The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis

Authors

  • Madiha Nadeem Lahore College for Women University

https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.2019.4134

Keywords:


Downloads

Abstract

The social sciences have always been contested on the philosophical and ethical grounds of producing scientific knowledge. Similarly, the standpoints of Gender studies are analytically linked to certain domains of reasoning for human behavior. It discusses social phenomena from a societal and cultural perspective, which raises questions for the scholars of this subject about the application of particular procedures for understanding realities guided by some ideologies (Söderlund & Madison, 2017). This article critically evaluates the theoretical debate on ways of upholding the objectivity in this discipline by minimizing the role of subjectivity in the construction of new knowledge. It is concluded that by adopting techniques such as bracketing, triangulation, reflexivity and various other theoretical stands mentioned by scholars, feminists, and social scientists, the struggle of producing objective systematic knowledge can be promoted in gender studies and other social sciences.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Madiha Nadeem, Lahore College for Women University

I am a Ph.D. scholar in gender studies and working in Lahore College for Women University.

References

Acker, J., Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women's Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423-435. doi: 10.1016/0277-5395(83)90035-3

Google Scholar Crossref

Ahern, K. J. (1999). Pearls, Pith, and Provocation: Ten Tips for Reflexive Bracketing, Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 407–11. doi: 10.1177/104973239900900309

Google Scholar Crossref

Alcoff, L. (2001). Objectivity and its Politics. New Literary History, 32(4), 835-848. doi: 10.1353/nlh.2001.0050

Google Scholar Crossref

Amery, F. (2008). Allowing the Other to Speak: The Relevance of Postmodernism to Political analysis. Reinvention: A Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(2).

Google Scholar Crossref

Anderson, E. (2015). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab.

Google Scholar Crossref

Babbie, E. R. (1986). The Practice of Social Research. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Google Scholar Crossref

Baumeister, R.F. (2015). Recognizing and coping with our own prejudices: Fighting liberal bias without conservative input. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38(e132). doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14001423

Google Scholar Crossref

Bergman, S. (2000). A bird’s eye on women’s studies in the Nordic countries. In S. Bergman (Ed.), Satsningar och samarbete: Nordisk kvinno- och könsforskning under 20 år (pp. 47–49). Oslo: NIKK.

Google Scholar Crossref

Berger, P.L. (2011). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. Open Road Media.

Google Scholar Crossref

Bertelsen, P. (2005). Free will, consciousness and self: Anthropological perspectives on psychology. Berghahn Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Bernard, J. (1973). My four revolutions: an auto-biographical history of the ASA. In J. Huber (Ed.), Changing Women in a Changing Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Bordo, S. (1993). Feminism, Foucault and the Politics of the Body. In C. Ramazanoglu (Ed.), Up Against Foucault: Explorations of Some Tensions between Foucault and Feminism. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar Crossref

Boucher, J. (2012). Male Power and Contract Theory: Hobbes and Locke in Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 23-38. doi: 10.1017/S0008423903778524

Google Scholar Crossref

Brodribb, S. (1993). Nothing mat(t)ers: A feminist critique of postmodernism. Melbourne: Spinifex.

Google Scholar Crossref

Brown, W. (1997). The impossibility of women’s studies. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 9(3), 79–101.

Google Scholar Crossref

Carl, N. (2015). Can intelligence explain the overrepresentation of liberals and leftists in American academia? Intelligence, 53, 181-193. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.008

Google Scholar Crossref

Caplan, P. (1988). Engendering knowledge: The politics of ethnography. Anthropology Today, 4(5), 8-17. doi: 10.2307/3032749

Google Scholar Crossref

Charmaz, K. (1988). The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings (pp. 109-126). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Google Scholar Crossref

Cook, J.A., & Fonow, M.M. (1986). Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry, 56(1), 2-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1986.tb00073.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Cooke, M. L. (1994). Method as ruse: Foucault and research method. Mid-American review of sociology, 18(1&2), 47-65. doi: 10.17161/STR.1808.5106

Google Scholar Crossref

Curthoys, A. (2014). Gender in the social sciences. Australian Feminist Studies, 29(80), 115–120. doi: 10.1080/08164649.2014.930553

Google Scholar Crossref

Cutcliffe, J. (2003). Reconsidering Reflexivity: Introducing the Case for Intellectual Entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research ,13(1), 136–48. doi: 10.1177/1049732302239416

Google Scholar Crossref

Deveaux, M. (1996). Feminism and Empowerment: A Critical Reading of Foucault. In S. Hekman (Ed.), Feminist Interpretation of Michel Foucault (pp. 211-238). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Deveaux, M. (1994). Feminism and empowerment: A critical reading of Foucault. Feminist studies, 20(2), 223-247. doi: 10.2307/3178151

Google Scholar Crossref

Dreyfus, H.L., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum inquiry, 22(1), 9-15. doi: 10.1080/03626784.1992.11075389

Google Scholar Crossref

Fadyl, J.K., Nicholls, D.A., & McPherson, K.M. (2013). Interrogating discourse: The application of Foucault’s methodological discussion to specific inquiry. Health, 17(5), 478-494. doi: 10.1177/1363459312464073

Google Scholar Crossref

Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1979). The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction . London : Allen Lane.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Brighton :Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8(4), 777-795.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. Edited by P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1988a). Technologies of the Self. In L. Mart Gutman & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with

Google Scholar Crossref

Michel Foucault (pp. 16-49). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1988b). The Care of the Self. New York: Vintage Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1990a). The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1990b). The Use of Pleasure. New York: Vintage Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1991a). Politics and the Study of Discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect (pp. 53-72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Foucault, M. (1991b). Questions of Method. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect (pp. 73-86). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Haber, H.F. (1996). Foucault Pumped: Body Politics and the Muscled Women. In S. Hekman (Ed.), Feminist Interpretation of Michel Foucault (pp. 137-156). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Hanson, E.J. (1994). Issues concerning the familiarity of researchers with the research setting. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(5), 940-942. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1994.20050940.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity?”. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar Crossref

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies, 14(3), 575-599. doi: 10.2307/3178066

Google Scholar Crossref

Hicks, D. (2011). Is Longino’s Conception of Objectivity Feminist? Hypatia, 26(2), 333-351. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01160.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521-547. doi: 10.1177/0959354301114006

Google Scholar Crossref

Jaramillo Ruíz, F. (2013). Power, Gender and Democracy. From Domination to Gender Equality. Revista Científica General, 11(12), 107-125.

Google Scholar Crossref

Keeley, J.F. (1990). Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes. International Organization, 44(1), 83-1. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300004653

Google Scholar Crossref

Klein, D.B., & Stern, C. (2009). Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid. The Independent Review, 13(4), 585-600.

Google Scholar Crossref

Liinason, M., & Holm, U. (2006). PhDs, women’s/gender studies and interdisciplinarity. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 14(2), 115–130. doi: 10.1080/08038740601084353

Google Scholar Crossref

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

MacKinnon, C. (1982). Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3), 515-544. doi: 10.1086/493898

Google Scholar Crossref

McNay, L. (1991). The Foucauldian body and the exclusion of experience. Hypatia, 6(3), 125-139. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00259.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Metso, M., & Le Feuvre, N. (2006). Quantitative methods for analysing gender, ethnicity and migration. Toulouse, Université de Toulouse–Le Mirail.

Google Scholar Crossref

Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–280). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Millman, M., & Kanter, R.M. (Eds.) (1975). Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science, Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday.

Google Scholar Crossref

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.

Google Scholar Crossref

Nahrin, K. (2015). Objectivity and Ethics in Empirical Research. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(7), 509- 512.

Google Scholar Crossref

Newell, R.W. (1986). Objectivity, empiriasm, and truth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Google Scholar Crossref

Nicholls, D.A. (2009). Putting Foucault to work: an approach to the practical application of Foucault's methodological imperatives. Aporia, 1(1), 30-40. Doi: 10.18192/aporia.v1i1.3065

Google Scholar Crossref

O’Meara, J.T. (2001). Causation and the postmodern critique of objectivity. Anthropological Theory, 1(1), 31-56. doi: 10.1177/14634990122228610

Google Scholar Crossref

Oakley, A. (1998a). Science, Gender, and Women’s Liberation: An argument against postmodernism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 21(2), 133-146. doi: 10.1016/S0277-5395(98)00005-3

Google Scholar Crossref

Oakley, A. (1998b). Gender, Methodology and People's Way of Knowing: Some Problems with Feminism and the Paradigm Debate in Social Science. Sociology, 32(4), 707-732. doi: 10.1177/0038038598032004005

Google Scholar Crossref

Paterson, B., & Groening, M. (1996). Teacher-induced Countertransference in Clinical Teaching. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(6), 1121–1126. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.01377.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Porter, S. (1993). Nursing Research Conventions: Objectivity or Obfuscation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(1), 137–143. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18010137.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Richardson, J.T. (1996). Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods, London: BPS Books.

Google Scholar Crossref

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar Crossref

Risman, B.J. (1993). Methodological Implications of Feminist Scholarship. The American Sociologist, Fall/Winter, 15-25

Google Scholar Crossref

Rothstein, B. (2012). Fel av staten att stötta genusforskningen[Failure of the state to support gender research].

Google Scholar Crossref

Rolls, L., & Relf, M. (2006). Bracketing Interviews: Addressing Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Interviewing in Bereavement and Palliative Care. Mortality 11(3): 286–305. doi: 10.1080/13576270600774893

Google Scholar Crossref

Ryff, C.D. (1895). The subjective experience of life-span transitions. In A.S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the Life Course (pp. 97-113). New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Google Scholar Crossref

Sawicki, J. (1996). Feminism, Foucault, and ‘Subjects’ of Power and Freedom. In S. Hekman (Ed.), Feminist Interpretation of Michel Foucault (pp. 159-178). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Sherman, J.A., & Beck, E.T. (Eds.) (1979). The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconson Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Shmueli, E. (1979). How is objectivity in the social sciences possible? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 10(1), 107-118. doi: 10.1007/BF01809030

Google Scholar Crossref

Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. doi: 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, D. (1980). An examination of some socio- logical methods of thinking from the standpoint of a sociology for women, and an alternative. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the meetings of the American Sociological Association New York.

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, D. (1977). Some implications of a sociology for women. In N. Glazer & H. Waehrer (Eds.), Woman in a Man-Made World: A Socioeconomic Handbook. 2nd ed. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, D. (1979). A sociology for women. In J. Sherman & E. Torton (Eds.), The Prism of Sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, J., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative Qualitative Debate among Educational Inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015001004

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus Qualitatitive Research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X012003006

Google Scholar Crossref

Smith, J., & Noble, H. (2014). Bias in research. Evidence-based nursing, 17(4), 100-101. doi: 10.1136/eb-2014-101946

Google Scholar Crossref

Sociology Guide (2018). Problems of objectivity. Retrieved from Sociology Guide website: http://www.sociologyguide.com

Google Scholar Crossref

Söderlund, T., & Madison, G. (2017). Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1093-1109. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2407-x

Google Scholar Crossref

Sokal, A.D. (2006). Pseudoscience and postmodernism: Antagonists of fellow-travellers? In G.G. Fagan (Ed.), Archaeological fantasies: How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public (pp. 286–361). New York, DC: Routledge.

Google Scholar Crossref

Sprague, J., & Zimmerman, M.K. (1989). Quality and Quantity: Reconstructing Feminist Methodology. The American Sociologist, 20(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1007/BF02697788

Google Scholar Crossref

Stacey, J. (1988). Can there be a feminist ethnography? Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1), 21-27. doi: 10.1016/0277-5395(88)90004-0

Google Scholar Crossref

Stake, R.E. (2000). The case study method in social inquiry. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar Crossref

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking Out Again. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar Crossref

Ström, P. (2007). Mansförtryck och kvinnovälde. Dennya välfärden[Man oppression and women's belief. The new welfare].

Google Scholar Crossref

Thurén, B.-M. (2002). Introduction. In B.-M. Thurén (Ed.), Genusvägar: En antologi om genusforskning (pp. 5–24). Malmö: Liber.

Google Scholar Crossref

Thurén, B.-M. (2003). Genusforskning-Frågor, villkor och utmaningar. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.

Google Scholar Crossref

Tannoch‐Bland, J. (1997). From aperspectival objectivity to strong objectivity: The quest for moral objectivity. Hypatia, 12(1), 155-178. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00176.x

Google Scholar Crossref

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative social work, 11(1), 80-96. doi: 10.1177/1473325010368316

Google Scholar Crossref

Wylie, A. (2004). Why standpoint matters. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader. London and New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar Crossref

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Westcott, M. (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J.M. Nielson (Eds.), Feminist Research Methods. CO: Westview Press.

Google Scholar Crossref

Zalewski, M. (2003). Is women’s studies dead? Journal of International Women’s Studies,4(2), 117–133.

Google Scholar Crossref

Downloads

Published

2019-07-30

Almetric

Dimensions

How to Cite

Nadeem, M. (2019). The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.17583/rimcis.2019.4134

Issue

Section

Articles