Theoretical foundations of narrative care: Turning towards relational ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decades, narrative practices have been developed, and care has been conceptualized as being narrative in nature. More recently, narrative care has been developing both as a practice and a field of study. It is necessary to make the theoretical foundations of narrative care visible to avoid the risk of narrowly defining narrative care as a matter of storytelling and listening. In this article, we develop an understanding of narrative care grounded in early feminist pragmatist philosophy, with a focus on social and political activism and experience. Pragmatism holds the possibilities to open spaces for realities that are constantly in flux and for emergent situations that must be considered across time, diverse places and social contexts. With the aid of Vera's stories about her relationship with Tammy, we demonstrate the importance of recognizing that realities are multiple, complex and uncertain. Furthermore, we discuss how the stronghold of formula stories and issues of power, positioning and inequities, restrict people's possibilities to be, become and co-author their stories. We also argue that the playfulness, imagination and world travelling of narrative care are in line with early feminist pragmatism, which draws on a wide and diverse range of experiences. Jane Addams linked democracy to dialogue, joint experiences and social equality. This calls for the development of ethical frameworks grounded in care that are more specifically focused on relational ethics and a commitment to dialogical and relational democracy and the prioritization of community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".