Talk:Carol Gilligan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) Start- This article has a rather decent coverage of her work life. The biography needs to be flesh out, with discussions of her early life and her work with Erik Erikson and Lawrence Kohlberg. The article does not discuss any of her work after In a Different Voice or her critical reputation. --chemica 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV of Criticism Section

While the criticism section does present both sides of the argument on the Gilligan's research methods, the tones seems to be biased in favor of Gilligan and attacked the criticism present by Hoff Sommers. --chemica 08:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You first need to show that Hoff Sommers is qualified to meaningfully criticise Gilligan. I think you'll find that hard to do, since Hoff Sommers has no training in psych and is well-known as a rightwing ideologue. Katzenjammer 19:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the response to the criticism to make it less biased, and noted the need for a citation.

>>Just a note, I just read this page, & obviously must've read the revised area, because I don't see any bias in the critism section. It could be expanded, just on the basis of explaining empiricism and the critisms of non-experimental style studies so a lay person would understand why Sommers criticizes Gilligan's work and thus understand that Gilligan's work is still valid regardless of its disputed empiricism...but on the other hand, a lay person may not be reading this...

>> comment re: "Responses to this criticism argue that small sample sizes and non-replicable results are standard critiques of qualitative, interview-based research. In social science, such a method has often been used to inductively generate theories which can later be deductively tested.[citation needed] For example, Sigmund Freud's work was based on small sample sizes and nonreplicable results."

So Freud's work suggests that Gilligan's is legit? What about current developmental (& neurobiological) research largely not support Freud's theories? Seems like a poor example to illustrate credibility in my opinion...Would be very interested to hear what others think...And from someone accomplished with Wikipedia re proper ways to improve this section... SHP3513 Feb 17, 2007

I completely agree. Today, Freud's theories are acknowledged more for their historical and cultural significance than for any real psychological relevance. Research standards are different today--if he were alive doing his research today, his "findings" would not be considered real science. Whoever added that blurb obviously had no background in psych or social research. The criticism directed at Gilligan's research was not for its being qualitative and interview-based. It was directed at the fact that she did not follow research protocol--her research methods were opaque, her data are still hidden away, and her findings were not peer-reviewed. Additionally, the fact that her theories, derived from questionable research, were then deductively tested and then found mistaken deservedly garners this criticism. 141.211.231.83 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I came here because I was reading the page on Kohlberg's stages of moral development and saw the link to what I thought would be an explanation of a feminist critique of Kohlberg. The critique's description seems a little . . . skimpy. Does Gilligan offer a rival set of steps? If so, they should be included in this article. RobertAustin 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

She did offer her own set of stages of moral development for women:

Stage 1: Focus on Survival →→ Moral Development: What is best for me?

Stage 2: Focus on goodness as self-sacrifice →→ Moral Development: Am I willing to help others even if it hurts me?

Stage 3. Morality of non-violence →→ Moral Development: I will not hurt others or myself.

Unfortunately, this is all the information that I have.
From: Images of Society, Charles Hawkes, et al., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2001
Roland Johnson 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am currently reading 'In a Different Voice.' I'll see if I can add anything as I go along, or when I finish. Ryan Brady 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)