English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 16(1) of <em>Psychology of Men & Masculinity</em> (see record <RelatedUID>2015-00133-002</RelatedUID>). In the article, there were two pronoun errors. The second to last paragraph should have read, “Elsewhere in her commentary, Hammond suggests that a mixed-methods approach might allow researchers to keep simultaneous track of how men operate at both a macro and micro level. In doing so, she seems to imply that quantitative studies might prove useful in revealing how “men think about masculinities on average” (p. 373; emphasis added).] 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. Similarly, Mahalik and Hammond’s call for mixed methods fail to appreciate the hard theoretical choices at stake around models of the social actor, the nature of social action and representational processes and the crucial differences between discursive and psychometric perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

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