Who cares and how would you know? Conceptualising ‘doxic’ care

‘Who cares?’ Gender, care and secondary schooling: ‘Accidental findings’ from a seclusion unit

“…In order that exclusion does not function as a reward (Gilmore, ) and to ensure that excluded students receive education and supervision whilst excluded (attempting to avoid the negative outcomes associated with school exclusion; see Power & Taylor, ), a growing number of schools have developed school‐based internal exclusion. Known by a variety of names, including ‘seclusion units’ (the term used here), ‘disciplinary inclusion rooms’, ‘remove rooms’ and ‘consequences rooms’ (Merrick, ; Perraudian, ; Power & Taylor, ), these are one example of a broader range of preventative measures, such as pupil referral units (PRUs; see Gillies & Robinson, ), other forms of learning support (Bailey & Thompson, ) and inclusion services (see Hallam & Castle, ), to support those at risk of school and social exclusion (Hughes, ; IFF Research et al ., ). However, seclusion units are controversial, and for some their highly regulated and punitive nature (often enforcing a maximum number of toilet breaks, reducing external stimuli to a minimum and requiring silence all day; see Gilmore, ) can be seen to violate children's rights (Merrick, ; Perraudian, ).…”

“…Although sometimes assumed to be ‘natural’ (Moss, ; Hughes, ), and often invisibilised or undervalued, care can be conceptualised in a range of ways (Rogers & Weller, ; Horton & Pyer, ). This article draws on two aspects of Noddings’ highly influential conceptualisations of care.…”

“…This article draws on two aspects of Noddings’ highly influential conceptualisations of care. Firstly, Noddings draws attention to the relationality of care—that is, viewing care as relationships, rather than solely tasks (Noddings, , ; Alder, ; James, ; Laurent, ; Hughes, ). Involving interdependence and vulnerability (Hansen & Mulholland, ), a wide range of non‐symmetrical and non‐equal relational encounters (between those who care and those who are cared for) produce caring relations (Alder, ; Laurent, ; Hughes, ).…”

“…Firstly, Noddings draws attention to the relationality of care—that is, viewing care as relationships, rather than solely tasks (Noddings, , ; Alder, ; James, ; Laurent, ; Hughes, ). Involving interdependence and vulnerability (Hansen & Mulholland, ), a wide range of non‐symmetrical and non‐equal relational encounters (between those who care and those who are cared for) produce caring relations (Alder, ; Laurent, ; Hughes, ). Originating from the experiences, concerns, difficulties and needs of others, this relationality requires availability, attentiveness, observation, dialogue, responsibility and responsiveness amongst both carer and cared for (Noddings, ; Laurent, ; Luff, ; Horton & Pyer, ).…”

“…Care is controversial (McCuaig, ) and is often the subject of vociferous debate and conflict, within politics, institutions and families (Rogers & Weller, ). Care can be unwelcome or burdensome, damaging or oppressive, and can contribute to the reproduction of inequalities and exclusion (Bosworth, ; Milligan et al ., ; Moss, ; Hughes, ). In response to Noddings’ work (which has been critiqued for not exploring exploitation in caring relationships; see Laurent, ), a range of ‘feminist theories of care’ (Vogt, ; Philips et al ., ; Horton & Pyer, ; Hughes, ) argue for the development of moral, ethical and political theories which place care as a central, political issue and as a concern for equality and social justice (Philip et al ., ).…”