Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: abolition
- All Subjects: Child care--Government policy--Arizona.
- Creators: Swadener, Beth B
Description
Women who are incarcerated are viewed as having departed from the hegemonic standard of motherhood, and become questionable in their roles as mothers, and are often perceived as "bad" mothers. While the challenges of parenting behind bars has been widely researched, there is a paucity of research that centers the experiences and challenges of mothers post-incarceration or probation and a void in the literature that attempts to view this population outside of the confines of the good/bad mother dichotomy. This dissertation explores how mothers who are formerly incarcerated or convicted describe their experiences navigating and negotiating their roles not as good or bad mothers but as fierce mothers. The concept of fierce mother exists outside of the good/bad mother binary; it is based on themes that emerged from the stories women told during our conversations about the practice of mothering. The energy of hard-won survival is what they bring to their mother roles and for many it drives their activism around prison abolition issues. Their stories challenge the normative discourse on good/bad mothers, justice, rights, freedom and dignity.
ContributorsGámez, Grace (Author) / Swadener, Beth B (Thesis advisor) / Gomez, Alan E (Thesis advisor) / Gonzales, Patrisia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Definitions of quality child care are subjective, depending on who is defining quality, and constructions of quality remain a contested issue in the early childhood field. There are multiple ways of defining quality child care, most of which are from the perspectives of researchers, policymakers, and professionals. Few studies of child care quality take into consideration parents’ perspectives of what quality child care means to them and what they deem as important for the wellbeing of their children (Ceglowski & Davis, 2004, Duncan et al., 2004, Harrist et al., 2007, & Liu et al., 2004). This study compared parent perspectives to criteria for assessing child care used in Quality First, a statewide quality improvement and rating system for providers of center-based or home-based early care and education, to better understand the gaps drawing from ecological theory (refs – add these) and discuss the consequences of these different perspectives.
This study utilized a comparative qualitative analysis of ways in which parents and state agencies view determinants of child care quality. The data for this study were collected from interview responses to open-ended questions on a larger mixed-method study with parents of children under the age of 6 from the Central Arizona area. The quality indicators used by Quality First included the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R), Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R), Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale (FCCERS-R), and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), which were analyzed and compared to parent descriptions of quality factors in child care.
The findings of this study contribute to the discussion of ways in which parents’ perspectives are similar and different to that of quality rating scales, in this case those used by Quality First, and how the gap may be contributing to unintended consequences. In the study, I noticed that parents were more inclined toward affect qualities as quality indicators whereas the Quality First had more structural qualities as quality indicators. This led to the addressing of the need to bridge this gap to have a more comprehensive understanding of quality child care to meet different needs as identified by parents and professionals.
This study utilized a comparative qualitative analysis of ways in which parents and state agencies view determinants of child care quality. The data for this study were collected from interview responses to open-ended questions on a larger mixed-method study with parents of children under the age of 6 from the Central Arizona area. The quality indicators used by Quality First included the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R), Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R), Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale (FCCERS-R), and the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), which were analyzed and compared to parent descriptions of quality factors in child care.
The findings of this study contribute to the discussion of ways in which parents’ perspectives are similar and different to that of quality rating scales, in this case those used by Quality First, and how the gap may be contributing to unintended consequences. In the study, I noticed that parents were more inclined toward affect qualities as quality indicators whereas the Quality First had more structural qualities as quality indicators. This led to the addressing of the need to bridge this gap to have a more comprehensive understanding of quality child care to meet different needs as identified by parents and professionals.
ContributorsCharania, Sharmeen (Author) / Swadener, Beth B (Thesis advisor) / Nakagawa, Kathryn (Committee member) / Arzubiaga, Angela (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Deeply entrenched eugenic values overdetermine who is treated with care and dignity and who is treated with violence. These eugenic values inform and are informed by settler colonialism, patriarchy, and ableism. Carceral locales such as nursing homes, hospitals, and jails enact specific kinds of harm onto disabled people and rely on their convoluted and self-serving bureaucratic processes to evade responsibility. Given my interest in the indivisibility of carceral logics, spaces of capture, and ableism, my focus in this dissertation is both the real-life contexts of the individual incidents and the systemic, cross-institutional patterns evident in each of the three incidents analyzed.I take a modified case study approach to three incidents in which disabled people in carceral locales experience tremendous harm. The first incident is about the gross medical neglect and rape of a San Carlos Apache disabled woman at a skilled nursing care facility in Phoenix, Arizona. The second incident occurred at a hospital in Austin, Texas where doctors worked hastily to killing a Black disabled man within only days of his arrival and change his code status to Do Not Resuscitate against his family’s will. The third incident focuses on duty of care violations and disability-based discrimination against a white disabled man at a Chicago jail. These situations, when analyzed individually and with/against one another, identify important connections relating to institutional power and cross-institution patterns of harm. I find that the paternal dynamics of medical[ized] facilities, the pervading anti-disability sentiments in US society, and bureaucratic violence make accountability and justice impossible.
ContributorsPeer, Victoria (Author) / Swadener, Beth B (Thesis advisor) / Vega, Sujey (Committee member) / Gomez, Alan E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022