Making (Some) Sense of Feminist Poststructuralism in Environmental Education Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that feminist poststructuralism disrupts countless notions many of us have been “raised” with, conceptualizing what feminist poststructuralism might mean for understanding and enacting environmental education research and practice can be difficult. This paper articulates understandings and assumptions of poststructuralism and explores how it has enabled me to come to know in a way that I would not otherwise. I am not claiming that feminist poststructural research necessarily produces better knowledge, but that it produces different knowledge than that undertaken by positivist, interpretivist or critical approaches. Linking theoretical discussion to onthe-ground examples, I examine notions of subjectivity, agency and the constitutive nature of discourse. I then discuss what is particularly feminist about this work and finally, close with a brief discussion of how these notions have prompted a shift in the kinds of questions I am asking in my doctoral research. Resume Etant donne que le feminisme post structuraliste perturbe un grand nombre de notions avec lesquelles plusieurs d’entre nous avons ete « eleves », la conceptualisation de ce que le feminisme post structuraliste peut signifier, dans la comprehension et la disposition des recherches et des pratiques en education environnementale, peut etre difficile. Cet article exprime bien les entendements et les suppositions du post structuralisme et explore comment cela m’a rendu capable d’en arriver a connaitre d’une facon que je n’aurais pas pu comprendre autrement. Je n’allegue pas que la recherche sur le feminisme post structuraliste engendre un meilleur savoir, mais elle donne lieu a un different savoir que celui assume par les approches positivistes, interpretatives ou critiques. En associant des discussions theoriques a des exemples pratiques, j’examine des notions de subjectivite, d’agence ainsi que la nature constitutive du discours. Je discute alors de ce qui est particulierement feministe au sujet de ce travail et finalement, je termine par une breve discussion sur comment ces notions ont incite un changement de cap dans la sorte de questions que je me pose dans ma these de doctorat.
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 | 0.035 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".