More than a visitor? Rethinking metaphors for family care in long-term care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent public and policy interventions aim to recognise formally the contributions of family care-givers to long-term residential care in Canada, with some arguing family carers are more than visitors and should be recognised as essential care-givers. These developments call for reconsidering how family care roles are understood and operationalised. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in three care homes in Ontario, Canada, we present an in-depth feminist rhetorical analysis of the narrated lives and work practices of 12 unpaid family carers. Specifically, we explore how unpaid family carers themselves draw on broader discursive ‘ruling metaphors’ to interpret their roles and activities ( e.g. as essential care-givers, visitors, team members), and how these metaphors invoke, organise and/or give rise to particular practices, responsibilities and relations. We contrast the stories of a family member who positioned herself as an essential care-giver and expressed a more onerous sense of individual responsibility with the stories of people who enjoyed the pleasures of visiting, who contributed as team members in ways that went beyond caring for their own relatives' care needs, and who embraced the possibilities that came with volunteering and with being able to influence change. Our analysis situates and contextualises participants' stories of their involvement and unpaid work in relation to their everyday material conditions and circumstances. We elaborate how different ways of understanding caring roles shape the nature of carers' unpaid work, as well as their options to share responsibility or set limits on that work. We also raise questions about the organisational conditions needed to help enact care as a shared collective responsibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".