Exploring the relevance of feminist pedagogy to community psychology: continuing the dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Psychology has made advances in rectifying its historical negation of women's perspectives, as evidenced by a steady increase in women's scholarship and distinctly feminist works. However, in community psychology, the scope and magnitude of works generated both by and about women from a feminist framework have not kept pace with discourse on the nature of graduate education. The purpose of this article is to stimulate further discussion about the ways in which greater attention to the principles and practices of feminist pedagogy can enhance the interpersonal processes and content of community psychology graduate education. We provide illustrative examples of feminist pedagogy for community psychology from doctoral student and female and male faculty perspectives. We conclude by discussing the challenges to actualizing the potential for social action inherent in feminist pedagogy in relation to its apparent congruency with the principles and practices of community psychology. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.046 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".