ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2049-5883
Current Organisation
RMIT University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-2012
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 23-01-2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 11-01-2023
DOI: 10.1111/TRAN.12595
Abstract: This paper offers more‐than‐care as a framework for analysing how vulnerability emerges in the lives of people with intellectual disability beyond relations of care. More‐than‐care detaches vulnerability from the identity category of disability. It provides a framework for conceptualising vulnerability in an unequal, neoliberalising, and ableist world and sheds new light on the ever‐evolving constitution of vulnerability and disability. This intervention breaks with conceptions of vulnerability centred on care needs that leave other circumstances that inform vulnerabilities unexamined. Importantly, the framework shifts responsibility for managing vulnerabilities away from carers alone. The more‐than‐care framework is grounded in socio‐material conceptualisations of disability and advances a tripartite framing of vulnerability. First, it grounds studies of vulnerability in histories of spatially uneven investment in infrastructure and resources that shape how care and other practices can assemble to produce, challenge, and manage vulnerability. Second, it recalibrates dominant conceptions of the temporality of vulnerability to ensure sensitivity to the unpredictability of emergent vulnerabilities. Third, in following a socio‐material conceptualisation of intellectual disability, more‐than‐care expands discussions about agency in the context of vulnerability. These concepts are empirically examined through an analysis of how vulnerability emerges in the lives of four self‐advocates with intellectual disability during Melbourne's first and second COVID‐19 lockdowns. The analysis shows that vulnerability was highly dynamic and unpredictable as it emerged in complex socio‐material assemblages that included care arrangements, embodied experiences and agencies, and past instances of neglect and exploitation.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 19-05-2017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-04-2022
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-12-2017
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 28-07-2016
Abstract: Community gardening is an increasingly popular phenomenon. Local governments wishing to ‘green’ the city and make the urban environment more ‘inclusive’ sometimes promote community gardening as a means to meet policy goals. Scholars from various fields have been keen to focus on these positive promises of community gardening. However, community gardens are not inherently different from their surroundings or good in themselves as they are connected to wider urban landscapes and routines through practice. Building on empirical research that I conducted at three community gardens in Sydney, Australia, I reveal how property is practised in three gardens with different property models, focussing on three practices – transplanting, plotting and fencing. I show that community gardeners produce property relationally and that through each of these practices, they create overlapping understandings of common and private property. Gardeners have contradictory motivations that are geared both towards community inclusion and the protection of personal interests. The paper reveals that while feelings of ownership contribute to a sense of community belonging, they also help legitimatise a defensive and exclusive spatial claim.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 10-11-2020
Publisher: Figshare
Date: 2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-07-2018
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 04-04-2019
Abstract: While commonly pitched as potential spaces for the empowerment of marginalised minority groups, self-organised projects such as community gardens are also susceptible to neoliberal discourses and governance mechanisms. While relationships between community gardening and gentrification are now well established, less is known about the grassroots strategies of garden groups in the context of such conditions and the ways in which gentrification changes the community gardening movement itself. This paper combines conceptual approaches to community gardens as shaping citizen-subjectivities and as projects positioned in networks to offer detailed insight into strategic responses of community gardeners to a gentrifying environment. The paper highlights how demographic change, neighbourhood densification and changes in the attitude of local government shape three community gardens in Sydney, Australia. The paper reveals that, more than government policy, changes that gardeners observe in the neighbourhood and their perceptions of local government’s attitude towards different community gardens in the vicinity, shape how they manage community gardens. Interactions and responses of garden groups to perceived threats, as well as changes in the projects’ social composition, can lead to the emergence of conflict and competition. As it becomes increasingly clear that inequalities in the surrounding urban environment manifest as part of the social fabric of community spaces, the paper demonstrates that communities are differently positioned to articulate strategies in response to perceived precarity and that these strategies can lify unequal opportunities for distinct garden groups to persist into the future.
No related grants have been discovered for Ellen van Holstein.