Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Marks, Michael P. 2018. Revisiting Metaphors in International Relations Theory. p. 137.

    Montsion, Jean Michel 2018. Ethnography and international relations: situating recent trends, debates and limitations from an interdisciplinary perspective. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, Vol. 5, Issue. 1,

    Lane, Andrea 2018. Justin Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy. p. 261.

    Behl, Natasha 2017. Gendered discipline, gendered space: an ethnographic approach to gendered violence in India. Space and Polity, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 43.

    Behl, Natasha 2017. Diasporic researcher: an autoethnographic analysis of gender and race in political science. Politics, Groups, and Identities, Vol. 5, Issue. 4, p. 580.

    Amsler, Sarah and Motta, Sara C. 2017. The marketised university and the politics of motherhood. Gender and Education, p. 1.

    Wibben, Annick T.R. 2016. Opening security: recovering critical scholarship as political. Critical Studies on Security, Vol. 4, Issue. 2, p. 137.

    Harel-Shalev, Ayelet and Daphna-Tekoah, Shir 2016. Bringing Women’s Voices Back In: Conducting Narrative Analysis in IR. International Studies Review, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 171.

    Szitanyi, Stephanie 2015. Semiotic Readings of the USS Midway Museum. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 17, Issue. 2, p. 253.

    Berents, Helen 2015. Children, violence, and social exclusion: negotiation of everyday insecurity in a Colombianbarrio. Critical Studies on Security, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 90.

    Hudson, Natalie Florea and Goetz, Anne Marie 2014. Too Much That Can't Be Said. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 336.

    Holmes, Marcus 2014. International Politics at the Brain's Edge: Social Neuroscience and a New “Via Media”. International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 209.

    Brown, Sara E. 2014. Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide. International Feminist Journal of Politics, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 448.

    Aradau, Claudia and Huysmans, Jef 2014. Critical methods in International Relations: The politics of techniques, devices and acts. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 596.

    Nunn, Neil 2013. ‘It can be dangerous for the uterus’: hegemonic masculinity and cooperative recycling in São Paulo, Brazil. Gender, Place & Culture, Vol. 20, Issue. 6, p. 794.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2006
  • Online publication date: January 2010

2 - Feminism meets International Relations: some methodological issues

Summary

Feminist approaches entered the discipline of International Relations (IR) at the end of the 1980s, about the same time as the “third debate,” or the beginning of what has been called a “postpositivist era” (Lapid 1989). Postpositivism, which includes a variety of approaches such as critical theory, historical sociology and postmodernism, challenged the social scientific methodologies that had dominated the discipline, particularly in the United States. Most IR feminists situate themselves on the postpositivist side of the third debate. Seeing theory as constitutive of reality and conscious of how ideas help shape the world, many IR feminists, together with scholars in other critical approaches, have challenged the social scientific foundations of the field. Most IR feminist empirical research, which took off in the mid-1990s, has not followed the social scientific path – formulating hypotheses and providing evidence that can be used to test, falsify, or validate them. With some exceptions, IR feminists have employed a variety of methods, most of which would fall within postpositivist methodological frameworks.

In this chapter, I undertake three tasks related to IR feminists' methodological preferences with particular emphasis on the state and its security seeking practices. I choose to focus on the state because it is the central unit of analysis in IR, and on security because it is an issue at the core of the discipline. I suggest how these methodological preferences differ from conventional social scientific frameworks.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Feminist Methodologies for International Relations
  • Online ISBN: 9780511617690
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617690
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×