Research - rethinking the boundaries of fertility control — from early pregnancy to policy, through research, advocacy, and public dialogue.
Research - rethinking the boundaries of fertility control — from early pregnancy to policy, through research, advocacy, and public dialogue.
Research - rethinking the boundaries of fertility control — from early pregnancy to policy, through research, advocacy, and public dialogue.
Engaged Research
Engaged Research
This strand supports engaged methods across the whole programme to build an inclusive, creative and responsive research culture. It identifies a diverse group of experts by experience, advocates, policymakers, health practitioners, and researchers, to offer advice and challenge to the project, meeting regularly to inform research processes. This group, with the entire research team, forms the Contragestive Time Research Hub (Contrahub).
We ask: Who might have views on contragestive time and are they included in this research? How might a broad spectrum of views might be elicited? How might these views recursively shape the development of new knowledges and practices about contragestive time?
This strand supports engaged methods across the whole programme to build an inclusive, creative and responsive research culture. It identifies a diverse group of experts by experience, advocates, policymakers, health practitioners, and researchers, to offer advice and challenge to the project, meeting regularly to inform research processes. This group, with the entire research team, forms the Contragestive Time Research Hub (Contrahub).
We ask: Who might have views on contragestive time and are they included in this research? How might a broad spectrum of views might be elicited? How might these views recursively shape the development of new knowledges and practices about contragestive time?
The Social Meanings of Contragestive Time
2. The Social Meanings of Contragestive Time
This strand works with diverse publics to reveal the plurality of understandings of ‘contragestive time’.
We ask: What are the prevailing socio-cultural notions of reproductive time; how are these generated and sustained? What social meanings emerge from contragestive time and timings, what alternative models of time can be developed, and how could they re-set debates about fertility control? How might contragestives recast the moral significance and affective perceptions of timeliness in fertility control?
We investigate how time works as both an oppressive and an empowering framing of reproductive choice, asking how temporal discourses of reproduction are politicised and gain moral and legal significance. Giving attention to affective significances of time in reproduction, we seek new understandings of reproductive timing and fertility control.
We employ relational ethnographic and creative methods to open conversations with those accessing abortion and contraceptive services, listening to those for whom contragestive time may be a concern, and working across historically diasporic communities, wealth inequalities, and differences of ethnicity, race, age, sexuality and ability. Through engagement we develop theoretically innovative and alternative models of reproductive time and timings.
This strand works with diverse publics to reveal the plurality of understandings of ‘contragestive time’.
We ask: What are the prevailing socio-cultural notions of reproductive time; how are these generated and sustained? What social meanings emerge from contragestive time and timings, what alternative models of time can be developed, and how could they re-set debates about fertility control? How might contragestives recast the moral significance and affective perceptions of timeliness in fertility control?
We investigate how time works as both an oppressive and an empowering framing of reproductive choice, asking how temporal discourses of reproduction are politicised and gain moral and legal significance. Giving attention to affective significances of time in reproduction, we seek new understandings of reproductive timing and fertility control.
We employ relational ethnographic and creative methods to open conversations with those accessing abortion and contraceptive services, listening to those for whom contragestive time may be a concern, and working across historically diasporic communities, wealth inequalities, and differences of ethnicity, race, age, sexuality and ability. Through engagement we develop theoretically innovative and alternative models of reproductive time and timings.
3. Boundary work: the history and philosophy of reproductive processes in very early pregnancy
3. Boundary work: the history and philosophy of reproductive processes in very early pregnancy
This strand is concerned with boundary work in very early pregnancy. It traces the development of the historical, biomedical, legal, and philosophical contexts that have shaped and constrained contragestive time and technologies.
We ask: How, why, and for whose benefit are distinctions made and maintained between pregnancy/non-pregnancy and contraception/abortion? What are the benefits and risks of disrupting these distinctions, and for whom? How have key concepts in early pregnancy emerged and become mainstreamed, and which knowledges and experiences are foregrounded and/or marginalised in this process?
This strand historicises and philosophically interrogates concepts in reproductive biology (e.g. ‘ovum’, ‘conception’, ‘implantation’, ‘gestation’), to find out how they underpin understandings of fertility control, gestational time, and the legal, metaphysical and normative work done by boundaries in fertility control.
This strand is concerned with boundary work in very early pregnancy. It traces the development of the historical, biomedical, legal, and philosophical contexts that have shaped and constrained contragestive time and technologies.
We ask: How, why, and for whose benefit are distinctions made and maintained between pregnancy/non-pregnancy and contraception/abortion? What are the benefits and risks of disrupting these distinctions, and for whom? How have key concepts in early pregnancy emerged and become mainstreamed, and which knowledges and experiences are foregrounded and/or marginalised in this process?
This strand historicises and philosophically interrogates concepts in reproductive biology (e.g. ‘ovum’, ‘conception’, ‘implantation’, ‘gestation’), to find out how they underpin understandings of fertility control, gestational time, and the legal, metaphysical and normative work done by boundaries in fertility control.
Transforming fertility control services through contragestives
4. Transforming fertility control services through contragestives
This strand lays the foundations for contragestives in UK clinical practice. It includes a proof-of-concept clinical trial to test feasibility of researching this area, which will gain consensus on the study intervention and navigate regulatory hurdles. An ethnography of this process will complement interviews with users on their experience of a contragestive option and with clinicians on integration of contragestives into clinical practice.
We ask: What can experts and publics tell us about the most appropriate contragestive intervention to test in a feasibility clinical trial? How can this process of choosing a contragestive intervention and gaining regulatory approvals deepen our understanding of the context for contragestive provision? How do people experience being offered and/or using contragestives and how might contragestion be integrated into UK clinical practice? Is a clinical study of contragestion in the UK feasible?
If the proof of concept trial is feasible we will seek separate funding for a definitive trial of effectiveness.
This strand lays the foundations for contragestives in UK clinical practice. It includes a proof-of-concept clinical trial to test feasibility of researching this area, which will gain consensus on the study intervention and navigate regulatory hurdles. An ethnography of this process will complement interviews with users on their experience of a contragestive option and with clinicians on integration of contragestives into clinical practice.
We ask: What can experts and publics tell us about the most appropriate contragestive intervention to test in a feasibility clinical trial? How can this process of choosing a contragestive intervention and gaining regulatory approvals deepen our understanding of the context for contragestive provision? How do people experience being offered and/or using contragestives and how might contragestion be integrated into UK clinical practice? Is a clinical study of contragestion in the UK feasible?
If the proof of concept trial is feasible we will seek separate funding for a definitive trial of effectiveness.
Policy, advocacy and reproductive choices
5. Policy, advocacy and reproductive choices
Our experience of changing the regulatory status and accessibility of fertility control drugs shows that stakeholders from regulatory authorities, professional medical bodies, and advocacy groups are critical to driving change.
We ask: How did advocacy and policy work shape the development of RU486/mifepristone, and what lessons can be learned for contragestive futures? What are the risks for advocates of challenging current boundaries between pregnancy/non-pregnancy; contraception/abortion? How can we engage with policy makers, professional groups, and industry to drive change that we identify potential contragestion users want?
We will collate and analyse policy documents and social, digital and print media to understand the process of differentiation between contraception and abortion within advocacy and policy discourses, from the first licensed methods (1960s) to the present day. We will conduct key actor interviews, offering the first sustained history of the development of RU486. Drawing on the narratives that emerge across the project, we will develop effective advocacy strategies to deliver change, as well as build advocacy capacity for a post-ovulatory fertility control future.
Our experience of changing the regulatory status and accessibility of fertility control drugs shows that stakeholders from regulatory authorities, professional medical bodies, and advocacy groups are critical to driving change.
We ask: How did advocacy and policy work shape the development of RU486/mifepristone, and what lessons can be learned for contragestive futures? What are the risks for advocates of challenging current boundaries between pregnancy/non-pregnancy; contraception/abortion? How can we engage with policy makers, professional groups, and industry to drive change that we identify potential contragestion users want?
We will collate and analyse policy documents and social, digital and print media to understand the process of differentiation between contraception and abortion within advocacy and policy discourses, from the first licensed methods (1960s) to the present day. We will conduct key actor interviews, offering the first sustained history of the development of RU486. Drawing on the narratives that emerge across the project, we will develop effective advocacy strategies to deliver change, as well as build advocacy capacity for a post-ovulatory fertility control future.
Contragestive Conversations
Contragestive Conversations