The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis
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
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 CrossrefAhern, 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 CrossrefAlcoff, L. (2001). Objectivity and its Politics. New Literary History, 32(4), 835-848. doi: 10.1353/nlh.2001.0050
Google Scholar CrossrefAmery, F. (2008). Allowing the Other to Speak: The Relevance of Postmodernism to Political analysis. Reinvention: A Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(2).
Google Scholar CrossrefAnderson, E. (2015). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab.
Google Scholar CrossrefBabbie, E. R. (1986). The Practice of Social Research. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Google Scholar CrossrefBaumeister, 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 CrossrefBergman, 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 CrossrefBerger, P.L. (2011). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. Open Road Media.
Google Scholar CrossrefBertelsen, P. (2005). Free will, consciousness and self: Anthropological perspectives on psychology. Berghahn Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefBernard, 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 CrossrefBordo, 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 CrossrefBoucher, 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 CrossrefBrodribb, S. (1993). Nothing mat(t)ers: A feminist critique of postmodernism. Melbourne: Spinifex.
Google Scholar CrossrefBrown, W. (1997). The impossibility of women’s studies. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 9(3), 79–101.
Google Scholar CrossrefCarl, 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 CrossrefCaplan, P. (1988). Engendering knowledge: The politics of ethnography. Anthropology Today, 4(5), 8-17. doi: 10.2307/3032749
Google Scholar CrossrefCharmaz, 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 CrossrefCook, 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 CrossrefCooke, 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 CrossrefCurthoys, A. (2014). Gender in the social sciences. Australian Feminist Studies, 29(80), 115–120. doi: 10.1080/08164649.2014.930553
Google Scholar CrossrefCutcliffe, J. (2003). Reconsidering Reflexivity: Introducing the Case for Intellectual Entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research ,13(1), 136–48. doi: 10.1177/1049732302239416
Google Scholar CrossrefDeveaux, 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 CrossrefDeveaux, M. (1994). Feminism and empowerment: A critical reading of Foucault. Feminist studies, 20(2), 223-247. doi: 10.2307/3178151
Google Scholar CrossrefDreyfus, H.L., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefEisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum inquiry, 22(1), 9-15. doi: 10.1080/03626784.1992.11075389
Google Scholar CrossrefFadyl, 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 CrossrefFlick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1979). The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction . London : Allen Lane.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Brighton :Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8(4), 777-795.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. Edited by P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1988a). Technologies of the Self. In L. Mart Gutman & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with
Google Scholar CrossrefMichel Foucault (pp. 16-49). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1988b). The Care of the Self. New York: Vintage Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1990a). The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, M. (1990b). The Use of Pleasure. New York: Vintage Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefFoucault, 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 CrossrefFoucault, 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 CrossrefGlaser, B.G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefHaber, 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 CrossrefHanson, 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 CrossrefHarding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity?”. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist Epistemologies. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefHarding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefHaraway, 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 CrossrefHicks, 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 CrossrefHook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521-547. doi: 10.1177/0959354301114006
Google Scholar CrossrefJaramillo Ruíz, F. (2013). Power, Gender and Democracy. From Domination to Gender Equality. Revista Científica General, 11(12), 107-125.
Google Scholar CrossrefKeeley, J.F. (1990). Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes. International Organization, 44(1), 83-1. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300004653
Google Scholar CrossrefKlein, D.B., & Stern, C. (2009). Groupthink in academia: Majoritarian departmental politics and the professional pyramid. The Independent Review, 13(4), 585-600.
Google Scholar CrossrefLiinason, 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 CrossrefLongino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefLongino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMacKinnon, 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 CrossrefMcNay, 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 CrossrefMetso, M., & Le Feuvre, N. (2006). Quantitative methods for analysing gender, ethnicity and migration. Toulouse, Université de Toulouse–Le Mirail.
Google Scholar CrossrefMerton, 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 CrossrefMillman, M., & Kanter, R.M. (Eds.) (1975). Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science, Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday.
Google Scholar CrossrefMiles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Google Scholar CrossrefNahrin, K. (2015). Objectivity and Ethics in Empirical Research. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(7), 509- 512.
Google Scholar CrossrefNewell, R.W. (1986). Objectivity, empiriasm, and truth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar CrossrefNicholls, 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 CrossrefO’Meara, J.T. (2001). Causation and the postmodern critique of objectivity. Anthropological Theory, 1(1), 31-56. doi: 10.1177/14634990122228610
Google Scholar CrossrefOakley, 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 CrossrefOakley, 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 CrossrefPaterson, 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 CrossrefPorter, 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 CrossrefRichardson, J.T. (1996). Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods, London: BPS Books.
Google Scholar CrossrefRichardson, 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 CrossrefRisman, B.J. (1993). Methodological Implications of Feminist Scholarship. The American Sociologist, Fall/Winter, 15-25
Google Scholar CrossrefRothstein, B. (2012). Fel av staten att stötta genusforskningen[Failure of the state to support gender research].
Google Scholar CrossrefRolls, 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 CrossrefRyff, 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 CrossrefSawicki, 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 CrossrefSherman, 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 CrossrefShmueli, 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 CrossrefShenton, 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 CrossrefSmith, 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 CrossrefSmith, 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 CrossrefSmith, 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 CrossrefSmith, 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 CrossrefSmith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus Qualitatitive Research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X012003006
Google Scholar CrossrefSmith, J., & Noble, H. (2014). Bias in research. Evidence-based nursing, 17(4), 100-101. doi: 10.1136/eb-2014-101946
Google Scholar CrossrefSociology Guide (2018). Problems of objectivity. Retrieved from Sociology Guide website: http://www.sociologyguide.com
Google Scholar CrossrefSöderlund, 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 CrossrefSokal, 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 CrossrefSprague, J., & Zimmerman, M.K. (1989). Quality and Quantity: Reconstructing Feminist Methodology. The American Sociologist, 20(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1007/BF02697788
Google Scholar CrossrefStacey, 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 CrossrefStake, 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 CrossrefStanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking Out Again. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefStröm, P. (2007). Mansförtryck och kvinnovälde. Dennya välfärden[Man oppression and women's belief. The new welfare].
Google Scholar CrossrefThurén, B.-M. (2002). Introduction. In B.-M. Thurén (Ed.), Genusvägar: En antologi om genusforskning (pp. 5–24). Malmö: Liber.
Google Scholar CrossrefThurén, B.-M. (2003). Genusforskning-Frågor, villkor och utmaningar. Stockholm: Swedish Research Council.
Google Scholar CrossrefTannoch‐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 CrossrefTufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative social work, 11(1), 80-96. doi: 10.1177/1473325010368316
Google Scholar CrossrefWylie, A. (2004). Why standpoint matters. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar CrossrefWeber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefWestcott, M. (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In J.M. Nielson (Eds.), Feminist Research Methods. CO: Westview Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefZalewski, M. (2003). Is women’s studies dead? Journal of International Women’s Studies,4(2), 117–133.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.