Caring to deny, confront, shiver: negativity as a critique of the "natural caregiver" stereotype in nursing

To discuss, based on Adorno's philosophy, the negativity of care in confronting the "natural caregiver" discourse in the profession and exercise discursive analysis of this stereotype based on the negative trihedron of care (deny, confront, shiver). Theoretical study that articulates negative dialectic with the biopolitics of caring for the body. Negativity of care, as an immanent criticism that emerges from the dialectic between help and power, aims to shiver at bodily suffering, a residue of nature violated by cultural discursive practices. We applied the methodological framework of care to deny, confront, and shiver in label analysis to highlight non-identity between nursing reality and natural caregiver affirmation. We confronted the injustices made invisible in the prejudice that women are naturally predestined to provide for others' well-being. We reflected on the contradictions and suffering of women, nurses or not, invisible in the vaunted loving care. We proposed shiver as a metaphor for deny, a critical negativity that opens to the strange coerced and mutilated in the human body.

The Discursive Performance of Change Process in Systemic and Constructionist Therapies: A Systematic Meta-Synthesis Review of In-Session Therapy Discourse

Despite the emphasis of systemic and constructionist approaches on discourse and interaction, to date there has been no comprehensive overview of how change process is performed within in-session therapeutic dialogue. In this paper, we present a qualitative meta-synthesis of 35 articles reporting systemic and constructionist therapy process data from naturally occurring therapeutic dialogue. The studies were selected following the screening against eligibility criteria of a total sample of 2,977 studies identified through a systematic search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. Thematic analysis of the 35 studies' findings identified four main themes depicting change process performance: (a) shifting to a relational perspective, (b) shifting to non-pathologizing therapeutic dialogue, (c) moving-forward dialogue, and (d) the dialogic interplay of power. Findings highlight the interactional and discursive matrix within which systemic and constructionist change process occurs. Findings illuminate the value of qualitative research studies sampling naturally occurring therapeutic discourse in bringing this matrix forth, particularly when utilizing discursive methodologies like conversation or discourse analysis.

On allegations of invasive species denialism

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects-invasive species-based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.