Search results

Filicide, the killing of a child by a parent, is one of the only crimes committed by women and men in roughly equal numbers. Women's violence against their children, however, more profoundly confounds common understandings of the links between gender and family violence, leading to its ambivalent treatment within the media. When men kill their children, they are usually characterised as either monsters or as sad, failed men. When women kill their children, they are usually represented as bad mothers or mad mothers suffering under the burdens of the pathological female body. In both cases, a mental illness/distress lens is common, though how it manifests is inflected by gender. This chapter examines recent Australian news representations of maternal filicide-suicide. Focussing on the mental illness/distress frame in news, it examines the ideological work this frame does in decontextualising and de-gendering maternal filicide, framing women's mental illness/distress in ‘psychocentric’ terms that strip it of political or social significance and subjecting it to an individualised lens that obscures the gendered aetiologies of women's use of violence.

The focus of the current study is to assess whether officers' broad attitudinal orientations are linked with their situational perceptions of danger in various armed citizen encounters.

The authors draw on survey data from 672 officers employed at a large metropolitan police department. The police culture literature is used to inform measures of occupational stress, danger, citizen distrust, views of upper management, and role orientation in relation to how officers perceive danger across a series of scenarios involving armed citizens that varied in terms of firearm placement and citizen resistance. Along with a host of control variables, a series of multivariate models are used to evaluate the degree to which these aggregated cultural views may shape officers' situational perceptions of danger.

The results indicate that a stronger endorsement of broad attitudinal orientations involving occupational danger and citizen distrust are linked with higher perceptions of danger in armed-citizen encounters, especially as the situations become more discretionary.

Empirical research related to police culture has typically relied upon highly aggregated assessments of how officers view their occupational and organizational work environments. However, yet to be explored is whether these broad views impact officers' assessments of specific encounters, particularly those that are dangerous in nature. The findings from this study also have the potential to inform ambiguous use of force standards that are heavily influenced by officers' situational assessments of danger.

The purpose of this paper is to illuminate for teachers how the suffrage movement is centered in whiteness. The authors posit that this historical erasure is intentional, and teachers should actively find ways to counter that erasure. This paper positions teachers to ask critical questions of dominant narratives, and have students do the same.

Given the existence of historical erasure and the absence of Black suffrage stories, the authors sought to build teachers' content base by conducting a historiography of the dominant narrative of the women's suffrage movement. They examined how state standards and popular online archival collections perpetuate the dominant narrative. They provide teachers with a rich content base and include primary sources they could use to teach this content to their students.

Unsurprising, the Texas and Missouri state standards do little to advance the voices of underrepresented people, especially when it comes to the suffrage movement. Likewise, archival collections are limited by the choice of those who curated the collections. The article presents teachers with lesser known stories of the movement and accompanying primary sources.

Teachers cannot teach what they do not know. So the authors sought to build a teacher's content base so they could tell a more inclusive history. They want to help teachers identify dominant narratives and where historical erasure is happening, and commit to asking critical questions of those narratives and seek to diversity their histories.

This piece is original because much of this content is missing from current history classrooms. In addition, the primary sources and additional resources provided can strengthen a teacher's ability to teach about it.

The purpose of this paper is to present the views of people living with dementia in extra care housing (ECH). This is a model of housing with care and support aiming to support older people, including those with dementia, to live independently. Previous research identifies benefits but is predominantly derived from third-party accounts, with the voices of those living with dementia in ECH significantly absent.

This study adopted a qualitative approach conducting 100 interviews across 8 ECH schemes in England. Over half of the interviews were conducted with people living with dementia and their families with the remainder involving staff and commissioners.

Findings suggest there are a range of benefits including owning your own home, having a safe, age friendly location with flexible support, social interaction and continuing to live as a couple. Challenges included availability of staff, flexible resourcing, loneliness and the advancing symptoms of dementia.

Despite efforts to create an inclusive, diverse sample, the participants were all White British. Participants involved were identified by gatekeepers, which may present some bias in the selection.

Whilst ECH offers benefits to people living with dementia, addressing the challenges is essential for effective dementia care. Improving staff training, promoting person-centred care and fostering an inclusive community are critical for enhancing residents’ well-being and quality of life.

This paper explored the lived experiences of residents and family members, providing new insight into the advantages and disadvantages of ECH for people living with dementia.

Much like their residential counterparts, commercial leases have a reputation problem. Although often derided as painfully dull and mundane documents, residential leases have begun to be interrogated by socio-legal scholarship with renewed interest. This paper aims to continue this line of work in the commercial context through a detailed examination of a widespread form of leasehold in the pub sector: the “tied lease”.

The paper draws on interviews with 14 publicans and archival research.

The author argues that the lease is a decisive actor in determining the balance of power between publicans and pub-owning companies and shaping the physical environment of pubs in the UK.

The author’s broader agenda is to argue that socio-legal scholars’ renewed interest in leases should not be confined to the residential context: commercial leases warrant far greater socio-legal scholarly attention.

The purpose is to offer a critique of the process of decision-making by top university administrators and to analyze how their decisions imposed their preferences and expanded administrative control.

In the fall of 2021, the top administrators at Boston-based Northeastern University required that all members of the university community return to fully on-campus face-to-face work. That decision involved a return to what was labeled “normal operations” and followed a year-and-a-half of adjustments to the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on that case example, the analysis then ranges backward and forward in time. Other decisions – by Northeastern University leaders as well as leaders at other schools – are considered as well.

Leaders impose labels on complex contingencies as a way of constructing meaning. No label is objectively true or indisputable. In the hands of individuals who possess hierarchical power and authority, the application of a label such as “new normal” represents an exercise of power. Through an exploration and analysis of the underlying, unspoken, assumptions behind the application of the “new normal” label, the article suggests how the interests of university leaders were being advanced.

Because of its reliance on labeling, the paper focuses mainly on the words of administrators – at Northeastern University and elsewhere – that are called upon to explain/justify decisions. The multiplicity of interests forwarded by the “new normal” label are explored. No attempt is made – nor would it be possible – to understand what was in the hearts and minds of these administrators.

The article makes a case that any and all pronouncements of leaders should be understood as assertions of power and statements of interests. The practical impact is to suggest a critical analysis to be applied to all such pronouncements.

The approach taken in this article is situated within post-modernist analysis that critiques dominant narratives, disputes epistemological certainty and ontological objectivity and takes cognizance of coded messages contained in language.

Everyone has been through a traumatic period of time with the pandemic. The author has focused on a specific community – university administrators and tenure/tenure track faculty – as a window to help explain how decision-makers shaped their response. The author wants to emphasize the labels imposed by leaders and the assumptions behind the application of those labels.