Academic "Dirty Work"

Mapping Scholarly Labor in a Tainted Mixed-Species Field

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)
11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Abstract Human-Animal Studies (HAS) is an innovative field, tarnished by its politicized mixed-species subject matter. This paper considers how nonhuman animal scholars may also be tainted, for different reasons and to varying degrees, because of the academic “dirty work” they perform within HAS. As the field matures, tensions are emerging among this disparate scholarly group. These tensions are associated with the rise of Critical Animal Studies (CAS), the extent to which animal scholars should engage in emancipatory-type scholarship and the appearance of the “animal as such–animal as constructed” axis within HAS. This paper draws on these intrafield tensions to form a potential framework that maps scholarly labor within HAS. As scholars begin to debate what counts as “good” and “bad” human-animal scholarship, this may engender the appearance of academic-moral havens. It is suggested that such enclaves may partly mitigate the personal challenges and professional stigma of working in a tarnished academic field.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)211-230
Number of pages20
JournalSociety & Animals
Volume23
Issue number3
Early online date14 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2015

Fingerprint

labor
animal
animals
academic degrees
stigma
Group

Keywords

  • critical animal studies
  • dirty work
  • creative marginality
  • intraprofessional status

Cite this

Academic "Dirty Work" : Mapping Scholarly Labor in a Tainted Mixed-Species Field. / Wilkie, Rhoda.

In: Society & Animals, Vol. 23, No. 3, 07.2015, p. 211-230.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{360b421ea5bb4cdda12608c89ae97601,
title = "Academic {"}Dirty Work{"}: Mapping Scholarly Labor in a Tainted Mixed-Species Field",
abstract = "Abstract Human-Animal Studies (HAS) is an innovative field, tarnished by its politicized mixed-species subject matter. This paper considers how nonhuman animal scholars may also be tainted, for different reasons and to varying degrees, because of the academic “dirty work” they perform within HAS. As the field matures, tensions are emerging among this disparate scholarly group. These tensions are associated with the rise of Critical Animal Studies (CAS), the extent to which animal scholars should engage in emancipatory-type scholarship and the appearance of the “animal as such–animal as constructed” axis within HAS. This paper draws on these intrafield tensions to form a potential framework that maps scholarly labor within HAS. As scholars begin to debate what counts as “good” and “bad” human-animal scholarship, this may engender the appearance of academic-moral havens. It is suggested that such enclaves may partly mitigate the personal challenges and professional stigma of working in a tarnished academic field.",
keywords = "critical animal studies, dirty work, creative marginality, intraprofessional status",
author = "Rhoda Wilkie",
note = "Acknowledgements I would like to thank Andrew McKinnon, Steve Bruce, and the reviewers of Society & Animals for their helpful comments.",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1163/15685306-12341312",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "211--230",
journal = "Society & Animals",
issn = "1063-1119",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic "Dirty Work"

T2 - Mapping Scholarly Labor in a Tainted Mixed-Species Field

AU - Wilkie, Rhoda

N1 - Acknowledgements I would like to thank Andrew McKinnon, Steve Bruce, and the reviewers of Society & Animals for their helpful comments.

PY - 2015/7

Y1 - 2015/7

N2 - Abstract Human-Animal Studies (HAS) is an innovative field, tarnished by its politicized mixed-species subject matter. This paper considers how nonhuman animal scholars may also be tainted, for different reasons and to varying degrees, because of the academic “dirty work” they perform within HAS. As the field matures, tensions are emerging among this disparate scholarly group. These tensions are associated with the rise of Critical Animal Studies (CAS), the extent to which animal scholars should engage in emancipatory-type scholarship and the appearance of the “animal as such–animal as constructed” axis within HAS. This paper draws on these intrafield tensions to form a potential framework that maps scholarly labor within HAS. As scholars begin to debate what counts as “good” and “bad” human-animal scholarship, this may engender the appearance of academic-moral havens. It is suggested that such enclaves may partly mitigate the personal challenges and professional stigma of working in a tarnished academic field.

AB - Abstract Human-Animal Studies (HAS) is an innovative field, tarnished by its politicized mixed-species subject matter. This paper considers how nonhuman animal scholars may also be tainted, for different reasons and to varying degrees, because of the academic “dirty work” they perform within HAS. As the field matures, tensions are emerging among this disparate scholarly group. These tensions are associated with the rise of Critical Animal Studies (CAS), the extent to which animal scholars should engage in emancipatory-type scholarship and the appearance of the “animal as such–animal as constructed” axis within HAS. This paper draws on these intrafield tensions to form a potential framework that maps scholarly labor within HAS. As scholars begin to debate what counts as “good” and “bad” human-animal scholarship, this may engender the appearance of academic-moral havens. It is suggested that such enclaves may partly mitigate the personal challenges and professional stigma of working in a tarnished academic field.

KW - critical animal studies

KW - dirty work

KW - creative marginality

KW - intraprofessional status

U2 - 10.1163/15685306-12341312

DO - 10.1163/15685306-12341312

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 211

EP - 230

JO - Society & Animals

JF - Society & Animals

SN - 1063-1119

IS - 3

ER -