Abstract:The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.
“…Therefore, in a broader geographical landscape where the rest of the school is perceived as turbulent, uncertain and ‘care‐less’ (Bosworth, ; Vogt, ; Rogers, ), seclusion becomes even more significant and paradoxically was perceived by some students as an attractive and safe space in the school: I do have them [previous attenders] coming to the door and have to say to them ‘if you want to speak to me, do so after school’ . (Nicky) In fact, it's almost too nice in there [seclusion].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, teachers who focus on 'caring' (often seen in opposition to professionalism and distance; see Murray, 2006) often risk being stereotyped as 'mavericks', sidelined by other staff, and can be more vulnerable to restructuring and redundancy (Pulsford, 2014). Recent work has theorised how institutional spaces, such as universities (Rogers, 2017) and secondary schools (Lithari & Rogers, 2017), are fundamentally (at least in a formal, institutional sense) 'care-less' spaces. In institutional spaces (despite the many earlier identified examples of caring), 'love and care are psycho-Gender, care and seclusion in secondary schooling 1281 socially questioned' (Rogers, 2017, p. 132).…”
Section: Fixed-term Exclusions From School Internal Exclusion and Sementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, in a broader geographical landscape where the rest of the school is perceived as turbulent, uncertain and 'care-less' (Bosworth, 1995;Vogt, 2002;Rogers, Gender, care and seclusion in secondary schooling 1289 2017), seclusion becomes even more significant and paradoxically was perceived by some students as an attractive and safe space in the school: Whilst Nicky's practices can be seen as resisting dominant patriarchal notions of 'uncaring' schools (Ringrose, 2010), this marginalisation and feminisation of care comes at a cost (Vogt, 2002;James, 2010). Caring is 'dangerous' (McCuaig, 2012;Gillies & Robinson, 2013) and can pathologise individual education professionals and students, serve patriarchal interests and reinforce traditional gender roles (McCuaig, 2012;Moss, 2014).…”
Section: Perceived Space: Care and School-wide Spatial Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent work has theorised how institutional spaces, such as universities (Rogers, ) and secondary schools (Lithari & Rogers, ), are fundamentally (at least in a formal, institutional sense) ‘care‐less’ spaces. In institutional spaces (despite the many earlier identified examples of caring), ‘love and care are psycho‐socially questioned’ (Rogers, , p. 132). Generated from pedagogical models which repudiate emotionality in favour of rational learning, there is a history of ‘carelessness’ in classrooms (Gillies & Robinson, ) and although young people value care in schools (Bosworth, ; Alder, ), they can more readily identify instances of non‐care (Hughes, ).…”
A breadth of research explores gendered professional identities, practices and spaces across a range of UK educational institutions. One focus has been on links between gender, care and education in early years settings and primary schools, although less attention has been given to caring within secondary schools. Drawing on qualitative research conducted in London within an in‐school seclusion unit, this article brings together a Lefebvrian conceptualisation of space with feminist theorisations of care to explore how the unit (conceived as a space of control, discipline and punishment) also became an unlikely space of care. In doing so, the article explores complex intersections between gender and care and how everyday caring practices in schools are inextricably linked to and embedded within broader institutional and spatial agendas and processes.
“…Therefore, in a broader geographical landscape where the rest of the school is perceived as turbulent, uncertain and ‘care‐less’ (Bosworth, ; Vogt, ; Rogers, ), seclusion becomes even more significant and paradoxically was perceived by some students as an attractive and safe space in the school: I do have them [previous attenders] coming to the door and have to say to them ‘if you want to speak to me, do so after school’ . (Nicky) In fact, it's almost too nice in there [seclusion].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, teachers who focus on 'caring' (often seen in opposition to professionalism and distance; see Murray, 2006) often risk being stereotyped as 'mavericks', sidelined by other staff, and can be more vulnerable to restructuring and redundancy (Pulsford, 2014). Recent work has theorised how institutional spaces, such as universities (Rogers, 2017) and secondary schools (Lithari & Rogers, 2017), are fundamentally (at least in a formal, institutional sense) 'care-less' spaces. In institutional spaces (despite the many earlier identified examples of caring), 'love and care are psycho-Gender, care and seclusion in secondary schooling 1281 socially questioned' (Rogers, 2017, p. 132).…”
Section: Fixed-term Exclusions From School Internal Exclusion and Sementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, in a broader geographical landscape where the rest of the school is perceived as turbulent, uncertain and 'care-less' (Bosworth, 1995;Vogt, 2002;Rogers, Gender, care and seclusion in secondary schooling 1289 2017), seclusion becomes even more significant and paradoxically was perceived by some students as an attractive and safe space in the school: Whilst Nicky's practices can be seen as resisting dominant patriarchal notions of 'uncaring' schools (Ringrose, 2010), this marginalisation and feminisation of care comes at a cost (Vogt, 2002;James, 2010). Caring is 'dangerous' (McCuaig, 2012;Gillies & Robinson, 2013) and can pathologise individual education professionals and students, serve patriarchal interests and reinforce traditional gender roles (McCuaig, 2012;Moss, 2014).…”
Section: Perceived Space: Care and School-wide Spatial Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent work has theorised how institutional spaces, such as universities (Rogers, ) and secondary schools (Lithari & Rogers, ), are fundamentally (at least in a formal, institutional sense) ‘care‐less’ spaces. In institutional spaces (despite the many earlier identified examples of caring), ‘love and care are psycho‐socially questioned’ (Rogers, , p. 132). Generated from pedagogical models which repudiate emotionality in favour of rational learning, there is a history of ‘carelessness’ in classrooms (Gillies & Robinson, ) and although young people value care in schools (Bosworth, ; Alder, ), they can more readily identify instances of non‐care (Hughes, ).…”
A breadth of research explores gendered professional identities, practices and spaces across a range of UK educational institutions. One focus has been on links between gender, care and education in early years settings and primary schools, although less attention has been given to caring within secondary schools. Drawing on qualitative research conducted in London within an in‐school seclusion unit, this article brings together a Lefebvrian conceptualisation of space with feminist theorisations of care to explore how the unit (conceived as a space of control, discipline and punishment) also became an unlikely space of care. In doing so, the article explores complex intersections between gender and care and how everyday caring practices in schools are inextricably linked to and embedded within broader institutional and spatial agendas and processes.
“…My inherited and experienced traumas came to a 'snap' (Ahmed 2017) during a period of debilitating chronic illness-the stress of which was exacerbated by the constant and increasing demands of an 'uncaring' academia (Gill 2009;Rogers 2017;Loveday 2018). I realised that I no longer wanted to play this game.…”
Section: Auto-ethnographic Research: Revealing the Traumas That Lead mentioning
In spite of the apparent rise in feminism, who gets to know about feminism is still fraughtand impartial. How then, do we come to find ‘a home’ in and for feminism when it has been absentfrom our formative politicisation? How comfortable is that home for working-class academics? Inthis paper, I reflect on my feminist genealogy—from growing up as a working-class girl in a smallScottish town in an area of deprivation to becoming a first generation feminist academic in a RussellGroup University in the UK. This paper builds on the wealth of research exploring the trajectoriesof working-class women within academia by engaging genealogy research to explore how onedevelops as a feminist within academia—which can also be a strange place for first generationacademics. As an undergraduate coming of age in the ‘post-feminist’ 1990s, access to the languageand politics of feminism was beyond my grasp. I came to feminism relatively late in my life andacademic career—it was in my doctoral research that I really became engaged academically and asa named political identity. I employ auto-ethnography in this paper and reflect on how our intimateothers are always implicated in our own stories. This allows me to highlight how inheritedexperiences, memories, and embodiments are key. Intergenerational learning can make us implicitlyfeminist before we learn the formal language of feminism. The stories I choose to tell and ‘memories’I invoke here are re-crafted and recalled in response to what frustrates me now. That young womenare still telling the same stories that I tell here.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
