为什么性别量化趋势是个问题:创伤后成长论和内战弊病流

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Maren Duvendack, Ulrike G Theuerkauf
{"title":"为什么性别量化趋势是个问题:创伤后成长论和内战弊病流","authors":"Maren Duvendack, Ulrike G Theuerkauf","doi":"10.1177/07388942241244962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Feminist scholars have long debated quantification trends in the social sciences. Of particular concern has been the extent to which the prestige assigned to quantitative methods may reinforce ‘malestream’ dynamics in academic knowledge production. ‘Malestream’ dynamics include the (implicit or explicit) privileging of a male-centric lens in the research process and the association of ‘hard’ numerical data with notions of ‘scientifically superior’ masculinity. We build on these discussions by asking how the rise in quantitative writings may affect gender disparities in the civil war literature. Using descriptive data from a newly coded dataset that contains 1,851 articles published in high-ranking journals between 1998 and 2018, we, firstly, illustrate how – in the generally male-dominated field of civil war research – the author gender gap is particularly pronounced among quantitative writings. Secondly, we present an in-depth discussion of three articles that use statistical analysis to test the effects of violence on prospects of post-traumatic growth. A distinct difference between the three articles is that they tend to be more sceptical of arguments on ‘positive change’ following violence the more account they take of gender differentiation in their theoretical framing and/or empirical identification strategy. All in all, our arguments call for greater awareness of gender bias in quantitative research, and for more rigour in currently hegemonic standards of what ‘counts’ as reliable evidence.","PeriodicalId":51488,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why gendered quantification trends are a problem: Post-traumatic growth arguments and the civil war malestream\",\"authors\":\"Maren Duvendack, Ulrike G Theuerkauf\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07388942241244962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Feminist scholars have long debated quantification trends in the social sciences. Of particular concern has been the extent to which the prestige assigned to quantitative methods may reinforce ‘malestream’ dynamics in academic knowledge production. ‘Malestream’ dynamics include the (implicit or explicit) privileging of a male-centric lens in the research process and the association of ‘hard’ numerical data with notions of ‘scientifically superior’ masculinity. We build on these discussions by asking how the rise in quantitative writings may affect gender disparities in the civil war literature. Using descriptive data from a newly coded dataset that contains 1,851 articles published in high-ranking journals between 1998 and 2018, we, firstly, illustrate how – in the generally male-dominated field of civil war research – the author gender gap is particularly pronounced among quantitative writings. Secondly, we present an in-depth discussion of three articles that use statistical analysis to test the effects of violence on prospects of post-traumatic growth. A distinct difference between the three articles is that they tend to be more sceptical of arguments on ‘positive change’ following violence the more account they take of gender differentiation in their theoretical framing and/or empirical identification strategy. All in all, our arguments call for greater awareness of gender bias in quantitative research, and for more rigour in currently hegemonic standards of what ‘counts’ as reliable evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conflict Management and Peace Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conflict Management and Peace Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07388942241244962\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07388942241244962","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,女性主义学者一直在辩论社会科学中的量化趋势。尤其值得关注的是,赋予量化方法的声望可能会在多大程度上强化学术知识生产中的 "恶流 "动态。弊流 "动态包括在研究过程中以男性为中心的视角(或隐或显)的特权,以及将 "硬 "的数字数据与 "科学优越 "的男性概念联系起来。在这些讨论的基础上,我们将探讨定量写作的兴起会如何影响内战文献中的性别差异。我们使用了一个新编码数据集的描述性数据,该数据集包含 1998 年至 2018 年间发表在高级期刊上的 1851 篇文章,首先,我们说明了在普遍由男性主导的内战研究领域,作者的性别差距如何在定量写作中尤为明显。其次,我们对三篇文章进行了深入讨论,这三篇文章利用统计分析来检验暴力对创伤后成长前景的影响。这三篇文章的一个明显区别是,它们在理论框架和/或经验识别策略中对性别差异的考虑越多,就越倾向于对暴力后 "积极变化 "的论点持怀疑态度。总之,我们的论点要求在定量研究中提高对性别偏见的认识,并要求在目前霸权的可靠证据 "标准 "中更加严格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why gendered quantification trends are a problem: Post-traumatic growth arguments and the civil war malestream
Feminist scholars have long debated quantification trends in the social sciences. Of particular concern has been the extent to which the prestige assigned to quantitative methods may reinforce ‘malestream’ dynamics in academic knowledge production. ‘Malestream’ dynamics include the (implicit or explicit) privileging of a male-centric lens in the research process and the association of ‘hard’ numerical data with notions of ‘scientifically superior’ masculinity. We build on these discussions by asking how the rise in quantitative writings may affect gender disparities in the civil war literature. Using descriptive data from a newly coded dataset that contains 1,851 articles published in high-ranking journals between 1998 and 2018, we, firstly, illustrate how – in the generally male-dominated field of civil war research – the author gender gap is particularly pronounced among quantitative writings. Secondly, we present an in-depth discussion of three articles that use statistical analysis to test the effects of violence on prospects of post-traumatic growth. A distinct difference between the three articles is that they tend to be more sceptical of arguments on ‘positive change’ following violence the more account they take of gender differentiation in their theoretical framing and/or empirical identification strategy. All in all, our arguments call for greater awareness of gender bias in quantitative research, and for more rigour in currently hegemonic standards of what ‘counts’ as reliable evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conflict Management and Peace Science
Conflict Management and Peace Science INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Conflict Management and Peace Science is a peer-reviewed journal published five times a year from 2009. It contains scientific papers on topics such as: - international conflict; - arms races; - the effect of international trade on political interactions; - foreign policy decision making; - international mediation; - and game theoretic approaches to conflict and cooperation. Affiliated with the Peace Science Society (International), Conflict Management and Peace Science features original and review articles focused on news and events related to the scientific study of conflict and peace. Members of the Peace Science Society (International) receive an annual subscription to Conflict Management and Peace Science as a benefit of membership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信