Julia Grant. 2014. The Boy Problem: Educating Boys in Urban America, 1870-1970. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. 240 pp. $45.00 (hb) ISBN: 9781421412597 (hb) 9781421412603 (e-bk)
Judy Y. Chu
A New Construct for Understanding Adolescent Friendships and Psychological Health
Judy Y. Chu and Niobe Way
This article introduces the construct of “presence in relationship” along with a 25-item measure for its quantitative assessment. This construct expands upon the construct of “voice” as an indication of one’s experiences of self in relationships. Whereas voice focuses on the act of speaking out (saying what one thinks and feels) in relationships, presence in relationship further reflects the extent to which an individual feels connected to his or her self (is self-aware), connected to others (truly known and understood by others), and confident (trusting that one will be accepted and valued by others) within the context of interpersonal relationships. Results from the study of two samples of ethnically diverse middle school (N = 113; 59 males, 54 females) and high school (N = 176; 86 males, 90 females) students in New York City indicate that the Presence in Relationship Scale (PIRS) demonstrates good reliability and provides insight into adolescents’ friendship processes and sense of well-being. Because it includes indicators of the experience of self in relationships, as well as behavioral indicators, presence in relationship may be especially useful for understanding relationships and associated mental health outcomes in boys (and girls) who tend to place less emphasis on voice as a primary way of determining of closeness in relationships.
Judy Y. Chu, Murray Drummond, Peter Redman, Gary Alan Fine, Robert Morrell, Amanda Keddie, Neill Korobov, Diederik F. Janssen, Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli, Mary Jane Kehily, Sami Timimi, Murray Pomerance and Ronald F. Levant
The following are responses to a request to the members of our editorial board and contributors to Thymos on the theme of the status of boyhood studies. The twelve contributions take quite different perspectives on the topic. They raise very different questions and present distinctive interests. All have trained their scholarly eye on what boyhood studies means today. Each points to an area of scholarly work that demands the attention of those of us interested in boyhood and the lives of boyhood—as we determine just what these notions mean. Suggestions for further reading offered by the contributors are given at the end (p. 147).