The new research agenda for a cultural psychology.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Qualitative methods are the investigative tools of choice for the field of cultural psychology, in which the study of meaning is central. The process of cultural psychological research calls for an approach that emphasizes the quality of the relationship between researchers and participants. We argue for the importance of this relationship in the development of the validity and usefulness of such work. Methods within this framework often include dialectic communication, respect, participatory partnership, inductive reasoning, and the taking of extra time as necessary. In this paper, research projects with urban Canadian street youth, Inuit prison inmates, and Inuit community members experiencing a youth suicide epidemic are provided as case studies that highlight the relational motif in qualitative research. The field of cultural psychology, alive in various forms for quite some time, has been burgeoning since about 1990 (Bruner, 1990; Cole, 1990; Stigler, Shweder, & Herdt, 1990). Cultural psychology is a multi- and interdisciplinary crossing but primarily involves the epistemological middle ground between psychology and anthropology. Some of its roots stem from the earlier work of Luria (1976), Mead (1934), and Vygotsky (1962). Arising also from the growing subdisciplines of psychological (e.g., Bock, 1994, 1999; Shore, 1996; Shweder & LeVine, 1984) and cognitive (e.g., D'Andrade, 1995; Hutchins, 1996; Strauss & Quinn, 1997) anthropology, cultural psychology has developed out of a dissatisfaction with psychology's psychic unity or universalist model of the mind (Shweder, 1990), cross-cultural psychology's treatment model of culture as an independent variable rather than as a process (Greenfield, 1997), and psychology's self-limiting ethnocentric logic (Seeley, in press). Cultural psychology includes or overlaps with a number of fields of investigation within psychology, including situated cognition (Kirshner & Whitson, 1997), social and shared cognition (Nye & Brower, 1996; Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991), and intentionality (Rosen, 1995). Its focus is on the understanding of not only how mind constitutes culture but more importantly of how culture constitutes mind. Cultural psychology examines the process of the social or cultural construction of the person including thoughts, emotions, motivation, development, identity, and other psychological constructs. Culture in cultural psychology encompasses identities, meanings, experiences, and practices, and is usually conceptualized, in the Kroeber-- Kluckhohn sense, as collective symbolic discourse (Kuper, 1999, p. 16). In keeping with the more recent trend in anthropology, culture goes beyond reference to traditional exoticism and moves, both in focus and definition, to the inclusion of less distant others within the same landscape, and may encompass beliefs, traditions, and ideologies with respect to such categories as age cohort, gender, ethnic identity, sexual orientation, and even workplace (Aug&, 1994; Kuper, 1999). At the centre of cultural psychology is the study of meaning. It leans on the hermeneutic or interpretive side of psychology. Thus, of utmost importance is the understanding of meaning from the participant's (native's) point of view. Bruner (1990) writes that cultural psychology also seeks out the rules that human beings bring to bear in creating meanings in cultural contexts. These contexts are always contexts of practice. It is always necessary to ask what people are doing or trying to do in that context (p. 118). Qualitative research methods, through a process that can be both inductive and deductive, allow for the understanding of such rules people have for making sense of their worlds specific to various domains of enquiry. We agree with Ratner (1997) that [t]he task of inferring mental activity from extensive expressions is the central and distinguishing concern of qualitative methodology (p. …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
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.
score_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