Through a glass, darkly: Gazing into the field of carers in academia

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1002/rev3.3387
Marie‐Pierre Moreau, Lucie Wheeler
{"title":"Through a glass, darkly: Gazing into the field of carers in academia","authors":"Marie‐Pierre Moreau, Lucie Wheeler","doi":"10.1002/rev3.3387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Carers in academia is a young but growing field, which has quickly expanded since the 2000s and has gained new momentum during the Covid‐19 pandemic and the accompanying disruptions of personal and professional lives. It is also one which, through its associations with reproductive and women's work, remains relatively marginalised. This article examines the English language research literature on carers in academia. Drawing upon feminist poststructuralist theories, we contend that, because the literature is not ‘out of the discourses' of care and academic work and, instead, contributes to construct the objects it speaks of, the state of the field is a matter of cognitive and social justice. Following the presentation of the methodological and theoretical frameworks and a discussion of the authorial voices framing the field, we consider the relative in/visibilities of various groups of care/rs. Drawing on a review which identified 158 relevant texts, we find research in the field broadly ignores male, disabled, BME and LGBTQ+ carers, as well as ancillary workers and professional groups other than academics, and forms of care work other than parenting healthy, abled children. We then move to discussing the liminalities of care, noting the absence of studies of care work in academia related to non‐humans and to end of life. We conclude by pointing out the need for further reflexivity in terms of how processes of knowledge production include and exclude in ways that are complex and fluid.","PeriodicalId":45076,"journal":{"name":"Review of Education","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Carers in academia is a young but growing field, which has quickly expanded since the 2000s and has gained new momentum during the Covid‐19 pandemic and the accompanying disruptions of personal and professional lives. It is also one which, through its associations with reproductive and women's work, remains relatively marginalised. This article examines the English language research literature on carers in academia. Drawing upon feminist poststructuralist theories, we contend that, because the literature is not ‘out of the discourses' of care and academic work and, instead, contributes to construct the objects it speaks of, the state of the field is a matter of cognitive and social justice. Following the presentation of the methodological and theoretical frameworks and a discussion of the authorial voices framing the field, we consider the relative in/visibilities of various groups of care/rs. Drawing on a review which identified 158 relevant texts, we find research in the field broadly ignores male, disabled, BME and LGBTQ+ carers, as well as ancillary workers and professional groups other than academics, and forms of care work other than parenting healthy, abled children. We then move to discussing the liminalities of care, noting the absence of studies of care work in academia related to non‐humans and to end of life. We conclude by pointing out the need for further reflexivity in terms of how processes of knowledge production include and exclude in ways that are complex and fluid.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
透过玻璃,黑暗:凝视学术界的看护领域
学术界的护理人员是一个年轻但不断发展的领域,自2000年代以来迅速扩大,并在2019冠状病毒病大流行以及随之而来的个人和职业生活中断期间获得了新的动力。这一领域由于与生殖和妇女工作有关,仍然处于相对边缘地位。本文回顾了学术界关于照顾者的英语语言研究文献。借鉴女权主义后结构主义理论,我们认为,因为文学并没有“脱离”关怀和学术工作的话语,相反,它有助于构建它所谈论的对象,所以这个领域的状态是一个认知和社会正义的问题。在介绍了方法和理论框架以及讨论了构建该领域的作者声音之后,我们考虑了不同群体的护理/rs的相对可见性。通过对158篇相关文献的回顾,我们发现该领域的研究基本上忽略了男性、残疾人、BME和LGBTQ+护理人员,以及辅助工作者和学术以外的专业团体,以及养育健康、残疾儿童以外的护理工作形式。然后,我们开始讨论护理的局限性,注意到学术界缺乏与非人类和生命终结相关的护理工作研究。最后,我们指出,就知识生产过程如何以复杂和流动的方式包括和排除而言,需要进一步的反思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Education
Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
The status of culturally relevant teacher education in the European context: A systematic review of research Effectiveness of language‐sensitive subject teaching: Heterogeneity and quality of the evidence and implications for future research Evaluation of the effectiveness of critical thinking training on critical thinking skills and academic achievement by using mixed‐meta method Research on teachers of colour and minoritised teachers in majoritarian education systems: A scoping review of the literature in the last two decades Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1