32 results
Cognitive function in early-phase schizophrenia-spectrum disorder: IQ subtypes, brain volume and immune markers
- Andrew J. Watson, Annalisa Giordano, John Suckling, Thomas R. E. Barnes, Nusrat Husain, Peter B. Jones, Carl R. Krynicki, Stephen M. Lawrie, Shôn Lewis, Naghmeh Nikkheslat, Carmine M. Pariante, Rachel Upthegrove, Bill Deakin, Paola Dazzan, Eileen M. Joyce
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 53 / Issue 7 / May 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 February 2022, pp. 2842-2851
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Evidence suggests that cognitive subtypes exist in schizophrenia that may reflect different neurobiological trajectories. We aimed to identify whether IQ-derived cognitive subtypes are present in early-phase schizophrenia-spectrum disorder and examine their relationship with brain structure and markers of neuroinflammation.
Method161 patients with recent-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorder (<5 years) were recruited. Estimated premorbid and current IQ were calculated using the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading and a 4-subtest WAIS-III. Cognitive subtypes were identified with k-means clustering. Freesurfer was used to analyse 3.0 T MRI. Blood samples were analysed for hs-CRP, IL-1RA, IL-6 and TNF-α.
ResultsThree subtypes were identified indicating preserved (PIQ), deteriorated (DIQ) and compromised (CIQ) IQ. Absolute total brain volume was significantly smaller in CIQ compared to PIQ and DIQ, and intracranial volume was smaller in CIQ than PIQ (F(2, 124) = 6.407, p = 0.002) indicative of premorbid smaller brain size in the CIQ group. CIQ had higher levels of hs-CRP than PIQ (F(2, 131) = 5.01, p = 0.008). PIQ showed differentially impaired processing speed and verbal learning compared to IQ-matched healthy controls.
ConclusionsThe findings add validity of a neurodevelopmental subtype of schizophrenia identified by comparing estimated premorbid and current IQ and characterised by smaller premorbid brain volume and higher measures of low-grade inflammation (CRP).
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part 2 - Key issues
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 91-92
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this part, we consider the issues of concept, policy, practice and measurement in specific contexts. These contexts are derived from the authors’ recent research experiences and are not designed to provide the ‘elements’ of wellbeing. Rather, they are lenses through which it is possible to consider the propositions made about wellbeing in Chapter 1: that wellbeing is subjectively experienced, contextual and embedded, and relational. They are also opportunities through which we explore the questions related to wellbeing as a concept in respect of the effects and practices of wellbeing. Each chapter is to be understood in the context of the visual heuristic introduced earlier (Figure 1.3).
Chapter 13 - Policy and practice reflections
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 209-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The policy and practice chapters raised issues that deserve further attention. We start with the policy that, more than any other, has driven wellbeing practice in UK schools, Every Child Matters (ECM) (DFES, 2004a). ECM uses an objective list model of wellbeing, with Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) and many of the conflict resolution programmes serving as its operationalised arm. ECM, ‘warts and all’, is the vehicle through which notions of wellbeing are currently addressed in school settings. It sets out a centralised and prescriptive framework within which childhood is viewed. There is, particularly in English schools, a lack of evidence, evaluation or critical debate regarding the actualisation of ECM through Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) activity. While engaging with children's social and emotional development is vital, and the contested nature of the concept of wellbeing in education does not mean that there is not a need for many of the activities taking place on the ground, there remain concerns with the implementation of ECM that derive from the philosophy behind it.
The philosophy of Every Child Matters
ECM takes a clear egalitarian philosophical position, every child matters as much as the next. This has translated, within SEL, into the universal application of a deficit model of wellbeing to all children, arguably one of the key failures of the scheme. ECM currently covers whole schools, monitoring and measuring the social and emotional development of all pupils. An alternative framework might start from acknowledging the positives many children already have in this field, and offering greater support to children with greater needs, arising from dialogue built upon being known (see Chapters 11 and 12). True dialogue can only arise within relationships that acknowledge the local context and culture of each child (and adult). Every child matters, but no two children matter in precisely the same way.
The status of ECM as state-sanctioned suggests that the state is interested in fixing the deficits it perceives many children to have. ECM implies that we need to be protected from our children, that our children need to be protected from themselves and that all of us need to be protected from poor parenting practices. As Clements and Clements (2000) noted: ‘the notion that children are now subject to innumerable risks in greater numbers, and with greater consequence than ever before can only have a corrosive effect on child-rearing’.
Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- A Critical Perspective
- Debbie Watson, Carl Emery, Phillip Bayliss, Margaret Boushel, Karen McInnes
-
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012
-
This book is a challenge to the concept of wellbeing as applied to children, suggesting that it should be understood at the level of the child, rather than a list of things that are needed in order to live well.
Acknowledgements
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp vii-vii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 3 - Policy on the promotion of wellbeing in schools
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 41-56
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter critically reviews some key UK educational policies focused on the promotion of social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) in schools over the last decade. We also offer some wider context to this policy formation and the drivers behind it. Each of the four countries of the UK is considered separately as there are different policy frameworks in each region. Table 3.1 shows estimated relative youth (under 18) populations across the UK as context for this discussion.
The rise and rise of wellbeing in education policy
Within education policy, wellbeing, and its offshoot SEWB, is a relatively new discourse, reflective of much of the New Labour agenda post-1997. What policymakers understand by wellbeing is far from clear (Ereaut and Whiting, 2008), as we outlined in Chapter 2.
Dartington Social Research Unit (Axford et al, 2009) identified five ‘lenses’ (needs, poverty, quality of life, social exclusion and children's rights) through which policymakers observed and acted on children's wellbeing and suggested that policymakers’ understanding of these lenses is inconsistent. The route policy has taken, however, does show consistency. Both in the UK and internationally it has favoured operationalised or Objective List Theory (OLT) definitions. UK examples of lists of wellbeing indicators integral to policy include Every Child Matters’ five outcomes, and the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence's four capacities.
The United Nations World Health Organization (WHO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have all influenced UK policy on SEWB in schools. Several comparative international reports (UNICEF, 2007; Bradshaw and Richardson, 2009; OECD, 2009) suggested that UK children fare worse than their counterparts in many other countries surveyed.
The UNICEF report ranked the UK 21st out of 21 rich countries surveyed. The UNICEF report was based on a concept of wellbeing grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and this resulted in some difficult findings for the UK. Just over 40% of the UK's 11, 13 and 15 year olds found their peers kind and helpful, the worst score of all the developed countries. The UK had the highest proportion of young people who smoke, abuse drink and drugs, engage in risky sex, and become pregnant at too early an age. Also, 30% of the 15 to 19 year olds were not in education or training or were not looking beyond low-skilled work.
Dedication
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp iii-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contents
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp v-v
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part 3: - New directions
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 193-194
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This part draws together emergent strands of thinking on children's social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB). Chapter 12 explores the context of approaches to supporting children's wellbeing, and this reflects the propositions offered in Chapter 1 of SEWB being subjectively experienced, contextual and embedded, and relational. In Chapter 13, we revisit the policy and practice strands of the book and offer our vision (and predictions) for SEWB in schools under the Coalition government. The concluding chapter pulls together these ideas and propositions and revisits the questions raised in Chapter 1 concerning the nature of wellbeing as a concept.
List of tables and figures
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp vi-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of abbreviations
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp viii-ix
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Biographical notes
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp x-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 5 - The measurement of wellbeing
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 77-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In Chapter 3, we explored issues of policy and wellbeing and, in Chapter 4, we examined the practice in schools to promote wellbeing, with a particular emphasis on the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme. Policy (and its resulting practice) is dependent on measurement. The purpose of policy is to enable change, and change can only impact on those aspects of social life that can be measured. Measurement is necessary as part of processes of the examination (Foucault, 1991a) of the public body underpinning the ability of the state to regulate the lives of its citizens and to control their destinies.
Such measurement is focused on the ‘social body’, through the action of the ‘body politic’ (Scheper-Hughes and Lock, 1987). Policy also impacts on the phenomenological body of the person. Through the discursive practices of examination and the modern concept of intervention, the measurement of wellbeing is increasingly used to identify problems in the population (especially children) as part of an accepted policy strategy of early intervention: spot problems early and they can be eradicated. The shift towards emphasis on the phenomenological body, as opposed to action focused on the social body, reflected a shift in the neo-liberal agenda pursued by New Labour during their term of office. In 1997, on taking power, Tony Blair emphasised activity focused on the failings of the phenomenological body:
Social exclusion is about income but it is about more. It is about prospects and networks and life-chances. It's a very modern problem, and one that is more harmful to the individual, more damaging to self-esteem, more corrosive for society as a whole, more likely to be passed down from generation to generation, than material poverty. Getting government to act more coherently is the key. Everyone knows that the problems of social exclusion – of failure at school, joblessness, crime – are woven together when you get down to the level of the individual's daily life, or the life of a housing estate…. Our actions on exclusion reflect our values and those of the British people. It offends against our values to see children with no prospect of work, families trapped in poverty, neighbourhoods blighted by crime. But this isn't just about compassion. It's also about self-interest. If we can shift resources from picking up the costs of problems to preventing them, there will be a dividend for everyone.
Chapter 8 - Children’s peer relationships in schools
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 125-142
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter, we consider a range of approaches to address children's difficulties in their peer relations in schools. In particular, we voice criticism of teaching conflict resolution (CR) skills to schoolchildren. We do so not because we do not share CR practitioners’ hopes of harmonious and enriching school environments, but in order to examine whether evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach, and to explore and deconstruct the methods of CR in schools to see what unintended consequences and hidden agendas may be in play in regard to wellbeing. ‘Conflict resolution’ is a broad term and, like ‘wellbeing’, a contested concept (Isenhart and Spangle, 2000). According to Cohen (1995, p 15) ‘conflict is a discord of needs, drives, wishes, and/or demands’. Mack and Snyder stated that conflict ‘is for the most part a rubber concept, being stretched and moulded for the purposes at hand’ (Mack and Snyder, 1957, p 212). This quote applies also to ‘wellbeing’.
Less contested is the recognition that conflict can be intrapersonal (within the individual), interpersonal (between two parties) or intergroup (between groups) (Cohen, 1995), and that it has both a conceptual (internal/psychological) and a behavioural (external/activity) property (Sellman, 2003). In schools, CR is built on a social learning model (Groebel and Hinde, 1989; Bandura, 1997) according to which techniques for resolving conflicts can be learnt, and modelling influences behaviour, as does the environment. The idea that CR skills are readily learnable fits comfortably with Goleman's (1995) model of emotional intelligence, which is the foundation for the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme and much of the social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) practice delivered in UK schools. CR skills are taught in schools, generally by external training organisations, to support pupils in peacefully resolving conflicts in school and to develop an understanding of its causes and impact.
Most school-based CR practice sees conflict as a natural part of everyday school experience (Tyler, 1998). However, school CR rarely includes consideration of societal structures, class relationships or cultural forces (Sellman, 2003). Like much of the social and emotional learning agenda (see Chapters 4 and 5), school CR sees the locus of control as individuals in relationship with others. In this chapter, we consider three types of school CR and relate them to the school wellbeing agenda: peer mediation (including buddying); anti-bullying initiatives; and restorative approaches (RA).
Index
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 263-274
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 2 - Conceptual dimensions of wellbeing
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 17-40
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter, we introduce key debates in philosophy, and beyond, in respect of wellbeing (in general, as this is how it has emerged in the literature) and attempt to unpack and deconstruct the concept of wellbeing in order to problematise and challenge the normalisation that has occurred. To this end, this chapter is theoretically focused, and at times conceptually challenging. We address the policy and practical application of these ideas in later chapters. There is also not a specific focus on schools or education in this chapter as the definitions of wellbeing as a concept are explored in the contexts in which theorists have described wellbeing (usually philosophical, medical and economic). Therefore, this chapter lays the foundations to engage in a critical examination of the roots of wellbeing, which will be developed and applied in later chapters.
A deconstructive approach has been used in order to foreground children's social and emotional wellbeing experiences as it allows a more ethical stance to be taken: ‘from a feminist poststructural perspective, resistant practices such as deconstructive talks make possible another form of power production – not only more emancipatory, but also more ethical and responsible’ (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005, p 111).
We do not seek any truth of wellbeing, nor do we intend to break down existing models in order to engage in a (re)making; but instead attempt to trace the history and development of the concept to address the questions in the Introduction about wellbeing as a concept. The ambition is to raise new questions; and describe the conditions for epistemological ‘smooth space’, as opposed to ‘striated space’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004), for new ways of thinking to emerge, where:
The striated is that which intertwines fixed and variable elements, produces an order and succession of distinct forms, and organizes horizontal melodic lines and vertical harmonic planes. The smooth is the continuous variation, continuous development of form; it is the fusion of harmony and melody in favour of the production of properly rhythmic values, the pure act of the drawing of a diagonal across the vertical and the horizontal. (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004, p 478)
The ‘smooth space’ allows for greater ‘de-territorialisation’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 2009) of the concept, and for its components to be brought into focus in order that we may (re)consider them.
Chapter 4 - Practice of social and emotional wellbeing in schools
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 57-76
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The decade 2000 to 2010 saw a vast increase in UK school-based programmes that focused on various interpretations of social and emotional wellbeing. These approaches either emphasised building the positive skills and capabilities of young people (resilience, confidence, social skills, self-esteem) or attempted to reduce mental illness, bullying, depression and anxiety (Smart and Vassallo, 2008). A range of labels were applied to these approaches, from ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) (Goleman, 1995), ‘emotional literacy’ and ‘emotional health and wellbeing’ (EHWB) to ‘social and emotional wellbeing’ (SEWB) (DCSF, 2005), and ‘social and emotional dispositions and skills’ (SEDS) (Watson and Emery, 2010). Shared objectives were employability, lifelong learning, relationship building, improved behaviour and academic achievement.
The creators of these school wellbeing programmes ranged from independent private organisations through to local authorities, individual schools, not-for-profit social agencies, charities and universities. A 2007 report produced by Futurelab and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (Facer and Pykett, 2007) highlighted 19 programmes running across the UK, noting that many others existed. The combined impact of all of these, however, is negligible compared to the main subject of this chapter: ‘Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning’ (SEAL) (DFES, 2005c, 2007b, 2007c).
What are Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning?
SEAL first emerged as ‘Social, Emotional and Behavioural Skills’ (SEBS), part of the National Behaviour and Attendance Pilot in 2003 (Hallam et al, 2006). By 2007, it was delivered in more than 80% of primary schools and, by 2010, in 90% of primary and 70% of secondary schools across England, a high rate of coverage for a non-compulsory programme (Mills, 2009). Guidance documents, learning materials and background papers were placed on the now defunct National Strategies website (DfE, nd).
Taking Every Child Matters as its policy template, Promoting Emotional Health and Wellbeing through the National Healthy School Standard (DH and DfES, 2004) set out the framework for SEAL. This report explicitly linked improvements in child wellbeing with the development of their social, emotional and behavioural skills. It defined EHWB as ‘a holistic, subjective state which is present when a range of feelings, among them energy, confidence, openness, enjoyment, happiness, calm, and caring, are combined and balanced’ (Stewart-Brown, quoted in Weare and Gray, 2003, p 19).
Part 1 - Context
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 15-16
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this Part we introduce the context for our critical debate of childhood SEWB. This begins with a theoretical and conceptual analysis of wellbeing and how this relates to children and childhood. we then consider contemporary wellbeing policy in the four countries of the UK. How these policies have emerged as educational practices and specific wellbeing programmes are then considered. Finally, we conclude this section explaining the measurement of wellbeing and the problematic issues inherent in measuring what we deem to be a fuzzy and complex concept.
Chapter 7 - Accessing minority voices – implications for wellbeing
- Debbie Watson, University of Bristol, Carl Emery, University of Manchester, Phillip Bayliss, University of Bristol, Margaret Boushel, University of Sussex, Karen McInnes, Bath Spa University
-
- Book:
- Children's Social and Emotional Wellbeing in Schools
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 01 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 18 January 2012, pp 111-124
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter, we explore a number of attempts in the literature to access children's voices concerning their wellbeing. This review includes approaches with very young and disabled children, as well as child-focused research in development studies. We hope that a focus on the most marginalised groups of children and young people will highlight the methodological and conceptual barriers present in wellbeing research with all children. It is worth noting that there are very few empirical studies that specifically focus on children's social and emotional wellbeing, so some of the studies discussed have a more general focus on children's voices in research.
The specific focus of the chapter is to consider if children's voices can be regarded as generally ‘minoritarian’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004), and then explore what methods are appropriate to bring these to visibility (Foucault, 1983a) in order to understand their wellbeing experiences. As such, this raises questions of authenticity, representation and power and the importance of understanding the multilayered, embedded and contextual nature of children's wellbeing.
The right to be heard?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), developed internationally, was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991 and includes all UN countries with the exception of the USA, Somalia and East Timor. It contains 54 rights for the world's children, which included an Article specifically relating to the right to be heard (UN, 1990, Article 12); while another reflected the right of the child to freedom of expression: ‘either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice’ (UN, 1990, Article 13).
The arguments linking ‘listening’ and ‘rights’ are pervasive and persuasive as they support liberal views of children as competent social actors who have the right to talk about things important in their lives. As has been noted: ‘the subject is constructed as a rational autonomous individual, with the consciousness to formulate his or her own wishes’ (Kjorholt et al, 2005, p 175). But, as these authors suggested, a rights-based account of listening needs to be problematised on three counts: first, there is a danger that in linking listening and rights, we prefigure dichotomous constructions of the child ‘as either vulnerable and dependent or as autonomous and independent’ (Kjorholt et al, 2005, p 175).