MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1640296925 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2005v30n2a1569

Researching Children’s Popular Culture: The Cultural Spaces of Childhood

2005· article· en· W1640296925 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Nikki Porter

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLiteracy, Media, and Education
Établissements canadiensConcordia University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociologyPopular cultureMedia studies

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Setting a fantastical yet critical tone for their book, Claudia Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh frame the typical relationship between researchers and their child subjects as a fairy tale.In their portrayal, the researchers gallop in on strong steeds to rescue the innocent children who are victims of popular culture.They employ the dramatic nature of the genre to problematize the notion that children are in need of such salvation.Ironically, the authors themselves proceed by conducting a similar, albeit less problematic, rescue mission as they embark on a quest to obliterate traditional, homogenized concepts of passive childhood and save popular culture from the academic trash heap.While this secondary intention underscores their writing, Mitchell & Reid-Walsh's primary interest is in the adaptation and development of methodologies for the study of children's popular culture, a site they believe is an entry point into the study of childhood itself.Through their focus, the authors move beyond writing a standard methodology guide, becoming advocates, storytellers, and at times research subjects in the process.Although the topics of both childhood and popular culture are expansive, Mitchell & Reid-Walsh narrow the field of study by approaching the subject matter from various conceptions of space.They employ the concept physically and metaphorically, framing each chapter by a particular space: political, memory, visual, physical, virtual, and historical.Each space/chapter not only covers different objects of study (movies, toys, bedrooms, et cetera), but different methodologies and bodies of literature as well.Some sections cover expected fare, such as Fiske's work on active viewers of popular culture and Buckingham's "situated audience."The authors also incorporate a wide variety of at times unexpected bodies of work, including research on bedroom culture, art installations, and memory work.Mitchell and Reid-Walsh contextualize their work in chapter 1, "Political Spaces."They consider the various investments of those who study children's popular culture (toy manufacturers, toy collectors, and researchers often studying their own children), reflect on the issues that arise regarding the adult/child research dynamic, and map out children's popular culture as a space of resistance that is often overlooked.In doing so, they establish the marginalized state of their subject matter and make a case for incorporating children as experts of their popular culture.In addition, they problematize the personal nature of such work, focusing on the inclination to react emotionally rather than analytically to work on children and popular culture.After exposing this problem, Mitchell & Reid-Walsh suggest methodologies for incorporating personal experiences and memories into this work, while maintaining a more analytical approach.Chapter 2, "Memory Spaces," shifts the emphasis from the memory itself to questions of how things are remembered and why it is that these are the moments recalled.Providing a protocol for this kind of memory work, the authors stipulate that while adult memory work is a useful supplement in studying children's popular culture, it should not supplant children's voices, once again establishing child experts as integral to this work.The authors hit their stride in chapters 3 and 4, finding the right balance of literature review, methodological development, and case study.Chapter 3, "Visual Spaces," focuses on methods for accessing children's insights into their popular culture.Noting the visual nature of these objects, the authors recommend incorporating visual tools into their study, namely photographs and videos.Based on similar work by Wendy Ewald and Kamina Walton, among others, on documenting the experience of children and other marginalized groups, Mitchell & Reid-Walsh argue that by asking a child to visually document themselves, their toys, and their bedrooms, researchers can gain access to children's spaces and perspectives.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
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: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,036
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,020
Communication savante0,0120,011
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,266
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · 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

Citations4
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of CommunicationMême sujetLiteracy, Media, and EducationTravaux en français237 207