Alcoff, L. M. (2006). Visible identities: Race, gender, and the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Conkey, M. (2003). Has feminism changed archaeology? Signs, 28, 867–880.
Conkey, M. W., & Gero, J. (1997). Program to practice: Gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 411–438.
Eichler, M. (1988). Nonsexist research methods: A practical guide. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
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.
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.
Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York: Routledge.
Hesse-Biber, S. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of feminist research. New York: Sage.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Yaiser, M. L. (Eds.) (2004). Feminist perspectives on social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1987). Can there be feminist science? Hypatia, 3, 51–64.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. The Monist, 77(4), 472–485.
Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104, 383–397.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical inquiry, 17, 773–797.
Smith, D. E. (1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44(1), 7–13.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sørensen, M. L. S. (2000). Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.
Walde, D., & N. Willows (Eds.) (1991). The Archaeology of Gender. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Chacmool Conference. Calgary: The University of Calgary Archaeological Association.
Wylie, A. (1992). The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: Recent archaeological work on gender. American Antiquity, 57, 15–34.
Wylie, A. (1997). The engendering of archaeology: Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12, 80–99.
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.
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.
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.