MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796426679 · doi:10.1525/fmh.2018.4.2.90

Girls’ Media Studies

2018· article· en· W2796426679 on OpenAlex
Mary Celeste Kearney

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Media Histories · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationTable of contentsCraftMedia studiesArtLibrary scienceSociologyVisual artsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Girls’ media studies is a unique area of feminist media studies that examines the intersecting dimensions of age and gender alongside other identity formations. Girls’ media scholarship covers studies on a diverse range of entertainment media, including film, television, magazines, music, comics, and video games, as well as digital communications technologies, platforms, and practices such as smartphones, social media, and sexting. Many researchers in girls’ media studies are concerned with how discourses of girlhood are constructed through representations of female youth. Other scholars focus on girls’ reception and uses of media, while still others analyze the production of girls’ media. And many do more than just one of these things. To date, the vast amount of girls’ media studies scholarship has centered on mainstream commercial media culture. Yet several researchers have focused on girls and independent media, particularly as produced within youth cultures like hip-hop and riot grrrl. Critical attention to younger girls’ media has risen in recent years, especially because of the Disney princess craze. However, most research on girls’ media has focused on texts created for, about, and by teen and tween girls.When I entered my doctoral program in 1992, the subfield of girls’ media studies did not exist. No professors taught classes specifically related to girls’ media, and no one organized conference panels to promote girl-centered media scholarship. In turn, no special journals or anthologies were devoted to the study of girls’ media. The late 1970s and early 1980s had seen a few groundbreaking studies in this area, particularly from Angela McRobbie.1 Yet prior to the late 1990s few researchers demonstrated an ongoing commitment to studying girls’ media culture. Therefore, scholars like me who were invested in such research had to rework adult-centric feminist media scholarship by deploying critical theories of age and generation developed in such disciplines as sociology and literary studies, where research on youth and youth cultures had a much longer history.Although McRobbie had written on girls’ media culture earlier, it was the publication of her first book, Feminism and Youth Culture: From Jackie to Just Seventeen (1991), that spurred the rise of girl-centered media research in England, Canada, Australia, and the United States during the mid- to late 1990s.2 In addition to reprinting McRobbie's pioneering works on gender and subcultures, Feminism and Youth Culture modeled a feminist approach to cultural research, raised attention regarding nonnormative girls’ cultural practices, and offered poignant critical analyses of girls’ dance and teen magazines. Other important monographs from the first decade of girls’ media studies include Lisa Lewis's Gender Politics and MTV: Voicing the Difference (1990), Carol Clover's Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (1992), and Susan Douglas's Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media (1994).3 In addition, several edited collections, like Marion de Ras and Mieke Lunenberg's Girls, Girlhood and Girls’ Studies in Transition (1993) and Sherrie Inness's Delinquents and Debutantes: Twentieth-Century American Girls’ Cultures (1998), promoted media-centered girls’ studies during that period.4 Many pioneering journal articles and book chapters were published in the 1990s also (too many to cite here, unfortunately). Together with the books mentioned above, such essays were crucial for the development of girls’ media studies into a legitimate form of feminist media studies all its own by the turn of the twenty-first century. Representational studies dominated scholarship on girls’ media during this period. Yet studies like Dawn Currie's Girl Talk: Adolescent Magazines and Their Readers (1995) and my own “Producing Girls: Rethinking the Study of Female Youth Culture” (1998) modeled different methodological approaches that encouraged other scholars to explore girls’ practices of media consumption and media production.5With academic roots in film and television studies, communication studies, sociology, literary studies, and, of course, women's, gender, and sexuality studies, scholarship on girls’ media is broadly interdisciplinary.6 Moreover, it is the most productive area of research within the larger field of girls’ studies, with new anthologies publishing some of that scholarship every few years.7 (As of yet, no academic journals are devoted to girls’ media studies.) In turn, several universities offer courses in girls’ media studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels on a regular basis.As a result of these practices, girls’ media studies has expanded considerably since 2000, broadening to include not only new scholars and new topics of inquiry, but also new methodologies and theoretical perspectives. While representational and discursive analyses remain go-to methods in girls’ media research, a considerable number of scholars also employ ethnography to collaborate with female youth and to privilege their perspectives. In addition to the medium-specific research already mentioned, some of the most significant topics explored by girls’ media scholars over the past seventeen years include discourses of girlhood in media culture; the history of girls’ media; female youth as media producers; girls and digital media technologies; girl-centered media franchises; young female media fans; girls’ sexualities and the media; feminism in girls’ media culture; and girlhood and postfeminist media culture.8 While the development of convergence culture has caused media scholars to reflect critically on our understanding of specific mediums, researchers focusing on girls’ media scholars are increasingly interrogating the concepts of “girl” and “girlhood” via attention to other identities beyond age and gender. Meanwhile, queer theory and recent research on effeminate “girly boys” and transgender girls in media culture are challenging the very basis upon which girls’ media studies has been grounded, provocatively pushing scholars to rethink our objects of study and the theoretical perspectives we use to analyze them.9The growth of academic attention to girls’ media culture over the past twenty-some years is certainly worth celebrating. But there is still work to do. In particular, more research on nonnormative girls is needed to subvert the white, heterosexual, middle-class, ableist, Christian, Western framework that continues to dominate this field. More attention to girls’ differences will not only expand popular knowledge about girls’ media culture, but also help to legitimize nonnormative female youth and their media practices. In turn, we need more historical research to understand girls’ media cultures of the past and their impact today. Our current moment also demands more attention to how girlhood and girls’ media function within the contexts of neoliberalism, globalization, religious fundamentalism, challenges to democracy, and climatological catastrophe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it