Rose Capdevila

Baby or beauty: a Q study into post pregnancy body image

The idea that women, particularly new mothers, are overly concerned with weight and body shape has much currency in our culture. The literature in this area is contradictory, some arguing, for example, that body image is integral to womens narratives of early motherhood, others that it is of peripheral concern. This paper presents the results of research conducted into womens body image after pregnancy. The study used Q methodology to explore the manifold understandings of women who had recently given birth. Research and piloting produced 60 statements identified as relevant to the concerns of new mothers. Twenty participants, who had given birth in the previous 3 years, were asked to sort these statements into quasi‐normal distributions. These sorts were then factor analysed to identify six dominant narratives: ‘family centred’, ‘stressed’, ‘happy mothers’, ‘missing personal space’, ‘supportive family’ and ‘mother/child oriented’. By focusing on the complexity of these narratives, rather than isolating correlational variables or entering into polarized discourses, a deeper reading of these accounts is possible. In other words, by exploring how women relate body image to other concerns, it is possible to learn more about how body image is constructed and the part it plays in womens self narratives.

Methodological Pluralism in Theory and in Practice: The Case for Q in the Community

In this article, we discuss the issue of methodological pluralism in qualitative research and in particular the case of Q methodology. Q methodology occupies an interesting position in arguments around methodological pluralism in that its location within qualitative (as well as quantitative) traditions has often been represented as a contestable issue. To contextualise our exploration of qualitative methodological pluralism, we will begin by presenting the theoretical questions we see as relevant to the mixing of Q method with other qualitative methods, including Qs own contested positioning within this grouping. This strand of our argument highlights continuities between some conceptualisations of the pattern analytics of Q methodology and discursive and thematic analysis. To ground this point, we present an empirical study that used both Q methodology and thematic analysis to address an issue in the community. More specifically, we will describe how Q methodology and thematic analysis were used to approach the evaluation of a programme to reduce recidivism amongst offenders and thus offer practical solutions in an applied setting. We will conclude by reflecting on the possibilities of pluralism when methodological boundaries are understood as mobile, and when stability of boundary construction is conceptualised as relationally produced rather than pre-existing.

Q methodology and a Delphi poll: a useful approach to researching a narrative approach to therapy

Q methodology and a Delphi poll combined qualitative and quantitative methods to explore definitions of White and Epstons (1990) narrative approach to therapy among a group of UK practitioners. A Delphi poll was used to generate statements about narrative therapy. The piloting of statements by the Delphi panel identified agreement about theoretical ideas underpinning narrative therapy and certain key practices. A wider group of practitioners ranked the statements in a Q sort and made qualitative comments about their sorting. Quantitative methods (principal components analysis) were used to extract eight accounts of narrative therapy, five of which are qualitatively analysed in this paper. Agreement and differences were identified across a range of issues, including the social construction of narratives, privileging a political stance or narrative techniques and the relationship with other therapies, specifically systemic psychotherapy. Q methodology, combined with the Delphi poll, was a unique and innovative feature of this study.

VI. Redefinition Reviewed: What `Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender' Can Offer Today

Although I became familiar with Rhoda Unger’s work a decade ago while I was a postgraduate student, I only recently came to read ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender’ (1979). Coming to it almost 30 years after it was published, and being already familiar with her later work, of course, provides one with a somewhat different point of engagement. In a sense, I cannot help but see the paper as the first steps taken on the road to a prolific, distinguished and influential career that has contributed much to feminist psychology. Yes, inescapably, the paper is the product of a particular time and of a particular matrix of debates, being, as it was, part of a wider move in feminist writing to problematize the relationship between gender and sex (see also Kessler and McKenna, 1978). It probably falls most neatly into the tradition that Wilkinson, in her review of five feminist challenges to mainstream psychology, identifies as the ‘Mismeasure of women’ (1997). Indeed, Unger herself in 1996 grouped the paper primarily as a criticism of method, along with those of Weisstein (1993[1968]), Sherif (1979) and Wallston (1981). While one could suppose that this might consign the paper to the drawer marked ‘of historical interest’, I would argue that this would be a serious underestimation of the role the arguments proposed in the paper play within current feminist endeavours, particularly pedagogical ones. Whereas those who have a broad knowledge of feminist scholarship might feel that we have moved beyond some of the points raised by the paper, I would contend that a substantial audience remains who might gain much from its reading. As a university lecturer, the audience to which I refer is that made up by undergraduate students. Year upon year, students arrive full of enthusiasm and, at the first opportunity in their research methods workshops, they unthinkingly and unquestioningly include

Lysistratus, Lysistrata, Lysistratum:coconstructing the identities of mother and activist

Instances of womens involvement in politics are prevalent both in the historical and cross-cultural literature. However, as we know, the involvement of some women in political life has not always produced greater access to political power for women in everyday life. This article aims to examine how the identities of mother and activist have been produced and brought together, or coconstructed, in published texts and in interviews conducted with women activists. The analysis aims to illustrate the usefulness of looking at contexts and relationships for empirical work in this area. In doing so the article unpacks the concepts of “mother,” “woman,” “politics,” and “activist” to argue that we can reach a more useful understanding of identity if we address these not as stable and pre-existing, but rather as shifting and multiply-determined, products.

‘That’s just what’s expected of you … so you do it’: Mothers discussions around choice and the MMR vaccination

One of the major shifts in the form and experience of contemporary family life has been the increasing insertion of the ‘expert’ voice into the relationship between parents and children. This paper focuses on an exploration of mothers’ engagement with advice around the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Much of the previous literature utilises a ‘decision-making’ framework, based on ‘risk assessment’ whereby mothers’ decisions are conceptualised as rooted in complex belief systems, and supposes that that by gaining an understanding of these systems, beliefs and behaviour can be modified and uptake improved. However, less attention has been paid to the ways in which mothers negotiate such advice or the ways in which advice is mediated by positionings, practices and relationships. Analysis of data from a focus group with five mothers identified three themes: (i) Sourcing advice and information, (ii) Constructing ‘Mother knows best’ and (iii) Negotiating agency. Despite the trustworthiness of advice and information being questioned, an awareness of concerns about the MMR, and health professionals being constructed as remote, ultimate conformity to, and compliance with, the ‘system’ and ‘society’ were described as determining MMR ‘decisions’.

Feminism & Psychology going forward:

Reflection is fundamental to all feminist practice, and the editorials in Feminism & Psychology (FP and in enthusiasm and excitement about the future and what it may be possible to achieve’ (Wilkinson et al., 1991: 5). Seventeen years later, Nicola Gavey and Virginia Braun took over as editors. Acknowledging its ‘radical promise and sense of transformative possibility’ (Gavey and Braun, 2008: 5), they envisaged that F&P would play a ‘leading role in stimulating new directions in the theories, methods, and practices of feminist psychology’ (6). Alive to the challenges that such an endeavour involved, the past editors encouraged, and engaged in, deep reflection concerning feminisms, psychologies and the role of the journal in speaking to social inequities. The stellar work of the past editors, associate editors, editorial board members and the large community of reviewers has borne fruit. In August 2013, F&P received an award for ‘Distinguished Leadership on Behalf of Women in Psychology’ from the Committee on Women in Psychology of the American Psychological Association. The letter of award praised Feminism & Psychology as ‘a forum for critical, radical, and provocative feminist scholarship that serves

Feminisms and Psychologies: Multiple Meanings, Diverse Practices, and Forging Possibilities in an Age of Globalization

Feminist scholars have produced a large literature problematizing the unitary categories “woman” and “feminism” (e.g., Burman, 1998; Capdevila, Ciclitira, Lazard, & Marzano, 2006; Fraser & Nicholson, 1990; hooks, 1981; Mohanty, 1988; Riley, 1988). Many of these critiques highlight the fluidity, situatedness, locality, contingency, and intersectionality that are required to theorize and understand women’s experiences, especially in a postcolonial, transnational, context. Given this rich literature, to what extent are scholars working under the broad umbrella of feminist psychology aware of and informed by developments outside their own local (national, regional) contexts? Such an awareness has the potential to combat the myth of universalism characteristic of much of psychology (at least in some parts of the world), overcome intellectual isolationism, increase international communication, forge transnational linkages, and at the very least enrich our understanding of the challenges and exhilarations of the feminist process as it is being enacted all over the world.

The Personal and the Political are Feminist Exploring the Relationships among Feminism, Psychology, and Political Life

We live in a world filled with pressing political problems and challenges, including global warming, the “war on terror,” religious intolerance, nuclear proliferation, and challenges to civil and human rights. Feminist theory and scholarship have much to say that is relevant to a wide range of political topics, yet this scholarship has often been focused solely on political problems that are defined as “women’s issues” (e.g., reproductive rights, the availability of child care). Even then, the insights and advances made by feminist scholars are too often ignored by more mainstream researchers in political science and psychology, as well as by policy makers. Similarly, research on topics of relevance to women, especially those in the personal sphere (e.g., motherhood), often does not include a focus on the kind of structural, systemic, and politicized theoretical framings that would accompany research on “men’s” issues, such as war or economic development. In this special section, we begin to rectify those gaps by presenting eight contributions that provide new analyses and theoretical developments integrating feminist psychology with diverse topics in political life. These contributions explore the relevance of feminism and feminist theory to classic political research domains, consider the political implications of classic “women’s issues,” and provide insight into how feminist psychologists (and women in general) can effect social change and contribute to political projects. The articles collected here were first conceived when Division 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women) of the American Psychological Association established a task force on Feminist and Political Psychology. Inspired by Rhoda Unger, and cochaired by Unger and Rose Capdevila, the purpose of the task force was to investigate possible areas of overlap between feminist and political psychology, to identify gaps within each field, and to determine ways in which each can inform the other. This special section is one of the results of those efforts. Although not all the contributors here were members of the original task force, all are actively engaged in scholarly work at the intersection of political and feminist psychology. We hope these contributions have helped, and will help, to achieve the aims of the task force. The special section begins with two articles that explore the history of women psychologists in different ways. The first article, by Rutherford, Vaughn-Blount, and Ball, examines the tension between the positivist framework of empirical psychology and the explicitly political goals of most feminists. Rutherford et al. illuminate the challenges inherent in being both a scientist and an activist through an examination of the life, politics, careers, and science of two eminent feminist psychologists: Naomi Weisstein and Ethel Tobach. They conclude that it is equally important for feminism to transform psychology as for feminist psychology to transform society. Informed by a sociology of knowledge approach, biographical and historical accounts are used by Unger, Sheese, and Main in their exploration of generational changes in women’s organizational leadership in the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Their analysis reveals the important ways in which collegial and relational networks can influence personal consciousness and help to effect, or indeed hinder, social and political change. The next three articles demonstrate how feminist theories can help us to understand mainstream political phenomena such as political attitudes, participation, and activism. Diekman and Schneider use an important feminist theory, social role theory, to increase our understanding of gender differences in political attitudes—a question of deep and enduring interest to political scientists and politicians. Arguing against an essentialist framing of this gender gap, Diekman and Schneider provide evidence for two social constructionist explanations for gender differences in political attitudes: differences in diffuse gender-role expectations and differences in specific roles (e.g., in occupations or families).

Editorial introduction: Towards a transnational feminism: Dialogues on feminisms and psychologies in a Latin American context

This Special Feature is dedicated to some of the feminist work that is currently taking place in Latin American psychology. Our aim is to provide a space for the expression and debate of some current issues in the region so as to widen access to these developments in research and activism. It is by no means an attempt to present a ‘representative sample’ of all that has been done. There is, undoubtedly, enormous diversity in the circumstances and conditions of the different locations. Mendoza (2002: 309) has argued that ‘to speak of Latin American feminisms as a whole must also be seen mainly as an analytical construct, an ideal type that does not reflect in any manner an empirical reality’. However, the Latin American grouping does respond to a common socio-historical construction. Latin American feminisms, like those in many other parts of the world, have been characterized by their activism, as well as their critique of knowledge