首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences
【2h】

Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences

机译:学术期刊上有关性别/性别的客观性和解释领域:性别研究与其他社会科学的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Gender studies (GS) has been challenged on epistemological grounds. Here, we compare samples of peer-reviewed academic journal publications written by GS authors and authors from closely related disciplines in the social sciences. The material consisted of 2805 statements from 36 peer-reviewed journal articles, sampled from the Swedish Gender Studies List, which covers >12,000 publications. Each statement was coded as expressing a lack of any of three aspects of objectivity: Bias, Normativity, or Political activism, or as considering any of four realms of explanation for the behaviours or phenomena under study: Biology/genetics, Individual/group differences, Environment/culture, or Societal institutions. Statements in GS publications did to a greater extent express bias and normativity, but not political activism. They did also to a greater extent consider cultural, environmental, social, and societal realms of explanation, and to a lesser extent biological and individual differences explanations.
机译:性别研究已经受到认识论的挑战。在这里,我们比较了GS作者和社会科学中相近学科的作者所撰写的经过同行评审的学术期刊出版物的样本。该材料包括来自36个经过同行评审的期刊文章的2805份声明,这些文章选自瑞典的《性别研究列表》,涵盖了超过12,000种出版物。每条陈述都被编码为表示缺乏客观性三个方面中的任何一个:偏见,规范性或政治行动主义,或者考虑到对所研究的行为或现象的四个解释领域中的任何一个:生物学/遗传学,个体/群体差异,环境/文化或社会机构。 GS出版物中的声明在更大程度上确实表达了偏见和规范性,但并未表达政治行动主义。他们也确实在更大程度上考虑了解释的文化,环境,社会和社会领域,并在较小程度上考虑了生物学和个体差异的解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号