Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I What Is Sexual Development?
- Part II How Do We Study Sexual Development?
- 14 Critical Methods for Studying Adolescent Sexuality
- 15 Loving Possibilities in Studies of Sexuality Education and Youth
- 16 Difficulties in the Study, Research, and Pedagogy of Sexuality
- 17 Numbers and Stories
- 18 Doing It: Participatory Visual Methodologies and Youth Sexuality Research
- 19 Research under Surveillance
- Part III Media, Family, Education
- Index
- References
14 - Critical Methods for Studying Adolescent Sexuality
from Part II - How Do We Study Sexual Development?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 December 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual Development
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I What Is Sexual Development?
- Part II How Do We Study Sexual Development?
- 14 Critical Methods for Studying Adolescent Sexuality
- 15 Loving Possibilities in Studies of Sexuality Education and Youth
- 16 Difficulties in the Study, Research, and Pedagogy of Sexuality
- 17 Numbers and Stories
- 18 Doing It: Participatory Visual Methodologies and Youth Sexuality Research
- 19 Research under Surveillance
- Part III Media, Family, Education
- Index
- References
Summary
Research about sexual development in childhood and adolescence is shaped by unequal power relations, making the use of critical methods necessary. This chapter explores several critical research methods that lead researchers to reflect on how power circumscribes and limits the questions that can be asked in research with and about children and adolescents. These methods create "methodological research points" – spaces in which researchers can work within the discursive contexts that frame their objects of study, and in which they can work to understand the political and historical processes of knowledge production as they themselves produce knowledge. This chapter argues for the use of critical methods in all stages of the research process, which are necessary so as not to overlook important aspects of young peoples' lives.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sexual DevelopmentChildhood and Adolescence, pp. 281 - 299Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Adams, G. (2014). Decolonizing Methods: African Studies and Qualitative Research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 467–474.Google Scholar
Alcoff, L. M. (1991). The Problem of Speaking For Others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32.Google Scholar
Allgood, E. & Svennungsen, H. O. (2008). Toward an Articulation of Trauma Using the Creative Arts and Q-methodology: A Single Case Study. Journal of Human Subjectivity, 6(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Baker, J. (2008). The Ideology of Choice: Overstating Progress and Hiding Injustice in the Lives of Young Women: Findings from a Study in North Queensland, Australia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31, 53–64.Google Scholar
Baker, J. (2010). Claiming Volition and Evading Victimhood: Post-Feminist Obligations for Young Women. Feminism & Psychology, 20, 186–204.Google Scholar
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Half-way: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, L. (2016). Everyday Sexism: The Project that Inspired a Worldwide Movement. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The Agency Line: A Neoliberal Metric for Appraising Young Women’s Sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6.Google Scholar
Bay-Cheng, L. Y. & Eliseo-Arras, R. K. (2008). The Making of Unwanted Sex: Gendered and Neoliberal Norms in College Women’s Unwanted Sexual Experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 386–397.Google Scholar
Behar, R. & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2009). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Boonzaier, F. (2008). If the Man Says You Must Sit, Then You Must Sit: The Relational Construction of Woman Abuse: Gender, Subjectivity and Violence. Feminism & Psychology, 18, 183–206.Google Scholar
Bowleg, L., del Río-González, A. M., Holt, S. L. et al. (2017). Intersectional Epistemologies of Ignorance: How Behavioral and Social Science Research Shapes What We Know, Think We Know, and Don’t Know about Us Black Men’s Sexualities. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 577–603.Google Scholar
Brownlie, E. B. (2006). Young Adults’ Constructions of Gender Conformity and Nonconformity: A Q Methodological Study. Feminism & Psychology, 16(3), 289–306.Google Scholar
Calder-Dawe, O. & Gavey, N. (2016). Making Sense of Everyday Sexism: Young People and the Gendered Contours of Sexism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 55, 1–9.Google Scholar
Cantril, H. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concern. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than Myth: The Developmental Significance of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Crocker, J. & Major, B. (1989). Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.Google Scholar
Crosby, F. J. (1984). The Denial of Personal Discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386.Google Scholar
Darwin, Z. & Campbell, C. (2009). Understandings of Cervical Screening in Sexual Minority Women: A Q-methodological Study. Feminism & Psychology, 19(4), 534–554.Google Scholar
Fahs, B. & McClelland, S. I. (2016). When Sex and Power Collide: An Argument for Critical Sexuality Studies. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 392–416.Google Scholar
Fields, J. (2005). Children Having Children: Race, Innocence, and Sexuality Education. Social Problems, 52(4), 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, M. (2007). Expanding the Methodological Imagination. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(3), 459–473.Google Scholar
Fine, M. (2012). Troubling Calls for Evidence: A Critical Race, Class and Gender Analysis of Whose Evidence Counts. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 3–19.Google Scholar
Fine, M. (2016). Just Methods in Revolting Times. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13, 347–365.Google Scholar
Fine, M. (2017). Just Research in Contentious Times. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Fine, M. & Ruglis, J. (2009). Circuits and Consequences of Dispossession: The Racialized Realignment of the Public Sphere for U.S. Youth. Transforming Anthropology, 17, 20–33.Google Scholar
Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (Eds.). (2009). Critical Psychology: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Garcia, L. & Fields, J. (2017). Renewed Commitments in a Time of Vigilance: Sexuality Education in the USA. Sex Education, 17(4), 471–481.Google Scholar
Hey, V. (1997). The Company She Keeps: An Ethnography of Girls’ Friendships. Bristol, PA: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
Hitchens, B. K., Carr, P. J., & Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2018). The Context for Legal Cynicism: Urban Young Women’s Experiences with Policing in Low-Income, High-Crime Neighborhoods. Race and Justice 8(1), 27–50. doi:10.1177/2153368717724506.Google Scholar
Hollway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Josselson, R.E. (2004). The Hermeneutics of Faith and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Josselson, R.E. (2011). “Bet You Think This Song Is about You”: Whose Narrative Is It in Narrative Research? Narrative Works, 1, 33–51.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (1986). Introducing and Developing Q as a Feminist Methodology: A Study of Accounts of Lesbianism. In Wilkinson, S. (Ed.) Feminist Social Psychology: Developing Theory and Practice (151–172). Stony Stratford: Keynes.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (1997). Validating Women’s Experience? Dilemmas in Feminist Research. Feminism & Psychology, 7(4), 566–574.Google Scholar
Kurtiş, T. & Adams, G. (2015). Decolonizing Liberation: Toward a Transnational Feminist Psychology. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 388–413.Google Scholar
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E.A., & Brown-Collins, A. (1992). Cultural Diversity and Methodology in Feminist Psychology: Critique, Proposal, Empirical Example. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 145–163.Google Scholar
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673–693.Google Scholar
Lather, P. (2007). Getting Lost. Feminist Efforts towards a Double(d) Science. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and Consequences of Attributions to Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 251–330.Google Scholar
Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a Liberation Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. (2010). Intimate Justice: A Critical Analysis of Sexual Satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(9), 663–680.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. (2014). “What Do You Mean When You Say That You’re Sexually Satisfied?” A Mixed Methods Study. Feminism & Psychology, 24(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. (2016). Speaking Back from the Margins: Participant Marginalia in Survey and Interview Research. Qualitative Psychology, 3(2), 159–165.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. (2017). Conceptual Disruption: The Self-Anchored Ladder in Critical Feminist Research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(4), 451–464. doi:10.1177/0361684317725985Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. & Fine, M. (2008). Writing on Cellophane: Studying Teen Women’s Sexual Desires; Inventing Methodological Release Points. In Gallagher, K. (Ed.), The Methodological Dilemma: Creative, Critical and Collaborative Approaches to Qualitative Research (232–260). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. & Fine, M. (2014). Over-Sexed and Under Surveillance: Adolescent Sexualities, Cultural Anxieties, and Thick Desire. In Rasmussen, M. L., Quinlivan, K., & Allen, L. (Eds.), Interrogating the Politics of Pleasure in Sexuality Education (12–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I. & Holland, K. J. (2016). Toward Better Measurement: The Role of Survey Marginalia in Critical Sexuality Research. Qualitative Psychology, 3(2), 166–185.Google Scholar
McClelland, S. I., Rubin, J. D., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2016). Adapting to Injustice: Young Bisexual Women’s Interpretations of Microaggressions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
Midgley, N. (2006). Psychoanalysis and Qualitative Psychology: Complementary or Contradictory Paradigms? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, L. J. (2016). When Is a Clitoris Like a Lesbian? A “Sociologist” Considers Thinking Sex. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 44(3), 328–331.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G. (1994). Practicing Feminisms, Reconstructing Psychology: Notes on a Liminal Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Owen, L. (2012). Living Fat in a Thin-Centric World: Effects of Spatial Discrimination on Fat Bodies and Selves. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 290–306.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. H. (2012). ‘Difficult Citizenship’: The Precarious Relationships between Childhood, Sexuality and Access to Knowledge. Sexualities, 15(3–4), 257–276.Google Scholar
Shammas, D. (2017). Underreporting Discrimination among Arab American and Muslim American Community College Students: Using Focus Groups to Unravel the Ambiguities within the Survey Data. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 99–123.Google Scholar
Smith, L. T. (2006). Colonizing Knowledges. In The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.Google Scholar
Smith, M. V. (2008). Pain Experience and the Imagined Researcher. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(7), 992–1006.Google Scholar
Smith, P. H., Smith, J. B., & Earp, J. A. L. (1999). Beyond the Measurement Trap: A Reconstructed Conceptualization and Measurement of Woman Battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 177–193.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. C. (1990). Poststructuralism, Marginality, Postcoloniality and Value. In Collier, P. & Geyer-Ryan, H. (Eds.), Literary Theory Today (219–244). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In Nelson, C. & Grossberg, L. (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (271–313). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stainton Rogers, R. & Stainton Rogers, W. (1992). Stories of Childhood: Shifting Agendas of Child Concern. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Stephenson, W. (1953). The Study of Behavior: Q Technique and its Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P., Delprato, D.J., & Knapp, J.R. (1994). Q-methodology in the Study of Child Phenomenology. Psychological Record, 44, 171–183.Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2011). Radical Philosophical Critique and Critical Thinking in Psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31(3), 193–199.Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2015). Critical Psychology: A Geography of Intellectual Engagement and Resistance. American Psychologist, 70(3), 243–254.Google Scholar
Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., & Fox, M. (2012). Critical Participatory Action Research as Public Science. In Cooper, H. & Camic, P. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Vol. 2.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Traub, V. (2015). Thinking Sex with the Early Moderns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Unger, R. K. (1998). Resisting Gender: Twenty-Five Years of Feminist Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Ussher, J. M. (2004). Biological Politics Revisited: Reclaiming the Body and the Intra-Psychic within Discursive Feminist Psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 14, 425–430.Google Scholar
Warner, L. R., Settles, I. H., & Shields, S. A. (2016). Intersectionality as an Epistemological Challenge to Psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 171–176.Google Scholar
Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91.Google Scholar
Weisstein, N. (1968). Kinder, Kuche, Kirche as Scientific Law: Psychology Constructs the Female. Boston: New England Free Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (1991). Why Psychology (Badly) Needs Feminism. In Aaron, J. & Walby, S. (Eds.), Out of the Margins: Women’s Studies in the Nineties (191–203). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. & Kitzinger, C. (2000). Thinking Differently about Thinking Positive: A Discursive Approach to Cancer Patients’ Talk. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 797–811.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by