The influence of social identities and migration on psychologists' research interests and career trajectories
Are personal experiences sources for what psychologists decide to study? If personal experiences so significantly influence and orient psychologists' interests, does that not lead to biased findings and interpretations in their science? How does "international mobility" which is increasingly becoming the norm for academic researchers shape their work? How does migration experiences and social identities influence psychologists' research trajectories?
29 Mayıs 2014 Perşembe
28 Mayıs 2014 Çarşamba
Just a brief profile
Within
the field of social psychology, I am mostly interested in studying the powerful
force of culture – institutions, practices,
artifacts, and discursive tools – in shaping psychological experiences (attitudes,
perceptions, cognition, affect and behavior), and how these culturally produced
psyches reproduce social lives and interactions that are gendered.
my main research interest in psychology
My research interests lie in the areas of cultural and cross-cultural psychology. I am inspired by the powerful force of culture - Institutions, practices, artifacts, and discursive tools - in shaping and psychological experiences (Perceptions, cognition, Affects and behavior), and How these culturally Produced psyches Continuously REPRODUCE social lives and interactions.
My primary research interest is in cultural psychology. I’m
impressed by the powerful force of culture in shaping psychological experience
and how these experiences play a role in the reproduction of cultures. For my
PhD, I’m investigating the culture of honour and how it plays out in the
maintainance of superior social norms (gender stereotypical beliefs, subtle sexism,
heterosexism, etc.).
9 Mayıs 2014 Cuma
Great remedial suggestions for the problem of reification of culture
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00392/full
As an antidote to problematic reifications of culture and self, the mutual constitution framework emphasizes the ongoing, dynamic production of culture and mind. From this perspective, cultural participation is less about conscious indoctrination into bounded systems of timeless traditional values than it is engagement with particular cultural-ecological patterns: that is, the structures of everyday worlds—including institutions, practices, artifacts, and discursive tools—that scaffold psychological experience Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952). At the same time, cultural worlds are not static, timeless entities, but reflect and require culturally grounded actors who continually reproduce them with the psychological charge of their particular desires and beliefs. Rather than confine people in invented traditions (e.g., Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983) of imagined racial communities (e.g.,Anderson, 1983), this articulation provides a more productive conception of culture adequate for Frontiers in Cultural Psychology. This conception promotes “cultural understanding” not by rehearsing problematic ethnic stereotypes, but instead by revealing the broader historical processes at work in the production of “normal” scientific standards.
As an antidote to problematic reifications of culture and self, the mutual constitution framework emphasizes the ongoing, dynamic production of culture and mind. From this perspective, cultural participation is less about conscious indoctrination into bounded systems of timeless traditional values than it is engagement with particular cultural-ecological patterns: that is, the structures of everyday worlds—including institutions, practices, artifacts, and discursive tools—that scaffold psychological experience Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952). At the same time, cultural worlds are not static, timeless entities, but reflect and require culturally grounded actors who continually reproduce them with the psychological charge of their particular desires and beliefs. Rather than confine people in invented traditions (e.g., Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983) of imagined racial communities (e.g.,Anderson, 1983), this articulation provides a more productive conception of culture adequate for Frontiers in Cultural Psychology. This conception promotes “cultural understanding” not by rehearsing problematic ethnic stereotypes, but instead by revealing the broader historical processes at work in the production of “normal” scientific standards.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)