In midweek, a ticket of the most serious ... We promised you to keep you informed of the latest research on our practices and human-animal interactions.

So I asked Jerome Michalon to share with us his doctoral work. He very kindly played along to the interview. His research is very interesting. Feel free to make comments and ask questions, I'm sure Jerome will gladly respond!

Can you introduce yourself please?
My name is Jerome Michalon, I'm 28, and I pursue a Ph.D. in sociology and political anthropology laboratory MODYS (Worlds and Dynamic Companies - CNRS - 5264), under the tutelage of Jean Monnet University of Saint Etienne and Université Lumière Lyon 2. I am directed by André Micoud, sociologist specializing in environmental issues, who has worked on the relationship human / animal. I work and live in Saint Etienne.

You prepare a thesis on animal mediation, can you tell us more and describe your research project?
This thesis is not just about animal mediation, but more broadly on the intervention of the animal in situations of human suffering. I emphasize this distinction because many denominations and changing practice (Pet therapy, therapy Aided The Animal, The Animal Activities Combining Mediation animal etc ...) are part of my research subject. Indeed, my work focuses on the emergence, in Europe and North America, these practices including the animal in care devices. The objective is to document how some people (scientists, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, trainers, breeders, social workers ...) have seen that the contact with the animal could provide new answers to many ailments psychological and / or physiological. It is also to see how these people were mobilized, combined, contested (sometimes) to defend and formalize both the practice but also how the name (which is far from trivial).

Besides this socio-historical approach, I seek to account for the enactment of these practices through ethnographic description of an association of horse therapy. It is about how knowledge of animals and diseases are mobilized by "therapists" in the situation.

Why this theme?
After working in zoos and on the SPA, it seemed that there was a need to produce a description of the new relationships that humans have with their animals (especially domestic). It is clear that there is a real "animal question" in our society: whether the economy (the market for pets is becoming more important - not to mention that of the animal consumption) , on an ethical level (debates about animal testing, the bullfight, the ever-growing vegetarian and vegan), or at the political level (the promotion of "animal rights", the new legislation on animal welfare in husbandry practices), the relationship to the animal evolve significantly over the past forty years. When I say "relationship" is to signify that this is not only changing the look of human animals, themselves, would always be the same as "immutable. "The animals are also changing, developing skills that not seen in them a few years earlier (see the work of Vinciane Despret).

The phenomenon of "pet therapist" and / or "service animal" seemed rather exemplary of how you create a new room for the animal. It is a challenging topic because it can handle several aspects of the relationship anthropozoologique: d First, it calls for documenting the place which had been previously some animals, and stories that bound them to certain categories of humans (eg, interest in the horse therapy leads to an interest in history and practices of riding, a culture which is quite different from that of the owners of dogs.) On the other hand, it is interesting to observe a more global movement that ignores these stories and various relationships, which includes, in order to promote a positive image of the animal in our societies.

How are you and what is your approach? Not too difficult?
Until then, I used two levels of research.

The first level is a fairly extensive bibliographic work is the result of a commission of the Foundation Adrienne & Peter Sommer. This is an inventory of available knowledge of French and English on the interactions between humans and animals in order therapeutic and / or education. This work was the opportunity to do a review (as comprehensive as possible) of all that had been published on the subject and to offer an overview of how historical and analytical research has taken up thereof. This work has been completed and the Sommer Foundation should make available to the public soon.

The second level is more mobilized socio-ethnographic, with "traditional" methods of collecting data in these disciplines: observation and interview. To take the example of the combination of horse therapy who greeted me, my job was to observe the spaces and therapeutic devices (describe the spatial and symbolic of the equestrian center that hosts the association, but also the theoretical organization of the management of patients) but also the daily process and practical sessions, interactions, verbal and physical, patients, therapists, animals. It is true that this is a very rich material: it happens a lot during the sessions. That's why I practice also includes interviews with therapists who can give me their own reading of what happened, and enlighten me with knowledge of animals with which they (I have only met women) work, and patients they receive. This work of "rereading" of scenes I've seen is as a material in its own right: it is an opportunity for me to identify in which speech and / or What is imputed to the therapeutic effect (the animal, practice, coaching, the patient himself ...).

The radius of the difficulties include the fact that especially the animal therapist is a subject marked and worn by people with training rather psychological (clinical psychology, psychomotor, psychiatry, neuropsychiatry ...) and sometimes difficult to perceive what a sociologist (and more importantly, a sociologist using ethnographic methods) could see more of it. It is very legitimate and, ultimately, it's not a problem but rather a resource for me I'm interested in the sociology of science. And, I really did not complain because everyone I've met so far have been extremely good to me.

Can you tell us briefly about your results?
Briefly it will be hard!

I will still evoke the tension that seems fundamental to understanding the environment of the animal therapist. This voltage is multifaceted, is called in different ways, but ultimately I think it's always the same.

During my initial reading, I had realized that treatment practices including animal produced positive results without anyone really knowing explain - at least agree on - the mechanisms by which these results advenaient. At the same time, there was a real need on the part of practitioners to demonstrate and explain the existence of these results. So we rejected the positive results previously found by classifying them under "stories" on the side of the unscientific, and was called to the production of scientific studies that could confirm if "yes or no, it works." I found this entry interesting how an environment with a need so strong science can live with this uncertainty? So it is with this question that I immersed myself in both the bibliographic work and in ethnographic work.

I was struck to discover that this tension was present from the early work on the interactions between humans and animals for therapeutic purposes and it was still relevant almost 50 years later. By reading dozens of articles, among those who most "seminal", I realized that those who reported positive results were not given for purpose of determining the issue of "it works or not" but rather explain how it had worked for them. We talk about results very context that, even if they are not "anecdotal", do not allow the generalization of knowledge, and therefore the spread of the practice. Many studies focus indeed to demonstrate that positive results have not been produced in a sufficiently scientific: they dismantle protocols, return on data analysis etc. ... He then engages in a series of experimental work , decontextualized (physically - it takes place in the laboratory - by protocols or methodologically very "remote") that work less unanimous, without deciding the issue. Common to these approaches is the willingness to stand contextualized studies. The first way to do was to evacuate as directly given the implicit "desire. "Indeed, in the first articles, as in the stories" anecdotal ", one can only note the enthusiasm of both practitioners, patients and animals: there is a" want "shared that the meeting goes well and to produce positive effects. And we note that in general this is the case.

So, it was pretty amazing for me to see that this variable has been very little taken seriously by the vast majority of studies I have consulted. I am falsely naive of course, saying that: it would be to misunderstand the place given to the affects in the experimental sciences.

The work of Veronique Servais are enough copies of certain protocols that occur when attempting to deprive them of all affect. This Belgian researcher explained in several articles participation in a research program to prove or disprove the therapeutic nature of the relationship between autistic children and dolphins. The first phase of the program, which had been very positive (the children made ​​significant progress in cognitive contact with dolphins), had asked the team: do the researchers did not influence these results by projecting their own enthusiasm for the relationship they say "magic" between autism and dolphins? Thus, a second experiment was set up, taking care to erase anything that could be interpreted as signs of enthusiasm or encouragement for children to go to the dolphins. The results were obviously very poor: the children had made no progress.
All this greatly questioned: is this the right way to prove or disprove the benefits of the animal on human health? Is it even possible to do? Is it desirable to do so?
It is precisely these questions, and answers thereto, that interest me, because they can update each other's positions, clarify expectations, relationships with animals, disciplinary inheritances etc. ... for example, someone who comes from psychotherapy, more used to work with cases, the use of the animal will not necessarily systematic or even systématisable. While for someone from the medical or veterinary, there will be a need to go through evaluations of practice on larger scales, for its legitimacy.

In the language of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thevenot, "greatness" of a practice of care does not lie in the same place for everyone: for some, the use of the animal has value from when it is beneficial to at least one person, while for others, so it is not established, standardized, and legitimized, it loses all its value and is returned to the anecdotal.

What do you expect from such research?

I expect that interest both to those who practice and advocate the use of animals for therapeutic purposes that close to my university disciplinary universe. Nothing more.

The university she enjoyed that?

It was not clear, but instead I got lucky. I was trained by professors fairly broad-minded, who were not with a view to lock ourselves into a frame of mind, a precise methodology, or predefined topics. Also, I am followed by Andrew Micoud, who as I said above had already addressed the relationship human / animal, and was of great advice. Similarly Charvolin Florian, who is a political in the same laboratory, working on the involvement of amateurs in scientific practice (particularly in the natural sciences), gives me a solid theoretical basis.
When I say I lucked out is that I think it happens like this everywhere. Indeed, doing sociology anthropozoologiques relations is still a marginal approach, which sometimes has trouble being taken seriously. My subject was sometimes greeted with incomprehension or with a smile. The explanation is that such questions about disciplinary demarcations: the fact that there are "social sciences" and "natural science", which do not humans and animals on the same plane, which does not mobilize the same tools, the same words to describe each other, it complicates the task of documenting the practices of honest people who can make humans and animals on the same plane, speak the same words etc. ... When I say "honestly", it means without placing themselves in an overhanging position vis-a science-vis the people studied.

As of today, what is your vision of our animal practice in mediation? And future?
As I said earlier, "Mediation animal" is a term among others. It is recent and represents a desire to move closer to other therapies mediated (including artistic and tangible). I'm not sure what you mean by "vision of the practice," so I will just talk about the future, stating that I believe this strategy of aggregation, federation mediated therapies, will no doubt prove quite pay in terms of institutional recognition of the practice, and ensure a place more sustainable use of the animal care practices.

However, it is feared that to define the animal as a mediator, or a media-, and place it at the same level of artistic practices, does not raise a reluctance on the part of "animal lovers" who could see a denial of recognition of the place the animal, as a being endowed with intentionality, holds in practice. "The pet tool" could be an object of contention between those who put the idea that the animal is good in itself, above all, and those who try to put some distance and order in their practices. The risk with the use of the term mediation is, in my view, to cut first.

How do you explain this craze?
Enthusiasm for the inclusion of the animal care practices and assistance can not be disconnected from the emergence of a climate of kindness to animals, and more broadly to "the environment". The dissemination of ecological ideas, awareness of other beings that inhabit the world and the fate of humanity depends also one of those beings, necessarily has an influence on the creation of practices like this, which tend to put some humans and some animals in situations of interaction, and dependent - pretty intense. It's really take note of the weight of the "environment" of human destiny than to establish practices in which human well-being is related to an animal presence. The symbol is strong I think.

This is probably the reason why these practices are high profile: they have an evocative rather obvious. The images of autistic children putting himself inexplicably to "communicate" in the presence of a dolphin, are a perfect example of a kind of symbiosis between humans and animals, a link to "natural fact of modern life would disappear." There is also the attraction of mystery: the beneficial effects observed, mediated, but not necessarily explained intrigue. Especially when the animal is used for conditions such as autism that are still also quite mysterious. The fact that certain practices are in the presence of beings which were sometimes hard to understand the mental universe must exercise a certain fascination. In short, the mystery surrounding both beings involved, and that their product meets largely explains this popularity.

The animal was there an important place in your life? Why?
Intellectually, he has a huge place! For over six years since I worked on it, not to mention before I was already deeply interested in the issue of animal rights (and the philosophy which supported). For this reason, I was vegetarian for 10 years. In addition, I was raised surrounded by several dogs and some cats with whom I have had fairly good relations. They marked my life for sure. It is through them that I can say "I love animals," with all the reserves needed to back this term - I do not know all animals personally and, like many people, I have more affinity with animals naked with snakes.

Will you give us your conclusions?
No problem. Thank you for this interview

Thank you to Jerome for taking the time to talk about his work! For my part, I find very rewarding as sociologists come enlighten us on what type of practice.

To conclude, I would make a small remark. In my opinion, to evaluate the beneficial effects of the presence of animals in a therapy, it would have to agree on what is expected by treatment and therapy. What differentiates the helping of classic therapy? This is first of all to question what we do and about our place: ie professional stance. The animal is certainly not the therapist and this is what makes all his wealth ... But this topic will be another post.

Then it must be remembered that each therapist has his interpretative framework based on currents and schools ...

Congratulations to Jerome for the job and good luck for the future! Meanwhile, the findings ...

For more information:

A link to the lab of Jerome www.modys.fr

The executive summary of Jerome for the foundation sommer : "Perspectives on research around interactions with the aim to Animal Therapy and / or Educational"

Some books:

Arkow, P. (2004). Animal-Assisted Therapy and Activities: A Study, Resource Guide and Bibliography for the Use of Companion Animals in Selected Therapies.

Beck, AM and AH Katcher (1983). Between Pets and People. Springfield, IL.

Beck, AM and AH Katcher (2003). "Future directions in human-animal bond research. "American Behavioral Scientist 47 (1): 79-93.

Boltanski, L. and L. Thévenot (1991). Of justification. Economies of scale. Paris, Gallimard.

Brickell, CM (1986). "Pet-Facilitated therapies: A review of the literature and clinical implementation considerations. "Clinical Gerontologist 5 (3-4): 309-332.

Corson SA, Corson EO, PH Gwynne and LE Arnold (1975). Pet-Facilitated psychotherapy in a hospital setting. Current Psychiatric Therapies. JH Masserman. New York, Grune and Stratton: 277-286.

Despret, V. (2002). When the wolf shall dwell with the lamb. Paris, Seuil / The troublemakers think in circles.

Despret, V. and J. Porcher (2007). Being stupid. Arles, Actes Sud.

Fine, AH, Ed (2000). Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice. San Diego, Academic Press.

Franklin, A., M. Emmison, D. Haraway and Mr. Travers (2007). "Investigating the Benefits of therapeutic companion animals: Problems and challenges. "Qualitative Sociology Review III Animals & people (1 Special issue - People and Animals. On the problem of intersubjectivity in interactions of Humans and animals): Pp 42-58.

Friedmann, E., AH Katcher, JJ Lynch and SA Thomas (1980). "Animal Companions and one-year survival of patients After discharge from a coronary care unit. "Public Health Reports 95 (4): 307-312.

Katcher, AH and Beck AM (1983). New perspectives on our lives with companion animals. Philadelphia.

Lestel, D. (2004). The singular animal. Paris, Seuil.

Levinson, BM (1962). "The dog as" co-therapist. "" Mental Hygiene 46: 59-65.

Servais, V. (1999). "Survey of the" healing power "of dolphins. Ethnography of a search. "Gradhiva (25): 93-105.

Sandie

Bookmark on: