MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W325942702

Between a Flake and a Strident Bitch: Making 'IT' Count in the Academy. (Articles)

2000· article· en· W325942702 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pamela Moss, Martha McMahon

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociologyContext (archaeology)PoliticsSilenceMedia studiesAestheticsPower (physics)MainstreamEmbodied cognitionEpistemologyLawHistoryArtPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this paper, we address issues of (ac)countability in the context of reflexively critiquing how feminist qualitative research is conventionally understood within the mainstream academy. The concrete examples we give may be from different individuals' experiences, or from a composite of experiences; they may be fictional truths or perhaps even creative non-fiction. Our goal is analytical, to show how social processes work with regard to making qualitative work count in the academy. As actors in a play, cast as somewhere between a flake and a strident bitch, our characters in this paper take on experiences rather than have them. Our tale dramatizes the workings of power/knowledge/space regimes, as embodied in the experiences of the characters who talk and walk through this text. Listening to you, I sometimes envy the way you can articulate your experience. I find it so hard to articulate mine. It has been subtly unspeakable: beyond the capacity of my speech. Often I am reduced to silence or I babble, pointing to but not being able to put words on what is going on. How can I separate my politics from my/self? And why is it that when I try to communicate what it is I am thinking, I'm reduced to a personality type, some psychological disorder, or dehumanized in a way that creates a formidable chasm between the other speaker and me. I am really worked up over this paper now. All those imprudent, petty, little (and not so little) things my colleagues have done over the years have come flooding back to me today. And I am angry. I want to work through this anger constructively -- and creatively.In this paper, we address issues of accountability in the context of reflexively critiquing how feminist qualitative research is conventionally understood within the mainstream academy. The experiences of a feminist colleague, threatened with a legal suit by the male members of her department after informally presenting a chilly climate report, shape how we talk about these issues.(1) The concrete examples we give in this paper may be from different individuals' experiences, or from a composite of experiences; they may be fictional truths or perhaps even creative non-fiction.(2) Our data, if we can use the term, are not in a realist sense but rather are illustrative of a range of experiences. By using data in this way, our goal is analytical, to show how social processes work rather than to represent empirically a particular place or population of scholars. Some might call this approach polemical. For us, it is a way to poke at the boundaries of what we think and open up ways to communicate how power can be deployed in everyday settings within the academy that set parameters for (ac)counting (for) feminist qualitative research.As actors in a play, our characters in this paper take on experiences rather than have them. Thus, our story does not refer to or represent any one person, individual university, or single department. Indeed, one person might experience almost everything that is described here; another, only one; and still another might have a different set of experiences but reach the same set of conclusions. We hope, as our scenes (seens) unfold, there may perhaps be room for still more experiences, room for even more drama, room for more of (y)our own stories -- between the words, the exchanges, the lines. But, for now, for us, our tale dramatizes the workings of power/knowledge/space regimes, as embodied in the experiences of the characters who talk and walk through this text.Enough already, on with the story.* * *Feminist scholars' experiences in the academy often appear quite different from each other at first glance. Our first character below, for example, might have been hired within a context of recognizing methodological differences and divisions in her discipline. She might even have been hired to teach feminist theory and qualitative methods and told by those not sharing her perspective (either feminism or qualitative methods) that she was indeed welcome. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,058
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,855
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0580,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,507
Tête enseignante GPT0,615
Écart entre enseignants0,108 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
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
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResources for feminist researchMême sujetQualitative Research Methods and EthicsTravaux en français237 207