Book Reviews by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Society and Animals, 2019
Papers by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Social sciences, May 31, 2022
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative... more This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY
International journal on homelessness, May 17, 2024
Purpose: Companion animals are rarely co-sheltered in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in... more Purpose: Companion animals are rarely co-sheltered in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in Canada, despite their common consideration as family, and an awareness of the "the Link" between human and nonhuman abuse. This article reports on the few IPV facilities in Ontario who do house their clients' companion animals and seeks to identify how co-sheltering is emerging as part of the evolution of IPV sheltering. Methods: This study is part of a larger research project, which utilizes semi-structured interviews with Ontario IPV shelter workers and volunteers to assess how companion animals t in these facilities. Guided by the principles of action research, these conversations were textually analyzed for themes and sentiments regarding co-sheltering. This paper reports on co-shelter facilities and practices present in the larger sample. Results: We nd that co-sheltering is a grassroots action undertaken by moral entrepreneurs who engage in covert and overt actions to expand the circle of care in these spaces. These actions are also found to be in response to the ongoing social problem of gendered violence; these moral entrepreneurs follow in the footsteps of those who began to organize in the 1970s from a feminist standpoint, addressing a gap in shelter and safety for women affected by this social problem. Conclusions: We nd that the provision of co-sheltering in IPV facilities appears to depend solely on the action of shelter workers "on-the-ground", who identify an urgent need to expand the scope of care in their shelter to include clients' companion animals. More research is needed to learn about IPV co-shelters elsewhere in the country, and to study the impact of this inclusive housing option on the lives of clients, workers, and companion animals. 1.0 Introduction Emergency shelter is unevenly available in Ontario, Canada, if you are a woman seeking safety with companion animals ("pets"). Very few intimate partner violence (IPV) facilities (also known as domestic violence or women's shelters) in the province allow their clients to move in with their companion animals. Although limited, sociological research on the topic consistently reveals perceived barriers to co-sheltering other species in Canadian IPV shelters, such as a lack of funds, space, or labour, or concerns related to the health and well-being of residents and staff (Barrett et al. 2018; Gray et al. 2019; Stevenson, Fitzgerald, and Barrett 2018). In short, nonhumans are most often considered outside the scope of IPV sheltering, although more than half the population in Canada live with companion species (Canadian Animal Health Institute 2021), and many consider these beings akin to family (Irvine and Cilia 2017; Kirksey 2015). Co-shelters, where companion animals are sheltered with the women, are rare to nil in Ontario (Ontario Association of Interval & Transition Houses 2020). This paper reports on a section of an umbrella research project that surveys companion animal care practices in IPV shelters in Ontario. Here, I focus on shelter workers who include companion species in their care plans, via varieties of co-sheltering. This article addresses the question: How do some IPV
Environmental Politics, 2012
Choice Reviews Online, 2014
Review of The Once and Future World: Nature as it Was, as it Is, as it Could Be by J.B. MacKinnon... more Review of The Once and Future World: Nature as it Was, as it Is, as it Could Be by J.B. MacKinnon (2013, Random House Canada).
Social Sciences
When a woman seeks emergency shelter from an abusive relationship, she may bring her children but... more When a woman seeks emergency shelter from an abusive relationship, she may bring her children but rarely companion animals. Through a Critical Animal Studies (CAS) lens, this article qualitatively analyzes in-depth interviews with shelter workers in Ontario, Canada, exploring the place of multispecies families in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters. The findings indicate that companion animals are viewed as problematic, as obstacles to their clients’ safe relocation, falling outside the scope of IPV shelters (who rarely take a co-sheltering approach), and as potential strains on an already resource-stretched social institution. Addressing a gap in the literature about the effects of companion animal policies in social housing on clients and staff, the results are relevant to social service providers and policymakers working with multispecies families, including insights about women and children’s reactions to separation from companion animals, contradictions in related policies...
Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 2020
The papers in this special issue build on an exciting, and fast growing, body of scholarship loca... more The papers in this special issue build on an exciting, and fast growing, body of scholarship located at the intersection of critical disability studies and critical animal studies, shedding light on disablism and speciesism1 as interconnecting oppressions, how animality and disability are mutually constitutive, as well as the tensions and coalitions shared by these two related fields (see, for example, Jenkins, Montford & Taylor, 2020; Nocella II, George & Schatz, 2017; Taylor, 2013, 2017).
Books by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Animals and Religion, 2024
Thesis Chapters by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
PhD Dissertation, 2022
This study sought answers to the question: How do companion animals (CAs) fit in intimate partner... more This study sought answers to the question: How do companion animals (CAs) fit in intimate partner violence (IPV) shelters in Ontario, Canada? Through semi-structured interviews with provincial shelter staff, we learn that CAs are not priorities for most shelters and are consequently infrequently co-sheltered. However, all of the shelters in the study accommodate “service” animals (SAs), following the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The social position and role of nonhuman animals in the lives of both the IPV survivors and shelter workers are foregrounded in the results. We find that some clients and workers consider CAs family. Some workers lobby for and facilitate temporary or full inclusion of CAs in their shelter, and sometimes in their work, as co-caregivers. Some clients know of the SA-only conditions in these shelters, and consequently attempt to “pass off” their companion or emotional support animal (ESA) as SAs. The nonhuman animals’ lives and wellbeing in this study are precariously and variably determined by the humans they live with, and by those that help them. The human victims and helpers are found to be almost exclusively women, and the abusers, men. Clients in IPV shelters are essentially homeless, and examples of the persistent social problem of gender/sex-based violence, a consequence of the patriarchy. We find a meshing of gender/sex, class, species, and ability in these spaces, with multispecies families and ESAs most negatively affected by these social constructions. Upholding, for the most part, the SA-only requirement, the IPV shelters exemplify speciesist and ableist ideologies, where only certain disabilities and nonhuman animals warrant co-shelter away from violent environments. This study adds to what is known about nonhuman animal inclusion in IPV shelters, the views of workers and clients about their uses and social roles, and the impacts of these understandings.
Uploads
Book Reviews by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Papers by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Books by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay
Thesis Chapters by Dr. Sarah May Lindsay