MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2081244997 · doi:10.1353/lan.2008.0028

<b>Considering counter-narratives:</b> Narrating, resisting, making sense. Ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. x, 380. ISBN 1588115429. $126 (Hb).

2007· article· en· W2081244997 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yves Laverge

Notice bibliographique

RevueLanguage · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNarrativeResistance (ecology)Power (physics)SociologyAestheticsPsychologyGender studiesHistoryLiteratureArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews Yves Laverge Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Ed. by Michael Bamberg and Molly Andrews. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Pp. x, 380. ISBN 1588115429. $126 (Hb). This timely book borrows mainly from the editors’ themed issues of the peer-reviewed journal Narrative Inquiry (known before 1997 as the Journal of Narrative and Life History). This overlooked book is constructed in an original fashion: six core articles are each followed by a series of four or five commentaries by various authors (probably by some of the original reviewers) and then concluded with responses to the commentaries by the original authors of the [End Page 908] articles. I consider this unusual approach to discussion and debate efficient and thought-provoking. In ‘Opening to the original contributions: Counter-narratives and the power to oppose’, Molly Andrews broadly defines counter-narratives as ‘the stories which people tell and live which offer resistance, either implicitly or explicitly, to dominant cultural narratives’ (1). The six main articles touch on various themes including motherhood, normality, photography, daytime television talk shows, cultural memory, and older women talking about sex. All articles show how a second version of a story can somehow emerge from an event at some point. In the first part Andrews focuses on ‘the story of mothering’ as told in interviews with a few elderly people, wondering about how time can change their perceptions and judgments about their relationships with their own mothers. In Part 2 Karen Throsby argues that a group of participants who have failed at in vitro fertilization try to transform their way of retelling their stories into the terms of ‘normality’. In Part 3 Barbara Harrison studies relationships between photographic narratives and some other methods of constructing a story, usually texts. Part 4 is Rebecca Jones’s discussion of older women’s intimate thoughts about their own sexual experiences after the age of sixty. In Part 5 Corinne Squire studies the representation of gender and race in daytime television, observing differences between ‘serious’ shows and entertainment. Part 6 enables Mark Freeman to question what he calls the ‘narrative unconscious’ of the autobiographical narratives. Finally, Michael Bamberg provides an updated conclusion that did not appear in the original two issues of the journal. Perhaps the most stimulating pages in each part are the concise responses the authors of the six articles write to the commentaries, especially relating to the part on photography, which was my favorite because of the interdisciplinary perspectives it brought. There is also an accurate discussion about realism and hegemony in that part. On the down side, I do not consider Considering counter-narratives as relevant for undergraduates, but it might inspire many scholars working in linguistics, everyday sociology, cultural studies, and gerontology. I believe the book would even be suitable for some academics studying the dynamics of ideologies; that is the impression I got when I read it for the second time. Furthermore, the possible links between counter-narratives and ethnomethodology could be questioned more deeply, as is suggested in some chapters (see, for instance, pp. 114 and 191). I can understand why the coeditors did not want to impose their own definition of counter-narratives, but I would have liked to see this concept defined in clear terms by every author, at least tentatively; I feel most of them did it only implicitly. In sum, Considering counter-narratives is not made for newcomers in narrative studies, but it surely succeeds in opening many doors and raising more questions than bringing answers. I think most scholars already familiar with narrative theories and discourse analysis can still learn from the book. Yves Laverge Laval University Copyright © 2007 Linguistic Society of America

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,110

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,008
Communication savante0,0130,019
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0330,017

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 Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,250
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLanguageMême sujetFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesTravaux en français237 207