Collop-Smith, Sarah

Ghaye, Tony

Greening, Linda

Habershon, Emma

English

Hartpury University Repository

1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,where human experience appeared limited by understanding at times4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be aprescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based collegeContact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.ukPerceptions of Positive Equine WelfareL Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T GhayeUniversity Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UKSemi-structured interviews with three professionalbreeders and three professional riding instructors werecoded, following the process set out by Saldana (2016). Arigorous process of inter-subjectivity followed to agreecodes and discuss how these could be consolidated tosynthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professionalaccountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting thatPEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplaybetween ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis hasbeen placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This studyaimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at theterm ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).Interview questions;1. What is your understanding of PEW?2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?3. What do you consider to be good practicethat promotes positive welfare in the equineindustry?Positive Equine WelfareDefined by practice…IndividualUnderstanding/perceptions/experienceNeed for/lack of educationObservation of signs of welfareIndividual horse preferencesBasic needsPhysical BehaviouralExternal InfluencersStandard(s) of horse health/ care/ training etc.Doing the right thing…Conflict of interestSometimes gold standard not possibleHolistic care1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be aprescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based collegeContact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.ukPerceptions of Positive Equine WelfareL Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T GhayeUniversity Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UKSemi-structured interviews with three professionalbreeders and three professional riding instructors werecoded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). Arigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agreecodes and discuss how these could be consolidated tosynthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professionalaccountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting thatPEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplaybetween ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis hasbeen placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This studyaimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at theterm ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).Interview questions;1. What is your understanding of PEW?2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?3. What do you consider to be good practicesthat promote positive welfare in the equineindustry?Positive Equine WelfareDefined by practice…IndividualUnderstanding/perceptions/experienceNeed for/lack of educationObservation of signs of welfareIndividual horse preferencesBasic needsPhysical BehaviouralExternal InfluencersStandard(s) of horse health/ care/ training etc.Doing the right thing…Conflict of interestSometimes gold standard not possibleHolistic care1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be aprescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based collegeContact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.ukPerceptions of Positive Equine WelfareL Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T GhayeUniversity Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UKSemi-structured interviews with three professionalbreeders and three professional riding instructors werecoded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). Arigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agreecodes and discuss how these could be consolidated tosynthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professionalaccountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting thatPEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplaybetween ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis hasbeen placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This studyaimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at theterm ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).Interview questions;1. What is your understanding of PEW?2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?3. What do you consider to be good practicesthat promote positive welfare in the equineindustry?Positive Equine WelfareDefined by practice…IndividualUnderstanding/perceptions/experienceNeed for/lack of educationObservation of signs of welfareIndividual horse preferencesBasic needsPhysical BehaviouralExternal InfluencersStandard(s) of horse health/ care/ training etc.Doing the right thing…Conflict of interestSometimes gold standard not possibleHolistic care1. Positive equine welfare is a complex, multi-dimensional construct which resists being neatly defined as‘good or bad’ and is not adequately defined as simply attending to the animal’s basic physiological needs2. Focusing on the individual animal is important which can be affected by a variety of factors3. A critical dimension of PEW is seeing it as an interactive phenomenon between animal and humans,were human experience appeared limited by understanding at times4. The construct of PEW revealed interesting epistemological and practice ‘tensions’ – there appears to be aprescriptive/more general/‘external’ view of PEW and a personally constructed locally situated view5. PEW can be usefully understood as a ‘process of action’ rather than just a ‘process of definition’The UK’s premier sport, equine and land-based collegeContact author: linda.greening@hartpury.ac.ukPerceptions of Positive Equine WelfareL Greening, E Habershon, S Collop-Smith & T GhayeUniversity Centre Hartpury, Gloucester, UKSemi-structured interviews with three professionalbreeders and three professional riding instructors werecoded following the process set out by Saldana (2016). Arigorous process of intersubjectivity followed to agreecodes and discuss how these could be consolidated tosynthesise a more robust 'meaning map' (figure 1).Fig 1. Results schema showing two core categories and underlying themes  Implications: There appears to be an unconscious desire for education and clarification as we discovered a‘lack of certainty’ about the construct of positive equine welfare. Issues of judgement, professionalaccountability, evidence, and the personal construction of PEW were at the heart of this suggesting thatPEW is not a value-neutral construct. Much more work needs to be done to understand the interplaybetween ‘conjecture about PEW’ (what we say), and the ‘practical experiences of PEW’ (what we do).References: Mellor, DJ. (2012) Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare state. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 60(1), pp1-8; Saldana (2017) The coding annual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publications  Welfare science historically focusses on quantitative measures but more recently increasing emphasis hasbeen placed on affective states and the promotion of positive affective states (Mellor, 2012). This studyaimed to investigate whether there is recognition of this at practitioner level, looking specifically at theterm ‘positive equine welfare’ (PEW).Interview questions;1. What is your understanding of PEW?2. What do you believe are signs of PEW?3. What do you consider to be good practicesthat promote positive welfare in the equineindustry?Positive Equine WelfareDefined by practice…IndividualUnderstanding/perceptions/experienceNeed for/lack of educationObservation of signs of welfareIndividual horse preferencesBasic needsPhysical BehaviouralExternal InfluencersStandard(s) of horse health/ care/ training etc.Doing the right thing…Conflict of interestSometimes gold standard not possibleHolistic care

Perceptions of positive equine welfare

https://hartpury.pure.elsevier.com/ws/files/14559892/Perceptions_of_Positive_Equine_Welfare.pdf

Perceptions of positive equine welfare

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hartpury University Repository