Suchergebnisse

Poster presentations: abstracts Key points * Mixed-parent couples in Britain were often in sustained relationships, and a high proportion were middle class. * The couples interviewed used three typical approaches to instil a sense of belonging in their children; particular approaches were not associated with particular racial or faith combinations: o Individual: children's sense of belonging was not seen as rooted in their mixed background. o Mix: children's mixed background was understood as a factual part of their identity; all aspects were emphasised. o Single: one aspect of children's mixed background was stressed. * Couples whose approach differed in giving their children a sense of belonging were not necessarily in conflict. For some, divergent approaches were complementary. Others saw difficulties between them as humanistic, political or personality choices. * Parents identified supportive or constraining resources and relationships in creating a sense of belonging, including neighbourhoods, schools, travel, languages, grandparents and children themselves. What some regarded as supportive, others saw as drawbacks. * Mixed-parent couples can be more concerned with other issues, such as children's safety and health, unity over discipline and financial security. * The researchers conclude that it is important that family support, health, education and social services do not make assumptions about mixed families. Families who seem to share a form of mixing can differ from each other. 'Mixedness' may be insignificant for some, compared to other issues. Mixed families would benefit from policies and practice that further tackle prejudice based on race and faith. ; part of a larger article with multiple poster presentations abstracts

This article considers a genealogy of the governing by data of families in poverty; a case study of the codification of disadvantaged families and problematisation of their difficulties over the course of a century and a half. Influenced by Bacchi's 'what the problem is represented to be' approach, we explore a genealogy of the micro acts of ruling that reveal the practice of constructing and governing of disadvantaged families. We draw on a case study analysis of materials recorded and collected by the Charity Organisation Society and its subsequent guises, during four major periods of recession in Britain, from the late 19th century to the early 21st century. We outline the 'problematisation' approach to governance that underpins our discussion before describing the administrative records with which we worked. We argue that the genealogy of the construction, positioning and governance of poor families over time in this case may be observed in terms of three key shifts in problematisation: (i) from the identification of deservingness towards the assessment of risk; (ii) from a gendered concentration of parents to the perceived needs of children; and (iii) from consultation of authority figures to a reliance on increasingly 'professionalised' data capture tools.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: GILLIES, V., EDWARDS, R. and HORSLEY, N., 2016. Brave new brains: sociology, family and the politics of knowledge. Sociological Review, 64 (2), pp.219-237, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12374. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. ; This article critically explores sociological arguments for greater biosocial synthesis, centring contemporary developments in public policy to demonstrate how such a reframing of humanity tends to reinforce existing political orders and socially patterned normativities. The case for further amalgamation of the social and life sciences is examined to suggest that production of somatic markers of truth from relational encounters largely relies upon an anaemic and politically contained version of the social as acquired in early childhood. More specifically, the gendered, classed and culturally specific practice of parenting children has come to occupy a new significance in accounts of social brains and environmentally reactive genomes. This is highlighted through a discussion of 'early intervention' as a heavily biologized policy rationale framing opportunities for biosocial collaboration. It is argued that late capitalist objectives of personal investment and optimization are driving this assimilation of the social and life sciences, pursuing an agenda that traces and re-scores long-standing social divisions in the name of progress.

In this article, we highlight some critical matters in the way that an issue is framed as a problem in policymaking and the consequent means of taming that problem, in focussing on the use and implications of neuroscientific discourse of brain claims in early intervention policy and practice. We draw on three sets of analyses: of the contradictory set of motifs framing the state of 'evidence' of what works in intervention in the early years; of the (mis)use of neuroscientific discourse to frame deficient parenting as causing inequalities and support particular policy directions; and of the way that early years practitioners adopt brain claims to tame the problem of deficient parenting. We argue that using expedient brain claims as a framing and taming justification is entrenching gendered and classed understandings and inequalities.

Ideas that the quality of parental nurturing and attachment in the first years of a child's life is formative, hard-wiring their brains for success or failure, are reflected in policy reports from across the political spectrum and in targeted services delivering early intervention. In this article we draw on our research into 'Brain science and early intervention', using reviews of key policy literature and interviews with influential advocates of early intervention and with early years practitioners, to critically assess the ramifications and implications of these claims. Rather than upholding the 'hopeful ethos' proffered by advocates of the progressive nature of brain science and early intervention, we show that brain claims are justifying gendered, raced and social inequalities, positioning poor mothers as architects of their children's deprivation.

Ideas that the quality of parental nurturing and attachment in the first years of a child's life is formative, hard-wiring their brains for success or failure, are reflected in policy reports from across the political spectrum and in targeted services delivering early intervention. In this article we draw on our research into 'Brain science and early intervention', using reviews of key policy literature and interviews with influential advocates of early intervention and with early years practitioners, to critically assess the ramifications and implications of these claims. Rather than upholding the 'hopeful ethos' proffered by advocates of the progressive nature of brain science and early intervention, we show that brain claims are justifying gendered, raced and social inequalities, positioning poor mothers as architects of their children's deprivation.

This article looks at the political and conceptual process of trust drawing on a research project exploring the experiences of people who speak little English and thus need interpreters in order to access services. We examine posited solidarity/diversity tensions in the politicisation of notions of general social trust, and debates about the process of trust, including distinctions between abstract and personal trust, the role of familiarity, and the concept of 'active trust', as well as challenges to the functional link between interpretation and expectation in trust. We address the increasing professionalisation of interpreting service provision based on abstract trust, and use case studies to illustrate the complexity of the articulation of trust in interpreters, often involving personal trust, as well as strategies for managing distrust. We conclude that, while trust may be a personal praxis, it takes place in a particular socio-political context that involves asymmetrical relations that focus on particular, minority ethnic, groups.

Forschung mit Teilnehmer(inne)n, die über andere muttersprachliche Kompetenzen verfügen als die im jeweiligen Forschungsprojekt dominanten, erfordert in der Regel die Zusammenarbeit mit Interpret(inn)en und Übersetzer(inne)n, die deren Sprachen beherrschen. Diese führen Interviews durch und erstellen dann Texte in anderen als den Herkunftssprachen der Forschungsteilnehmer(innen). Dennoch werden die Ergebnisse solcher mehrsprachigen Forschungen meist präsentiert, als handele es sich um eine Analyse von Primärdaten. Wir versuchen dementgegen zu zeigen, dass in dieser Weise mehrsprachig erhobene Daten in vieler Hinsicht Ähnlichkeiten mit Sekundäranalysen aufweisen, denn Fragen nach der Bedeutung des Kontextes, in dem die Daten generiert wurden, sind zentral für mehrsprachige Forschung im Besonderen und für Sekundäranalysen im Allgemeinen. Wir veranschaulichen unsere Position an einem Forschungsprojekt, das sich mit den Erfahrungen von Personen befasst, die kaum Englisch sprachen und Übersetzer(innen) brauchten, um Gesundheits-, Erziehungs-, Sozial- oder andere Dienste in Anspruch zu nehmen, und diskutieren an diesem Beispiel, wie wir mit dem Problem des Kontextes umgegangen sind, wenn Daten von Dritten in Sprachen erhoben wurden, derer wir nicht mächtig sind.

Chapter 1 Constructing (step-)families: continuity or difference? -- chapter 2 Being a family -- chapter 3 Putting children first? Adults, children and coupledom -- chapter 4 Doing family: caring, authority and material provision -- chapter 5 It's just not fair! The rights and obligations of doing family -- chapter 6 Conclusions: difference, morality and democracy in (step-)families.