No abstract

Existing research on doctoral education documents levels of satisfaction, the difficulties students face and variations according to demographic variables. Cognitive dimensions of learning are emphasised, and calls to attend to bodies in doctoral education remain largely unheeded. This article draws on theoretical work that rejects Cartesian mind/body opposition, asking 'in what ways do doctoral students' bodies matter?' Thirty-three students were interviewed, and through analysis four themes identified: being with body, bodies in space, bodily practices and bodily experiences. The bodily dimensions of familiar issues, including race, gender, fatigue, and stress, are highlighted, and connections made between bodies and doctoral writing, thinking, age and the spaces in which students live and work. The themes provide new ways of understanding what it means to be and learn as a doctoral student. Taking bodies into account offers a fuller picture of how doctoral work is accomplished and the tolls this exerts on students.

is a Senior Lecturer of Comparative and International Education. Most of his research occurs in international settings where changes in political, economic or social regimes driven by crises and/or conflict have led to calls for significant reform to a nation's education system. In the past decade, Ritesh has conducted research and consultancy work in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Oceania and the Middle East. More recently, his research focus has been exploring concepts of resilience and vulnerability in the midst of complex emergencies and protracted crises.Dr Julia Paulson is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Bristol. Her research interests include education and conflict, transitional justice, social memory processes, history education, and knowledge production in education and emergencies. Julia is currently collaborating on several projects that explore these themes, including working with Colombia's truth commission and leading an international project on Transformative History Education.

No abstract

This paper presents a longitudinal analysis of cross-national data on armed conflict, state fragility, and enrolment in primary and secondary schooling. The study is motivated by questions raised in the 2012 Human Security Report, which challenges the widely-held assumption that conflict is necessarily detrimental to educational outcomes. We use multilevel modelling techniques to determine how conflict and fragility relate to changes in enrolment. Our findings suggest that growth in enrolment is significantly lower in conflictaffected countries but that the effect is dependent upon countries' overall enrolment level. However, when we control for fragility, the effect of conflict is not significant, which is consistent with the Human Security Report's suggestion that fragility is an underlying cause of both conflict and poor educational outcomes. We conclude by discussing the relevance of our findings and challenges for future research on fragility and education.