Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T19:20:35.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - FEMINIST METHODS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Paul S. Gray
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
John B. Williamson
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
David A. Karp
Affiliation:
Boston College, Massachusetts
John R. Dalphin
Affiliation:
Merrimack College, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In earlier chapters, three often-used research techniques, quantitative social surveys, qualitative interviewing, and participant observation, have been presented. Although quantitative and qualitative approaches differ from each other in many ways, in practice most of them do share a commitment to mainstream social science. The foci of this chapter, by contrast, are feminist methods that are based in a fundamental critique of conventional social science, its methods, and the roots of the knowledge on which it is based. Today, feminist methods represent a prime example of the research imagination, literally imagining a less conventional purpose for research. Feminists claim that patriarchal, or male-centered, perspectives and concerns have historically dominated mainstream research. They believe that their methods are more likely to produce valid findings or truthful and inclusive accounts of social experience.

Although some feminist research tools are new, many others are identical to the surveys and interviews you have already read about. feminist methods, therefore, are not so much a specific toolkit as they are a distinctive perspective or understanding of research practices. So, in this chapter, before the methods or techniques themselves can be specified, considerable attention must be devoted to feminist theory because the perspective that informs feminist method is embedded in theory.

From the feminist perspective, all knowledge is “socially located and situated” and thus partial or incomplete. That is, one's position in the social system of gender and class relations influences how research is conducted and, ultimately, one's research findings.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Research Imagination
An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
, pp. 211 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cancian, Francesca M. 1992. “Feminist Science: Methodologies that Challenge Inequality.” Gender and Society 6 (4) December: 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1992. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Denzin, Norman K., and Lincoln, Yvonna S.. 2003. The Landscape of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Elliot, Jane. 2005. Using Narrative in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Cook, Judith A., eds. 1991. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Friedan, Betty. 1963/2001. The Feminine Mystique. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, ed. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, and Yaiser, Michelle L.. 2003. Feminist Perspectives on Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy, and Levy, Patricia L.. 2006. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McNiff, Jean, and Jack Whitehead, . 2006. All You Need to Know About Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Whitworth, Sandra. 2004. Men, Militarism, and UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Acker, Joan, Kate, Barry, and Johanna, Esseveld. 1991. “Truth and Objectivity.” In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research, 133–153. Fonow, Mary Margaret and Cook, Judith A., eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Anzaldua, Gloria. 1987. Borderlanda/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute.Google Scholar
Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1990. Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas, Luckmann. 1966/1990. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Bose, Christine E. 1991. “Household Resources and U.S. Women's Work: Factors Affecting Gainful Employment at the Turn of the Century.” In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research, 197–225. Fonow, Mary Margaret and Cook, Judith A., eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Boston Women's Health Book Collective. 1976. Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book by and for Women. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Brenner, Athalya, and Carole, Fontaine. 2001. A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Browne, Angela. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cancian, Francesca M. 1992. “Feminist Science: Methodologies that Challenge Inequality.” Gender and Society 6 (4) December: 623–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesler, Phyllis. 1972. Women and Madness. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Clegg, Sue. 1975. “Feminist Methodology – Fact or Fiction?Quality and Quantity 19:83–87.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. “Learning from the Outsider Within.” In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research, 35–59. Mary Margaret Fonow, and Cook, Judith A., eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1992. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2001. “What's Going On? Black Feminist Thought and the Politics of Postmodernism.” In Working in the Ruins: Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, 41–73. Elizabeth, A. St. Pierre and Pillow, Wanda S., eds. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902/1965. Human Nature and Social Order. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
DeVault, Majorie. 1990. “Talking and Listening to Women's Standpoint: Feminist Strategies for Interviewing Analysis.” Social Problems 37 (1): 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVault, Majorie. 1991. Feeding the Family: The Social Organization of Caring as Gendered Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DeVault, Majorie. 1996. “Talking Back to Sociology: Distinctive Contributions of Feminist Methodology.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichler, Margrit. 1988. Nonsexist Research Methods: A Practical Guide. Boston: Unwin.Google Scholar
Ferree, Myra Marx. 1990. “Between Two Worlds: German Feminist Approaches to Working-Class Women and Work.” In Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences, 174–192. Joyce, McCarl Nielson, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Fetterley, Judith. 1978. The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to Reading Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Cook, Judith A., eds. 1991. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Kathleen R. 2000. The Emotional Nature of Qualitative Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilkes, Cheryl Townsend. 1986. “The Roles of the Church and Community Mothers; Ambivalent American Sexism or Fragmented African Familyhood?Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2 (1): 41–59.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gluck, Sherma B., and Daphne Patai, , eds. 1991. Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959/1973. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963/1986. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Gordon, Deborah, ed. 1988. “Feminism and the Critique of Colonial Discourse.” Special issue, Inscriptions 3–4:1–26.Google Scholar
Gorelick, Sherry. 1991. “Contradictions of Feminist Methodology.” Gender and Society 5 (4) December: 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Hilary. 1983. “Do Her Answers Fit His Questions? Women and the Survey Method.” In The Public and the Private, 132–146. Eva Garmarnikow, et al., eds. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hacker, Sally L. 1990. “Farming Out the Home: Women and Agribusiness.” In “Doing It the Hard Way”: Investigations of Gender and Technology, 69–88. Smith, Dorothy E. and Turner, Susan M., eds. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privileges of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1983. “Why Has the Sex/Gender System Become Visible Only Now?” In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, 311–322. Sandra Harding, and Hintikka, Merill B., eds. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra, ed. 1993. The “Racial” Economy of Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Heidi L. 1987. “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle.” In Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues, 109–134. Sandra, Harding, ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Judith, with Hirshman, Lisa. 1981. Father-Daughter Incest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Hooks, Bell. 1989. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Ingraham, Chrys 1994. “The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology and Theories of Gender.” Social Theory 12 (2): 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985a. This Sex Which is Not One. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985b. Speculum of the Other Woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, Celia. 1990. “Resisting the Discipline.” In Feminists and Psychological Practice, 119–186. Erica, Burman, ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Klein, Renate D. 1983. “How to Do What We Want to Do: Thoughts about Feminist Methodology.” In Theories of Women's Studies, 88–104. Gloria, Bowles and Renate, Duelli Klein, eds. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gerder. 1976. “Placing Women in History: A 1975 Perspective.” In Liberating Women's History, 357–367. Bernice, Carroll, ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1975. Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1983. “Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 515:7.Google Scholar
Mann, Susan A., and Kelley, Lori R.. 1997. “Standing at the Crossroads of Modernist Thought: Collins, Smith, and the New Feminist Epistemologies.” Gender and Society 11 (4) August: 391– 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, Jeffrey M. 1984. The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Masson, Jeffrey M.. 1988. Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Mead, George Herbert. 1934/1967. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Morris, Charles W., ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mies, Maria. 1983. “Towards Methodology in Feminist Research.” In Theories of Women's Studies, 117–139. Gloria Bowles, and Klein, Renate D., eds. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Miller, Connie, and Treitel, Corrinna. 1991. Feminist Research Methods: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, Ann. 1981. “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms.” In Doing Feminist Research, 30–61. Helen Roberts, , ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Olesen, Virginia L. 2000. “Feminism and Qualitative Research at and into the Millenium.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 215–256. 2nd ed. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S., eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1979. On Becoming a Social Scientist. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.Google Scholar
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1985. “Feminist Distrust: Problems of Content and Context in Sociological Research.” In The Self in Social Inquiry, 153–172. Berg, David N. and Smith, Kenwyn K., eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rollins, Judith. 1985. Between Women: Domestics and Their Employers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Romero, Mary. 1992. Maid in the U.S.A.London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smail, Barbara, Judith, Shyte, and Kelly, Alison. 1982. “Girls into Science and Technology: The First Two Years.” School Science Review 64:620–630.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990a. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990b. “Editor's Introduction on Sally L. Hacker's Method.” In “Doing It the Hard Way”: Investigations of Gender and Technology, 1–19. Hacker, Sally L., Smith, Dorothy E., and Turner, Susan M., eds. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990c. “The Statistics on Women and Mental Illness.” In The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge, 107–138. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Liz, and Sue, Wise. 1983. “Back into ‘the Personal,’ or, Our Attempt to Construct ‘Feminist Research.’” In Theories of Women's Studies II, Chapter 12. Gloria Bowles, and Klein, Renate D., eds. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh. 1979. “Strategic Heresy as Scientific Method: Feminism and the Psychology of Consciousness.” Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Houston, TX, January 6.Google Scholar
Thompson, Lana, and Bullough, Vern L.. 1999. The Wandering Womb: A Cultural History of Outrageous Beliefs About Woman. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 1988. “The Weaker Seed: The Sexist Bias of Reproductive Theory.” Hypatia 3 (1) Spring: 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Lenore E. 1989. Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore. 1985. The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×