Advertisement

Feminist Epistemology, Feminist Methodology, and the Study of Gender

  • Joey SpragueEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

To build adequate knowledge, we need to be explicit about our epistemological assumptions so we can use these to critically assess our methodological choices. Of the four epistemologies in circulation, two, Positivism and Postmodernism, are inadequate for gender scholars’ goals. Positivist assumptions that we can minimize the impact of the subjectivity of the knower are undermined by social science findings. Postmodernist rejection of the possibility of achieving a rational understanding of the known undercut the very purpose of social science. So we are left with two choices—Critical Realism and Standpoint Theory. Critical Realism offers a nuanced and dynamic theory of the known but it is blind to the impact of the knower’s position in social relations of power. Standpoint Theory’s analysis of the knower as operating from a specific physical, social, and cultural context makes up for that deficit. Integrating the two in a Critically Realistic Standpoint Epistemology implies four methodological principles: (1) begin inquiry from the standpoint of the marginalized, (2) ground each person’s interpretation of phenomena in their material interests and experience, (3) maintain a strategically diverse discourse, and (4) create knowledge that empowers the disadvantaged.

Keywords

Feminist methodology Standpoint epistemology 

References

  1. Acker, J. (2005). Class questions, feminist answers. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Aguilar, D. D. (2012). Tracing the roots of intersectionality. MRZine.Google Scholar
  3. Alcoff, L. (1989). Justifying feminist social science. In N. Tuana (Ed.), Feminism and science (pp. 85–103). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aptheker, B. (1989). Tapestries of everyday life: Women’s work, women’s consciousness, and the meaning of daily experience. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bar On, B.-A. (1993). Marginality and epistemic privilege. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 83–100). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Beoku-Betts, J. (1994). When black is not enough: Doing field research among gullah women. NWSA Journal, 6(3), 413–433.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4316353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhavnani, K.-K. (1988). Empowerment and social research: Some comments. Text, 8(1–2), 41–50.Google Scholar
  8. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clough, P. T. (1993). On the brink of deconstructing sociology: Critical reading of Dorothy Smith’s standpoint epistemology. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s philosophy. London; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Desai, M. (2009). Gender and the politics of possibilities: rethinking globalization, The gender lens series. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. DeVault, M. L. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37, 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, R. (1990). Connecting method and epistemology: A white woman interviewing black women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 13(5), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frauley, J., & Pearce, F. (Ed.). (2007). Critical realism and the social sciences: Heterodox elaborations. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Glenn, E. N. (1992). From servitude to service work: Historical continuities in the racial division of paid reproductive labor. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society (18).Google Scholar
  18. Glucksmann, M. (1994). The work of knowledge and the knowledge of women’s work. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 149–165). London and Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Griffith, A. (1995). Mothering, schooling, and children’s development. In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, experience, and ruling relations: Studies in the social organization of knowledge (pp. 108–121). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 311–24). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism, Longman series in feminist theory. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1985). Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical materialism. Boston: Northeastern.Google Scholar
  26. Hertz, R. (Ed.). (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Longino, H. (1989). Feminist critiques of rationality: Critiques of science or philosophy of science? Women’s Studies International Forum, 12, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mascia-Lees, Sharpe, F. E. P., & Cohen, C. B. (1989). The postmodern turn in anthropology: Cautions from a feminist perspective. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCall, M., & Wittner, J. (1989). The good news about life histories. In H. Becker & Michal McCall (Eds.), Cultural studies and symbolic interaction (pp. 46–89). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Morgan, D. (1981). Men, masculinity, and the process of sociological inquiry. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 83–113). London, Boston, and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Norris, C., Bhaskar, R., & Baggini, J. (1999). The new realism. The Philosophers’ Magazine, 8.Google Scholar
  33. Ribbens, J. (1989). Interviewing—An ‘unnatural situation’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 12(6), 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Russell, D. (1984). Sexual exploitation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, D. E. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Lanham, Md: Altamira.Google Scholar
  37. Sprague, J. (2016). Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: Bridging differences (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Visweswaran, K. (1988). Defining feminist ethnography. Inscriptions, 3(4), 27–44.Google Scholar
  39. Walby, S. (2001). Against epistemological chasms: The science question in feminism revisited. Signs, 26(2), 485–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolf, D. L. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1–55). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Zavella, P. (1996). Feminist insider dilemmas: Constructing ethnic identity with chicana informants. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 139–159). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations