Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 209–216 | Cite as

Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction

  • Alison WylieEmail author


Gender research archaeology has made significant contributions, but its dissociation from the resources of feminist scholarship and feminist activism is a significantly limiting factor in its development. The essays that make up this special issue illustrate what is to be gained by making systematic use of these resources. Their distinctively feminist contributions are characterized in terms of the recommendations for “doing science as a feminist” that have taken shape in the context of the long running “feminist method debate” in the social sciences.


Feminist method Feminist theory Feminist philosophy of science Gender archaeology 



We thank the School of American Research for their generous support of the seminar, “Doing Archaeology as a Feminist,” in which several of these papers originated (April 1998). We are especially grateful to the participants in this seminar for discussions that were intellectually vigorous and powerfully transforming. We also thank the referees who provided feedback on several iterations of these papers, and colleagues who have heard, commented on, cajoled, provoked and encouraged the development of the various projects represented here. This special issue is in every sense the fruit of a collaborative undertaking that we hope will continue to flourish.


  1. Alcoff, L. M. (2006). Visible identities: Race, gender, and the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conkey, M. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs, 28, 867–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. (1997). Program to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eichler, M. (1988). Nonsexist research methods: A practical guide. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hanen, M. P., & Kelley, J. (1992). Gender and archaeological knowledge. In L. Embree (Ed.), Metaarchaeology: Reflections by archaeologists and philosophers (pp. 195–227). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Harding, S. (1983). Why has the sex/gender system become visible only now? In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 311–325) Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  10. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Hesse-Biber, S. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of feminist research. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Yaiser, M. L. (Eds.) (2004). Feminist perspectives on social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Longino, H. E. (1987). Can there be feminist science? Hypatia, 3, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Longino, H. E. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.Google Scholar
  16. Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 117–139). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Moya, P. M. L., & Hames-García, M. R. (Eds.) (2000). Reclaiming identity: Realist theory and the predicament of postmodernism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical inquiry, 17, 773–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, D. E. (1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44(1), 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sørensen, M. L. S. (2000). Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Walde, D., & N. Willows (Eds.) (1991). The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. Calgary: The University of Calgary Archaeological Association.Google Scholar
  26. Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological work on gender. American Antiquity, 57, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12, 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wylie, A. (2002). The constitution of archaeological evidence: Gender politics and science. In A. Wylie (Ed.), Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology (pp. 185–199). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint theory matters: Feminist standpoint theory. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (Eds.), Philosophical explorations of science, technology, and diversity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Wylie, A. (2007). The feminism question in science: What does it mean to ‘do social science as a feminist’? In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research (pp. 567–578). New York: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations