Theoretical given or research artifact? Comment on Wetherell and Edley (2014).

Abstract

In this commentary, I agree with Wetherell and Edley (2014) that discursive psychology has the potential to make an important contribution to the study of men and masculinity. However, I disagree with their juxtaposition of discursive psychology as being grounded in postmodernism, in contrast to the gender role strain paradigm that they characterize as emerging from a positivist theoretical perspective. I argue that the theoretical paradigm of gender role strain also represents a postmodern perspective, but that the questions that most of the researchers studying its expression have chosen to explore reflect a positivist methodology. Given this extensive body of research, it is easy to imagine that this positivist framework of quantitative research reflects an equivalent positivist theoretical perspective. I then demonstrate that gender role strain has also generated postmodern research by describing qualitative studies from the Yeshiva Fatherhood Project aimed at exploring the diversity, inconsistency, and fluidity of fathering identities.

Building the scientific basis of the psychological study of men and masculinity.

“…In addition to the commentaries related to Vandello and Bosson (2013), 13 other ancillary items were published in the last two volumes of PMM: a 3-page editorial on the 15th anniversary of PMM (Levant, 2014); a 6-page editorial introducing a special section on research on Black men (Wade & Rochlen, 2013); a 9-page editorial introduc ing a special section on teaching the psychology of men (O'Neil & Renzulli, 2013); and several commentaries focused on the rewards and challenges of teaching about gender (Chrisler, 2013b), boy's resistance to masculine norms (Chu, 2014;Smiler, 2014), adoles cent fathers (Bellamy & Banman, 2014;Devault, 2014;Kiselica & Kiselica, 2014a;Oren & Oren, 2014), and the role of language in the construction of masculinity Ham mond, 2014;Mahalik, 2014;Silverstein, 2014). In addition to the commentaries related to Vandello and Bosson (2013), 13 other ancillary items were published in the last two volumes of PMM: a 3-page editorial on the 15th anniversary of PMM (Levant, 2014); a 6-page editorial introducing a special section on research on Black men (Wade & Rochlen, 2013); a 9-page editorial introduc ing a special section on teaching the psychology of men (O'Neil & Renzulli, 2013); and several commentaries focused on the rewards and challenges of teaching about gender (Chrisler, 2013b), boy's resistance to masculine norms (Chu, 2014;Smiler, 2014), adoles cent fathers (Bellamy & Banman, 2014;Devault, 2014;Kiselica & Kiselica, 2014a;Oren & Oren, 2014), and the role of language in the construction of masculinity Ham mond, 2014;Mahalik, 2014;Silverstein, 2014).…”

“…Fourth, although ancillary items use valuable journal space, they can be seen as a solid investment so long as they are concise, compelling, and offer directions for future research. In addition to the commentaries related to Vandello and Bosson (2013), 13 other ancillary items were published in the last two volumes of PMM : a 3-page editorial on the 15th anniversary of PMM (Levant, 2014); a 6-page editorial introducing a special section on research on Black men (Wade & Rochlen, 2013); a 9-page editorial introducing a special section on teaching the psychology of men (O’Neil & Renzulli, 2013); and several commentaries focused on the rewards and challenges of teaching about gender (Chrisler, 2013b), boy’s resistance to masculine norms (Chu, 2014; Smiler, 2014), adolescent fathers (Bellamy & Banman, 2014; Devault, 2014; Kiselica & Kiselica, 2014a; Oren & Oren, 2014), and the role of language in the construction of masculinity (Edley & Wetherell, 2014; Hammond, 2014; Mahalik, 2014; Silverstein, 2014). It is possible that any of these ancillary items will have a greater citation impact per page than most primary articles as did Levant (2008) and Brooks (2010).…”

Roles, roots, and rifts: A rejoinder to Mahalik, Silverstein, and Hammond.

“…In this rejoinder to Mahalik (2014), Silverstein (2014), and Hammond’s (2014) commentaries on our presentation of a discursive psychological (DP) analysis of masculinities we focus in on the contention that DP and GRSP (the Gender Role Strain Paradigm) can be combined as part of a mixed methods approach or following a strategy of methodological pluralism. We take issue with Silverstein’s claim that GRSP is also poststructuralist, arguing that this relies on a conception of poststructuralism that its advocates would not recognize.…”