子宫中的美国:倡导生殖正义的心理学家合作的自我民族志

IF 2.5 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Dena M. Abbott, Rin Nguyen, Carrie Bohmer, Millie L. Myers, Jessica A Boyles, Caitlin M. Mercier
{"title":"子宫中的美国:倡导生殖正义的心理学家合作的自我民族志","authors":"Dena M. Abbott, Rin Nguyen, Carrie Bohmer, Millie L. Myers, Jessica A Boyles, Caitlin M. Mercier","doi":"10.1177/03616843231166375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In light of the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, millions of people with uteruses have been forced to navigate precarious access to reproductive care. Although health service psychologists have an ethical responsibility to engage in reproductive justice advocacy, training programs often do not adequately address sexual and reproductive health. Therefore, we sought to better understand how health service psychologists’ personal and professional experiences influence each other and explore the ways in which we as reproductive beings and advocates sustain ourselves amidst tremendous sociopolitical uncertainty. In order to do so, we employed a feminist collaborative autoethnography approach grounded in critical theory. Attending to intersectional identities that help shape diverse expectations and experiences, two early career psychologists and four trainees uncovered 12 domains: barriers in academia; reproductive (dis)empowerment; relational connection; power(lessness) associated with social locations; internalization of sex-negative messages; the influence of sociopolitical climate; burdens related to reproductive rights; evaluations of reproductive justice efforts; component of professional identity; expectations from family and community; overwhelming and exhausting advocacy; and fears of inadequacy. We conclude with limitations and implications for the continued promotion of advocacy through practice and training within and beyond the field of psychology.","PeriodicalId":48275,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The US in Uterus: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Psychologists Advocating for Reproductive Justice\",\"authors\":\"Dena M. Abbott, Rin Nguyen, Carrie Bohmer, Millie L. Myers, Jessica A Boyles, Caitlin M. Mercier\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03616843231166375\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In light of the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, millions of people with uteruses have been forced to navigate precarious access to reproductive care. Although health service psychologists have an ethical responsibility to engage in reproductive justice advocacy, training programs often do not adequately address sexual and reproductive health. Therefore, we sought to better understand how health service psychologists’ personal and professional experiences influence each other and explore the ways in which we as reproductive beings and advocates sustain ourselves amidst tremendous sociopolitical uncertainty. In order to do so, we employed a feminist collaborative autoethnography approach grounded in critical theory. Attending to intersectional identities that help shape diverse expectations and experiences, two early career psychologists and four trainees uncovered 12 domains: barriers in academia; reproductive (dis)empowerment; relational connection; power(lessness) associated with social locations; internalization of sex-negative messages; the influence of sociopolitical climate; burdens related to reproductive rights; evaluations of reproductive justice efforts; component of professional identity; expectations from family and community; overwhelming and exhausting advocacy; and fears of inadequacy. We conclude with limitations and implications for the continued promotion of advocacy through practice and training within and beyond the field of psychology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology of Women Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology of Women Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231166375\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231166375","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

鉴于最高法院最近推翻罗诉韦德案的裁决,数百万子宫内膜异位症患者被迫在获得生殖保健的不稳定机会中度过难关。尽管卫生服务心理学家有参与生殖正义宣传的道德责任,但培训计划往往不能充分解决性健康和生殖健康问题。因此,我们试图更好地了解卫生服务心理学家的个人和职业经历是如何相互影响的,并探索我们作为生殖生物和倡导者在巨大的社会政治不确定性中维持自己的方式。为了做到这一点,我们采用了基于批判理论的女权主义合作民族志方法。两名早期职业心理学家和四名受训人员关注有助于塑造不同期望和经历的交叉身份,发现了12个领域:学术界的障碍;生殖(dis)赋权;关系连接;与社会位置相关的权力;性负面信息的内化;社会政治气候的影响;与生殖权利有关的负担;对生殖司法工作的评价;职业认同的组成部分;来自家庭和社区的期望;铺天盖地、令人精疲力竭的宣传;以及对不足的恐惧。最后,我们总结了通过心理学领域内外的实践和培训继续促进倡导的局限性和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The US in Uterus: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Psychologists Advocating for Reproductive Justice
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, millions of people with uteruses have been forced to navigate precarious access to reproductive care. Although health service psychologists have an ethical responsibility to engage in reproductive justice advocacy, training programs often do not adequately address sexual and reproductive health. Therefore, we sought to better understand how health service psychologists’ personal and professional experiences influence each other and explore the ways in which we as reproductive beings and advocates sustain ourselves amidst tremendous sociopolitical uncertainty. In order to do so, we employed a feminist collaborative autoethnography approach grounded in critical theory. Attending to intersectional identities that help shape diverse expectations and experiences, two early career psychologists and four trainees uncovered 12 domains: barriers in academia; reproductive (dis)empowerment; relational connection; power(lessness) associated with social locations; internalization of sex-negative messages; the influence of sociopolitical climate; burdens related to reproductive rights; evaluations of reproductive justice efforts; component of professional identity; expectations from family and community; overwhelming and exhausting advocacy; and fears of inadequacy. We conclude with limitations and implications for the continued promotion of advocacy through practice and training within and beyond the field of psychology.
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender. Topics include (but are not limited to) feminist approaches, methodologies, and critiques; violence against women; body image and objectification; sexism, stereotyping, and discrimination; intersectionality of gender with other social locations (such as age, ability status, class, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation); international concerns; lifespan development and change; physical and mental well being; therapeutic interventions; sexuality; social activism; and career development. This journal will be of interest to clinicians, faculty, and researchers in all psychology disciplines, as well as those interested in the sociology of gender, women’s studies, interpersonal violence, ethnic and multicultural studies, social advocates, policy makers, and teacher education.
×
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