Heli Valokivi, University of Jyväskylä
Paula Vasara, University of Jyväskylä
Andrea Lorenz-Wende, University of Jyväskylä
Our panel seeks to explore the diverse service paths experienced by older adults in need of social services, especially in the context of the growing policy emphasis on ‘ageing in place’. As the ageing population continues to grow, it has become crucial for older service users to have easy access to service coordination and guidance. Ensuring that older adults feel confident in managing their lives within their own homes and communities leads to improved service user safety, greater customer satisfaction, and enhanced cost efficiency. Our interest in service pathways arises from the landscape of care, particularly in how legitimate needs and concerns are recognised and shaped by the shifting dynamics within social services.
The panel will focus on key elements that contribute to the success of social care services for older adults, such as timely assessment, coordinated service delivery, and advanced working methods supporting client safety. We are particularly interested in understanding how service assessment/coordination unfolds when concerns about an individual’s ability to cope arise, and what happens at critical transition points in their service path. We aim to explore potential interruptions in service continuity and their underlying causes. Exploring the implicit concerns that may surface in specific situations and the overlooked needs of those in vulnerable positions.
We invite empirical and theoretical papers that examine the impacts of evolving social services and care provision for service users; and topics related to exploring the relevance of concern in service access, service assessment, case management, service paths and transitions, and client safety. Additionally, the focus will also be on the role of social rights in shaping the service paths of older adults; and we encourage discussions on the institutional settings of care systems that address how these factors influence the accessibility, effectiveness, and inclusion.
Ricardo Rodrigues, Lisbon School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon
Norah Keating, University of Stirling
Policy documents such as the European Care Strategy stress the importance of ameliorating long term impacts on carers’ health, income or social connections arising from limited access to affordable care services and care leave schemes. Long periods of informal care for children, people with disability or older people may result in diminished possibilities for career advancement and lower wages during one’s working life leading to lower pensions and increased risk of poverty later in life. Such diminished resources may in turn may limit the possibilities of fulfilling their right to receive needed care in old-age. The European Care Strategy recognizes the potential for cumulative disadvantages and the interplay between different life course domains (e.g. care, family life and employment), although our knowledge of these processes is limited.
In this thematic panel we invite papers that take a life course perspective on the impact of care on carers’ income, poverty risk, transmission of (dis)advantage across generations, and/or wellbeing. Topics may include cumulative disadvantages across the life-course or how inequalities in old-age are associated with earlier periods of care. We welcome papers on unpaid as well as paid workers and those that explore cross-country (or care regimes) differences in relation to potential tensions between care receivers rights and carers obligations to care. Although we make reference to the European Care Strategy, papers need not to be confined to Europe. Empirical research may be underpinned by either qualitative or quantitative research methods, but should in any case be framed by theoretical concepts and demonstrate how it contributes to strengthening the theoretical knowledge base at the intersection of care across the life course with the right to care.
Discussant: TBC
Annette Kamp, Roskilde University
Hanne Marlene Dahl, Roskilde University
Agnete Meldgaard Hansen, Roskilde University
New technologies, such as telecare-systems, robots, tracking- and sensor-technologies are increasingly introduced in the health and social care sector in both the Nordic and other European countries. This development forms part of a new wave of welfare state reforms focusing on person-centered care, empowerment and retrenchment through increasing citizen/client involvement in – and responsibility for – their own care.
In practice, these multiple political goals that also include dignified care, increased quality and efficiency often prove to be contradictory, and are translated in different ways when used to frame new care practices. These new practices typically allow for new forms of (self)- monitoring, surveillance and care at a distance through telecare systems; practices that potentially transform the character of care interactions between professionals and citizens/clients and may evoke questions of ethics (Pols, 2023). Additionally, new divisions of labour and of responsibility between citizens/clients, professionals and technologies may arise (e.g. Nicolini, 2007).
This development raises numerous issues and interesting avenues of research, and we invite contributions that critically explore both the policies and practices of technologically mediated care, as well as their interlinkages.
At policy level, we particularly invite contributions that explore ‘Socio-technical imaginaries’ (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015) or ‘political phantasms’ of technologically mediated care, and their role in connecting increased technology-use with these multiple political goals. At practice level, a broad range of transformations of care practices are emerging. Here, this thematic panel particularly invite contributions illuminating the transformation of care ideals and care relations, and the ethical tensions that may arise. Other avenues seeking to develop the study of new technologies in care work are also welcomed, just as we are happy to recieve both theoretical and empirical contributions.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity, Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power (S.-H. Jasanoff, Sheila; Kim (ed.)). University of Chicago Press.
Nicolini, D. (2007). Stretching out and expanding work practices in time and space: The case of telemedicine. Human Relations, 60(6), 889–920.
Pols, J. (2023). Reinventing the Good Life: An empirical contribution to the philosophy of care. UCL Pres
Thurid Eggers, University of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, DIFIS German Institute for Interdisciplinary Social Policy Research
Ruth Abramowski, University of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, DIFIS German Institute for Interdisciplinary Social Policy Research
Miriam Laschinski, University of Bremen, SOCIUM Research Center on Inequality and Social Policy, DIFIS German Institute for Interdisciplinary Social Policy Research
In recent decades promoting the participation of people in need of care and their – mainly female – caregivers have become a key issue in long-term care (LTC) policies for older people. These groups are of specific interest as they are often marginalized and excluded from full participation in social, political, and economic life. From a cit- izenship perspective, participation is a key human right and a prerequisite for full citi- zenship. According to Lister (1998) participatory rights include those citizenship rights that enable people to act as agents and to take an active part in society. Welfare states extended social rights to receive and provide care. People gained access to publicly-funded care (to different degrees), the care infrastructure expanded and the life phases in which relatives/volunteers provide care have received increasing pro- tection. Apart from these mainly compensatory rights, some welfare states also intro- duced instruments and concepts to strengthen the actual practice of participation of care recipients and caregivers, including, for example, the promotion of concepts of reablement, user involvement, co-production, or caring communities as participa- tory infrastructure. We are interested in the measures and concepts that welfare states apply to the participatory rights of both caregivers and care recipients and what this means for the practice of participation. We encourage submissions that examine par- ticipatory rights theoretically and empirically as single-case or cross-national studies, addressing among others the following questions:
Sue Yeandle, CIRCLE, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield
Kate Hamblin, CIRCLE, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Sheffield
This panel will explore the emergence, progress and potential of a rights agenda for unpaid / family carers (people supporting a relative or friend) and the roles played in achieving this by state actors, carers’ organisations and international agencies. Papers may focus on:
Emma Garavaglia, Politecnico di Milano
Kate Hamblin, University of Sheffield
Grace Whitfield, University of Sheffield
Digital technology in social/ long-term care is often presented by policymakers and developers as a means to innovate, facilitate or even substitute some aspects of care work, and enhance the independence of people receiving care and support. Indeed, digital technology is often presented as the most efficient solution to the ‘care crisis’, especially in relation to the challenges facing long term care systems.
Yet the varied ways in which diverse technologies are used in care systems, arrangements and relationships are underplayed, as are the uneven distribution of technological resources, with benefits and risks experienced differently across populations both receiving and providing care. The use of technology in care systems and arrangements also raises important issues regarding rights, such as the right to privacy, and the related risk of surveillance. Further, it raises questions as to what defines ‘care’ – and rights to care – when physical support is interwoven with ‘virtual’, disembodied interventions.
As technological advances are made and new devices and systems are introduced into care systems, arrangements and relationships, existing frameworks designed to provide protection become increasingly misaligned with these new issues of rights, risks and uneven resources.
In this panel, we would like to invite paper submissions that critically reflect on these changes. We are interested in submissions that consider issues of rights in care contexts – both how they can be enhanced but also put at risk – with consideration to issues of intersectional inequalities and inequity in outcomes and resources. Contributions should reflect on the conference core dimensions, for example by considering the role of digital technology in:
Gülçin Con Wright, TED University, Ankara
Hazal Swearinger, Çankırı Karatekin University
As life expectancy rises globally, there is an increase in the prevalence of dementia. The care of individuals with dementia, encompassing both formal and informal care – including institutional, home- and community-based care, as well as end-of-life and hospice care – poses unique ethical and practical challenges. The World Health Organization (2017) envisions a future where “people with dementia and their carers live well and receive the care and support they need to fulfil their potential with dignity, respect autonomy and equality” (p. 6). However, realizing this vision requires a shift towards a human rights-based approach in dementia care, addressing issues of dignity, autonomy, and equitable access to care.
In this context, this panel aims to explore the integration of human rights principles into dementia care, emphasizing the roles of various stakeholders, the development and implementation of policies, and the provision of care services. By bringing together diverse perspectives, we aim to discuss innovative approaches that can transform dementia care into a user-centred, capability-enhancing system.
The panel welcomes papers that engage with the ethical, practical, and policy- related challenges of integrating human rights into dementia care. We encourage both theoretical and empirical contributions that examine questions such as:
Pragya Dev, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Roorkee, India
Binod Mishra, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Roorkee, India
Care can be understood as a situation-based variable with multitudes of meanings. With its initial theoretical footing in western feminist thought, care pervades defined epistemic boundaries; it is fundamentally relational, philosophical, and practical at the same time. We care for things, we care for people, we care for the tangible and intangible. It can be a necessity, a commodity, or even an imposition and yet the limited understanding of care relegates it as a form of dependency. This leads us to a series of structuring questions: Do we care about care itself? Is ethics of care different from caring itself? If yes, why are we not talking about it? More importantly, who decides what and how much to care about something?
This panel invites papers that explore the fictional/biographical/autobiographical accounts from Global South around social care while addressing some of the above-mentioned questions. Global South’s exposure to western ways (allopathic medicine) of cure and care co-exist with indigenous remedies and the relationship of the two is diverse and dynamic. Therefore, this panel, at length, seeks to explore and unwind the overlapping systems of social care and address the fatigue and challenges of providing social care. Some of the possible themes of this panel are (but not limited to):
Selma Kadi, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research
Mirjam Pot, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research
Informal carers provide the majority of long-term care. Over the last few decades, countries across Europe and beyond have started to implement public policies to directly support informal carers, such as care leaves, carer allowances and other financial benefits, programmes and subsidies for respite care as well as information, training and counselling measures. Although informal carers are only starting to receive more attention from policymakers, and substantial variations exist between countries, this development points towards an increasing recognition of informal carers’ social rights and informal caregiving as a social risk.
For this thematic panel, we invite the submission of papers that deal with social policies for informal carers. We encourage authors to submit empirical and theoretical papers, quantitative and qualitative studies, comparative research or case studies, without any geographical restrictions that discuss some of the following or other aspects relating to public support measures for informal carers:
Annapurna Pandey, University of California, Santa Cruz
Elisabeth Schroeder-Butterfill, University of Southampton
This panel seeks papers on the emerging and evolving relationship between family and paid care for older people in context of the Global South, with an emphasis on qualitative research and cross- cultural, comparative perspectives.
In most countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, families play the leading role in the provision of care for older adults, and this is often underpinned by powerful norms promoting familism and eschewing paid care. Yet demographic, economic, cultural and epidemiological changes are making it more difficult for families to provide care single-handedly. For example, smaller families, migration, changing gender roles, the need to combine paid and domestic work or precariously juggle several paid or caring roles, preferences for greater intergenerational independence, and increasingly complex health needs in later life all contribute to pressures on familial care provision. At the same time, there is a burgeoning ‘care workforce’ offering care services which range from highly formalised care industries to informal or semi-formal arrangements involving care support in exchange for payment. This thematic panel is interested in exploring the nexus between family care and paid care from a comparative, international perspective, focusing on context of the Global South. We hope to examine drivers and familial negotiations giving rise to the involvement of paid care; challenges, successes, and concerns in the relationship between families and care workers; working conditions and rights of paid carers that are employed by families; the role of information technology in facilitating collaborative care between paid and family carers; normative shifts around the acceptability and desirability of relying on paid care alongside or instead of familial care; evolving roles and understandings of familial care in connection with the growing involvement of paid care.
Hildegard Theobald, University of Vechta
Care responsibility in elderly-, child- or disability care is often allocated to different social sectors – family, state, market, civil society – and their interactions in a welfare mix. Countries differ significantly in the involvement of the different sectors, their importance and their interactions. As a further dimension, country differences in the welfare mix are determined by the institutional embeddedness of the various sectors. A central role in institutional framework conditions is played by social rights for those to be cared for and those providing care. At the same time, transforming processes often refer to individual sectors, their interactions and its institutional embeddedness. The configuration of the welfare mix of care and its embeddedness in institutional regulations will be decisive for its effects on carers and care receivers.
In this session, papers on the welfare mix in elderly-, child-, or disability care will be discussed, which deal with the questions of the organization and responsibility of care, its embedding in institutional framework conditions including social rights and/or the effects also in transforming processes. Theoretically-oriented or empirically-oriented papers can be submitted. The papers can refer to the situation or possible changes in one country or to a cross-country comparison.
Christine Kelly, Department of Community Health Sciences University of Manitoba
“Cash for care” is an established policy model for supporting people with disabilities and older people to age at home while increasing choice and flexibility. In these programs, people receive funds to arrange their own care. There was (and is) a great deal of enthusiasm around this policy mechanism. It is championed by disability activists as a concrete way to enhance disability rights by enabling people to arrange their services around work, family, hobbies, and other commitments, often resulting in greater participation in civil and social spheres. Clients and families of all ages report a high degree of satisfaction with cash for care as compared to other modes of delivering home care– a finding that stands in multiple countries and contexts. Policy makers across the political spectrum are also enthusiastic as, in theory, cash for care should reduce the overhead costs of services.
Cash for care is indeed a promising health service intervention, yet, various scholars have long raised concerns about the risks of cash for care in neoliberal economies, especially to worker rights. These models impact the care workforce who are thrust into ever-more precarious forms of employment. Returning to the client side, despite high satisfaction, there are growing concerns about access as some studies find cash for care programs better serve men, people of higher socio- economic backgrounds, and people living in urban centres.
This panel seeks to showcase current research and analysis on cash for care and related programs from the around the world, aiming to highlight how the programs have evolved and shape the meaning and practices of disability and care worker rights in daily life.
Tiina Sihto, University of Eastern Finland
Paula Vasara, University of Jyväskylä
This thematic panel focuses on the dark side of care — which is defined in this panel as structures, practices, experiences, actions, thoughts, emotions, and feelings connected to care that are difficult to talk about, hidden, and/or associated with a taboo or stigma. This theme is closely connected to the conference themes of care arrangements, and practices, and formal and informal care work.
Our interest in the dark side of care stems from the contradictions between the praise given to care(rs) and the strong ideals attached to care versus the everyday realities and practices of care. Care, caring, and being cared for are a vital part of our being and survival; others depend on us, and we depend on others for various forms of care throughout our life course. Yet there are many underlying silent agreements on the arrangements of care that are not put into words and discussed. Care can provide a sense of meaning and connection to one another, but at its worst, caring can be binding, burdensome, time-consuming work that can push the carer to his/her psychological, physical, and emotional limits. Caring relationships can entail neglect, the misuse of power, and even violence. We argue that addressing the dark side of care is necessary for imagining what better care could look like, and for imagining alternative futures for care.
We invite both empirical and theoretical contributions to this panel. The possible topics addressed can be related to (but are not limited to) issues such as:
Andrea E. Schmidt, Competence Centre for Climate and Health, Austrian National Public Health Institute
Adelina Comas-Herrera, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science
Liat Ayalon, Louis and Gabi Weisfeled School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University
The United Nations Independent Expert on the Enjoyment of All Human Rights by Older Persons concluded that the climate change is a barrier to the fulfilment of older persons’ human rights. Further, UNHCR highlights that people with disabilities face heightened protection risks and barriers to inclusion due to a higher risk of forced displacement through an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Climate change thus affects long-term care systems, both in the short run due to increased occurrence of acute extreme weather events, as well as in the long run due to the additional burden it creates for people who use and provide formal and informal care, for instance due to increased psychological stress. The COVID pandemic and recent heatwaves and climate events have shown that many people who rely on care from others live in accommodation that is particularly susceptible to climate events, for example old buildings used as residential care with poor ventilation and thermal properties.
At the same time, the long-term care sector contributes to the climate crisis itself, by adding to the global carbon footprint. Moreover, high consumption of pharmaceutical drugs and heavy reliance on health, social and long-term care services are heavy polluters of the environment. Questions around human rights and social rights for a good life of both caregivers and care recipients arise, as questions on how an eco-social transformation of the long-term care sector could look like.
This thematic panel invites contributions to the linkages between long-term care, climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation, human and social rights, focusing on (but not limited to) the following questions:
The session welcomes qualitative and quantitative as well as literature-based conceptual contributions. Interdisciplinary contributions are highly encouraged. Contributions on all people with care needs (including people with disabilities) are welcome.
Wasiq Silan (I-An Gao), National Dong Hwa University & University of Helsinki,
Tove Mentsen Ness, Leader Centre for Sámi and Indigenous Studies Faculty of Education and Art, Nord University
Decolonization is an ongoing struggle globally, and hidden challenges blunt the impacts of truth and reconciliation projects. We have entered an era of truth and reconciliation in many parts of the world. Official apologies were given, and reparation processes are being actively discussed. But what does that all mean in social and health care services or the institutional setting as a whole? While many social and health services have explicitly stated that they should be adapted to the needs of Indigenous peoples, the implementation is far from being realized. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the key international instrument that sets the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being for all Indigenous peoples across the world, has stated that Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development, in particular, being actively involved in developing and determining health (Article 23). In addition, Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices; Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Article 24). To close the implementation gap, we must address ways to decolonize care as one of the key strategies to transform care in policy and practice.
This panel examines the processes for implementing these critical rights to hold the states accountable. In doing so, we may ensure that states take effective measures for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring the health of Indigenous peoples (Article 29) so that the process of truth and reconciliation, as well as decolonization, can go beyond being tokenistic. Enough words; we need actions.
The panel aims to bring together various approaches to decolonizing care,
especially those related to public arrangements involving ways to adapt to a contextualized understanding of care.
Chloe Alexander, University of Birmingham
Başak Akkan, Bilgi University
This thematic panel proposes a dialogue about the role of children within social reproduction and its implications for their human and social rights. Globally children are important actors within systems of unpaid care, supporting and caring for individuals within their families and communities. They are due recognition and respect for their rights as children and as carers. Their position in society also reflects gender inequalities in the distribution and valuing of care work, suggesting the need for a dialogue with feminist human and social rights perspectives. Different contexts frame the diverse challenges facing the realisation of their human and social rights. We are interested in proposals for papers on:
We are also interested in alternative perspectives on the role of children in relation to unpaid care not covered by the above list of topics.
For this theme we welcome the input of those with lived experience of children’s unpaid care and understanding of the role of policy-making and service provision relating to this group.
Mara A. Yerkes, Utrecht University
Jana Javornik, University of Leeds and Institute of Contemporary History
Care is structured at multiple levels across multiple social systems, including health care, social policy and the welfare state, the economy and labour markets, the political landscape, and cultural norms and expectations. Navigating these multiple, entangled and complex systems is increasingly difficult for people receiving care and their caregivers. This requires, for example, that caregivers understand and manage various eligibilities (e.g., time off work, access to adjustments at work and/or flexible work, financial support and their implications) as well as economic autonomy. Caregivers must simultaneously navigate systems such as healthcare and social security, that are often unfamiliar to them. The adjustments needed demand clarity, often allowing no space for the messiness that comes from variable care needs and related intersectionalities. Such complexity, often with no room for accommodating uncertainties (e.g., of diagnoses or long-term and variable health care issues) can foster persistent socio-economic inequality, significantly shaping access to social rights as well as creating fragility, vulnerability, and stigma.
Recognition of and research on the complexities of social systems and/or how care receivers and caregivers navigate these systemic entanglements is growing. In this panel, we place these systems at the core of the analysis. We will explore institutional complexities, compare them across countries and localities, considering the conceptualisation of social justice and how institutional interplays shape social citizenship and the social rights of care receivers and caregivers. We welcome a range of conceptual frameworks and methodologies that study institutional interplays (e.g., between health care systems and social policy systems) or the navigation of them by care receivers or caregivers, focusing primarily on parents or informal carers attempting to navigate work-care structures while caring for someone with (complex) care needs. Papers developing innovative conceptualisations and/or methods to better understand realities in relation to social rights are particularly welcome.
Lina Van Aerschot, Centre of Excellence in Research on Ageing and Care, University of Jyväskylä
Nicola Brimblecombe, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science
Teppo Kröger, Centre of Excellence in Research on Ageing and Care, University of Jyväskylä
Care for disabled and older people to enable them to live an independent life is seen as
a key social and human right. Care needs can be met with the help of family or unpaid carers, long-term care services and personal assistance, or not met at all. National care policies, social policy systems, and individual socio-economic resources determine what the rights to care are and whether care services are publicly provided and/or privately purchased – these also frame informal care. Informal care may be a preference, a must, or not an option at all. The ways in which care and services are organised and allocated may enhance and build equality related to care and assistance, or create further inequalities.
Unmet care needs may be related to government policy, unavailability of services or informal care, lack of awareness or accessibility of services, high user fees, or other barriers. Individual care needs change over the lifecourse and unmet need and inequalities in care provision can have enduring consequences for unpaid carers and disabled and older people.
This thematic panel calls for papers dealing with inequalities in care. We especially welcome papers that connect care inequalities to wider questions within social and public policy, including human and social rights. Topics may be related to social inequalities among older or disabled people or between different age groups, or to unmet needs, care poverty, vulnerable positions, social divisions, inadequate care, and different mechanisms that lead to a disadvantaged position and/or difficulties in having care needs met. We also welcome papers that consider these issues over the lifecourse. The institutional settings and transitions of care systems and care policies are also relevant to this thematic panel as well as the practices of care arrangements
Yueh-Ching Chou, Institute of Health and Welfare Policy, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Salla Era, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä
Teppo Kröger, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä
Since the 1960s, the disability rights movement has advocated for independent living and has opposed institutionalization as a human rights violation. The World Health Organization’s 2011 World Report on Disability adopted a human rights approach, and the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) further recognized the rights of disabled people, requiring states to ensure autonomy and independence. Both the WHO and the CRPD emphasize the importance of home and community-based care over institutional care. However, in many countries, disabled people continue to face institutionalization or lack sufficient support within the community.
In many Global South countries, most disabled people, like older adults with disabilities due to aging, are supported by family members or live-in migrant care workers. While some countries include services for disabled people in long-term care schemes, care research has traditionally focused on older adults, overlooking the support needs of disabled people and those people helping them. Disability studies, meanwhile, often focus solely on disabled people, without addressing the roles of those who provide assistance.
This panel aims to recognize the human rights of both disabled people and those who support them, including family carers, migrant care workers, home care workers, and personal assistants. In addition to paying attention to human rights, we take intersectionality and diversity into account, addressing factors such as gender, social class, types of impairment, geography, and ethnicity, including disabled people who care for relatives or children.
We invite submissions related to these themes from both care research and disability studies. Papers focusing on intersectionality and comparative studies across disabilities, support systems, gender, and nations are particularly welcome.
Petra Ezzeddine, Charles University
Maroš Matiaško, Charles University
The crisis of care and politically induced indifference concerning care have become well-described phenomena (Dowling, 2021). It echoes more profound challenges in how care is valued, organized, and provided within capitalistic societies, which are subject to many pressures from different directions and hamper processes of social reproduction (Fraser, 2016). The crisis is taking place in a space that is not normatively void but filled with a network of obligations stemming from human rights norms. Indeed, care recipients, informal carers, and care workers have been approaching national and international human rights bodies, and care has become a subject of legal interpretation. Yet, human rights norms do not recognize the concept of care, and the meaning of care in this arena is an open question.
In our interdisciplinary panel, we would like to look at the processes of vernacularization of human rights (Merry, 2006) related to all forms of care and the creation of the meaning of care against the background of human rights litigation and legal initiatives. We would like to search with our panel participants for answers to the following questions:
a.) What unique jurisprudence and argumentative strategies have emerged concerning care before the national and international courts and quasi-judicial mechanisms in the last decade?
b.) How do translating the discourses and practices from the arena of human rights and legal institutions influence care practices, legal norms, and social policies in the domain of care?
c.) How human rights approach is affecting the political mobilization and advocacy for human rights related to care?
d.) How are approached and interpreted rights of concrete groups, such as care recipients with very high-level needs, rights of informal carers or cross-border care workers?
e.) How the right to care is (not) communicating with the rights of care workers?
Olivier Giraud, CNRS/LISE
Ralf Och, CNRS/LISE, University of Hamburg
Individual autonomy is one of the main values in modern liberal democratic societies (e.g. Hurka 1987). This notion has particularly been debated and influential in the reform agenda of social policies since the 1990’s (Börner et al. 2017). People in need of long-term care (LTC), as well as those who care for them, are faced with different forms and degrees of autonomy losses. To frame care needs in relation to the multidimensional and differentiated notion of autonomy, rather than as dependency, brings a new perspective into normative, political, and practical aspects of LTC.
In this perspective, LTC policies that support older people in need of care influence their chance to (re)gain some part of their autonomy, and this, concerning specific aspects of autonomy (Eggers et al. 2024). The lens of autonomy brings new light on several aspects of LTC.
The LTC policies developed in various welfare states differ substantially in terms of which aspects of autonomy they emphasise (Eggers 2023, Rostgaard et al. 2024), e.g. financial support, choices in regard of the care task, processes, and carers or in regard to carers, financial compensation, social and/or working rights, support for work life balance etc. They may also differ regarding how they regulate and organise the support for autonomy in LTC on different levels of government. In various regional, national, professional or social contexts, the concrete practices of implementation of LTC policies echo as well various conceptions of and relations to the notion of autonomy. Finally, we believe that the way care recipients receive LTC as it is provided by professional carers, relatives or other carers, is largely influenced by their conceptions of personal autonomy (Giraud et al 2022). Pioneer works had, already in the late 1980’s (Collopy, 1989), mapped out various dimensions of autonomy in the context of a LTC relation between care receivers and care providers. Executional autonomy, decisional autonomy, authentic autonomy, etc. are for instance relevant dimensions of autonomy that concern both care providers and care receivers (Ibid.).
We invite papers that focus on a wide range of research on autonomy in long-term care, such as:
Contributions are welcome from social scientists from any discipline relevant to these questions.
References
Börner, Stefanie; Bothfeld, Silke; Giraud, Olivier (2017): Editorial. Sozialstaatlichkeit und Autonomie: Historische, soziologische und wohlfahrtsstaatstheoretische Perspektiven. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform 63 (3): 333–353.
Collopy, Bart J. (1988): Autonomy in long term care: some crucial distinctions. The Gerontologist 28 Suppl, pp. 10–17.
Eggers, Thurid (2023) Social risks and active social citizenship—A cross-national comparison of long-term care policies for older people in European welfare states. Social Policy & Administration 57(3): 367–381.
Eggers, Thurid; Grages, Christopher; Pfau-Effinger, Birgit (2024): How culture influences the strengthening of market principles in conservative welfare states: The case of long-term care policy. International Journal of Social Welfare 33 (2): 413–426.
Giraud, Oivier; Petiau, Anne; Touahria-Gaillard, Abdia; Rist, Barbara; Trenta, Arnaud (2022). “Tensions and polarities in the autonomy of family carers in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic in France”, International Journal of care and caring 6 (1-2): 141-156.
Hurka, Thomas (1987): Why Value Autonomy? Social Theory and Practice (13) 361–382. Rostgaard, T; Parsons, J and Tuntland, H (eds.)(2024) Reablement in Long-Term Care for Older People. International Perspectives and Future Directions, Policy Press.
Birgit Pfau-Effinger, University of Hamburg
Welfare state policies for mothers of young children have substantially changed in the developed welfare states. The gender division of labor in industrial societies was often based on the male breadwinner marriage, in which a non-employed mother provided the childcare and the fully employed father earned the family income. Meanwhile, many welfare states are supporting the employment of mothers after child birth, offering parental leave for employed women, as well as publicly (co-) financed extra-familial childcare. Different trends contributed to this development of policies, like the trend towards more gender egalitarian cultural ideas, political reactions to low fertility rates, or the strengthening of the concept of the social investment state in welfare state policies, which emphasizes the need of the advanced capitalist economies to extend women’s employment and to promote early education of children. With some delay, welfare states also started to offer particular support for parental leave by fathers, in order to promote a more egalitarian gender division of labor with regard to childcare based on the cultural ideal of the ‘caring father’.
It seems that change in the cultural ideals of motherhood and fatherhood is a rather uneven trend, that develops with different speed and dynamics between countries, and in part along different development paths. Also, the new cultural ideals are in part contested in the population and among social, economic and political actors within countries. Moreover, family policies and labor market policies differ across countries in the extent in which they support the realization of new cultural ideals about motherhood and fatherhood. They also in part treat different social groups of parents in different ways, regarding social class, family form (partnered/married/single parents), sex (heterosexual/same sex parents), or ethnicity. Consequently, women’ and men’s options to reconcile employment and childcare according to their cultural orientation differs in between societies and between social groups within societies.
Contributions are welcome which are related to the following questions:
José Soeiro, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Sociology, University of Porto
Sara Canha, Centre for Research in Anthropology, University Institute of Lisbon
The increase in the number of people in situations of dependency, combined with a shortage of public responses, has led to a growth in the provision of private home care in different contexts. This market provision operates through various organisational intermediaries, often through informal and precarious arrangements, reproducing multiple inequalities and posing significant challenges to the rights of both workers and care recipients.
One aspect of this changing care landscape is the platformisation of care work. Digital labour platforms are emerging in different formats, playing an increasing role in the recruitment and organisation of care workers. At the same time, platforms for care workers to self-organise and exchange information are growing. These developments raise critical questions about the impact of digitalisation on care regimes, labour conditions, and the quality of care.
This panel aims to bring together papers that focus on these changing arrangements in the private home care sector. We encourage contributions that examine 1) how these intermediary institutions, plataformisation, and digitalisation affect the organisation of the home care market in different national contexts with various care regimes; 2) the effects of these changes on the quality of care, labour conditions, and the well-being of care recipients and 3) the challenges that these developments pose to social and human rights.
By addressing these issues, this panel seeks to foster a critical dialogue on the intersection of market changes, digitalisation processes and transforming care systems.
Barbara Thiessen, Bielefeld University
Doreen Gutewort, Bielefeld University
From the 1990s onwards, early childhood education has become increasingly institutionalized in most OECD-countries based on conservative welfare regimes (OECD 2023). This change has been accompanied by a paradigm shift from hands-on-care to education in early childhood education (Honig & Liegle, 2013; Cloos, 2018). The young child is now viewed as an object to educate (Honig, 2019) and a prospective market participant (Olk, 2005; Neumann, 2014). Particularly in early childhood, the essential aspect of "hands-on-care" is often not yet understood as part of the educational process, but is merely perceived as care. All these facets highlight a semantic dominance in favor of educational aspects on the one hand while marginalizing the high level of care needs on the other and emphasizes moreover the development of autonomy over dealing with dependency.
The panel addresses the importance of care interactions in early childhood education, particularly from a participatory action perspective. Participatory care action postulates that actively involving the child creates a relational space supporting the child‘s autonomy on physical, cognitive and psychological levels, while also fostering professional reflection. This ‘transfer space’ will be explored in this panel, questioning how it can be viewed as a foundation for responsive and participatory professional action, and how democratic basic actions can be explicitly determined. Furthermore, it will be investigated which theoretical foundations for democratic education can be derived from responsive professional behavior (Gutknecht, 2010). Special attention will be paid to implications of care behavior on children's rights. How can participatory action be situated within the context of children's rights, and what significance does this have for democratic participation in the sense of a caring democracy (Tronto, 2000; 2013)? The panel will examine the impact of responsive, participatory professional behavior within the care discourse and discuss strategies for embedding democratic educational principles in everyday early childhood education. Additionally, the current issue of skilled labor shortage in many countries and the importance of recruiting skilled workers will be addressed.
Francesca Bastagli, Fondazione Agnelli
Emmanuele Pavolini, Università degli Studi di Milano
Stefania Sabatinelli, Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano
The last decades have seen a growing consensus on the potential of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services to support children’s outcomes, reduce inequalities, redistribute care responsibilities and promote women’s labour market participation. This is reflected in an increasing number of initiatives, at national and international level, in legislation and regulation, financing and implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Institutional arrangements and policies that determine ECEC service access (including priority criteria), service quality (such as staff conditions of employment, pedagogical practices, monitoring and evaluation), financing and governance of public-private partnerships, reflect the extent to which ECEC is acknowledged as a social right for children and their families. Equally important are the policy innovations implemented to cope with the new pressures and to harness the opportunities for ECEC arising from changing needs and circumstances associated with broader trends such as demographic and labour market change.
The session welcomes papers that, through national case studies as well as comparative analyses:
Hildegard Theobald, University of Vechta
Costanzo Ranci, Politecnico of Milano
In many countries, the situation of care professions in several fields, such as long-term care, care for adults with disabilities, or early childhood education and care, is characterized by poor employment and working conditions, which are often accompanied by a shortage of care staff. Processes of marketization of care services have exacerbated these difficult conditions. Against this background, political and civil society actors in many countries have developed and partially implemented approaches to change.
Within the framework of the thematic panel, the conditions and changes in care work in the three fields – long-term care, care for adults with disabilities, or early childhood education and care - will be discussed broadly from different perspectives.
This includes, for example:
Theoretically-oriented or empirically-oriented papers can be submitted. The papers can analyze the situation in one field or compare the situation and changes in the three fields. The papers can refer to the situation or possible changes in one country or to a cross-country comparison.
Ingela Naumann, University of Fribourg
The expansion of ECEC services across OECD countries in recent decades has been accompanied by a strong focus on the educational value of these services. On the one hand, the emphasis on “education” has countered instrumental conceptions of early years services as mere “care depositories” where children are being looked after while their mothers are at work. Instead, early years services should be understood as educational spaces where children learn and thrive, and that expand children’s social rights – hence the term Early Childhood Education and Care. In addition, the advance of “brain science” and the social investment paradigm since the late 20th century put a focus on the role of ECEC services to further young children’s cognitive skills and their “school readiness”, particularly for children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. There have also been efforts to boost the status of the early years workforce by pointing to their role as educators rather than mere “carers”.
However, there are also voices in research, policy and practice that question an overemphasis of (certain forms of) education in early childhood at the expense of wider care aspects: child development scholars point to the importance of caring activities that support children in their development of secure attachments to other human beings, and the development of motor, emotional and social skills as prerequisites for cognitive development; ECEC providers point to the challenges of financial pressures, staff shortages and large children groups for creating caring environments; educators in ECEC settings and primary schools point to barriers to teaching and learning in the face of basic care needs, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic, with increasing numbers of children going hungry or lacking social or basic self-care skills (such as being able to use the toilet independently). And policy makers are experimenting with new forms of care policy, such as breakfast clubs, and reconceptualizations of early years services as family and community centres. With other words, a strict distinction between “education” and “care”, and the posing of a hierarchical relationship between the two, may neither be theoretically warranted nor societally beneficial.
This Thematic Panel invites contributions that put “care” back into the focus of ECEC research, policy and practice. We welcome theoretical contributions (e.g. about the links between concepts such as “education”, “learning”, “care”, “wellbeing”, “social justice” and so forth) as well as empirical papers discussing new trends and initiatives (locally, nationally or internationally) of creating caring environments for children, or examining social outcomes of caring, or less caring, policy and practice developments in ECEC.