7 PLACING THE GIRLHOOD SCHOLAR INTO THE POLITICS OF CHANGE A Reflexive Account
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problematizing Voice, Participation, and Social Change through Refl exivityGirlhood studies is a rights-based approach to research and activism that aims to achieve gender equality for girls of all ages in local and global contexts (Mitchell and Reid-Walsh 2009).Seeking to foster girls' and young women's empowerment across contexts and locations, feminist scholars and activists working in this fi eld demonstrate a strong commitment to enabling girls' participation in their communities and to listening carefully to girls' voices in the research process (Brown and Gilligan 1992;Mazzarella and Pecora 2007).Indeed, despite being relatively new, the fi eld of girlhood studies is already "replete with references to participation and the need for girl-centredness (Mitchell and Reid-Walsh 2009: 214) [with] [m]any of us want [ing] to claim that the voices of the girls with whom we work are [being] heard" (221).The purpose of this chapter is to examine critically the assumed relationship in girlhood studies among its politically driven feminist agendas, its explicit focus on voice and participation by girls, and its concern with social change.I will foreground the issue of accountability in the fi eld of girlhood studies by asking three questions: In what ways, and to what extent, does a focus on girls' voices and participation inform an approach to social change?How do scholars in girlhood studies identify evidence of social change, and in what forms does that evidence take shape?If social change is a goal of our research practice, what happens if no demonstrable change results from our research?To sum up my approach I pose a fourth question: Are girlhood scholars self-critical about their claims that they do, indeed, pursue social change?Although featuring centrally in the literature on feminist methodology (Ramazanoglu and Holland 2002), accountability remains a neglected
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it