MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1499136954 · doi:10.25071/1916-4467.17004

Learning to “Do Family” Differently: Towards More ComplexNotions of Family, Culture, and Schooling

2006· article· en· W1499136954 sur OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Linda Laidlaw

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligious Education and Schools
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the past eight years I have been thinking a lot about complexity science and education.Issues of complexity and curriculum have been the focus of much of my previous academic work (Laidlaw, 2001; Laidlaw, 2005).But, it has been within the past two years that I have experienced more life-altering learning experiences in relation to complexity.I became a parent.While more typically, perspectives informed by complexity would suggest the exploration of notions of parenting or families from biological, ecological, or evolutionary perspectives, and while some of the ideas I will address do come from such origins, my route to parenting came via social construction-a relationship formed via miles of paperwork and the approvals of a rather large cast of individuals, agencies, and governments-when I adopted a sixteen-month-old baby girl from China.This article will explore some ways of thinking about families differently, influenced by a weave of both personal experience and adoption research, and informed by complexity thinking (Davis & Sumara, 2006), as well as work that can be aligned with complexity research.In many ways, an adoption that crosses boundaries of countries, cultures, ethnicities, race, and those of reproductive norms creates a perturbation from the expected ways of doing things.Specifically, from expected ways of "doing family."Rothman (2005) writes, "Take a kid from a Chinese orphanage and put it in a middle-class "Euro-descent" American home, and a lot of what parenthood is about in America is put into sharp relief" (p. 7).Rothman, an American sociologist who is also mother of a domestically adopted black daughter likens "doing family" in a transracial adoption to "the way that a transsexual does gender."She states, "We're just doing what "normal" people do, but we know we're doing it" (p.4).Rothman describes some of the little tricks she uses, such as standing behind her daughter, with a hand on her shoulder, when they meet the new violin teacher: "Hello, I'm Barbara and this is my daughter Victoria," I say before the teacher can open her mouth.And put her foot in it."(p.4) Rothman's descriptions strike a familiar chord, reminding me of stories from my autoethnographic experiences and those of other adoptive parents I have surveyed.A Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) project that I have been undertaking asks Canadian parents to recount their experiences in relation to their family composition, and to share their stories and understandings of their child's experiences of schooling.Within the project, I have also engaged in contextual analyses, examining documents such as curriculum texts, government publications, and classroom instructional materials, as well as looking at perspectives on adoption within popular culture and the media.Throughout the project, I have attempted to examine family diversity in both micro-and macro-directions, from my particular personal experiences to collective experiences of other adoptive families, as well as looking at the ideological realm of discourse and cultural knowledge around family diversity and adoption.As Davis and Sumara (2006) suggest, gaining an understanding of social systems such as families or schools requires "considering all-at-once, the many layers of dynamic nested activity that are constantly at play" (p.28), and the knowledge that such "organizational/organismic layers" may not be neatly separate.The stories shared by parents describe what it is like to "do family" differently, to disrupt normative social categories, and they tell us something about how notions of family, culture, ethnicity, and race are defined in North American societies, as well as how counternormative families are influenced by this conceptual and

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,150
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,297

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,038
Communication savante0,0130,019
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2006
Routes d'admission4
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies→Même sujetReligious Education and Schools→Travaux en français237 207→