Gendering resistance: multiple faces of the Kurdish women's struggle

The article explores the Kurdish women's movement in Turkey by bridging two forms of resistance: those of guerrilla women fighters and of activist women. Based on my extensive ethnographic and archival research, I ask how women under conditions of war engage in different modes of resistance. In what ways does the "heroic resistance" of guerrilla women resonate with and/or contradict the everyday, "ordinary" struggles of activist women? The potent image of the Kurdish guerrilla woman that emerged in the early 1990s is constitutive of many other modes of political subjectivities, even among women who do not or cannot become guerrillas. One of those subjectivities is that of the activist woman. My analysis suggests that women's activism opens up a middle ground of action between "heroic" and "ordinary" resistance by reconciling revolutionary politics with everyday activism around gender-based violence, democracy, and human rights. Although both revolutionary movement participants and scholars of revolutionary resistance often contrast the "ordinary" with the realm of armed resistance, this article challenges this dichotomy. I take the two realms of resistance-the ordinary and the heroic-as the core constituents of revolutionary resistance, and I reconsider the gendered interplay between them.WOS:000500125000005Scopus - Affiliation ID: 60105072Social Sciences Citation IndexQ2ArticleUluslararası işbirliği ile yapılmayan - HAYIRAralık2019YÖK - 2019-2

Same data, different conclusions : radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis

In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists’ gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for organizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed