‘The song remains the same’: rebuttal to Sherblom's re‐envisioning of the legacy of the care challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Journal of Moral Education, Sherblom (Citation2008) examined several empirical and conceptual claims related to gender and morality and re‐envisioned the legacy of Gilligan's ‘care challenge’. He concluded that the moral and scientific legitimacy of the ethic of care has been established. However, his apologetic is flawed in major ways and scholarly integrity demands a rebuttal. This article exposes how Sherblom's analysis misconstrues some of the empirical claims, fails to present relevant data, entails an incomplete reading of Kohlberg's theory, imputes an impact on moral/character education that is unwarranted, disregards some significant problems in the conceptualisation of the ethic of care and draws conclusions that are indefensible. The primary claims of the care perspective have generally been discredited and Sherblom's attempt to advance its legacy fails. The time has come to move beyond these notions of a gendered moral psychology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".