Exploring feminist political economy and feminist critical discourse analysis as methodologies in critical nursing research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper explores two critical feminist methodologies for nursing research: feminist political economy and feminist critical discourse analysis. The aim was to appreciate varied methodological approaches available for nurses to understand complexities in healthcare environments, above and beyond socially normative ways of knowing. DESIGN: Discursive paper. DATA SOURCES: Published articles from nursing databases (CINAHL and ProQuest; no date restrictions) and interdisciplinary databases (Women's Studies International, Sociological Abstracts and Ovid MEDLINE; publication dates between 2017 and 2022). METHODS: A discursive paper exploring and critically synthesizing the literature on feminist political economy and feminist critical discourse analysis to demonstrate how each methodological approach can be used in nursing. RESULTS: The findings of this discursive paper suggest there is an opportunity to draw on interdisciplinary studies for creative insights into how these methodologies may be helpful for nurses' scholarship and programmes of research. Although few nursing studies explicitly name a feminist political economy or feminist critical discourse analysis approach, several studies apply principles of these methodological approaches. CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity for these methodologies to be applied within the same project when there is a fit between the research questions and aims of both methodologies (studies where notions of gender and power are considered central and there are potential insights from exploring social progress, structures and the material, along with the social relations of discourses). IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Feminist political economy and feminist critical discourse analysis offer novel options for methodological analyses. IMPACT: Application of these methodologies may benefit critical nursing scholars looking for diverse critical methodological avenues to explore and to broaden nursing's methodological toolbox towards meeting social justice aims. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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 | 0.131 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".