Day programs are commonly identified in dementia strategies as a solution for keeping people with dementia home for as long as possible. Limited research evidence is available to support these policy approaches, and much of what exists demonstrates equivocal results. While key day program researchers have called for improvements in methodological and theoretical efforts, we argue that basic assumptions concerning what a day program is, and how the effects of day programs should be studied, also require reconsideration. Problematization is a systematic review strategy used to identify and critique assumptions guiding research practices and knowledge development in a field of study. The approach entails a broad overview of a field of research alongside a close reading of key texts to identify prevailing assumptions about the object of study and how it can be known. The intent is to discern how these assumptions are influencing research practices and thus knowledge development. A review of historical texts and research literature reviews was used (1) to identify trends in day program research between 1990 and 2018 and (2) to support identification of influential and typical studies for closer analysis ( n = 36). The outcome of our analysis of the research literature suggests three sets of assumptions that guide much of the day program research literature: dementia is mainly treated as a problem of the individual; day programs are treated as stand-alone units of substitute care; and the space of day programs is seen as a simple background to care. We argue that the assumptions regarding care and space have narrowed the field of research and contributed to the production of equivocal findings. We suggest alternative framings of notions of care and space, informed by a Science and Technology Studies’ approach to care practices, to generate knowledge about day programs that can usefully inform policy and practice.

Seeking to support qualitative researchers in the artful development of feminist care scholarship, our goal here is to ‘look back’ on how we have conceptualized the problems of care and developed research that illuminates the social organization of care in distinct ways. As part of a ‘feminist care scholar retrospective’, we present five condensed ‘reverse research proposals’, which are retrospective accounts of past research or scholarly activity. From there, we discuss how each project begins with a particular problematic for investigation and a particular conception of care (e.g., as practices, as work, as a concept) to illuminate facets of the social organization of care shaping paid and unpaid care work and its interpretations. These approaches reveal multiple and overlapping ways that care is embodied, understood and organized, as well as ways care can be transformed.

Globally, day programs are increasingly proposed in policy as one way to address the support needs of people living at home with dementia and their families. Day programs represent a kind of space that can meet multiple interests and ideologies concerned with sustaining care at home for people living with dementia. In this paper, we draw on findings from an ethnographic study of how day programs work as care in the community for people living with dementia to argue that day programs’ ontological status in research as a “simple location” of care contributes to the ambiguous outcomes and limited evidence available for improving their design and delivery. Using one program as an illustrative case, we demonstrate the multiplicity of a day program and the ontological politics through which the potentialities for care emerge. Robert Cooper’s proximal analysis of organizing’s and Annemarie Mol’s work on ontological politics inform this analysis. Of note in this analysis are the different enactments of a day program and their modes of coordination. We show when these enactments hang together well and when they do not and consider the effects of these politics for care. Of particular concern is how some versions of a day program are easily displaced by the interests of administrative versions and managerial logics. We argue for approaches to research and planning that acknowledge the “day program multiple” and precarious nature of care.

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused disruption. Responsibilities increased especially for people who identify as mothers needing to balance work and caring for their child(ren). Through the use of personal narratives, we explored our experiences as mothers who work in academia. The purpose of this commentary is to explore the commonalities of our experiences of trying to maintain the multiple roles and responsibilities demanded from us as mothers and academics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two themes emerged: multiple roles and responsibilities and embracing the ‘messiness’. The need to take on multiple roles simultaneously such as working from home and parenting was challenging. Embracing the ‘messiness’ demonstrated that caring for our children while working from home caused their needs and our time to focus on them to be compromised. Our work and productivity were impacted with minimal available support but this was not acknowledged within the business as usual practices of the university. The conditions that negatively impact us, also negatively impact our children. Children have needed to adjust to pandemic conditions and their support has been compromised due to the other competing demands mothers face.  As academics, our future work will be informed and shaped from this experience, and so too will the growth and development of our children. Our experiences from this pandemic highlight the gendered inequities present within academia and the potential negative effects on child well-being. We call attention to this issue to help promote change and advocate for mothers working in academia and elsewhere.

The social health of people living with dementia is a more recent addition to the dementia research agenda; to date conceptions of the problem and solutions have relied on underdeveloped theorisations of sociality and social inclusion. In this article, using a material‐semiotic approach to care practices and infrastructure, we use an ethnographic case study of one family of a person living with dementia using a day programme and home care supports over a period of 9 months, to examine how infrastructural arrangements provide particular affordances for social relatedness for people living with dementia in the community. The aim of the analysis is to consider how the infrastructural affordances created by the organisation of care may create spatially bounded lives and limit the subject positions available for people living with dementia and their families. It is these narrowed positions of dwelling that we argue may be the necessary starting place for thinking about the social health of people living with dementia and the solutions that might be helpful for them.