MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1579155433

Critiquing the "Psychiatric Paradigm" Revisited: Reflections on Feminist Interventions in Mental Health

2007· article· en· W1579155433 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marina Morrow

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental healthSexual abusePsychologyDomestic violenceSociologyGender studiesCriminologyPoison controlPsychiatrySuicide preventionMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I still remember my first meeting with Jeri Wine. It was the fall of 1986 and I was visiting Toronto from the west coast. The notion of going to graduate school had just begun to take form in my mind and I was in Toronto to investigate what was reputed to be a fabulous feminist program in Community Psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. In Vancouver I had recently completed a degree in Psychology and simultaneously had become involved in feminist anti-violence activism working for the WAVAW Rape Crisis Centre. The gap between what I was learning in my classes at the university and the stories I heard from women at the other end of the crisis line about their experiences of violence disturbed and troubled me. So many of these women had stories about how they had been disbelieved by mental health professionals when they had disclosed experiences of sexual and physical abuse. Others, who were clearly having reactions to the trauma they had experienced, appeared to have been misdiagnosed as mentally ill. On occasion, women had mental health problems that pre-existed experiences of violence or which made them more vulnerable to abuse. Violence was not the only thing that marked many of these women's lives - poverty and experiences of racism and homophobia were also evident. I asked myself, how could the material I was learning in my upper level psychology classes be so far removed from the actual lives and experiences of women? More specifically how could the discipline of psychology proceed as though social differences like gender, race, sexual orientation and class were inconsequential variables only mentioned occasionally or relegated to small separate sections in one or two of our psychology texts? Several distinct memories come to mind: a social psychology class where we are told that men experience more violence and crime than women and where the subject of intimate violence is never broached; a class on clinical psychology where sex and race differences related to psychiatric diagnosis are never mentioned much less interrogated for their meanings; a class on the history of psychology where Freud's sexist ideas about women's bodies and sexuality are presented as quaint and outmoded but never discussed in relation to the unwitting legacy he left regarding the massive denial of the role that childhood sexual abuse plays in the lives of women. One welcome departure from this was the lone course on the psychology of sex differences where those of us who suspected that gender, race, sexuality and social positioning were relevant to one's psychological development and one's experience of illness gathered. It was in this class that I began to suspect more ominously that the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology were not always the concerned helping professions they purported to be and were not based on objective science but rather contained deeply held biases that often led them to function in ways that perpetuated social inequity. This deepening realization caused me to abandon my original plans to become a clinical psychologist and I might well have become a full time activist and advocate for women, except for the nagging sense that crisis work, however grounded in women's experiences, would never allow the reflection required to more fully understand the complex social issues I was now grappling with. I was left searching for a graduate program that might allow for a critical discussion of the ways in which women and men's lives are not just biologically and psychologically, but also socially, determined. It was this that led me to Jeri Wine's office on that crisp fall day and it was in her office that I began to realize that there were individuals who had dedicated their lives and careers to critically appraising the ways in which the psychological professions have pathologized women. Jeri, I soon discovered, was one of those unique individuals. The first gift she gave me was to validate my disquiet concerning the disjuncture between what I had been taught in psychology at university and the experiences of women that I witnessed during my time as a rape crisis worker. …

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)0,076
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,076
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,403

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0760,062
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0370,108
Communication savante0,0200,027
Science ouverte0,0080,024
Intégrité de la recherche0,0330,049
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

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 Opus0,192
Tête enseignante GPT0,549
Écart entre enseignants0,357 · 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'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
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

Citations5
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResources for feminist researchMême sujetAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyTravaux en français237 207