MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1894451838

Gynocentric Values and Feminist Psychology

2007· article· en· W1894451838 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeri Dawn Wine

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFeminismGender studiesLesbianSociologyHuman sexualityMainstreamPoliticsPositivismSocial sciencePolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

[Reprinted from Feminism: From Pressure to Politics, Angela Miles and Geraldine Finn, eds., Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1989] Jeri Dawn Wine teaches psychology and feminist studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. Her major interest lies in feminist analysis of social interaction and human relationship and in working toward an inclusive feminism that recognizes and affirms differences among women yet transcends the barriers of sexuality, race, and class. She was a member of the Feminist Party of Canada. She is active in the Centre for Women's Studies at OISE, is on the editorial board of Resources for Feminist Research, is active in the Canadian Women's Studies Association, and sits on the board of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. Since publication of this chapter, a number of works have represented the efforts of feminist psychologists to explore women's experience from a gynocentric perspective. Perhaps the most prominent of these publications are Belenky, et al. (1986), Women's Ways of Knowing, and the Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective's (1987) Lesbian Psychologies: Explorations and Challenges. Strongly recommended also is the special issue on Women's Development and Education in the Journal of Education (1985). Work from a gynocentric perspective that sees the qualitative and interpretive methodologies favoured by scholars working within such a perspective is still coming under considerable attack both by mainstream academics and feminist scholars (e.g., see Signs 11:2, pp. 304-33, discussion of Carol Gilligan's research), primarily for its deviation from positivist criteria for good research. Feminist perspectives in psychology are slowly emerging, a process that is a painful and controversial one, but one that is beginning to provide important ovarian theory and data for the broader feminist struggle. The process of emergence of fully feminist scholarship is a particularly difficult one in psychology for a variety of reasons that have to do with the nature of psychology's underlying philosophy, scientific methods, accepted subject matter, and its extensive investment in documentation of the inferiority of women. Equally important, though less obvious, are the inextricable linkages among these and the androcentric values inherent in prevailing psychological views of the nature of human beings - or in the disciplinary vernacular, its of man. As Jill McCalla Vickers has noted in Chapter One, it is markedly difficult for a fully feminist psychology to emerge that has the defining features of feminist scholarship in other disciplines, including its interdisciplinary character, contextualism, and concern with the female experience guided by woman-centred questions and values. In the first part of this article, I examine some of the dimensions of (to adopt Mary O'Brien's and Jill McCaIIa Vickers' apt term) psychology that render it a particularly inhospitable environment for the growth of feminist work. An ontogeny of feminist scholarship suggested by Showalter1 is then used to examine the development of feminist psychology, an ontogeny that proceeds from imitation, through protest, to a focus on female experience. In the second part of the paper I discuss work in psychology that explores a woman-centred or gynocentric perspective. is the organizing principle I've used in this discussion, a principle I consider centrally representative of women's experience and values. In essence, relationality refers to consciousness of the necessary interdependence of human beings, to a sense of connectedness to others, to awareness of one's embeddedness in human, social and historical contexts, to the maximization of well-being for all persons, and to commitment to non-violence. Relationality contrasts markedly with the individuality principle that underlies male-stream psychology's of man. Examination of work on social interaction, human relationships, development of individuals in the human context and resolution of interpersonal moral dilemmas from a gynocentric relationality perspective makes it clear that gynocentric values challenge not only the androcentric models of psychology but the very essence of patriarchal society. …

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
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: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,041
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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 Opus0,093
Tête enseignante GPT0,490
Écart entre enseignants0,396 · 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

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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