Drawing from the experiences of researchers associated with feminist disability studies, this article reflects on care as an ethical foundation in the processes of academic knowledge production. In a qualitative study using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analysed interviews and identified key points of reflection that reveal interactions aimed at building communities and alliances within and beyond academia. A model of thinking about care as an ethic oriented towards reshaping the relationships with participants in academic studies is advanced. In this context, certain feminist research practices are highlighted, aimed at redistributing power in these processes.
AlvesC.MoraesM. (2019). Proposições não técnicas para uma acessibilidade estética em museus: Uma prática de acolhimento e cuidado [Non-technical propositions for aesthetic accessibility in museums: A practice of welcoming and care]. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 19(2), 484–502. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2019.44287
3.
AparicioA. (2021). Still bodies: A disability-informed approach to stasis in theatre [Doctoral thesis,Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile]. Repositorio de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. https://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/63657
4.
BergerR. (2013). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
5.
BergerR.LorenzL. S. (2015). Disability and qualitative research. In BergerR.LorenzL. (Eds.), Disability and qualitative inquiry methods for rethinking an ableist world (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
6.
BrannellyT.BarnesM. (2022). Researching with care: Applying feminist care ethics to research practice. Bristol University Press.
7.
BrownN. (2020). Introduction: Theorising ableism in academia. In BrownN.LeighJ. (Eds.), Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education (pp. 1–10). UCL Press.
8.
BrownN.RamlackhanK. (2022). Exploring experiences of ableism in academia: A constructivist inquiry. Higher Education, 83, 1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00739-y
9.
ButlerJ. (2016). Rethinking vulnerability and resistance. In ButlerJ.GambettiZ.SabsayL. (Eds.), Vulnerability in resistance (pp. 12–27). Duke University Press.
10.
The Care Collective. (2020). The care manifesto: The politics of interdependence. Verso Books.
11.
CharmazK.ThornbergR.KeaneE. (2018). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 720–776). Sage.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 29–71). Sage.
14.
DeVaultM. L. (2018). Feminist qualitative research: Emerging lines of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 317–349). Sage.
15.
FardellaC.BroitmanC.MatterH. (2022). Activismo, resistencia y subjetividad académica en la universidad neoliberal [Activism, resistance, and academic subjectivity in the Neoliberal University]. Izquierdas, 51, 1–16.
16.
FardellaC.Corvalán-NaviaA.García-MenesesJ.ChiappiniF. (2021). Ni extranjeras, ni secretarias: Discursos de las científicas chilenas sobre el trabajo académico [Neither foreigners nor secretaries: discourses of Chilean female scientists on academic work]. Pensamiento Educativo, 58(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.58.1.2021.11
17.
FreireP. (1985). Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo XXI Editores.
18.
FrickerM. (2017). Injusticia epistémica. Herder.
19.
GilliganC. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
20.
Guedes de MelloA. (2016). Deficiência, incapacidade e vulnerabilidade: Do capacitismo ou a preeminência capacitista e biomédica do comitê de ética em pesquisa da UFSC [Disability, inability, and vulnerability: On Ableism or the Ableist and biomedical preeminence of the research ethics committee at UFSC]. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 21(10), 3265–3276. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320152110.07792016
21.
Guedes de MelloA.NuernbergA. H. (2012). Gênero e deficiência: Interseções e perspectivas [Gender and disability: Intersections and perspectives]. Revista Estudos Feministas, 20(3), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-026X2012000300003
22.
HardingS. (1996). Ciencia y feminismo. Morata.
23.
HerreraF.VeraL. (2021). Infiltrados(as) en la academia: Capacitismo en la universidad desde la experiencia de académicos(as) con discapacidad/diversidad funcional en Chile [Infiltrated in academia: Ableism in the university from the experience of academics with disabilities/functional diversity in Chile]. Polis, 20(59), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.32735/s0718-6568/2021-n59-1593
KuriE.SchormansA. F. (2022). Pivotal care practices: Care ethics in inclusive arts-based research with people labelled/with intellectual disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 80, Article 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2022.101920
26.
KvaleS. (2011). Las entrevistas en investigación cualitativa. Morata.
LindsayS.FuentesK. (2022). It is time to address ableism in academia: A systematic review of the experiences and impact of ableism among faculty and staff. Disabilities, 2(2), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities2020014
29.
LópezC. (2023). Aproximaciones feministas a la discapacidad: Relaciones de poder, emociones y posicionamiento hacia el campo [Feminist approaches to disability: Power relations, emotions, and positioning within the field]. Ruedes, 10, 1–28. https://revistas.uncu.edu.ar/ojs3/index.php/ruedes/article/view/7235
30.
LópezC.HerreraF. (2024). “Who am I to write this?”: An approach to the field of feminist disability studies in Latin America. In ChataikaT.GoodleyD. (Eds.), Handbook of postcolonial disability studies (pp. 141–158). Routledge.
31.
MagnaboscoM. B.Lemos de SouzaL. (2019). Aproximações possíveis entre os estudos da deficiência e as teorias feministas e de gênero [Possible approaches between disability studies and feminist and gender theories]. Revista Estudos Feministas, 27(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2019v27n256147
32.
MaldonadoJ. (2017). Repensar la práctica del cuidado en el contexto del síndrome de Down [Rethinking care practices in the context of down syndrome]. Debate Feminista, 53, 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.df.2017.01.002
33.
MartinN. (2020). A practical response to ableism in leadership in UK higher education. In BrownN.LeighJ. (Eds.), Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education (pp. 76–102). UCL Press.
34.
MartínM. T.MuñozJ. M. (2014). Epistemología, metodología y métodos. ¿Qué herramientas para qué feminismo? Reflexiones a partir del estudio del cuidado [Epistemology, methodology, and methods: What tools for which feminism? reflections from the study of care]. Quaderns de Psicologia, 16(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/qpsicologia.1213
35.
MillerT. R.BairdT. D.LittlefieldC. M.KofinasG.ChapinF. S.IIIRedmanC. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganising interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 1–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268006
MountzA.BondsA.MansfieldB.LoydJ.HyndmanJ.Walton-RobertsM.BasuR.WhitsonR.HawkinsR.HamiltonT.CurranW. (2015). For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), 1235–1259. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v14i4.1058
38.
NguyenX. T.StienstraD.GonickM.DoH.HuynhN. (2019). Unsettling research versus activism: How might critical disability studies disrupt traditional research boundaries?Disability & Society, 34(7–8), 1042–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1613961
39.
OlesenV. (2018). Feminist qualitative research in the millennium’s first decade: Developments, challenges, prospects. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 264–316). Sage.
40.
OliverM. (1997). Emancipatory research: Realistic goal or impossible dream? In BarnesC.MercerG. (Eds.), Doing disability research (pp. 15–31). Disability Press.
41.
Piepzna-SamarasinhaL. L. (2018). Care work: Dreaming disability justice. Arsenal Pulp Press.
42.
PillayS. R. (2023). Vulnerable advantages: Re-searching my self while navigating queer identity, research ethics, and emotional labour. Feminism & Psychology, 33(3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535231181759
43.
ReichW. T. (1995). History of the notion of care. In ReichW. T. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of bioethics (pp. 319–331). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
44.
ReinharzS.DavidmanL. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.
45.
ScullyJ. L. (2020). Epistemic exclusion, injustice, and disability. In CuretonA.WassermanD. T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and disability (pp. 296–309). Oxford University Press.
46.
SimplicanS. C. (2015). The capacity contract: Intellectual disability and the question of citizenship. University of Minnesota Press.
47.
SimplicanS. C. (2017). Feminist disability studies as methodology: Life-writing and the abled/disabled binary. Feminist Review, 115(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41305-017-0039-x
SpivakG. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In NelsonC.GrossbergL. (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press.
50.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Universidad de Antioquía.
51.
TenorioM.DonosoJ.AliA.HassiotisA. (2020). Stigma toward persons with intellectual disability in South America: A narrative review. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12357
52.
ThomasC. (2007). Sociologies of disability and illness: Contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Red Globe Press.
53.
TrontoJ. (1993). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.
54.
TrontoJ. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality and justice. New York University Press.
55.
Vieira de AbreuG.CésarJ. M.CrucesM. R. (2020). Contribuições do modelo feminista nos estudos da deficiência para uma perspectiva de prática inclusiva educacional baseada na interdependência [Contributions of the feminist model in disability studies for an inclusive Educational practice perspective based on interdependence]. Pesquisas e Práticas Psicossociais, 15(3), 1–16. http://www.seer.ufsj.edu.br/revista_ppp/article/view/e3556
56.
WaldschmidtA. (2018). Disability–culture–society: Strengths and weaknesses of a cultural model of dis/ability. Alter, 12(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2018.04.003
