna Latimer’s The conduct of care: Understanding nursing practice (Latimer, 2000) , and in Jeanette Pols’ Good care: Enacting a complex ideal in long term-psychiatry (Pols, 2004), care seemed to be on everybody’s lips around 2010. Around the same time, the edited volume Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (Mol et al., 2010) and the article Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011) were published. With akin, yet partly diverging, agendas and concerns, these two key publications drastically increased the amount of research that identify with something like an area of “care studies” in STS. This can also be seen in the publication of special issues devoted to care during the last years, notably the much-cited 2015 issue in Social Studies of Science focused on feminist technoscience interventions into the politics and “darker sides” of care (Martin et al., 2015), and the more recent on relationalities and specificities of care in East Asian Science, Technology and Society (Coopmans & McNamara, 2020). Noteworthy is also the special issue on “The politics of policy practices” in The Sociological Review Monograph, where Gill et al. (2017) discuss how policy and care are entangled, and how such entanglements could be enacted more “care-fully”. These publications have spurred rich and generative engagements about ways to attend to the affective, ethico-political and/or material layers of care, within and beyond areas traditionally thought of as related to care (such as healthcare and childcare).","PeriodicalId":91145,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"3-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of science and technology studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/NJSTS.V9I1.4000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Abstract
During the last 10 years the Science and Technology Studies (STS) community has witnessed a flourishing, intense and multifaceted engagement around “care”. While care had been addressed already before in Joanna Latimer’s The conduct of care: Understanding nursing practice (Latimer, 2000) , and in Jeanette Pols’ Good care: Enacting a complex ideal in long term-psychiatry (Pols, 2004), care seemed to be on everybody’s lips around 2010. Around the same time, the edited volume Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (Mol et al., 2010) and the article Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2011) were published. With akin, yet partly diverging, agendas and concerns, these two key publications drastically increased the amount of research that identify with something like an area of “care studies” in STS. This can also be seen in the publication of special issues devoted to care during the last years, notably the much-cited 2015 issue in Social Studies of Science focused on feminist technoscience interventions into the politics and “darker sides” of care (Martin et al., 2015), and the more recent on relationalities and specificities of care in East Asian Science, Technology and Society (Coopmans & McNamara, 2020). Noteworthy is also the special issue on “The politics of policy practices” in The Sociological Review Monograph, where Gill et al. (2017) discuss how policy and care are entangled, and how such entanglements could be enacted more “care-fully”. These publications have spurred rich and generative engagements about ways to attend to the affective, ethico-political and/or material layers of care, within and beyond areas traditionally thought of as related to care (such as healthcare and childcare).
在过去的10年里,科学和技术研究(STS)社区见证了围绕“护理”的蓬勃发展、激烈和多方面的参与。虽然Joanna Latimer的《护理行为:理解护理实践》(Latimer,2000)和Jeanette Pols的《良好护理:在长期精神病学中实现复杂的理想》(Pols,2004)中已经提到了护理问题,但在2010年前后,护理似乎成了每个人的谈资。大约在同一时间,编辑出版了《实践中的护理:诊所、家庭和农场的修补》一书(Mol et al.,2010)和《技术科学中的护理问题:组装被忽视的东西》一文(Puig de la Bellacasa,2011)。由于议程和关注点相似但部分不同,这两份关键出版物大幅增加了与STS中的“护理研究”领域相一致的研究数量。这一点也可以从过去几年专门讨论护理的特刊中看出,尤其是《科学社会研究》2015年一期被大量引用的文章,重点关注女权主义技术科学对政治和护理“黑暗面”的干预(Martin et al.,2015),以及《东亚科学》中最近关于护理的关系性和特殊性的文章,技术与社会(Coopmans&McNamara,2020)。值得注意的还有《社会学评论专论》中关于“政策实践的政治”的特刊,Gill等人(2017)讨论了政策和关怀是如何纠缠在一起的,以及如何更“谨慎”地实施这种纠缠。这些出版物激发了人们对如何在传统上被认为与护理相关的领域(如医疗保健和儿童保育)内外关注护理的情感、伦理、政治和/或物质层面的丰富而富有创造性的参与。