“Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?”
Panel
CfP for an hybrid panel at the 23rd Annual STS Conference Graz 2025
CfP for the panel “Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?”
STS Conference Graz 2025 “Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies“
May 5 to 7, 2025 and on Zoom
Convenors:
Erik Aarden (University of Klagenfurt)
Mara Köhler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
Victoria Meklin (University of Klagenfurt)
Ingrid Metzler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
The call for abstracts is open until January 20, 2025
Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?
Over the past three decades, scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS) and related fields, such as Medical Sociology, Medical Anthropology, Health Policy Analysis, and Bioethics, have engaged with the phenomenon of “testing in biomedicine.” Much of this work has focused on specific types of tests or their uses in distinct settings. For instance, beginning in the late 1980s, scholars have studied genetic testing as it was envisioned, developed, and used in clinical, public health, or recreational practices, or compared the moralities of the regulatory frameworks sustaining and limiting its uses. Simultaneously, scholars contributing to a sociology of diagnosis have investigated how testing in clinical practices is involved in “making up people” (Hacking, 2002). More recently, research has addressed the development, use, and regulations of testing in emerging fields such as translational medicine and precision medicine, paying special attention to the political economies of testing and the authorities involved in their governance. Last but not least, emerging bodies of scholarship have explored the role of testing as a governing tool in global health initiatives and pandemic management, particularly in response to COVID-19.
In this panel, we aim to use testing as a boundary object to open up a conversation between these different areas of research. Building on work performed under the label of the “anthropology of medical testing” (Street and Kelly, 2021) and the “sociology of diagnosis and screening” (Petersen and Pienaar, 2021), we propose the label of “social studies of (biomedical) testing” or “biomedical testing studies” to encourage interdisciplinary engagements.
We invite both empirical and theoretical contributions that engage with the envisioning, development, use, evaluation, and regulations of testing across diverse biomedical domains. These may include but are not limited to: testing practices in clinical, public health or social service settings; DIY-testing; and economic, legal, moral, and political dimensions of testing as well as the absences or non-use of tests.
Conference Page: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/
Abstract Submission: https://www.conftool.com/sts-conference-graz-2025/
Call Link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:5f98cc92-aa88-4cd7-a930-ceff51ffc631
List of Panels: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/calls/call-for-abstracts/
Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing
Panel
Hybrid Panel
CfP to the panel “Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing”
23rd Annual STS Conference Graz 2025: “Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies.“
May 5 to 7, 2025
Graz (Austria), online hybrid
The call for abstracts is open until January 20, 2025.
„Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?”
Short Abstract:
This panel seeks to engage scholars in a conversation on testing in biomedicine. We welcome contributions that explore the development, uses, regulation, and governance of various biomedical tests across clinical, public health, and recreational contexts.
Conference Page: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/
Abstract Submission: https://www.conftool.com/sts-conference-graz-2025/
Call Link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:5f98cc92-aa88-4cd7-a930-ceff51ffc631
List of Panels: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/calls/call-for-abstracts/
Convenors:
Erik Aarden (University of Klagenfurt)
Mara Köhler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
Victoria Meklin (University of Klagenfurt)
Ingrid Metzler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
Long Abstract:
Over the past three decades, scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS) and related fields, such as Medical Sociology, Medical Anthropology, Health Policy Analysis, and Bioethics, have engaged with the phenomenon of “testing in biomedicine.” Much of this work has focused on specific types of tests or their uses in distinct settings. For instance, beginning in the late 1980s, scholars have studied genetic testing as it was envisioned, developed, and used in clinical, public health, or recreational practices, or compared the moralities of the regulatory frameworks sustaining and limiting its uses. Simultaneously, scholars contributing to a sociology of diagnosis have investigated how testing in clinical practices is involved in “making up people” (Hacking, 2002). More recently, research has addressed the development, use, and regulations of testing in emerging fields such as translational medicine and precision medicine, paying special attention to the political economies of testing and the authorities involved in their governance. Last but not least, emerging bodies of scholarship have explored the role of testing as a governing tool in global health initiatives and pandemic management, particularly in response to COVID-19.
In this panel, we aim to use testing as a boundary object to open up a conversation between these different areas of research. Building on work performed under the label of the “anthropology of medical testing” (Street and Kelly, 2021) and the “sociology of diagnosis and screening” (Petersen and Pienaar, 2021), we propose the label of “social studies of (biomedical) testing” or “biomedical testing studies” to encourage interdisciplinary engagements.
We invite both empirical and theoretical contributions that engage with the envisioning, development, use, evaluation, and regulations of testing across diverse biomedical domains. These may include but are not limited to: testing practices in clinical, public health or social service settings; DIY-testing; and economic, legal, moral, and political dimensions of testing as well as the absences or non-use of tests.
Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?
Panel
CfP for hybrid panel
CfP for a Panel on “Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?”
23rd Annual STS Conference Graz 2025, “Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies“
May 5 to 7, 2025. The call for abstracts is open until January 20, 2025
Convenors:
Erik Aarden (University of Klagenfurt)
Mara Köhler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
Victoria Meklin (University of Klagenfurt)
Ingrid Metzler (Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences)
“Towards Social Studies of (Biomedical) Testing?”
Over the past three decades, scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS) and related fields, such as Medical Sociology, Medical Anthropology, Health Policy Analysis, and Bioethics, have engaged with the phenomenon of “testing in biomedicine.” Much of this work has focused on specific types of tests or their uses in distinct settings. For instance, beginning in the late 1980s, scholars have studied genetic testing as it was envisioned, developed, and used in clinical, public health, or recreational practices, or compared the moralities of the regulatory frameworks sustaining and limiting its uses. Simultaneously, scholars contributing to a sociology of diagnosis have investigated how testing in clinical practices is involved in “making up people” (Hacking, 2002). More recently, research has addressed the development, use, and regulations of testing in emerging fields such as translational medicine and precision medicine, paying special attention to the political economies of testing and the authorities involved in their governance. Last but not least, emerging bodies of scholarship have explored the role of testing as a governing tool in global health initiatives and pandemic management, particularly in response to COVID-19.
In this panel, we aim to use testing as a boundary object to open up a conversation between these different areas of research. Building on work performed under the label of the “anthropology of medical testing” (Street and Kelly, 2021) and the “sociology of diagnosis and screening” (Petersen and Pienaar, 2021), we propose the label of “social studies of (biomedical) testing” or “biomedical testing studies” to encourage interdisciplinary engagements.
We invite both empirical and theoretical contributions that engage with the envisioning, development, use, evaluation, and regulations of testing across diverse biomedical domains. These may include, but are not limited to: testing practices in clinical, public health or social service settings; DIY-testing; and economic, legal, moral, and political dimensions of testing as well as the absences or non-use of tests.
For more information and to apply visit:
Conference Page: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/
Abstract Submission: https://www.conftool.com/sts-conference-graz-2025/
Call Link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:5f98cc92-aa88-4cd7-a930-ceff51ffc631
List of Panels: https://stsconf.tugraz.at/calls/call-for-abstracts/
At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise
Panel
CfP for the STS Italia Conference
CfP panel „At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise”
10th STS Italia Conference “Technoscience for Good: Designing, Caring, and Reconfiguring”
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
11–13 June 2025
Follow this link: https://stsitalia.org/submission-2025/ and submit a title, an abstract of up to 500 words, and keywords by 3 February 2025 (this deadline will NOT be extended).
At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise
In contemporary societies, neoliberal economic arrangements and the rise of consumerism have significantly reshaped cultural expectations and representations of the body, framing health as a highly individualized and morally charged responsibility. Individuals are expected to seek knowledge, exercise moral judgment, participate in healthcare decisions, and minimize health risks through personal choices. This emphasis on personal responsibility is reflected not only in public health discourses but also in knowledge domains that sit at the epistemic boundaries of biomedicine. Consequently, it is important to explore how these new public health discourses have created space for alternative practices—such as meditation, nutritional therapies, dance therapy, and healing methods drawn from naturopathy and homeopathy—to enter the healthcare arena. These practices are supported by an increased emphasis on individual choice, therapeutic pluralism, and associated funding packages.
Approaches that encompass health and wellness practices that lie outside and are not accepted within biomedicine, otherwise labeled as “refused knowledge”, do not simply reflect an alleged opposition to biomedical advice stemming from health illiteracy or distrust of medical practitioners. Instead, they signify a demand from citizens, consumers, and patient advocacy groups to become more informed and accountable in their relationship with biomedicine. This trend involves “opening the black box” of biomedicine, critically assessing its inner workings. Further research is needed to explore how alternative knowledge systems challenge biomedical boundaries and contribute to shaping contemporary understandings of health and care.
This panel aims to bring together multidisciplinary STS research to deepen our understanding of the social and epistemic conditions under which health and care are discursively and materially enacted as “do-able problems” at the margins of biomedical science. It seeks to analyze the extent to which such enactment may reduce individuals’ reliance on prevailing medical practitioners by promoting activities such as self-care, health enhancement, chronic disease management, and the acquisition of diagnostic and therapeutic skills, thereby increasingly shifting medical expertise and responsibility to the individual.
We invite scholars and practitioners to submit theoretical, empirical, and/or methodological contributions that explore how forms of health and care emerging at the boundaries of science reshape biomedical authority while becoming entangled in contemporary politics of life.
We especially encourage a focus on the intersection of knowledge-making practices and individualization processes, and how these processes are enacted in relation to bodily experiences, health, and care management, particularly with regard to the emphasis on personal and moral responsibility for health.
Contributors may focus on the following dimensions:
• Analyze how health and care are practiced at the boundaries of biomedical sciences.
• Examine classification systems, technical objects, therapeutic practices, care relationships, self-experimental techniques, evidence production, and public communication strategies that either reinforce or challenge the narratives and normative stances framing health as an individualized moral responsibility and personal duty.
• Explore knowledge legitimization strategies employed to frame health and care as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise.
• Provide methodological reflections on the importance of maintaining a non-normative, symmetrical perspective when studying health and care practices beyond the biomedical, while also considering the researcher’s positionality in the field.
If you have any questions please email to stefano.crabu@unipd.it.
Caring for ‚care’: feminist STS perspectives on researching robots and AI
Panel
Panel at STS Italia Conference
CFP for a panel on „Caring for ‚care’: feminist STS perspectives on researching robots and AI”
Chair: Dr. Stevienna de Saille, Lecturer in Sociology
10th STS Italia Conference, taking place in Milan
11 to 13 June
Deadline for abstracts is 3 Feb 2025
You can find more information here: https://stsitalia.org/conference-2025
Caring for “care”: feminist STS perspectives on researching robots and
AI
In some languages, such as Italian, there is a distinction between
caring for/caring about (cura) and providing health or social care
(assistenza). In other languages, particularly English, “care” can
become a catch-all encompasing the emotive, the transactional and the
systemic. This semiotic slippage, particularly in discussions about
emerging technologies such as robots and AI, means that things which
cannot actually care are increasingly touted as the
solution for “the crisis of care” for disabled and older people, ie.
those who advanced capitalist societies tend to care the least about.
Beginning with the work of Tronto and Bellacasa, this traditional open
panel asks how “care” becomes constructed, deconstructed, entangled,
detangled, implicated and alienated in these discussions in different
languages and different cultural contexts. It asks how those of us
doing empirical research on the use of robots and AI in care can
develop scholarship that uses feminist STS sensibilities, paradigms
and practices to inform our participation. How can the confluence of
the robotic, the human and the social be studied with care, when
neither the problems, context, purpose nor users are well defined and
the language of “care” is not universal? What other forms of
knowledge production could we utilize as an antidote to instrumental
engineering imaginaries, particularly where these claim to be solving
the “problem” of caring for societally vulnerable groups? How do we as
STS scholars work against technosolutionism, and avoid being co-opted
into instrumental imaginaries when working on interdisciplinary
projects? In other words, how do we care for “care”?
This panel invites papers which discuss these and similar questions
about mobilizing STS sensibilities to help transform and make visible
the care in care robotics, in ways which can shape
and influence the trajectory of engineering projects. We are
especially interested in qualitative empirical research that examines
the positionality and reflexivity of STS scholars with regard to the
study of “robots/AI for care”, as well as those examining the new and
experimental forms of normativity and relationality which are
beginning to arise around robots, AI and human engagement in this
field. Contributions may include (but are not limited to) those which
discuss “care” as:
- an ontological object, an ontology, an object conflict;
- an epistomology;
- a verb, an action;
- an ethics, a politics, a moral imperative, a normative orientation;
- a set of relations, a system;
- a metaphor;
- a synonym for maintenance, responsibility, nurturance…
- or any other way of approaching robots and AI in care as a topic for
(feminist) STS.
At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise
Panel
CfP for a conference in Milano, Italy
CfP for the panel „At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise”
10th STS Italia Conference “Technoscience for Good: Designing, Caring, and Reconfiguring”
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
11–13 June 2025
Follow this link: https://stsitalia.org/submission-2025/ and submit a title, an abstract of up to 500 words, and keywords by 3 February 2025 (this deadline will NOT be extended).
Panel 25
At the borders of biomedicine: how health and care are reconfigured as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise
In contemporary societies, neoliberal economic arrangements and the rise of consumerism have significantly reshaped cultural expectations and representations of the body, framing health as a highly individualized and morally charged responsibility. Individuals are expected to seek knowledge, exercise moral judgment, participate in healthcare decisions, and minimize health risks through personal choices. This emphasis on personal responsibility is reflected not only in public health discourses but also in knowledge domains that sit at the epistemic boundaries of biomedicine. Consequently, it is important to explore how these new public health discourses have created space for alternative practices—such as meditation, nutritional therapies, dance therapy, and healing methods drawn from naturopathy and homeopathy—to enter the healthcare arena. These practices are supported by an increased emphasis on individual choice, therapeutic pluralism, and associated funding packages.
Approaches that encompass health and wellness practices that lie outside and are not accepted within biomedicine, otherwise labeled as “refused knowledge”, do not simply reflect an alleged opposition to biomedical advice stemming from health illiteracy or distrust of medical practitioners. Instead, they signify a demand from citizens, consumers, and patient advocacy groups to become more informed and accountable in their relationship with biomedicine. This trend involves “opening the black box” of biomedicine, critically assessing its inner workings. Further research is needed to explore how alternative knowledge systems challenge biomedical boundaries and contribute to shaping contemporary understandings of health and care.
This panel aims to bring together multidisciplinary STS research to deepen our understanding of the social and epistemic conditions under which health and care are discursively and materially enacted as “do-able problems” at the margins of biomedical science. It seeks to analyze the extent to which such enactment may reduce individuals’ reliance on prevailing medical practitioners by promoting activities such as self-care, health enhancement, chronic disease management, and the acquisition of diagnostic and therapeutic skills, thereby increasingly shifting medical expertise and responsibility to the individual.
We invite scholars and practitioners to submit theoretical, empirical, and/or methodological contributions that explore how forms of health and care emerging at the boundaries of science reshape biomedical authority while becoming entangled in contemporary politics of life.
We especially encourage a focus on the intersection of knowledge-making practices and individualization processes, and how these processes are enacted in relation to bodily experiences, health, and care management, particularly with regard to the emphasis on personal and moral responsibility for health.
Contributors may focus on the following dimensions:
• Analyze how health and care are practiced at the boundaries of biomedical sciences.
• Examine classification systems, technical objects, therapeutic practices, care relationships, self-experimental techniques, evidence production, and public communication strategies that either reinforce or challenge the narratives and normative stances framing health as an individualized moral responsibility and personal duty.
• Explore knowledge legitimization strategies employed to frame health and care as do-able problems beyond biomedical expertise.
• Provide methodological reflections on the importance of maintaining a non-normative, symmetrical perspective when studying health and care practices beyond the biomedical, while also considering the researcher’s positionality in the field.
If you have any questions please email to stefano.crabu@unipd.it.
On Tinkering with Bodily Waste and Care
Panel
CfP to a panel at an STS-Conference in Stokholm
CfP to the panel „On Tinkering with Bodily Waste and Care”
7th Nordic STS Conference: STS in and out of the Laboratory
11–13 June 2025
Stockholm
Organizers:
Malissa Kay Shaw, University of Health Sciences & Pharmacy in St. Louis
Liwen Shih, Taipei Medical University
Submission link: https://www.nordicsts.se/call-for-abstracts/
Deadline: March 1st
Title max 150 characters and Abstract max 250 words.
Abstract:
“Why did care become an object of concern and what is it about care that warrants being studied and attended to in social science writing. This question cannot be answered by pointing to bare facts, but has to do with values.” (Mol et al. 2010:9)
“What is happening when we imagine otherwise worthless, even dangerous, human wastes as informative and valuable viral sentinels?” (Anderson 2024)
Waste is traditionally something unwanted, or useless, that should be discarded—intrinsically defined in relation to things perceived as valuable or productive. Theorizations of waste often draw on Douglas’ (1984) framing of “dirt as matter out of place,” a means to explore social categorizations of polluting, taboo, and dangerous substances. This is useful when considering bodily wastes (substances commonly imbued with disgust and repulsion), especially when outside the body where they are “out of place,” which negates their potential capacities to be reimagined as valuable/useful.
Similar to other forms of waste, bodily wastes pose symbolic and material consequences, particularly in the embodiment of their social disgust, and their containment or disposal. How we care for bodily waste—both symbolically and materially—affects present and future individuals, networks of human and nonhuman actors, the environment, and multispecies generational collectives. This panel proposes engaging with the notion of care to reimagine bodily waste and its alternative relational influences.
STS approaches, inspired by Celia Roberts, Annemarie Mol, and María Puig de la Bellacasa, frame care as collective, distributed practices that involve dynamic interactions between humans, nonhuman actors, and technologies. Care is neither static or tentative, but continual, sustained enactments that shape current and future worlds. By attending to the ways care is enacted through embodied, relational, and material processes, STS scholarship helps uncover the tensions, inequalities, and continual consequences embedded in care practices. Drawing on this, our panel aims to use care to mediate waste as an actor within various contexts and speculate on its value and lack thereof. Similar to waste, what is cared for and what is not, corresponds with what is valued and de-valued, and these values are passed onto and shape future humans and non-humans alike (Fredengren and Åsberg 2020:57).
We invite scholars to use care to speculate on the value of bodily waste in diverse contexts. This may entail asking: what is the relationality of bodily waste; how may new technoscientific, biosocial, or political economic practices transform what waste is and can do. Our own research in the realm of reproductive health offers examples. For instance, when constituting the uterine lining, menstrual substance is useful, contributing to embryo development. But when expelled from the body, menstrual fluid is “dirty,” requiring discreet hygiene practices in many cultures. Symbolisms of menstrual filth shape these practices and acceptable menstrual products, curtailing the suitability of reusable products and creating additional waste that impacts the environment and future interspecies generations. Menstrual “filth” symbolism limits technoscientific ventures to reframe menstrual fluid as a biosensor— transforming “waste” into a valuable, informative substance. Miscarried embryos and aborted fetuses, once expelled from the body, are often similarly categorized as medical waste within biomedical systems. Those entangled with this “waste,” however, mourn an unborn child, or recognize a biosignificant substance that imparts knowledge of reproductive potential. In such remakings, what was previously deemed “waste” can become critical tools for advancing scientific inquiries in diagnostic techniques, stem cell research, developmental biology, or genetic studies. This shift highlights the relational nature of value, where the enactment of waste and non-waste is contingent on the “waste’s” context, capacity, and framing. Continuing to tinker with bodily wastes, of which there are many, and notions of care may offer a way to re-value “waste” and transform its engagement with more-than-human worlds, both present and future.
References
Anderson, Warwick (2024) Excremental hauntings, or the waste of modern bodies. Society for Social Studies of Science. https://4sonline.org/news_manager.php?page=37981.
Douglas, Mary (1984) Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge.
Fredengren, Christina and Åsberg, Cecilia (2020) Checking in with deep time: intragenerational care in registers of feminist posthumanities, the case of Gärstadsverken. In Deterritorializing the future: Heritage in, of and after the Anthropocene, Rodney Harrison and Colin Sterling (eds). Open Humanities Press, pp 56–95.
Mol, Annemarie, Moser, Ingunn, and Pols, Jeannette, eds (2010) Care: putting practice in theory. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Transcript Publishing, pp 7‑25.
More information about the conference can be found here.
We look forward to receiving your submissions. If you have any questions or want to discuss paper ideas or presentation formats, please feel free to reach out to us!
Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability
Panel
CfP for a Conference on Ethnography and Qualitative Research in Trento (Italy)
CfP „Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability”
10th International Conference on Ethnography and Qualitative Research Trento, Italy
July 10 to 12, 2025
Deadline: 20 January
„Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability”
Nowadays, there has been a «discursive explosion» surrounding mental health, disability, and neurodivergence resulting in a wide array of heterogeneous narratives and representations in public and academic debates. Particularly on digital platforms, we witness a rise in content focused on «positivity» and the reversal of stigma. These can certainly be seen as an incursion into the political sphere by mad/crip activism; however, it is important to recognize how (part of) these discourses could be absorbed into a neoliberal framework. In a context of performative and extractivist logic, mad/crip/neurodivergent positivity risks becoming yet another tool that decrees the «salvation» of those with the resources to fit into the framework of «diversity» valorisation, while leading to processes of «monstrification» towards those who deviate from this construction of subjectivity.
Central in operating this differentiation is the role of expert knowledge. Although mental health, disability, and neurodivergence remain still framed within a predominantly biomedical paradigm, a range of technical figures are intervening in the construction of categories and the «take charge of users». An archipelago of expert knowledges – social workers, legal actors, tutors, educational services, (former) patients who take on roles as «expert users», NGO volunteers – thus intervene in identity and relational constructions, defining life trajectories, producing spaces and services that inherently navigate the constitutive ambiguity between care and control, treatment and neglect. Among these are the social sciences, both in their production of knowledge and in providing tools for social care practices. They contribute to defining, identifying, classifying, and quantifying the users, positioning them within the grids of «deserving/appropriate» vs «irrecoverable» patient, «rehabilitable» vs excluded.
The current configuration, resulting from the dismantling of national social protection systems in the wake of austerity policies and the shift of responsibility to the private sector, represents only the latest phase in a long-standing process of differential inclusion and exclusion, deeply embedded in the very structure of social welfare and the State itself.
Ethnographic practice highlights power structures, fostering critical reflection on the role of social work and expert knowledges. This approach challenges established institutions and models while also situating the processes surrounding care and treatment within relationships, contexts, and everyday tactics.
We invite contributions that address mental health, disability, and neurodivergence, within and beyond the care/control binary. We ask what is the role of «expert knowledges» – considered in their singularity or intersections – in the construction of subjectivities, in the production of vulnerability, and in the processes of distinction and fragmentation of the user base; and how practices of subtraction or resistance to such devices configure.
Open questions
– What processes shape the construction of meaning around the categories of vulnerability and fragility (across disability, neurodivergence, and mental health), and how do these categories influence social work in taking charge and managing users?
– How can an ethnographic critique of concepts such as paternalism and pietism in social welfare be framed, starting from practices of care, control, neglect, and treatment?
– How do practices of distinction within social services (broadly defined) emerge between the «deserving» user and the «problematic» user, and how do these distinctions—simultaneously practical, organizational, and moral—affect the balance between care and control?
– How does the relationship between families, public services, and caregivers configure the everyday dynamics of care and control within a context of poly-crisis and dismantling the welfare state? How do the «third sector», humanitarian organizations, and volunteering intersect
in this relationship?
– How do mad/crip/neurodivergent subjectivation processes unfold, both within and beyond medicalization and the framing of service users?
– What impact do social inequalities—based on structural axes of class, race, gender, sexualities, and others—have on the rationale of social services? How do these processes influence street-level bureaucracy practices, and how do they shape subjectivation within these systems?
– What forms of withdrawal and detachment from the controlling dimensions of social and clinical work exist, and what possibilities do they open up?
– What are the processes of spatialization of disability/neurodivergence/mental health, and how do they relate to social and clinical work? What are the geographies of these processes, and what do they add to our understanding?
Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability
Panel
CfP for an international conference
Call for papers for „Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability”
10th International Conference on Ethnography and Qualitative Research
July 10 to 12, 2025
Deadline January 25th
33. Ethnographies of expert knowledges in mental health, neurodivergence, and disability.
Nowadays, there has been a «discursive explosion» surrounding mental health, disability, and neurodivergence resulting in a wide array of heterogeneous narratives and representations in public and academic debates. Particularly on digital platforms, we witness a rise in content focused on «positivity» and the reversal of stigma. These can certainly be seen as an incursion into the political sphere by mad/crip activism; however, it is important to recognize how (part of) these discourses could be absorbed into a neoliberal framework. In a context of performative and extractivist logic, mad/crip/neurodivergent positivity risks becoming yet another tool that decrees the «salvation» of those with the resources to fit into the framework of «diversity» valorisation, while leading to processes of «monstrification» towards those who deviate from this construction of subjectivity.
Central in operating this differentiation is the role of expert knowledge. Although mental health, disability, and neurodivergence remain still framed within a predominantly biomedical paradigm, a range of technical figures are intervening in the construction of categories and the «take charge of users». An archipelago of expert knowledges – social workers, legal actors, tutors, educational services, (former) patients who take on roles as «expert users», NGO volunteers – thus intervene in identity and relational constructions, defining life trajectories, producing spaces and services that inherently navigate the constitutive ambiguity between care and control, treatment and neglect. Among these are the social sciences, both in their production of knowledge and in providing tools for social care practices. They contribute to defining, identifying, classifying, and quantifying the users, positioning them within the grids of «deserving/appropriate» vs «irrecoverable» patient, «rehabilitable» vs excluded.
The current configuration, resulting from the dismantling of national social protection systems in the wake of austerity policies and the shift of responsibility to the private sector, represents only the latest phase in a long-standing process of differential inclusion and exclusion, deeply embedded in the very structure of social welfare and the State itself.
Ethnographic practice highlights power structures, fostering critical reflection on the role of social work and expert knowledges. This approach challenges established institutions and models while also situating the processes surrounding care and treatment within relationships, contexts, and everyday tactics.
We invite contributions that address mental health, disability, and neurodivergence, within and beyond the care/control binary. We ask what is the role of «expert knowledges» – considered in their singularity or intersections – in the construction of subjectivities, in the production of vulnerability, and in the processes of distinction and fragmentation of the user base; and how practices of subtraction or resistance to such devices configure.
Open questions
What processes shape the construction of meaning around the categories of vulnerability and fragility (across disability, neurodivergence, and mental health), and how do these categories influence social work in taking charge and managing users?
How can an ethnographic critique of concepts such as paternalism and pietism in social welfare be framed, starting from practices of care, control, neglect, and treatment?
How do practices of distinction within social services (broadly defined) emerge between the «deserving» user and the «problematic» user, and how do these distinctions—simultaneously practical, organizational, and moral—affect the balance between care and control?
How does the relationship between families, public services, and caregivers configure the everyday dynamics of care and control within a context of poly-crisis and dismantling the welfare state? How do the «third sector», humanitarian organizations, and volunteering intersect in this relationship?
How do mad/crip/neurodivergent subjectivation processes unfold, both within and beyond medicalization and the framing of service users?
What impact do social inequalities—based on structural axes of class, race, gender, sexualities, and others—have on the rationale of social services? How do these processes influence street-level bureaucracy practices, and how do they shape subjectivation within these systems?
What forms of withdrawal and detachment from the controlling dimensions of social and clinical work exist, and what possibilities do they open up?
What are the processes of spatialization of disability/neurodivergence/mental health, and how do they relate to social and clinical work? What are the geographies of these processes, and what do they add to our understanding?
For any issues, don’t hesitate to contact the convenors at fabio.bertoni@ics.ulisboa.pt and luca.sterchele@unito.it.
Towards new alternatives in social care: Transitions in the domestic, institutional and community care scenarios
Panel
CfP for the 9th APA (Associação Portuguesa de Antropologia)
in-person panel P100 – Towards new alternatives in social care: Transitions in the domestic, institutional and community care scenarios
9th APA (Associação Portuguesa de Antropologia)
Castelo (Portugal)
14 to 18 July 2025
Abstracts are due by January 13, 2025
https://apa2025.eventqualia.net/pt/inicio/painéis/chamada-comunicações/
We invite submissions of papers in both Spanish and English that provide new insights on this topic.
Abstract:
Care practices have significant relations to people’s existence and social reproduction. Caregiving involves a complex interaction between stakeholders in various scenarios (domestic, institutional, and community-based). Indeed, care is provided through a changing constellation of resources across families, the State, the market and civil society, all of which comprise the institutional structure of social care. Similarly, care is structured not only by gender but also by age, class, and ethnic/national origin. The traditional care options have been between domestic care and residential facilities. Institutionalization in a residential care home is an option that is usually reserved for worsening situations of dependence. Ageing in one’s own home is an aspiration, but this often takes place in housing and neighborhoods that are not adapted to the needs of the ageing, accelerating their vulnerable processes. In addition, territorial disparities (urban-rural areas) also account for inequalities in the access of care.
Our panel is oriented towards identifying the elements that can give rise to alternative formulas for social care, which make it possible to shift the central role played by families and women, favoring the dignification of paid and unpaid care. To understand the experiences in new care environments that try to foster new forms of articulation between social agents and their care surroundings (cohousing, care ecosystems, communities, etc.). We are interested in contributions that, based on ethnographic work and theoretical reflection, analyze innovative formulas in the articulation of long-term care providers, identifying their scope and limitations when subverting territorial, social and gender inequalities.
Die Kommentare sind geschlossen.