Publications by year
2020
Cacciatore J, Gorman R, Thieleman K (2020). Evaluating care farming as a means to care for those in trauma and grief.
Health & Place,
62, 102281-102281.
Full text.
Davies G, Gorman R, Greenhough B, Hobson-West P, Kirk RGW, Message R, Dmitriy M, Palmer A, Roe E, Ashall V, et al (2020). The Animal Research Nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health, and animal welfare.
Medical HumanitiesAbstract:
The Animal Research Nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health, and animal welfare
Animals used in biological research and testing have become integrated into the trajectories of modern biomedicine, generating increased expectations for and connections between human and animal health. Animal research also remains controversial and its acceptability is contingent on a complex network of relations and assurances across science and society, which are both formally constituted through law and informal or assumed. In this paper, we propose these entanglements can be studied through an approach that understands animal research as a nexus spanning the domains of science, health and animal welfare. We introduce this argument through, first, outlining some key challenges in UK debates around animal research, and second, reviewing the way nexus concepts have been used to connect issues in environmental research. Third, we explore how existing social sciences and humanities scholarship on animal research tends to focus on different aspects of the connections between scientific research, human health and animal welfare, which we suggest can be combined in a nexus approach. In the fourth section, we introduce our collaborative research on the animal research nexus, indicating how this approach can be used to study the history, governance and changing sensibilities around UK laboratory animal research. We suggest the attention to complex connections in nexus approaches can be enriched through conversations with the social sciences and medical humanities in ways that deepen appreciation of the importance of path-dependency and contingency, inclusion and exclusion in governance and the affective dimension to research. In conclusion, we reflect on the value of nexus thinking for developing research that is interdisciplinary, interactive and reflexive in understanding how accounts of the histories and current relations of animal research have significant implications for how scientific practices, policy debates and broad social contracts around animal research are being remade today.
Abstract.
Full text.
Gorman R, Davies G (2020). When ‘cultures of care’ meet: Entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK.
Social and Cultural Geography,
n/aAbstract:
When ‘cultures of care’ meet: Entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK
A good culture of care, empowering individuals within organisations to care and reflecting wider social expectations about care, is now a well-documented aspiration in managing practices of laboratory animal research and establishing priorities for patient and public health. However, there is little attention to how different institutional cultures of care interact and what happens to the accountabilities of caring roles and the entanglements of caring practices when institutional cultures meet. Drawing on research exploring the increasing practices of patient and public involvement (PPI) within animal research in the UK, we identify three ways in which cultures of care are changing in encounters between biomedical researchers and people affected by health conditions. Firstly, patient involvement in animal research brings additional bodies to care for within research facilities. Secondly, patient and public groups are seen as an increasingly important group to convey a culture of care to. Thirdly, involvement brings opportunities for patients and publics to connect care for both human and animals. However, more attention is required to understand how shifts towards cultures of care distribute power and responsibility to care within institutions and at their boundaries, where responsibilities to care may be disconnected from the power to effect meaningful changes.
Abstract.
Full text.
2019
Gorman R (2019). What’s in it for the animals? Symbiotically considering ‘therapeutic’ human-animal relations within spaces and practices of care farming.
Medical HumanitiesAbstract:
What’s in it for the animals? Symbiotically considering ‘therapeutic’ human-animal relations within spaces and practices of care farming
Human-animal relations are increasingly imbricated, encountered, and experienced in the production of medicine and health. Drawing on an empirical study of care farms in the UK, this article utilises the language of symbiosis to develop a framework for critically considering the relationships enrolled within inter-species therapeutic practices. Care farming is an emerging paradigm that aims to deploy farming practices as a form of therapeutic intervention, with human-animal relations framed as providing important opportunities for human health. This article moves to attend to multispecies therapeutic interventions and relationships from a more-than-human perspective, drawing attention to the often-troubling anthropocentrism in which such practices are framed and performed. Attempting to perform and realise human imaginations of ‘therapeutic’ affects, spaces, and relationships can rely on processes that reduce animals’ own opportunities for flourishing. Yet, the therapeutic use of other species does not have to be forever anthropocentric or utilitarian. The article explores whether relations between humans and animals might result in a level of mutual proliferation of affective capacities, reciprocally beneficial. These human-animal entanglements highlight opportunities to think more critically about how to practice interspecies relationships and practices in ways that are less parasitic, and instead framed more by attempts at producing opportunities for mutualistic flourishing.
Abstract.
Full text.
Davies GF, Gorman R, Crudgington B (2019). Which patient takes centre stage? Placing patient voices in animal research. In Atkinson S, Hunt R (Eds.)
GeoHumanities and Health, Springer, 141-155.
Abstract:
Which patient takes centre stage? Placing patient voices in animal research
Abstract.
Author URL.
Full text.
2018
Gorman R (2018). Human-livestock relationships and community supported agriculture (CSA) in the UK.
Journal of Rural StudiesAbstract:
Human-livestock relationships and community supported agriculture (CSA) in the UK
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a system of food production and distribution aiming to involve local communities in the growing and rearing of their food. Whilst traditionally conceptualised as a mainly horticultural movement, recent developments have seen a number of CSA projects rearing and keeping livestock alongside their vegetable cultivation with consumers embracing the model as a means of access to a greater variety of produce. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with representatives from CSA farms across the UK and the Republic of Ireland this article explores the rationales, roles, and relationships that shape interactions between humans and non-human animals within this niche and alternative agricultural model. Livestock are implicated within CSA projects for diverse reasons, with animals strongly linked to the food based values and identities of each individual community group. Through the development of closer relationships between humans and animals, CSAs become additionally reframed as enterprises producing not just food, but also sources of animal encounters, with members joining the schemes for the encounter value of non-human life, rather than solely in a quest for alternative food (systems). Relationships between humans and animals result in new and different practices, performances, and imaginations of agriculture and agricultural space. Animals' involvement in CSA comes to be as much about producing an ‘alternative place’ as it is about producing ‘alternative food’.
Abstract.
Full text.
2017
Gorman R (2017). Changing ethnographic mediums: the place-based contingency of smartphones and scratchnotes.
Area,
49(2), 223-229.
Full text.
Gorman R, Cacciatore J (2017). Cultivating our humanity: a systematic review of care farming & traumatic grief. Health & Place, 47, 12-21.
Gorman R (2017). Smelling therapeutic landscapes: Embodied encounters within spaces of care farming.
Health & Place,
47, 22-28.
Full text.
Gorman R (2017). Therapeutic landscapes and non-human animals: the roles and contested positions of animals within care farming assemblages.
Social and Cultural Geography,
18(3), 315-335.
Abstract:
Therapeutic landscapes and non-human animals: the roles and contested positions of animals within care farming assemblages
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor. &. Francis Group. The concept of therapeutic landscapes has been used as a way to critically understand how health and well-being are related to place. However, traditional discourses on therapeutic landscapes have been constructed from an anthropocentric perspective, completely ignoring and silencing the agency and experiences of non-humans. Building on the idea of therapeutic spaces as assemblages, I highlight the heterogeneity of elements that come together to produce therapeutic space. Mobilizing empirical research undertaken in spaces involved in the practice of ‘care farming’, I demonstrate how non-human presence actively creates and facilitates a therapeutic engagement with place. However, with this recognition of the non-human in therapeutic spaces, there is a need to discuss animals’ contested positions, and question the ways in which being part of these assemblages impacts animals; for whom are these landscapes therapeutic? Thus, this article advocates a critical understanding of the role of non-human animals as both co-constituents and co-participants of therapeutic spaces, moving from framing therapeutic spaces–and the animals within them–purely in relation to human needs and desires.
Abstract.
Full text.
Gorman R (2017). Thinking critically about health and human-animal relations: Therapeutic affect within spaces of care farming.
Social Science and MedicineAbstract:
Thinking critically about health and human-animal relations: Therapeutic affect within spaces of care farming
This article draws on a more-than-representational approach to reconsider how geographers engage with ideas of ‘health’. Health can be understood as the constant reshaping of an individual's capacity to affect and be affected, the way in which a body's powers to act are dynamically augmented or diminished by different affective relations. The article also addresses calls for health geography to engage with the more-than-human. The article mobilises a qualitative study of ‘care farming’ within England and Wales to highlight the generative potential of human-animal relations in (re)shaping the diverse affective relations gathered together to produce new bodily capacities. The article demonstrates how animal presence and agency can break down barriers, allowing people to navigate and negotiate adverse contexts and access support in a manner and space in which they feel comfortable. Additionally, human-animal relations are shown to produce affective experiences that act to re-place identities, understandings, and ways of ‘being-with’ the world that can enact what different actants may become. Human-animal relations matter for health.
Abstract.
Full text.
