Using Q-Methodology to Explore Stakeholder Views about Porn Literacy Education | springerprofessional.de

Springer Professional

nach oben

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Erschienen in:

23.03.2021

Using Q-Methodology to Explore Stakeholder Views about Porn Literacy Education

verfasst von: Siobhán Healy-Cullen, Joanne E. Taylor, Tracy Morison, Kirsty Ross

Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Introduction

‘Porn literacy education’ is emerging as a pedagogical strategy to support youth in navigating the new technological pornography landscape. However, the characteristics of effective porn literacy education according to those who will be most affected by it—young people, their caregivers and educators—is unknown. Yet, end user views are imperative to policy development in sexuality education worldwide.

Methods

Using Q-methodology, the commonalities and idiosyncrasies of these stakeholder views were explored. In 2019, 30 participants recruited through nine schools in New Zealand completed an online Q sort, and 24 also took part in a follow-up interview.

Results

There were two distinct discourses regarding porn literacy education among stakeholders: (i) the pragmatic response discourse and (ii) the harm mitigation discourse.

Conclusions

Stakeholders hold nuanced and ideologically charged perspectives about porn literacy education and educational initiatives more generally. It is therefore important that policy caters for these different perspectives and that a 'one-size-fits-all' policy approach is acknowledged as insufficient.

Policy Implications

It is crucial that policy development is guided by evidence about what constitutes effective sexuality education. The social discourses reported here are important to consider in developing policy about porn literacy education and require further research to more fully understand the potential of porn literacy as pedagogy.

Anzeige

Vorheriger Artikel Abortion During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Racial Disparities and Barriers to Care in the USA

Nächster Artikel Pioneer Legislation on Second Order of Sexual Harassment: Sociolegal Innovation in Addressing Sexual Harassment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In New Zealand, school deciles indicate the extent a school draws students from low socio-economic communities. Decile 1 schools have the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools have the lowest.

#25 refers to statement number 25 (i.e., “Our efforts should be focused on censorship (blocking and restricting access to internet pornography), rather than porn literacy education”), and −3 refers to the position of this statement on the Q-set distribution for this discourse, in the direction of strong agreement.

Albury, K. (2013). Young people, media and sexual learning: Rethinking representation. Sex Education, 13(sup1), S32–S44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2013.767194CrossRef

Albury, K. (2014). Porn and sex education, porn as sex education. Porn Studies, 1(1–2), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2013.863654CrossRef

Albury, K. (2018). Porn and participation: Implications for learning and teaching practice. Porn Studies, 5(1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2017.1405739CrossRef

Alldred, P., David, M. E., & Smith, P. (2003). Teachers views of teaching sex education: pedagogy and models of delivery. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4(1).

Allen, L. (2005). ‘Say everything’: Exploring young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education. Sex Education, 5(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278493CrossRef

Allen, L. (2007a). Doing ‘it’ differently: Relinquishing the disease and pregnancy prevention focus in sexuality education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701505367CrossRef

Allen, L. (2007b). ‘Pleasurable pedagogy’: Young people’s ideas about teaching ‘pleasure’ in sexuality education. Twenty-First Century Society, 2(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450140701631437CrossRef

Allen, L. (2008). “They think you shouldn’t be having sex anyway”: Young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education content. Sexualities, 11(5), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460708089425CrossRef

Baker, K. E. (2016). Online pornography–Should schools be teaching young people about the risks? An exploration of the views of young people and teaching professionals. Sex Education, 16(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1090968CrossRef

Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2003). The trouble of teen sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000052162CrossRef

Beckner, S., Jepson, W., Brannstrom, C., & Tracy, J. (2019). ‘The San Antonio river doesn’t start in San Antonio, it now starts in Burleson County’: Stakeholder perspectives on a groundwater transfer project in central Texas. Society & Natural Resources, 32(11), 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1648709CrossRef

Beyers, C. (2013). In search of healthy sexuality: The gap between what youth want and what teachers think they need. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(3), 550–560. https://journals.co.za/content/transd/9/3/EJC149267

Buckingham, D., & Bragg, S. (2003). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life? Springer.

Buckingham, D., & Chronaki, D. (2014). Saving the children? In S. Wagg and J. Pilcher (Eds.), Thatcher’s grandchildren? (pp. 301–317). Palgrave Macmillan.

Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed,). Routledge.

Byron, P., McKee, A., Watson, A., Litsou, K., & Ingham, R. (2020). Reading for realness: Porn literacies, digital media, and young people. Sexuality & Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09794-6

Chronaki, D. (2013). Young people’s accounts of experiences with sexual content during childhood and teenage life. The Communication Review, 16(1–2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2013.757495CrossRef

Chronaki, D. (2019). “Why internet doesn’t necessarily matter”: Constructing sexual citizenship through pornographic literacies. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 6(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.11116/digest.6.2.4

Comella, L., & Tarrant, S. (2015). New views on pornography: Sexuality, politics, and the law. ABC-CLIO.

Cousins, J. J. (2017). Infrastructure and institutions: Stakeholder perspectives of stormwater governance in Chicago. Cities, 66, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.03.005CrossRef

Davis, A. C., Wright, C. J. C., Murphy, S., Dietze, P., Temple-Smith, M. J., Hellard, M. E., & Lim, M. S. C. (2020). A digital pornography literacy resource co-designed with vulnerable young people: Development of “The Gist.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e15964. https://doi.org/10.2196/15964CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dawson, K. (2019). Educating Ireland: Promoting porn literacy among parents and children. Porn Studies, 6(2), 268–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1518727CrossRef

Dawson, K. (2020). Establishing an evidence base for the development of porn literacy interventions for adolescents. [Doctoral dissertation, NUI Galway]. ARAN - Access to Research at NUI Galway. http://hdl.handle.net/10379/15826

Dawson, K., Nic Gabhainn, S., & MacNeela, P. (2019). Toward a model of porn literacy: Core concepts, rationales, and approaches. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1556238CrossRefPubMed

Education Review Office. (2018). Promoting wellbeing through sexuality education. https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Promoting-wellbeing-through-sexuality-education.pdf

Egan, R. D. (2013). Becoming sexual: A critical appraisal of the sexualization of girls. John Wiley & Sons.

Goldstein, A. (2019). Beyond porn literacy: Drawing on young people’s pornography narratives to expand sex education pedagogies. Sex Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2019.1621826

Goldstein, A. (2021). Learner, laugher, lover, critic: young women’s normative and emerging orientations towards pornography. Porn Studies, 8(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2020.1736608

Healy-Cullen, S., Morison, T., Ross, K., & Taylor J. E. (2021a). How youth, caregivers and educators draw on sexual scripts to make sense of young people’s engagement with Internet pornography. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Healy-Cullen, S., Morison, T., Ross, K., & Taylor J. E. (2021b). Harm, reality, and norms: Exploring what it means to be ‘porn literate’ according to youth, caregivers and educators. Manuscript in preparation.

HtmlQ [computer software] (2019). Retrieved from https://github.com/aproxima/htmlq

Hutchings, N. (2017). Porn literacy: Raising sexually intelligent young people. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e292. https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(17)30844-5/pdf

Ingham, R. (2005). ‘We didn’t cover that at school’: Education against pleasure or education for pleasure? Sex Education, 5(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810500278451CrossRef

Jearey-Graham, N., & Macleod, C. (2015). A discourse of disconnect: Young people from the Eastern Cape talk about the failure of adult communications to provide habitable sexual subject positions. Perspectives in Education, 33(2), 11–29.

Jearey-Graham, N., & Macleod, C. I. (2017). Gender, dialogue and discursive psychology: A pilot sexuality intervention with South African high-school learners. Sex Education, 17(5), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2017.1320983CrossRef

Kitzinger, C. (1999). Researching subjectivity and diversity: Q-Methodology in feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00358.xCrossRef

Kitzinger, C., & Rogers, R. S. (1985). A Q-methodological study of lesbian identities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150204CrossRef

Lamb, S., & Randazzo, R. (2016). An examination of the effectiveness of a sexual ethics curriculum. Journal of Moral Education, 45(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1156520CrossRef

Löfgren-Mårtenson, L., & Månsson, S. A. (2010). Lust, love, and life: A qualitative study of Swedish adolescents’ perceptions and experiences with pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903151374CrossRefPubMed

Macleod, C., & Vincent, L. (2014). Introducing a critical pedagogy of sexual and reproductive citizenship: Extending the ‘framework of thick desire’. In K. Quinlivan, M. Rasmussen, & L. Allen (Eds.), The politics of pleasure in sexuality education (pp. 131–151). Routledge.

Mckenzie, J. A., & Macleod, C. I. (2012). Rights discourses in relation to education of people with intellectual disability: Towards an ethics of care that enables participation. Disability & Society, 27(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.631795CrossRef

Moore, A., & Reynolds, P. (2017). Childhood and sexuality: Contemporary issues and debates. Springer.

Morison, T., & Herbert, S. (2019). Rethinking ‘risk’ in sexual and reproductive health policy: The value of the reproductive justice framework. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0351-zCrossRef

Office of Film and Literature Classification. (2018). NZ youth and porn: Research findings of a survey on how and why young New Zealanders view online pornography. https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/%0Anzyouthandporn/

Ollis, D. (2016a). The challenges, contradictions and possibilities of teaching about pornography in sex and relationships education (SRE): The Australian context. In V. Sundaram & H. Sauntson (Ed.), Global perspectives and key debates in sex and relationships education: Addressing issues of gender, sexuality, plurality and power (pp. 48–67). Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137500229.0008.48

Ollis, D. (2016b). ‘I felt like I was watching porn’: The reality of preparing pre-service teachers to teach about sexual pleasure. Sex Education, 16(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1075382CrossRef

Oosterhoff, P., Müller, C., & Shephard, K. (2017). Sex education in the digital era. IDS Bulletin, 48(1), 1–118. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.100

Pound, P., Langford, R., & Campbell, R. (2016). What do young people think about their school-based sex and relationship education? A qualitative synthesis of young people’s views and experiences. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e011329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011329CrossRef

Ranford, J. (2015). 'Pakeha', its origin and meaning. Auckland College of Education, 6(8), 64-70.

Rothman, E. F., Adhia, A., Christensen, T. T., Paruk, J., Alder, J., & Daley, N. (2018). A pornography literacy class for youth: Results of a feasibility and efficacy pilot study. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 13(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2018.1437100

Rothman, E. F., Paruk, J., Espensen, A., Temple, J. R., & Adams, K. (2017). A qualitative study of what US parents say and do when their young children see pornography. Academic Pediatrics, 17(8), 844–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.04.014CrossRefPubMed

Sex Education Forum (2021). Can parents withdraw their children from school RSE? https://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/resources/frequently-asked-questions/7-can-parents-withdraw-their-children-school-rse

Short, M. B., Black, L., Smith, A. H., Wetterneck, C. T., & Wells, D. E. (2012). A review of Internet pornography use research: Methodology and content from the past 10 years. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0477CrossRef

Smith, M. (2013). Youth viewing sexually explicit material online: Addressing the elephant on the screen. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-012-0103-4CrossRef

Spišák, S. (2016). ‘Everywhere they say that it’s harmful but they don’t say how, so I’m asking here’: Young people, pornography and negotiations with notions of risk and harm. Sex Education, 16(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1080158CrossRef

Stainton-Rogers, W. (1998). Using Q as a form of discourse analysis. Operant Subjectivity, 21(1/2), 1–18.

Stainton Rogers, R., & Stainton Rogers, W. (1990). What the Brits got out of the Q: And why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it. Electronic Journal of Communication, 1(1), 1–11.

Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2017). Q Methodology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 215–239). Sage.

Van Puyenbroeck, H., Elaut, E., & T’Sjoen, G. (2017). Online pornography in sex education at school: A Flemish survey. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14(5), e276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.688

Vandenbosch, L., & van Oosten, J. M. F. (2018). The relationship between online pornography and the sexual objectification of women: The attenuating role of porn literacy education. Journal of Communication, 67(6), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12341CrossRef

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage.

Weaver, A. D., Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., Cohen, J. N., & Randall, H. E. S. (2001). Sexual health education at school and at home: Attitudes and experiences of New Brunswick parents. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11(1), 19–32.

Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 54, 1–45. www.seri-us.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf

Wright, P. J. (2014). Pornography and the sexual socialization of children: Current knowledge and a theoretical future. Journal of Children and Media, 8(3), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.923606CrossRef

Zabala, A. (2014). qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology. The R Journal, 6(2), 163–173.CrossRef

Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Using Q-Methodology to Explore Stakeholder Views about Porn Literacy Education
verfasst von: Siobhán Healy-Cullen
Joanne E. Taylor
Tracy Morison
Kirsty Ross
Publikationsdatum: 23.03.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1868-9884
Elektronische ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00570-1