A Critical Introduction to Feminist Cultural Production: There's Only Two or Three Things [We] Know for Sure. (Introduction)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The title of this issue of RFR/DRF, Critical Debates and Practices, suggests that both debates and are central to what constitutes The articles critically debate practices of and contribute to dilemmas arising from practices. A growing concern for both the symbolic and material importance of representations suggests a need for attention to the histories, methodologies, and strategies underlying production. When we began working on this issue, we designed a call for papers that would solicit work from producers, understood broadly as artists / teachers / activists / academics. We envisaged a wide range of problematics, linked by an attention to criticality; to describing, deciphering, and deconstructing contexts and conditions of practice; and to uncovering new forms and territories of theory. What is evident in the multiplicity of concerns and approaches in this collection is an engagement with dilemmas of feminist and cultural This is a productive and invigorating tension that is reflected in the title of the issue. In the introduction to their edited collection, Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education (2000), Elizabeth A. St. Pierre and Wanda S. Pillow suggest that the Book chapters work with a question about the relationship of and poststructuralism: 'How are they beside each other?' (p. 2). Similarly, in this issue of RFR/DRF, the articles ask how feminist and cultural production are beside each other and how debates and are beside each other and beside Feminist and Cultural Production: What? How? When? Where? We envisioned and worked towards an issue that would contest and confound assumptions about and that would, in fact, develop a flexible and unfixed vision of what constitutes production. This collection of articles produces such a moment of problematization. The issue offers analyses of a range of forms and practices across many conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Given this notion of contestation about what constitutes cultural and when, where, and how it may be brought into being, the idea of feminist is produced correspondingly as a term debated rather than assumed. The articles invoke an understanding of feminist that references multiple practices, theories, histories, activisms, politics, and relations that engage with questions of power and difference. Many scholars working in studies underline the importance of understanding feminism as a term of contingency, and they emphasize the strengths and possibilities that inhere in the contestation and debate of the term (Butler, 1992; McRobbie, 1994). We hope that this issue of RFR/DRF will contribute to academic discourses about by reconfiguring the terms and the field and by raising new questions for future engagements. Thus, with regard to the relationship of this collection of articles to future developments in production, we might begin a set of questions that problematizes how knowledge is produced through our organization of the issue and through the particular articles therein. How does this issue of RFR/DRF participate in shaping what constitutes feminist? How does it shape cultural How do notions of feminist and cultural production inform each other through the articles? What are the implications for developments in research and scholarly writing about production? Multiple Approaches Questions of epistemology are threaded throughout this issue: all of the papers ask questions about how knowledge is organized to shape the issues and practices of production. …
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 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 | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».