In this article I explore a perspective that the philosophical concepts of German phenomenologist Hermann Schmitz (*1928) may open up for thinking about the growing practice of wearing textile integrated electronics directly on the body. It is my contention that traditional conceptions of wearing (non-technological) clothing on the body fail to capture the changed situation and I hence suggest a paradigm shift is needed to think about the novel scope of affects that can be related to body-technology communication. Schmitz’s concepts of the perceptive felt body, corporeal communication and emotions as atmospheres perceived as outside, on or close to the ‘material’ body will be elaborated upon to investigate how they may enhance existing notions of bodily perception and human-technology relations. The case study used for this philosophical investigation is found in the Tactile Sleeve for Social Touch, a wearable created by Elitac, HvA and UTwente, which allows sensations of stroking, tapping and touching to be communicated from one person to another across a distance.
MULTIFILE
This article provides a study of precarisation through the lens of dress work: the mundane practice of dressing the body for work. Based on intimate in-depth wardrobe interviews and analyses of workers’ narratives about their dressing practices, we develop a perspective on what insecure work feels like for workers in the interactive services and creative industries. We understand dress work as a materially mediated practice in which workers often aim to achieve a level of comfort: a state in which they are allowed to become less reflexive about their bodies. One of the ways in which precarisation makes itself known, we contend, is through the temporal logic of the interruption. The temporality of zero-hours contracts and short-term, insecure labour interrupts the achievement of comfort as workers are not allowed the time to experience their work, colleagues and spaces. The discomfort and sometimes pain of insecurity of post-Fordist labour is thus felt on the body.
DOCUMENT
Background:Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telerehabilitation (TR) has been expanding to address the challenges and risks of in-person delivery. It is likely that a level of TR delivery will continue after the pandemic because of its advantages, such as reducing geographical barriers to service. Many pandemic-related TR initiatives were put in place quickly. Therefore, we have little understanding of current TR delivery, barriers and facilitators, and how therapists anticipate integrating TR into current practice. Knowing this information will allow the incorporation of competencies specifically related to the use and provision of TR into professional profiles and entry-to-practice education, thereby promoting high-quality TR care.Objective:This study aimed to obtain a descriptive overview of current TR practice among rehabilitation therapists in Canada and the Netherlands and identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of practice.Methods:A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists and dietitians in Canada (in French and English) and the Netherlands (in Dutch and English) between November 2021 and March 2022. Recruitment was conducted through advertisements on social media platforms and email invitations facilitated by regulatory and professional bodies. The survey included demographic and practice setting information; whether respondents delivered TR, and if so, components of delivery; confidence and satisfaction ratings with delivery; and barriers to and facilitators of use. TR satisfaction and uptake were measured using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and modified Technology Acceptance Model. Data were first summarized descriptively, and then, comparisons were conducted between professions.Results:Overall, 723 survey responses were received, mostly from Canada (n=666, 92.1%) and occupational therapists (n=434, 60%). Only 28.1% (203/723) reported receiving specific training in TR, with 1.2% (9/723) indicating that it was part of their professional education. Approximately 19.5% (139/712) reported not using TR at all, whereas most participants (366/712, 51.4%) had been using this approach for 1 to 2 years. Services delivered were primarily teleconsultation and teletreatment with individuals. Respondents offering TR were moderately satisfied with their service delivery and found it to be effective; 90.1% (498/553) indicated that they were likely to continue offering TR after the pandemic. Technology access, confidence, and setup were rated the highest as facilitators, whereas technology issues and the clinical need for physical contact were the most common barriers.Conclusions:Professional practice and experience with TR were similar in both countries, suggesting the potential for common strategic approaches. The high prevalence of current practice and strong indicators of TR uptake suggest that therapists are likely to continue TR delivery after the pandemic; however, most therapists (461/712, 64.7%) felt ill prepared for practice, and the need to target TR competencies during professional and postprofessional education is critical. Future studies should explore best practice for preparatory and continuing education.
DOCUMENT
