feminist issues research paper

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 26, Issue 3
• Research made simple: an introduction to feminist research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Gillian Wilson
• School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Hull , Hull , UK
• Correspondence to Gillian Wilson, University of Hull, Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK; gillian.wilson{at}hull.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2023-103749

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Writing an article for ‘Research Made Simple’ on feminist research may at first appear slightly oxymoronic, given that there is no agreed definition of feminist research, let alone a single definition of feminism. The literature that examines the historical and philosophical roots of feminism(s) and feminist research is vast, extends over several decades and reaches across an expanse of varying disciplines. Trying to navigate the literature can be daunting and may, at first, appear impenetrable to those new to feminist research.

There is no ‘How To’ in feminist research. Although feminists tend to share the same common goals, their interests, values and perspectives can be quite disparate. Depending on the philosophical position they hold, feminist researchers will draw on differing epistemologies (ways of knowing), ask different questions, be guided by different methodologies and employ different methods. Within the confines of space, this article will briefly outline some of the principles of feminist research. It will then turn to discuss three established epistemologies that can guide feminist research (although there are many others): feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint and feminist postmodernism.

What makes feminist research feminist?

Feminist research is grounded in a commitment to equality and social justice, and is cognisant of the gendered, historical and political processes involved in the production of knowledge. 1 It also strives to explore and illuminate the diversity of the experiences of women and other marginalised groups, thereby creating opportunities that increase awareness of how social hierarchies impact on and influence oppression. 2 Commenting on the differentiation between feminist and non-feminist research, Skeggs asserts that ‘feminist research begins from the premise that the nature of reality in western society is unequal and hierarchical’ Skeggs 3 p77; therefore, feminist research may also be viewed as having both academic and political concerns.

Reflexivity

The practice of reflexivity is considered a hallmark of feminist research. It invites the researcher to engage in a ‘disciplined self-reflection’ Wilkinson 9 p93. This includes consideration of the extent to which their research fulfils feminist principles. Reflexivity can be divided into three discrete forms: personal, functional and disciplinary. 9 Personal reflexivity invites the researcher to contemplate their role in the research and construction of knowledge by examining the ways in which their own values, beliefs, interests, emotions, biography and social location, have influenced the research process and the outcomes (personal reflexivity). 10 By stating their position rather than concealing it, feminist researchers use reflexivity to add context to their claims. Functional reflexivity pays attention to the influence that the chosen research tools and processes may have had on the research. Disciplinary reflexivity is about analysing the influence of approaching a topic from a specific disciplinary field.

Feminist empiricism

Feminist empiricism is underpinned by foundationalist principles that believes in a single true social reality with truth existing entirely independent of the knower (researcher). 8 Building on the premise that feminist researchers pay attention to how methods are used, feminist empiricist researchers set out to use androcentric positivist scientific methods ‘more appropriately’. 8 They argue that feminist principles can legitimately be applied to empirical inquiry if the masculine bias inherent in scientific research is removed. This is achieved through application of rigorous, objective, value-free scientific methods. Methods used include experimental, quasi-experimental and survey. Feminist empiricists employ traditional positivist methodology while being cognisant of the sex and gender biases. What makes the research endeavour feminist is the attentiveness in identifying potential sources of gendered bias. 11

Feminist standpoint

In a similar way to feminist empiricism, standpoint feminism—also known as ‘women’s experience epistemology’ Letherby 8 p44—holds firm the position that traditional science is androcentric and is therefore bad science. This is predicated on the belief that traditional science only produces masculine forms of knowledge thus excluding women’s perspectives and experiences. Feminist standpoint epistemology takes issue with the masculinised definition of women’s experience and argue it holds little relevance for women. Feminist standpoint epistemology therefore operates on the assumption that knowledge emanates from social position and foregrounds the voices of women and their experiences of oppression to generate knowledge about their lives that would otherwise have remained hidden. 12 Feminist standpoint epistemology maintains that women, as the oppressed or disadvantaged, may have an epistemological advantage over the dominant groups by virtue of their ability to understand their own experience and struggles against oppression, while also by being attuned to the experience and culture of their oppressors. 11 This gives women’s experience a valid basis for knowledge production that both reflects women’s oppression and resistance. 13

Feminist standpoint epistemology works on the premise that there is no single reality, 11 thus disrupting the empiricist notion that research must be objective and value-free. 12 To shed light on the experiences of the oppressed, feminist standpoint researchers use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to see the world through the eyes of their research participants and understand how their positions shape their experiences within the social world. In addition, the researchers are expected to engage in strong reflexivity and reflect on, and acknowledge in their writing, how their own attributes and social location may impact on interpretation of their data. 14

Feminist postmodernism

Feminist postmodernism is a branch of feminism that embraces feminist and postmodernist thought. Feminist postmodernists reject the notion of an objective truth and a single reality. They maintain that truths are relative, multiple, and dependent on social contexts. 15 The theory is marked by the rejection of the feminist ideology that seeks a single explanation for oppression of women. Feminist postmodernists argue that women experience oppression because of social and political marginalisation rather than their biological difference to men, concluding that gender is a social construct. 16

Feminist postmodernists eschew phallogocentric masculine thought (expressed through words and language) that leads to by binary opposition. They are particularly concerned with the man/woman dyad, but also other binary oppositions of race, gender and class. 17 Feminist postmodernist scholars believe that knowledge is constructed by language and that language gives meaning to everything—it does not portray reality, rather it constructs it. 11 A key feature of feminist postmodernist research is the attempt to deconstruct the binary opposition through reflecting on existing assumptions, questioning how ways of thinking have been socially constructed and challenging the taken-for-granted. 17

This article has provided a brief overview of feminist research. It should be considered more of a taster that introduces readers to the complex but fascinating world of feminist research. Readers who have developed an appetite for a more comprehensive examination are guided to a useful and accessible text on feminist theories and concepts in healthcare written by Kay Aranda. 1

• Western D ,
• Giacomini M
• Margaret Fonow M ,
• Wilkinson S
• Campbell R ,
• Wigginton B ,
• Lafrance MN
• Naples NA ,
• Hesse-Biber S

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

8 Feminist Qualitative Research: Toward Transformation of Science and Society

Maureen C. McHugh, Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

• Published: 04 August 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Feminist research is described in terms of its purposes of knowledge about women’s lives, advocacy for women, analysis of gender oppression, and transformation of society. Feminist critiques of social science research are reviewed in relation to the development of methodological and epistemological positions. Feminist research is viewed as contributing to the transformation of science from empiricism to postmodernism. Reflexivity, collaboration, power analysis, and advocacy are discussed as common practices of feminist qualitative research. Several qualitative approaches to research are described in relation to feminist research goals, with illustrations of feminist research included. Validity and voice are identified as particular challenges in the conduct of feminist qualitative research. Intersectionality and double consciousness are reviewed as feminist contributions to transformation of science. Some emerging and innovative forms of feminist qualitative research are highlighted in relation to potential future directions.

What Is Feminist Research?

A starting principle of feminist research is that psychology should, at minimum, be nonsexist. Feminist scholars have identified numerous sexist biases in the existing psychological literature; psychological research is sexist to the extent that it incorporates stereotypic thinking about women or gender ( McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986 ). Sexist bias also refers to theories or research that do not have equal relevance to individuals of both sexes and to research in which greater attention or value is given to the life experiences of one sex ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). Research practices and methods that produce, promote, or privilege sex/gender inequalities are sexist and unacceptable.

Feminist research is research that is not only nonsexist, but also works actively for the benefit and advancement of women ( McHugh et al., 1986 ) and puts gender at the center of one’s inquiry. Specifically, feminist research examines the gendered context of women’s lives, exposes gender inequalities, empowers women, advocates for social change, and/or improves the status or material reality of women’s lives ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 1998 ; 2002 ). According to Letherby (2003) , feminist researchers have a “political commitment to produce useful knowledge that will make a difference in women’s lives through social and individual change” (p. 4). Feminist research is not research about women, but research for women; it is knowledge to be used in the transformation of sexist society ( Cook & Fonow, 1990 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 1998 ).

Feminist research cannot be fully identified by its focus on women or its focus on gender disparity, as sexist research may entail a similar focus. Furthermore, feminist research cannot be specified by any single approach to the discovery or creation of knowledge, and feminist research is not defined by any orthodox substantive position ( Jaggar, 2008a ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). However, feminist researchers share common perspectives. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) identified three shared concerns: giving voice to women’s lives and experiences, overcoming gender inequities at the personal and social level, and improving women’s opportunities and the quality of women’s lives. Hawkesworth (2006) argues for three similar commitments of feminist research: “to struggle against coercive hierarchies linked to gender (and other statuses); to revolt against practices, values and knowledge systems that subordinate and denigrate women; and to promote women’s freedom and empowerment” (p. 7). Jaggar (2008a) described feminist research as distinguished by its dedication to the value of gender justice and its “commitment to producing knowledge useful in opposing the many varieties of gender injustice” (p. ix). According to Jaggar (2008a) , feminist research can be uniquely identified by its dedication to the value of gender justice in knowledge and in the world. And the feminist commitment to women’s emancipation requires knowing the situations and circumstances of women’s lives; to determine what needs to be “criticized, challenged or changed,” feminists need valid knowledge of the oppressions and marginalization of women ( Code, 1995 , p. 20). Feminist research is an approach to research that seeks knowledge for the liberation and equality of women.

To what extent can research, qualitative or otherwise, contribute to feminist goals of transforming society toward gender equality? Some feminists have questioned the liberation potential of research and especially the possibility of traditional (i.e., experimental, quantitative, and objective) research to produce knowledge that will alleviate gender inequity and oppression (e.g., Hollway, 1989 ). Keller (1982) viewed feminism and science as in conflict, but argued that the exploration of the conflict between feminism and science could be both productive and transformative. Some feminists have specifically called for the transformation of science to incorporate feminist values (e.g., Wiley Okrulik, Thielen-Wilson, & Morton, 1989 ). Feminist researchers, in their quest to transform society, have argued for and contributed to the transformation of (social) science research. In this chapter, I identify the dimensions and characteristics of feminist research and examine research practices and methodological and epistemological positions in relation to feminist tenets. Feminist research is not viewed as a static entity, but as a transforming and transformative practice.

(Trained as a social psychologist, I identify as a feminist psychologist. I studied at the University of Pittsburgh, working with Dr. Irene Frieze. My first research study, conducted as an undergraduate student at Chatham College, a woman’s college in Pittsburgh, examined problem-solving performance of women students as impacted by context; students completed a series of mathematical word problems in an all-female or a mixed-sex group. Women students performed better in a single-sex context in what today might be considered a study of stereotype threat. I pursued an interest in sex differences in graduate school, and my doctoral dissertation examined the intrinsic motivation of women and men as a function of task feedback. Over the course of my career, I became increasingly critical of both the experimental method of research and the study of sex differences. My own epistemological and methodological path parallels the progression of feminist research as described here.)

Feminist Research as Corrective

Feminists challenged the neglect of women’s lives and experiences in existing social science research (e.g., Wallston, 1981 ; Weisstein, 2006. Feminists have criticized psychology (and other disciplines) both for not studying the lives and experiences of women and for the development of sexist research theory and practice ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). One contribution of feminist research has been to offer a corrective to traditional research that either neglected women or presented a stereotypic or biased view of women. For example, early feminist research identified experiences of women including widespread gender discrimination and violence against women ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ; Jaggar, 2008a ). As a corrective to research that neglects the study of women’s lives, feminist research has transformed the content of research in most disciplines. The expansion of feminist research over the past four decades has transformed knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). The transformation of psychological science was examined by a task force of the Society of Women in Psychology ( Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, & McHugh, 2012 ). Eagly and the task force members documented the growth of published research on women and gender in the psychological literature and its movement from the periphery of the discipline toward its center. They concluded that research on women is now situated as a methodologically and theoretically diverse content area within contemporary psychological science. Yet, by their broad definition, psychology of women and gender articles accounted for few (4.0 percent from 1960 to 2009 and 4.3 percent from 2000 to 2009) of the articles in the prominent journals of psychology. And for most of the research that Eagly and her colleagues documented, researchers did not label their research as feminist nor did the research explicitly address feminist goals of gender equality or advocacy for women.

A second important contribution of feminist researchers and theorists has been their critical analysis of research and the production of knowledge. Feminists have criticized research that characterizes women as having deficits and critically examined asymmetrical and inequitable constructions of the cultural masculine over the cultural feminine ( Jaggar, 2008a ). Similarly, Geiger (1990) characterizes feminist research as challenging the androcentric (male-centered) construction of women’s lives, and Wiley (2000) notes that feminists question androcentric or sexist frameworks or assumptions that had been unchallenged. Pushing against that which is taken for granted, feminist inquiry probes absences, silences, omissions, and distortions and challenges commonsense understandings that are based on inadequate research. For example, feminists challenge conclusions about human behavior based on evidence taken from narrow (e.g., male, European-American, educated, and middle-class) samples of human populations ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Furthermore, feminists exposed the (gender) power dynamics that operate in many aspects of women’s lives, including in research, and have challenged existing explanatory accounts of women’s experiences ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). One goal of feminist research then is to attend to the power dynamics in the conduct of research, to expose invisible or concealed power dynamics. The demonstration that gender and other contextual variables can create bias in the scientific research of individuals, and that such bias exists in the science accepted as valid by scientific community, is an important contribution of feminism to science ( Rosser, 2008 ). Thus, one function of feminist research has been to call for the transformation/correction of science as a series of sexist and stereotypic depictions of women and of research that devalues women. Hawkesworth (2006) acknowledges the transformational character of feminist research as “interrogating accepted beliefs, challenging shared assumptions and reframing research questions” (p. 4).

(In 1975, I began teaching Psychology of Women, and I was keenly aware that there was very little research published on the experiences or concerns of women. As a member of Alice Eagly’s Task Force on the Feminist Transformation of Psychology, I agreed that there has been an explosion of research on women and gender over the past four decades, which Eagly et al. effectively document. However, I am ambivalent about the degree to which most of that research has improved the status or lives of women.)

Challenging Traditional Methods

The experimental approach has been critiqued as inauthentic, reductionistic, and removed from the social context in which behavior is embedded ( Bohan, 1993 ; Sherif, 1979 ). Others have exposed the laboratory experiment as a social context in which the (male) experimenter controls the situation, manipulates the independent variable, observes women as the “objects” of study, and evaluates and interprets their behavior based on his own perspective ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). From this critical perspective, the traditional psychological experiment is a replication of the power dynamics that operate in other social and institutional settings. The interests and concerns of the research subjects are subordinated to the interests of those of the researcher and theorist ( Unger, 1983 ). Feminists have argued that the controlled and artificial research situation may elicit more conventional behavior from participants, may inhibit self-disclosure, and may make the situation “unreal” to the participants ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). From this perspective, the experiment is not the preferred method of research.

Feminists challenged the pervasive androcentrism evidenced in empirical research. For example, in the 1980s, a task force of the Society for Women in Psychology examined the ways in which psychological research could be conducted in a nonsexist way ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). The task force’s guidelines ( McHugh et al., 1986 ) challenged traditional empirical psychology by examining the role that the values, biases, and assumptions of researchers have on all aspects of the research process. There is always a relationship of some kind between the scientist and the “object” of study since the scientist cannot absent himself from the world ( Hubbard, 1988 ). Selection of topics and questions, choice of methods, recruitment of participants, selection of audience, and the potential uses of research results all occur within a sociohistorical context that ultimately influences what we “know” about a topic or a group of people ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). The realization of the operation of sexist bias in science/psychology led some feminist researchers to question the value of the scientific method and to more carefully consider issues of methods, methodology, and epistemology. The study of gender raised the issue of how context and values challenge traditional conceptions of objectivity ( Rosser, 2008 ). The feminist challenge to the possibility of impartial knowledge and the recognition of the operation of values in science impacted the research conducted in some of the sciences ( Rosser, 2008 ; Schiebinger, 1999 ).

Feminists, including Hollway (1989) and Hubbard (1988) , provided a critique of the “context-stripping” and alleged objectivity of scientific research. According to Hubbard, the illusion that the scientist can observe the “object” of his inquiry as if in a vacuum gives the scientist the authority to “make facts.” She observed that science is made by a self-perpetuating group of chosen people; scientists obtain the education and credentials required and then follow established procedures to “make” science. The illusion of objectivity gives the scientist the power to name, describe, and structure reality and experience. The pretense that science is objective obscures the politics of research and its role in supporting a certain construction of reality. By pretending to be neutral, scientists often support the status quo. “By claiming to be objective and neutral, scientists align themselves with the powerful against the powerless” ( Hubbard, 1988 , p. 13). In terms of gender, male scientists’ alleged objectivity has given scientific validity to their mistaken contentions about women’s inferiority.

Feminist Epistemology

Prior to conducting research designed to address feminist goals, Harding (1987) advised feminists to understand the distinctions among methods, methodology, and epistemology. Others have similarly called for feminists to be aware of their epistemological positions and biases (e.g., Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; Unger, 1988 ). Methods are the concrete techniques for gathering evidence or data such as experiments, interviews, or surveys. Methodology is the study of methods, the philosophical position on how research should proceed. Epistemology is the most central issue for feminist research according to Harding (1987) , Stanley and Wise (1993) , and others. Epistemology involves the study of answers to the question: How can we know? Epistemology is a framework for specifying what constitutes knowledge and how we know it. An epistemological framework specifies not only what knowledge is and how to recognize it, but who are the knowers and by what means someone becomes a knower or expert ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Epistemological frameworks also outline the means by which competing knowledge claims are adjudicated ( Stanley & Wise, 1993 ). Harding (1986) identified three distinct feminist epistemological perspectives: empiricism, standpoint, and social construction. These epistemological perspectives are briefly reviewed here prior to a description of feminist qualitative research.

Feminist Empiricists

Feminist empiricism adopts the scientific method as the way to understand or know the world. Feminist empiricists believe in the scientific method for discovering reality; they assert that science is an approach that can provide value-neutral data and objective findings ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). Their position is consistent with the modernist perspective. The modernist perspective endorses adherence to a positivist-empiricist model, a model that privileges the scientific method of the natural sciences as the only valid route to knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). From this perspective, there is a single reality that can be known through the application of the methods of science, including repeated objective observations. Objectivity refers to a dispassionate, impartial, and disengaged position and is valued. Bias is acknowledged as impacting scientific research but is viewed as a distortion that can be eliminated or corrected ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). The Guidelines for Nonsexist Research provide examples of errors and biases in research that should be eliminated ( McHugh et al, 1986 ). Feminist empiricists attempt to produce a feminist science that, without androcentric bias, more accurately reflects the world ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). To varying degrees, many feminists continue to conduct empirical research based on approved scientific methods.

(As a graduate student, I co-chaired (with Irene Frieze) the Task Force to Establish Guidelines for Nonsexist Research in Psychology for Division 35 of the American Psychological Association (APA). We started the project as empiricists hoping to help eliminate sexist bias from psychological research, especially research on sex difference. This experience introduced me to the diverse positions taken by feminist scientists, and, in the process of addressing sexist bias in research, my own understanding of the limits of empirical research developed. I became increasingly critical of the scientific method even as I conducted a social psychological experiment involving some deception for my degree.)

Feminists have refuted “scientific” evidence that women are inherently different from and inferior to men. Feminist empiricists have employed the experimental methods of science to provide evidence for gender equality ( Deaux, 1984 ; McHugh & Cosgove, 2002 ). However, there is debate over the success of using science to refute sexism in science. Shields (1975) contended that research comparing men and women has never been value-free or neutral but rather has typically been used to justify the subordination of women. Alternatively, Deaux (1984) concluded that empirical evidence has been used to effectively change belief that differences between men and women are universal, stable, and significant, and Hyde (1986) endorsed the use of scientific and quantitative measures to debunk gender stereotypes. Eagly and her colleagues (2012) concluded that research on women and gender has transformed psychology over the past fifty years and has influenced public policy. However, McHugh and Cosgrove (2002) , among others, have questioned whether the tools of science are adequate for the feminist study of women and gender. Burman (1997) argued that by employing empirical methods, feminist empiricists help to maintain a commitment to existing methods that neglect, distort, or stereotype women.

The study of sex differences is central to feminist psychology ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ); arguments for the inclusion of women in social science research are based, in part, on the recognition that women have different experiences and perspectives. Critics, however, contend that research on sex differences typically leads to the devaluation and discrimination of women and confirms stereotypes (through biased methods) (e.g., Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990 ; 1994a ). MacKinnon (1990) argued that “A discourse of difference serves as ideology to neutralize, rationalize, and cover up disparities of power” (p. 213). Feminists have argued that interest in sex differences involves interest in justifying differential treatment of women and men and that there is a confirmation bias operating. Research that “finds” a sex difference is more likely to be published, publicized, and cited than is research refuting the existence of a difference between men and women (e.g., Epstein, 1988 ; Hyde, 1994 ; Kimball, 1995 ; Unger, 1998 ). Furthermore, research is often constructed to produce sex differences ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). For example, Kimball (1995) demonstrates how the research on sex differences in math ability has been carefully constructed to produce differences (i.e., the use of standardized tests administered to very large samples) and related research not demonstrating difference (i.e., classroom tests and research using smaller, more heterogeneous groups) is ignored.

Through the debate on the study of sex differences, feminists continued to recognize the politics of research. Increasingly, feminists recognized that research that supports the status quo and the view of women as less than men is more likely to be funded, conducted, published, and widely cited ( Epstein, 1988 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ; Unger, 1998 ). Sexist bias not only impacts the design and conduct of research but is apparent in the interpretation and distribution of the research results. Differences between women and men were typically labeled “sex differences.” This label implies that the demonstrated differences are essential (i.e., reside inside men and women) and are related to biology. Feminists argued that differences that were found were frequently due to prior experiences, gender roles, and/or the context and not to biology ( Deaux, 1984 ; Hyde, 1986 ; Unger, 1998 ). Others argued that the behavior seen as characteristic of women is actually the behavior evidenced by people with low power and status ( Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1994a ). Unger (1979) recommended that we use the term “gender” to avoid the biological connotation of the term “sex.” Despite this increasing sophistication in our understanding of gender as a function of context, roles, and power, gender differences continue to be constructed as essentialist ( Cosgrove, 2003 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Also, the research findings, even when they were published, did not impact the beliefs held by professionals or the general public about women and men and their performance on tasks. For example, despite the pattern of results across many studies ( Frieze, McHugh & Hanusa, 1982 ; Frieze, Whitley, Hanusa, & McHugh, 1982 ), people continued to believe that women attributed their failures to lack of ability and their success as due to luck.

(Early in my career, I studied sex differences in response to task performance success and failure. I gave subjects ambiguous tasks that had no right or wrong answers and gave them false feedback about their performance. Some subjects were given success feedback; others were told that they had failed. I then asked them how they explained their performance and about their expectancies for future performance. I abandoned this line of research when I realized that the debriefing I gave might not have been successful in erasing their emotional response to failing the experimental task. Others documented that women’s response to novel tasks revealed low expectancies for success, thus biasing our understanding of women’s (lack of) confidence. I did not want to contribute to individuals’ feelings of failure, or to stereotypic and invalid characterizations of women.)

The realization that the questions asked by male theorists and researchers reflect their position in the world challenged the assumptions of logical positivism—including objectivity and value neutrality. Feminist research and theory has been criticized as political and biased, even as these critics continued to view research conducted by men as scientific and objective. Some feminist psychologists came to see the connection between individuals’ status and identity in the world, the questions they were interested in, and their approaches to research. Thus, many feminist psychologists recognized that unexamined androcentric biases at both the epistemological and methodological levels resulted in women’s experiences being devalued, distorted, marginalized, and pathologized (e.g., Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ).

Feminist Standpoint Perspective

The feminist criticism of science as biased led to a recognition of the importance of perspective or standpoint. Some critics have contended that individuals who are outsiders to a culture or group are more likely than insiders to recognize cultural or group assumptions (e.g., Mayo, 1982 ). Feminism provoked some feminist scholars to recognize male bias and to view aspects of male-dominated society, including the practice of research, through an alternative lens. The realization that women and men might view the world differently, ask different questions, and use different methods to answer those questions led some feminists to adopt a standpoint position. Hartstock (1983) argued that women’s lives offered them a privileged vantage point on patriarchy and that such an epistemological perspective had liberatory value.

In the feminist standpoint perspective, women’s ways of knowing are considered to be different from and potentially superior to men’s ways of knowing ( Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986 ). As outsiders or marginalized individuals, women have a unique perspective on their own experience, on men, and on sociocultural patterns of domination and subordination ( Mayo, 1982 ; Westkoff, 1979 ). Like feminist empiricists, advocates of a feminist standpoint perspective typically accept the existence of a reality but recognize that one’s position within a social system impacts one’s understanding of that reality ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). A standpoint epistemological perspective argues that there are important research questions that originate in women’s lives that do not occur to researchers operating from the dominant androcentric frameworks of the disciplines ( Harding, 2008 ). Furthermore, standpoint theory has allowed some of us to recognize that traditional research has typically served the purpose of the researcher rather than the researched ( Letherby, 2003 ); the experiences of marginalized people are not viewed as a source of interesting or important questions. For example, research on motherhood and women’s experience of embodiment was not conducted prior to feminist influence on social science ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ).

Standpoint epistemology views the relationship between knowing and politics as central and examines how different types of sociopolitical arrangements impact the production of knowledge ( Harding, 2008 ). The answers to questions about women and other marginalized groups may originate in the lives of marginalized individuals but typically involve an analysis of the social and power relations of dominant and marginalized groups to answer. Feminist standpoint epistemology calls for a critical analysis of women’s experiences as described through women’s eyes ( Leavy, 2007 ). For example, DeVault (1990) documents the skills that women have developed from their work feeding their families, and Jaggar (2008b) examines women’s skills at reading emotion as having developed through their care-taking roles.

In an important contribution to feminist standpoint, Smith (1987) argued that social science knowledge systems are used as systems of control and that those who develop knowledge are typically separated from everyday life. She describes knowledge as controlled by an elite (i.e., racially and economically privileged men) who have no interest in or knowledge of the women who serve their needs. Smith (2008) notes that questions regarding women’s work originate in the consideration of women’s lives, which have historically not been examined. Consideration of women’s daily lives leads to the recognition that women are assigned the work that men do not want to complete and to the realization of the processes by which that work is devalued and trivialized. Such insights are not constructed by the elite and may have liberatory value for women.

In an early consideration of this perspective, Westkott (1979) recognized that feminist researchers were both insiders and outsiders to science and that this was a source of both insight and a form of self-criticism. Furthermore, Westkott argued that the concern with the relationship of scientist/observer to the target/object stereotypically represents the focus of women on relationships, whereas the detachment of the traditional researcher is consistent with a stereotypic masculine role. Similarly, Letherby (2003) commented that androcentric (male) epistemologies deny the importance of the personal and the experiential, whereas the feminist researcher often values the experiential, the personal, and the relational rather than the public and the abstract.

In feminist standpoint theory, knowledge is mediated by the individual’s particular position in a sociopolitical system at a particular point in time ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). In feminist standpoint perspectives, an oppressed individual can see through the ideologies and obfuscations of the oppressor class and more correctly “know” the world ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Recognition of a feminist standpoint raises the possibility of other standpoints, and Fine (1992) argued that a single woman’s or feminist standpoint was not plausible. Thus, race and class and other identities within the sociocultural system impact the individual’s understanding of the world.

In particular, black feminist theorists (e.g., Collins, 1989 ) have articulated the existence of a black feminist standpoint, arguing that the position of black women allows them to recognize the operation of both racism and sexism in the sociopolitical system. According to Collins (1989) , black women have experienced oppression and have developed an analysis of their experience separate from that offered by formal knowledge structures. The knowledge of black women is transmitted through alternatives like storytelling. Such knowledge has been invalidated by epistemological gatekeepers. Thus, black feminist standpoint theorists contend that at least some women have an ability referred to as “double visions” or “double consciousness” ( Brooks, 2007 ). Smith (1990) similarly recognized in women the ability to attend to localized activities oriented to maintenance of the family and, at the same time, to understand the male world of the marketplace and rationality. The narrative of hooks (2000) as a black child in Kentucky reveals a double consciousness with regard to her own community and the white world across the tracks.

Postmodern Perspectives on Research

The third epistemological position, the postmodern approach, challenges traditional conceptions of truth and reality. Postmodernists view the world and our understanding of the world as socially constructed and therefore challenge the possibility of scientists producing value-neutral knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; 2008 ). Postmodern scholars view attempts to discover the truth as an impossible project and equally reject grand narratives and the experimental method. From a postmodern perspective, life is multifaceted and fragmented, and a postmodern position challenges us to recognize that there are multiple meanings for an event and, especially, multiple perspectives on a person’s life. Postmodern approaches examine the social construction of concepts and theories and question whose interests are served by particular constructions ( Layton, 1998 ). Social constructionism requires a willingness to make explicit the implicit assumptions embedded in psychological concepts (e.g., identity, gender, objectivity, etc.). By doing so, social constructionists encourage researchers to recognize that the most dangerous assumptions are those we don’t know we’re making. From the postmodern position, all knowledge, including that derived from social science research, is socially produced and therefore can never be value free. Someone’s interests, however implicit, are always being served ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ).

The postmodern perspective emphasizes the relationship between knowledge and power. The postmodern perspective suggests that, rather than uncovering truths, the methods we use construct and produce knowledge and privilege certain views and discount or marginalize others ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; Gergen, 2001 ; Hare-Musten & Maracek, 1994b). Social constructionists are less interested in the answer to research questions and more interested in the following: What are the questions? Who gets to asks the questions? Why are those methods used to examine those questions? Postmodern thought can open a new and more positive way of understanding and can contribute to the transformation of intellectual inquiry ( Gergen, 2001 ). Although some feminists have rejected the postmodern approach, Hare-Musten and Maracek (1994b) argued that interrogation of the tension between feminism and postmodern perspectives can be used to transform psychological research. The conduct of feminist research from within the postmodern approach involves conducting research in which women’s interests are served.

Postmodern feminists view empiricist and standpoint feminists as reverting to essentialist claims, viewing women as an identity. Cosgrove (2003) explains essentialism as viewing women as a group, as having a single point of view, or as sharing a trait (i.e., that women are caring). The standpoint position is that women have a shared perspective or a unique capacity (different from men’s) or voice; the standpoint position is viewed as problematic from a postmodern perspective. Brooks (2007) explains the problem of essentialism of feminist standpoint theory: “Beyond the difficulty of establishing that women, as a group, unlike men as a group, have a unique and exclusive capacity for accurately reading the complexities of social reality, it is equally problematic to reduce all women to a group” (p. 70). Thus, the essentialism inherent in empirical and standpoint positions does not acknowledge the diversity and complexity of women’s perspectives and voices and does not attend to the ways that gender is produced through socialization, context, roles, policies, and interactions. Cosgrove (2003) similarly explained that “the hegemony of the essentialist claim of women’s experience or voice has had the unfortunate effect of reinforcing normative gendered behavior” (p. 89). Essentialism that views gendered behaviors as universal, biological in origin, and/or residing within women as traits or inherent characteristics is essentially problematic.

Gergen (1988) explained the relationship of research methods to essentialism. The decontextualized approach to traditional research results in studying women apart from the circumstances of their lives. Social and cultural factors including discrimination, violence, sexism, and others’ stereotypes are eliminated from the view of the researcher. Subsequently, researchers are likely to attribute observed behavior as due to women’s traits or natural dispositions. Gergen concluded that research should be conducted without violating the social embeddedness of the participant.

(I met Lisa Cosgrove when I was a faculty member at Duquesne University in 1985, having recently completed my degree. She was completing her doctorate in clinical psychology at Duquesne; at Duquesne, she was trained in phenomenological psychology with a very strong background in philosophy of science. A few years after she had graduated and moved to Boston, we began collaborating. Both feminists, I had experience as an empiricist and she was trained as a clinician and a phenomenologist. We wrote a series of papers on feminist research, the study of gender and gender differences, and epistemological issues that are cited here and are the basis for this chapter. Discussions with Lisa led me to the adoption of a postmodern position in regards to feminist research.)

Implications for Feminist Qualitative Methods

I have briefly reviewed the feminist epistemological positions to illustrate alternative feminist positions and to trace transformations in the theory and conduct of feminist research and the development of feminist postmodernism. Equally important is the demonstration of how feminist criticism of logical positivist science relates to the development and use of qualitative research approaches. Feminist critiques of research led some psychologists to a loss of confidence in the scientific method; postmodern feminists object to the privileged status given to scientific researchers, especially the scientific method in the positivist tradition ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). Feminist critics argued that the experimental method, including its reductionism, the creation of an artificial context, the failure to understand the context of women’s lives, and the inherent inequality of psychological experiments is not a superior method for understanding the psychology of women. For example, McHugh, Koeske, and Frieze (1986) reviewed feminist arguments that context matters and that the methods of empiricism that decontextualize the individual may support oppressive status quo conditions. McHugh and her colleagues argued that the controlled and artificial research situation may elicit more conventional behavior from participants, may inhibit self-disclosure, and may make the situation “unreal” to the participants ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). The impetus for the adoption of alternative epistemological positions came, in part, from the criticism that the scientific method put the experimenter in the position of influencing, deceiving, manipulating, and/or interpreting “subjects.” Feminists working from a social constructionist perspective are interested in examining the implicit assumptions embedded in traditional psychological research and theory. For example, Unger (1979) acknowledged that our position regarding what constitutes knowledge is the basis for our choice of research methods and the usefulness of our research to advance women. Feminist researchers seek approaches to research that advance our understanding of women without committing essentialist errors or contributing to gender inequities.

The idea that women need to express themselves (i.e., find their own voice and speak for themselves), rather than have their experience interpreted, coded, or labeled by men, is consistent with feminist standpoint theory. Qualitative methods are preferred by many feminist psychologists because they allow marginalized groups, such as women of color, to have a voice and to impact the conduct of research. Feminists value the representation of marginalized groups and the use of subjective and qualitative approaches that allow such participants to speak about their own experiences. Postmodern feminists might argue that liberation or equality may be enacted or experienced when women resist patriarchal conceptualizations of their/our experience and grasp the power to speak for ourselves ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ).

Values of Feminist Research

In contrast to traditional research, feminist research has paid special attention to the role that the values, biases, and assumptions of the researcher has on all aspects of the research process. Selection of topics and questions, choice of methods, recruitment of participants, selection of the audience, and the potential uses of the research results are choices made within a sociohistorical context that ultimately influence what we “know” about a topic or a group of people (cf. Bleir, 1984 ; Harding 1986 ; Keller, 1985 ; Sherif, 1979 ). Feminist research recognizes that, as a result of unexamined androcentric biases at both the epistemological and methodological levels, women’s experiences have been neglected, marginalized, and devalued. Feminist scholars, recognizing that values play a formative role in research, believe that values should be made explicit and critically examined ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Feminist research is explicit in its ethical and political stance; feminist research seeks epistemic truth and social justice and challenges social bias as existing in some existing knowledge claims ( Jaggar, 2008a ).

Feminist researchers have explicated their value systems, realizing that an unbiased, objective position is not possible. Feminists are aware that the product cannot be separated from the process ( Kelly, 1986 ) and strive to conduct research in an open, collaborative, and nonexploitative way. The voice of the participants is often the focus of the research, but the researchers themselves are encouraged to reflect on and report their own related experiences and point of view ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ; Morawski, 1994 ).

Reflexivity

Feminists have questioned the possibility of and the preference for value-free or neutral research and the value of the detached, disengaged researcher who is objective in the conduct of research. Not only do we all and always have some relation to the subject under study, but a connection to or experience with the phenomena may actually be an asset. As Brooks and Hesse-Biber (2007) suggest, “rather than dismissing human emotions and subjectivities, unique lived experiences, and world views as contaminants or barriers in the quest for knowledge, we might embrace these elements to gain new insight and understandings or, in other words, new knowledge” (p. 14). The feminist epistemological perspective pays attention to personal experience, position, emotions, and worldview as influencing the conduct of research ( Brooks & Hesse-Biber, 2007 ). In feminist research, there is a realization that such connections cannot be removed, bracketed, or erased, but we do consider it important to reveal them. The researcher is expected to acknowledge her situated perspective, to reflect on and share how her life experiences might have influenced her choice of topics and questions.

In a related vein, Reinharz (1992) recommended that valid listening to the voices of others requires self-reflection on “who we are, and who we are in relation to those we study” (p. 15). Feminist research has frequently engaged in this process of questioning, referred to as “reflexivity.” The reflexive stance may involve critically examining the research process in an attempt to explicate the assumptions about gender (and other oppressive) relations that may underlie the research project ( Maynard, 1992 ). Incorporating reflexivity is a complex and multidimensional project, one that necessitates a constant vigilance with regard to the epistemic commitments that ground our research ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ).

In feminist research, a commonly used reflective approach is one in which the researcher provides an “intellectual autobiography” ( Stanley & Wise, 1993 ) tracing her interest in relationship with and approach to the questions and to the research participants. Ussher (1991) for example, traces her interest in women’s madness to her mother’s “mental illness,” thus eliminating the illusion that she is a detached or disinterested knower. Hollway (1989) also offers such an extended reflexive stance by deliberately and thoroughly examining how she made decisions and interpretations throughout her research on heterosexual relationships. Fine (1992) offers multiple examples of reflections on the research process, arguing that we should demystify the ways in which we select, use, and exploit respondents’ voices. Letherby (2003) provides an extended examination and analysis of feminist research issues by describing her own history and her experience conducting individual and collaborative research interviewing women who experienced infertility and childlessness.

(In this chapter, I have included some of my own biography as a feminist psychologist. I hope to share part of my own journey, starting as an enthusiastic empiricist, then becoming a critic of biases in research, to the adoption of a view of research as political. Having traced that journey, I recognize the potential contribution and the potential risks that exist in any research undertaken, and I appreciate the diversity of feminist positions in research. Currently, I view myself as encouraging feminist researchers to recognize the problems identified by postmodern critics and to realize the potential for a postmodern perspective to resolve issues and dilemmas in feminist research.)

Feminist researchers are cognizant of the impact of power on the research process. Jaggar (2008a) described feminist research as concerned with the complex relationship between social power (and inequalities in social power) and the production of knowledge. Part of the feminist critique of traditional research includes the power and authority of the researcher to construct and control the research process and product. In traditional science, the power of the researcher is connected to his position as an objective expert “knower” in relation to the uninformed and ignorant subject of his inquiry ( Hubbard, 1988 ). Similarly Smith (1987) and Collins (1989) have examined the power of the educated elite to ignore and invalidate the experiences and knowledge of women and other marginalized groups. Feminist researchers challenge this oppressive status hierarchy in a number of ways. Feminists challenge both the objectivity and the expertise/knowledge of the scientist and view women (or men) participants as knowing about their own experiences. Feminists more than nonfeminists see power as a socially mediated process as opposed to a personal characteristic and recognize the role of power in efforts to transform science and society ( Unger, 1988 ). Thus, feminist research recognizes the power inherent in the process of research and attempts to use that power to transform society. If the purpose of feminist research is to challenge or dismantle hierarchies of oppression, then it is crucial that the research process not duplicate or include power differentials. Yet it is difficult to dismantle the competitive and hierarchical power relations present across most contexts of our lives, including the research context.

An identifying aspect of feminist research is the recognition of power dilemmas in the research process ( Hesse-Biber, 2007b ). Consistent with this perspective, feminist research is based on a respect for the participants as equals and agents rather than subjects. In an attempt to dismantle power hierarchies, the feminist researcher is concerned with the relationships among the research team; feminist research teams are ideally nonhierarchical collaborations (discussed later). Another dilemma is how to interpret or represent the voices of the women respondents; researchers are cautioned not to tell their story, but, in the postmodern perspective, one’s own position always as part of the research process.

Collaboration

Based on critiques of the experimental method, feminist research has emphasized the need for a collaborative (rather than objectifying) focus. Feminist research seeks to establish nonhierarchical relations between researcher and respondent and to respect the experience and perspective of the participants ( Worrell & Etaugh, 1994 ). Feminist psychologists challenge the regulatory practices of traditional research by developing more explicitly collaborative practices (cf. Marks, 1993 ). Collaboration necessitates an egalitarian context from the inception of the research process to the distribution of results. For example, instead of conducting an outcome assessment of a battered women’s shelter based on the preferred outcomes suggested by agencies, researchers, or shelter staff (i.e., how many women have left their abusive relationships?), Maguire (2008) conducted participatory research with battered women examining a question they raised. As Lather (1991) notes, empowerment and empirical rigor are best realized through collaborative and participatory efforts.

Often, relationships among researchers and respondents, although referred to in the literature as partnerships, collaborations, or otherwise egalitarian relations, may be better characterized as ambivalent, guarded, or conflicted ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). Being committed to seeing things from the respondents’ position is a necessary aspect of feminist research, but it is also important to recognize our privileged position within our relationships with respondents and with co-workers. Often credentials and our status within the academy place us in a privileged position.

(Feminists idealize the collaborative approach, but I, like others, have experienced difficulties in some of my collaborations. Often, collaborations are not an experience of equality or sisterhood. Rather, differences in power, status, and experience can impact the collaborations, which may be more hierarchical than feminists might want. Feminist researchers may not recognize that they do not share the same epistemological perspectives. I also experienced differences in styles of working and writing as especially painful and problematic, in that class and worldview are incorporated in nonconscious ways.)

Research as Advocacy and Empowerment

Although I believe that feminist research should explicitly address issues of social injustice, the issue of doing research as advocacy is complex. It is impossible to know in advance how best to empower women and other marginalized groups. Indeed, many scholars have argued that researchers tend to position themselves as active emancipators and see participants as passive receivers of emancipation (e.g., Lather, 1991 ). Conducting and using research for advocacy requires the researcher to engage in critical reflection on his or her epistemic commitments. Feminists try to design studies that avoid objectifying participants and foster a particular kind of interaction. For example, participatory researchers work with communities to develop “knowledge” that can be useful in advocacy and provide the basis for system change. In terms of doing research with and for women, it is important to develop knowledge collaboratively and, whenever possible, share the knowledge with a wider audience. Often, empowerment is viewed as the process by which we allow or encourage respondents to speak for themselves or to find their voice. Certainly, teaching women to engage in speech or actions that are of our choosing is not empowering, but empowerment of other women is a complicated issue, as discussed below. Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995) suggest that, in feminist research, we speak for ourselves and create conditions under which others will speak.

Challenges to Feminist Research

An important contribution made by feminist researchers has been giving voice to women’s experiences. Davis (1994) suggests that the notion of voice resonates with feminists who hope that women’s practices and ways of knowing may be a source of empowerment and that speaking represents an end to the silencing and suppression of women in patriarchal culture. Many theorists have addressed the silencing of women, the ways in which the construction of knowledge by “experts” resulted in women’s voices not being heard, not being taken seriously, or questioned as not trustworthy. “Women’s testimony, women’s reports of their experiences, is as often discredited... from their testifying about violence and sexual assault through their experiential accounts of maladies, to their demonstrations of the androcentricity of physics” ( Code, 1995 , p. 26).

At first thought, it might appear that the metaphor of voice and the methods designed around it (i.e., the qualitative analysis of women’s narratives) have allowed feminist psychology to articulate women’s experiences. However, closer examination of this metaphor and the research methods used to support it argue for a more critical examination of research that attempts to give women voice ( Alcoff, 2008 ). The position that women can and must speak for women and/or that women can listen to each other differently than men has been challenged. Substituting a woman’s standpoint for an androcentric position privileges women’s way of way of being, speaking, viewing the world, and knowing, but the idea of women’s voice also essentializes femininity and can reify the constructs of men and women. Feminist theorists have cautioned that in our attempts to correct psychology’s androcentric perspective, we must avoid a position that essentializes masculinity and femininity ( Bohan, 1993 ; Cosgrove, 2003 ; Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990 ) (i.e., one that views differences between men and women as universal and as originating or residing within men and women). Similarly, Davis (1994) questions whether the notion of voice is a useful one for feminist theory. Do women have voice (i.e., an “authentic” feminine self)? Does voice refer to “the psychological focus of femininity, the site of women’s subordination, or the authentic expression of what women really feel” (p. 355)? The use of the voice metaphor raises questions of essentialism. Is there such a thing as femininity, which can be discovered or uncovered?

Other feminists (e.g., Tavris, 1994 ) reminded us that women (and girls) do not speak the same in all situations, pointing out that there is more than a single “women’s voice” and that there is more than one way to hear the same story. Similarly, Gremmen (1994) questions whether authentic and false voices can be distinguished in the qualitative analysis of transcripts. Others have questioned whether women are speaking for themselves when their responses are reported, presented, organized, or otherwise produced by the researcher. The emancipatory potential of research is undermined when the researcher positions herself as an arbitrator of truth and knowledge or as a judge of what is or is not an authentic voice ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000 ).

There is great value in questioning who speaks for whom; indeed, who speaks may be more important than what is said (cf. Lather, 1991 ; 1992 ; Rappaport & Stewart, 1997 ). When we speak for women or about women’s experience, we may distort or silence women’s own voices ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000 ). Can we presume to know how to express the experiences of other women? The issues are further complicated when we attempt to “speak for others across the complexities of difference” ( Code, 1995 , p. 30); that is, speak for women who differ from us in terms of age, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, region, and other dimensions ( Alcoff, 2008 ). As feminist researchers, we might recognize the degree to which we have positioned ourselves as “universalizing spokesperson” and abandon that role, choosing instead the role of “cultural workers who do what they can to lift the barriers which prevent people from speaking for themselves” ( Lather, 1991 , p. 47).

Relinquishing the role of “universalizing spokesperson” requires a shift in how we conduct our research and in how we analyze our data. Marks (1993) encouraged us to reflect on the institutional power we have as researchers in order to avoid buying into the illusion of empowerment or democracy. To ensure that our hypotheses and questions are relevant, meaningful, and helpful to participants, we might ask participants to comment on, modify, add to, or even change the questions developed by the researcher. Standard research practice might include conducting a needs assessment and obtaining pilot data on the appropriateness of the focus, structure, and design of the research. The research process might begin with an opportunity for participants to voice their concerns and collaborate in the development of the research questions. In addition, Cosgrove and McHugh (2000) suggest that researchers adopt a cautious and reflective approach when editing participants’ narrative accounts. We need to acknowledge and attend to the fact that editing changes the voice(s) heard. The way in which we frame and present quotes may involve implicit assumptions about our interpretive authority; when we are not including the entire narrative, we need to include a rationale for and a detailed description of our editing choices. The question of “who can/should speak for whom engages with issues of power and the politics of knowledge that are especially delicate in present day feminist and other postcolonial contexts” ( Code, 1995 , p. 26).

Struggles for the “power to name” are continually played out in politics, the media, and in the academy. Specific words are needed to describe concepts that are important to people; without those words, it is very difficult to think about—and nearly impossible to talk about—objects, ideas, and situations. Feminists have provided words and concepts to describe the previously unspoken experiences of women and girls ( Smith, Johnston-Robledo, McHugh & Chrisler, 2010 ) including stalking, date rape, coercive sex, and intimate partner violence. Yet, our constructions and operational definitions of the phenomenon under study can also introduce limitations and distortions in women’s understanding of their own experiences ( McHugh, Livingston, & Frieze, 2008 ). When we give a woman a label for her experience and outline for her the particulars of the phenomenon, we direct her attention and memory and impact her own construction of her experiences. In this way, science has claimed the power to name reality and has sometimes challenged the credibility of women to articulate and name their own experiences. Postmodern feminists are attentive to the power of words and examine how language or discourse is used to frame women’s experience.

Traditionally, objectivity has been equated with quantitative measurement and logical positivist approaches to science and is valued as the path to truth and knowledge. Qualitative research and research rooted in standpoint and postmodern epistemologies are frequently seen as subjective and are devalued as such. Feminist and other postmodern critics of logical positivism argue that objectivity is an illusion that has contributed (illegitimately) to the power of science and scientists to make knowledge claims (e.g., Hubbard, 1988 ). The position of a disengaged or impartial researcher who studies others as objects, without investing in their well-being, or the outcomes of the research, has been rejected. Objectivity in this sense is not seen as a superior way to understand the world or the people in it. From a postmodern perspective, all knowledge involves a position or perspective that results in partial or situated knowledge. Furthermore, postmodern positions reject claims of grand theories and discoveries of some truth that exists “out there.” Knowledge is viewed as co-created or constructed in social interactions. Developing a theory of human behavior based on the study of a limited sample of people is viewed as inappropriate and universalizing. Some have exposed the issue of scientific objectivity as an elitist effort to exclude others from making meaning, a system by which all who are not trained to participate are devaluated and objectified ( Hubbard, 1988 ; Schewan, 2008 ).

Feminist qualitative research as described here has not sought universal truths about women but has increasingly been focused on particular communities of women (people), and the research is “judged” as useful in terms of its contribution to the improvement of women’s lives or to the (re)solution of a locally defined problem. Yet, some feminist theorists have grappled with the issue of validity claims. Is every interpretation or conclusion based on qualitative “data” equally valid? How can we know or evaluate our research as valid, if not objective? Questions of validity and credibility (which are sometimes discussed in terms of objectivity) remain unanswered or contested in regards to feminist qualitative research.

Schewan (2008) addresses the question of objectivity, asking “What is it about objectivity that helps to make a claim acceptable?” She argues that we do want our claims to be acceptable to some broader constituency. What do we have to do to establish such credibility? Schewan’s (2008) answer to these questions revolves around questions of trustworthiness. Her argument for an epistemological trustworthiness involves multiple dimensions of credibility including, for example, research that is critical, contextual, committed, and co-responsible; and practical, political, pluralist, and participatory. Furthermore, Schewan contends that trust is ultimately a product of community, and a basic question we might ask about our own research is in which (and how broad a) community would we look for consensus on the validity of our research? In which context do want to articulate our claims, and how might we be evaluated in that context. In participatory action research, the researcher typically would have the participants in the project provide feedback as to the accuracy, validity, and usefulness of the project “data.”

Similarly, Collins (2008) views community and connectedness as essential to establishing the validity of black feminist theory. She observes that in the African-American community new knowledge claims are not worked out in isolation, but in dialogue. An example of the dialogue for assessing the validity of black women’s concerns is the call-and-response interaction in African-American communities, including churches. Ideas are tested and evaluated in one’s own community, which is also the context in which people become human and are empowered. Black feminist thought emerges in the context of subjugated individuals. Each idea or form of knowledge involves a specific location from which to examine points of connection; each group speaks from its own unique standpoint and shares its own partial and situated knowledge. There are no claims to universal truth. Collins also notes that this approach to validation is distinctly different from scientific objectivity in that this dialogue involves community rather than individualism, speaking from the heart, and the integration of reason and emotion.

The feminist scientist may question objectivity but continue to return to the concept when designing a feminist science ( Keller, 1985 ). Haraway (2008) and Harding (2008) are searching for a broader form of validation of claims; they articulate their ideas for a successor science and a feminist version of objectivity. Coming from the epistemology of standpoint theory, Harding (2008) anticipates the emergence of a successor science that offers an acknowledged better and richer account of the world. In response to questions of how to maintain validity and reliability in research when objectivity is challenged, Harding (1991) proposed the solution of strong objectivity . Her idea of strong objectivity is based on the outsider perspective ( Mayo, 1982 ) or the double consciousness attributed to African Americans ( Collins, 1990 ). In Harding’s approach to validity, individuals at the margins of the institutions of knowledge may provide an outsider perspective on the conceptualization not evident to the insiders at the center. Harding argued that outsiders can bring awareness of the ways in which values, interests, and practices impact the production of knowledge. Harding argued that including the perspectives of the outsider or marginalized perspectives can strengthen the objectivity of science while retaining validity ( Rosser, 2008 ).

Haraway (2008) offers her vision of a usable doctrine of objectivity, embodied vision . Consistent with Collins (2008) and Schewan (2008) , Haraway’s ideas about validity relate to conversation and community; situated knowledge is about communities not individuals. Haraway proposes that our capacity for knowing involves embodied vision; that is, we are limited to partial and situated knowledge because our vision is limited by our body in a physical location. She contrasts this idea of situated and partial knowledge with the omnipotence and omnipresence of a male (god); thus, her conception of objectivity relates to where we are located in the world, as opposed to an objectivity that comes from being above the fray. Haraway recommended that we share our knowledge with others who occupy a different space to help construct a larger vision. Haraway calls for objectivity as positioned rationality , rational and fuller knowledge as a process of ongoing critical interpretations among a community of interpreters and (de)coders. In her vision, feminist objectivity would make for both surprises and irony (since we are not in charge of the world). As indicated here, feminist researchers employing qualitative and post-positivist methods continue to contend with the issue of validity. Current approaches emphasize knowledge as partial and situated (as opposed to universal truth) and the validity of knowledge as established through dialogue with participant communities.

Forms of Feminist Qualitative Research

In this section, I introduce a number of qualitative forms of research and examine them in relation to feminist goals for research. All possible forms of qualitative research are not introduced or described; the selection represents in part my own areas of interest or expertise. The forms of research addressed here can be undertaken from any feminist epistemological positions, and each of these is consistent with a postmodern perspective.

In-Depth Interviews

Interviewing is a valued method for feminist researchers, allowing them to gain insight into the lives and experiences of their respondents and potentially helping others to understand a group of women. Feminists are often concerned with experiences that are hidden, for example, the lives of marginalized women ( Geiger, 1990) . When the goal of the research is in-depth understanding, a smaller sample is used since the interviewer is interested in the process and meanings and not in the generalization of the findings ( Hesse-Biber, 2007 a ). In more unstructured interviews, the researcher exerts very little control over the process, letting the interview flow where the respondent goes.

Interviewing as a feminist research strategy is designed to get at the lived experience of the respondent ( Nelson, 1989 ). Often, a goal of interviewing is to have women express their ideas, insights, or experiences in their own words. According to Letherby (2003) , the method chosen in a feminist project should allow the voices of the respondents to be distinct and discernible. Feminist interviewing is conscious of the relationship between the researcher and the researched and of the ways that power operates in the interview and in the product of the project. Letherby (2003) describes variation in how much two-way conversation she engaged in, and she also describes the relationship between the researcher and respondent as dynamic and changing over time.

One feminist perspective on interviewing is that the researcher and the respondent co-construct meaning. Oakley (1981) espoused a participatory model that involves the researcher sharing aspects of her own biography with the researched. A more conversational and sharing approach invites intimacy. Oakley also sees this as a way to break down the power hierarchy. As an example, Parr (1998) traced her own development from a positivist researcher to a more feminist and grounded approach in her interviews of mature women who returned to education. Parr (1998) started with a barriers framework that she eventually abandoned when the respondents’ stories did not fit this framework: the women did not perceive themselves as experiencing barriers. Her subsequent analysis was rooted in the data, and the respondents influenced the research process. Importantly and unexpectedly, her participants gave more personal reasons for their reentry, and more than one-half of the women reported serious incidents or traumatic experiences as linked to their return to education. Parr (1998) reported that listening closely and paying attention to the women’s nonverbal behaviors helped her to hear what they were telling her about the links between trauma and education “once she allowed the women’s voices to be heard” (p. 100).

Narratives as Research

The use of narratives as research is compatible with a postmodern or social constructionist perspective. Narratives are the stories people tell about their lives. Narrative research focuses on the ways in which individuals choose to tell their stories, in relation to the frameworks or master narratives provided by the culture for organizing and describing life experiences ( Sarbin, 1986 ). Master narratives refer to the cultural frameworks that limit and structure the way that stories are told in order to support the status quo and the dominant groups’ perspective on reality. Gergen (2010) described her analysis of how women’s narratives differed from the cultural heroic myths of male narratives; she argued that women’s narratives were more embodied, and that in women’s narratives, love and achievement themes were interwoven. Story telling can be used, however, to disrupt or challenge accepted perceptions and master narratives. Stories are used to communicate experience, but they can also articulate ideology and can move people to action ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ).

A narrative approach can be employed to further feminist goals. Narratives have been discussed as an innovative feminist method ( Gergen, Chrisler, & LoCicero, 1999 ) designed to reveal cultural constructions. Recognizing, resisting, or deconstructing the master narratives that have been used to restrict or limit the experiences of women is one feminist form of narrative research ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ). Other examples of feminist narrative research are presented in Franz and Stewart’s (1994) edited volume of narratives, in which they explore the way in which narratives “create” a psychology of women. Thus, storytelling can lead to “ideological transformations and to political mobilization” ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 , p. xii). Storytelling is seen as a way of including women’s experience, of breaking the silence of women, and as a way of giving women a voice for the expression and analysis of their own experiences ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ). They argue that social transformative work is done through the telling of previously untold stories and through women’s naming and analyzing their own experience ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ).

Narrative research reveals our desire to provide a unified and coherent story and to gloss over or ignore paradoxes, inconsistencies, and contradictions in women’s lives ( Cabello, 1999 ; Franz & Stewart, 1994 ). The challenge for feminist researchers is to find methods for including and representing dualities and contradictions present in women’s lives ( Cabello, 1999 ). Cabello (1999) describes the methodological challenge of including the incoherence and contradictions in narrative research. She also discusses the tensions between the researcher’s interpretation and the subject’s active participation in the telling and interpretation of her life story.

Discourse Analysis

The main goal of discourse analysis is to investigate how meanings are produced within narrative accounts (e.g., in conversations, newspapers, or interviews). Thus, the label discourse analysis does not describe a technique or a formula, but rather it describes a set of approaches that can be used when researchers work with texts ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Researchers who use a discourse analytic approach emphasize the constitutive function of language, and they address the ways in which power relations are reproduced in narrative accounts ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). A discourse analytic approach is grounded in the belief that meaning and knowledge are created by discourse; discourse analysts views language/discourse as constituting our experience. Based on the belief that all forms of discourse serve a function and have particular effects, and the research focus is on “how talk is constructed and what it achieves” ( Potter & Wetherell, 1996 , p. 164). The researcher cannot, simply by virtue of switching from a quantitative to a qualitative approach, uncover an experience or identity that exists prior to and distinct from human interaction. There are no true, real, or inner experiences or identities that somehow reside underneath the words a woman uses to describe that experience or identity. The paradigm shift from analyzing interview data to analyzing discourse involves a different perspective on the goals of research and what we can know ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ). It encourages us to examine the practices, technologies, and ideologies that allow for the experiences that we are investigating. This shift may help us focus on structural rather than individual change strategies.

In the conduct of discourse analysis, the researcher is explicitly interested in the sociopolitical context that creates particular discourses and discourages other constructions and linguistic practices ( Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1995 ). The implications of this epistemological shift for developing alternative methodologies can be seen in how interview-based data would be approached and analyzed. The researcher does not assume that she will discover some underlying truth about women’s essential nature or personality. Instead, the researcher is interested in identifying dominant and marginalized discourses and in addressing how women position themselves in the available discourses. As previously noted, rather than denying or trying to overcome the inconsistencies, contradictions, or ambivalence in women’s accounts of their experience, the researcher pursues these contradictions. This allows for a better understanding of how women might position themselves otherwise ( Burr, 1995 ; Hollway, 1989 ; Kitzinger, 1995 ; Potter & Wetherell, 1996 ). This social constructionist approach moves the researcher from the analysis of narratives as revealing inner subjectivity (i.e., of a woman’s story as revealing who she is) to an analysis of discourse as constituting subjectivity. Thus, the question shifts from “what does this account reveal about women’s underlying or true nature?” to “what does this account reveal about the dominant discourses to which women have been subjected?” and “what does this account reveal about discourses which have become marginalized?” The analysis of data is then carried out with a focus on the questions “when and how do women resist dominant discourses when those discourses cause them distress, and how might we allow for greater opportunities to position ourselves in alternative discourses?”

The implications for feminist research are dramatic and complex. If there is no method to “get to the bottom of things,” what does it mean to create a space for women to speak for themselves? A researcher using discourse analysis would understand meaning to be produced rather than revealed. An account of an individual’s experience is always located in a complex network of power relations ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Thus, in analyzing women’s accounts, a social constructionist approach applies an analysis of power. The interview, and analysis, is not about discovering “truths” but about identifying dominant and marginalized discourses. The analysis examines the degree and the ways in which individuals resist oppressive discourses. For example, a psychologist interested in the experience of motherhood would first recognize that the discourses of motherhood shape and confine one’s understanding of oneself as a mother and as not a mother ( Letherby, 2003 ). The analysis of the data on the experience of being a mother would be contextualized in terms of how discourses produce certain identities (e.g., “supermom,” mother as the primary care-giver, etc.) while marginalizing others ( Cosgrove, 1999 ).

Focus Groups

Wilkinson (1998) argues for the use of focus groups as a feminist method in that focus groups can meet the feminist goals of examining women’s behavior in naturalistic social contexts and in a way that shifts the power from the researcher to the participants. A focus group might be described as an informal discussion among a group of people, which is focused on a specific topic and is either observed or taped by the researcher ( Morgan & Krueger, 1993 ). Focus groups are typically facilitated by a trained moderator who fosters a comfortable environment. Kitzinger (1994) suggests that focus group interviews might be used as an effective method when gaining information from participants is difficult; that is, when people feel disenfranchised, unsafe, or reluctant to participate. Focus groups may be useful in mining subjugated knowledge or in giving a voice to members of marginalized groups or empowering clients ( Leavy, 2007 ; Morgan, 2004 ). Focus groups have been used to bridge a gap in perspective between the researcher and the informants ( Morgan, 2004 ). The communication in focus groups may be dynamic and create a sense of a “happening” ( Leavy, 2007 ). In successful focus groups, participants express or share some of their experiences with others using their own language and frameworks ( Leavy, 2007 ).

Focus groups avoid the artificiality of many psychological methods. Focus groups mimic the everyday experience of talking with friends, family, and others in our social networks. The focus group itself may be seen as a social context and, at the same time, as a parallel to the social context in which people typically operate. The group-based approach of nondirective interviewing allows the participants to identify, discuss, disagree about, and contextualize issues of importance to them ( Hennink, 2008 ). At times, the focus group may reveal the extent of consensus and diversity of opinion within groups ( Morgan, 2004 ). The group environment can provide rich data regarding complex behaviors and human interactions.

People establish and maintain relationships, engage in activities, and make decisions through daily interactions with other people. Focus groups may use these preexisting or naturally occurring groups, or may set up groups of people who do not know each other ( Wilkinson, 1998 ). For example, Press (1991) studied female friends talking about abortion by having them meet in one woman’s home to view and discuss an episode of a popular television show. The focus group can thus avoid artificiality by making naturalistic observations of the process of communication in everyday social interaction ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). More importantly, the focus group provides the opportunity to observe how people form opinions, influence each other, and generate meaning in the context of discussion with others ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). For feminists who see the self as relational or identity as constructed (e.g., Kitzinger, 1994 ), the focus group can be an ideal method. In focus groups, the influence of the researcher is minimized as women in the group speak for themselves and voice their own concerns and themes. Focus groups may also provide an opportunity to access the views of individuals who have been underrepresented in traditional methods ( Wilkinson, 1998 ). Focus groups may lead to consciousness raising or to the articulation of solutions to women’s problems ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). Focus groups may be a component of participatory action projects ( Morgan, 2004 ). The increased use of focus groups by social scientists over the past two decades argues for their usefulness as a qualitative method ( Morgan, 2004 ).

Feminist Phenomenological Approaches

A phenomenological approach emphasizes a (paradigm) shift from observed behaviors to the importance of an individual’s lived experience as the proper subject matter for psychology. Phenomenology is committed to the articulation of individuals’ experience as description and does not subscribe to hypothesis testing. Husserl (1970) argued that psychologists should use descriptive methods to try and capture the meaning of individuals’ experience; he emphasized the need for social scientists to investigate the personal, the life-world to capture the experiential nature of human experience. Criticizing psychology (and other social sciences) for its adherence to positivist methods, he challenged the subjective/objective distinction. ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Thus, a phenomenological approach is not just another method that might be employed by a feminist researcher, but an alternative approach to knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Phenomenological research uses a descriptive method that attempts to capture the experiential meaning of human experience ( Nelson, 1989 ). Phenomenologically informed researchers do not test hypotheses but generate theory from the data (i.e., individuals’ experiences). This approach does not distinguish between objective and subjective methods but does privilege description over measurement and quantification ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). The phenomenological researcher does not subscribe to the goal of uncovering or discovering truths about the participants’ experience but has a commitment to articulating the lived experience of the participants and analyzing the sociopolitical context in which the experience occurs ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). For example, a research team could investigate the lived experience of being “at home.” The descriptive differences in men and women’s lived experience might be described without essentializing or reifying gender.

According to Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) , phenomenology shares the feminist commitment to creating a space to hear (women’s) stories. In phenomenologically grounded research, the researcher may examine the ways in which gender (along with race, class, and culture) plays a key role in shaping women’s experiences. Phenomenologists also share the feminist commitment to test theory against experience. Both feminists and phenomenologists recognize the limits of laboratory-based research, emphasize the importance of listening to individuals’ experiences, and appreciate the possibilities of a descriptive science ( Nelson, 1989 ). Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) suggest that some feminists would agree with the phenomenological perspective that relying, epistemologically and methodologically, on quantification and measurement to the exclusion of life-world description is a limited approach that produces alienated rather than emancipatory knowledge.

Both feminists and phenomenologists view research as an interaction or dialogue between the researcher and the participant ( Garko, 1999 ). The phenomenological approach emphasizes connections among self, world, and others and allows the researcher to hear women’s experiences as contextualized within the larger social order. Consistent with feminist research, a phenomenological perspective demands that we hear, describe, and try to articulate the meaning of women’s experiences, including stories that have been marginalized and/or silenced ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ).

Participatory Action Research

“Participatory research offers a way to openly demonstrate solidarity with oppressed and disempowered people through our work as researchers” ( Maguire, 2008 , p. 417). Maguire (1987 ; 2008 ) described participatory action research as involving investigation, education, and action. By involving ordinary people in the process of posing problems and solving them, participatory research can create solidarity and social action designed to radically change social reality, as opposed to other methods that describe or interpret reality ( Maguire, 2008 ). Goals of feminist research, including self-determination, emancipation, and personal and social transformation, are approached by working with oppressed people, not studying them ( Maguire, 2008 ). When working with a community group to address a problem they define, the traditional distinctions between knower and participant and between knowledge and action are dissolved ( Hall, 1979) .

In contrast to the traditional valuation of theoretical and pure science over applied science, participatory action research challenges the dichotomous view of applied versus theoretical research. In action research, theory is political and action has theoretical implications ( Hoshmand & O’Byrne, 1996 ; Reinharz, 1992 ). Hoshmand and O’Byrne (1996) view action research as consistent with postmodern and post-positivist revisions of science; action research takes an explicitly contextual focus and thus action researchers may be less likely to commit the “errors” of essentialism and universalism ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ). Participatory research is built on the (feminist) critique of positivist science, and the androcentrism of much of traditional social science research ( Maguire, 2008 ) and the emancipatory impact of participatory research is dependent on feminist analysis. Researchers should explicitly consider gender and patriarchy as important components of the project ( Maguire, 1987 ). A challenge for feminist researchers is to consider the operation of class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of oppression in the research agenda.

In addition to improving the lives of the participants, education and the development of critical consciousness is a component of participatory action research ( Maguire, 2008 ). The research process can assist the community members to develop skills in information gathering and use and in analysis. Perhaps more significantly, the community members may develop a critical understanding of social problems and underlying causes and possible ways to overcome them. By having ordinary people participate in the research, affirming and extending their knowledge about their own lives, participatory action research exposes and helps to dismantle the industry of knowledge production. Knowledge production and traditional research exclude ordinary people from meaningful participation in knowledge creation, intimidate marginalized groups through academic degrees and jargon, and dehumanize people as objects of research ( Maguire, 2008 ).

In this spirit of research designed to create critical consciousness (of the sexual double standard), McHugh and her students facilitated discussions in class and in focus groups of undergraduate students about their experience and observation of slut bashing and the walk of shame (McHugh, Sciarillo, Pearlson, & Watson, 2011; Sullivan & McHugh, 2009 ). Students shared their understanding and experience of who gets called a slut and why. In the discussion, many students recognized the operation of the sexual double standard and developed some understanding of how this impacted their own and other women’s expression of sexuality. This “research” emphasizes the students as experts on this topic, helps students develop critical consciousness, and documents the existence of the sexual double standard as common social practice, in contrast to quantitative research that does not confirm the existence of the sexual double standard ( Crawford & Popp, 2003 ).

In most social action research, the researchers design the research project to empower the individuals and communities with whom they work ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). In participatory research, the shared agenda is set by the community; traditional research is based on the researcher’s agenda. The engagement and solidarity with participants is an important feature of participatory research, in contrast to the traditional objectivity and disengagement of the experimenter. For example, in contrast to traditional research (e.g., why battered women stay), Maguire (1987) reported on her participatory research with a group of battered women in Gallup, New Mexico. Maguire talked with former battered women in their kitchens, employing Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogue. The researcher and participants moved through a cycle of reflection and action; Maguire presented the women (in their own words) as they searched for how to move forward after living with violent men. These results are in contrast to the psychologizing and victim-blaming approaches often taken in research with women who experience intimate partner violence ( McHugh, 1993 ; McHugh, Livingston, & Frieze, 2008) . Fine (1992) also identified the victim-blaming interpretations made by researchers. In a critical examination of articles published in The Psychology of Women Quarterly, Fine documented that authors “psychologized the structural forces that construct women’s lives by offering internal explanations for social conditions, and through the promotion of individualistic change strategies, authors invited women to alter some aspect of self in order to transform social arrangements” (p. 6).

A variety of qualitative methods were described here with an emphasis on why and how each method might be used by feminist researchers. For each of the methods, feminist researchers with differing epistemological positions are likely to share certain concerns regarding the research: “attention to women’s voices, differences between and within groups of women, women’s contextual and concrete experiences, and researcher positionality” ( Leckenby & Hess-Biber, 2007 , p. 279). As feminist researchers, we might mine each approach for its liberatory potential.

Innovations in Feminist Research

Intersectionality.

Feminist analytic strategies have been used to challenge biological reductionism, demonstrating how race and gender hierarchies are produced and maintained ( Hawkesworth, 2006 , p. 207). Increasingly, feminists have realized that individuals’ experiences are influenced by both race and gender and by the intersection of various identities (intersectionality). Intersectionality is an innovative approach that applies an analytic lens to research on gender, racial, ethnic, class, age, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of disparities ( Dill & Zambrana, 2009 ). The approach of intersectionality analyzes the intersections of oppressions, recognizing that race, sexual orientation, social class, and other oppressed identities are socially constructed. Intersectionality challenges traditional approaches to the study of inequality that isolated each factor of oppression (e.g., race) and treated it as independent of other forms of oppression ( Dill & Zambrana 2009 ). Interpersonal interactions and institutional practices can create marginalization and subsequently constrain women of color and women marginalized by other identities. In response to such recognition, feminist scholars of color have coined the term “intersectionality” to refer to the complex interplay of social forces that produce particular women and men as members of particular classes, races, ethnicities, and nationalities ( Crenshaw, 1989 ). McCall (2005) has referred to intersectionality as the most important contribution of women’s studies; intersectionality challenges the dominant perspectives within multiple disciplines including psychology. Intersectionality recognizes the interrelatedness of racialization and gendering. The term “racing-gendering” highlights the interactions of racialization and gendering in the production of difference ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). The identities of women of color result from an amalgam of practices that construct them as Other. Such practices include silencing, excluding, marginalizing, stereotyping, and patronizing.

For example, in a study of congresswomen (103rd Congress), Hawkesworth (2006) found the narratives of congresswomen of color to be markedly different from the interview responses of white congresswomen. African-American congresswomen, especially, related experiences of insults, humiliation, frustration, and anger. Hawkesworth (2006) provides a series of examples to demonstrate that Congress was/is a race-gendered institution, that race-specific constructions of acting as a man and a woman are intertwined in daily interactions in that setting. She further relates the experiences of invisibility and subordination of black congresswomen to congressional action on welfare reform and concludes that the data indicate ongoing race-gendering in the institutional practices of Congress and in the interpersonal interactions among members of Congress.

Developing Consciousness

Consciousness raising (CR) was an important method of the second wave of feminism in the United States ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). Through group discussions, women recognized commonalities in their experiences that they had previously believed to be personal problems ( Brodsky, 1973 ). Such discussions had the potential to reveal aspects of sexism and patriarchy and led to the realization that the personal is political; that is, that the power imbalance between women and men and the way that society was structured along gender lines contributed to women’s experiences of distress (Hanish, 1970). Undertaken as political action, CR groups were later facilitated by psychologists and became a model for therapeutic women’s groups ( Brodsky, 1973 ). Consciousness raising groups are a form of participatory action research. Consciousness raising is a method for understanding and experiencing women’s experiences, and for understanding and resisting patriarchy. Consciousness-raising is an important contribution of feminism.

Double Consciousness

In an elaboration of consciousness raising, some theorists have discussed women’s double consciousness in relation to feminist standpoint theory. In one version of double consciousness, women, as a result of their subordinated position, have an awareness of their own daily lives and work (which are invisible to members of the dominant group), but they also have an understanding of the lives of the dominant group (Nielsen, 1989. Or, women scientists, by participating in science and yet experiencing the subordinated position of women, have a unique perspective as both an insider and an “other,” to examine the operation of sexist bias in science ( Rosser, 2008 ). Most frequently, double consciousness refers to the position of black feminist theorists that black women hold a unique position that allows them to understand the operation of both sexism and racism ( Collins, 1990 ; 2008 ). Collins argues that such consciousness, based on lived experience, involves both knowledge and wisdom and that such consciousness is essential to black women’s survival. Black women share their truth by way of storytelling or narrative, and the black community values their stories. The consciousness of black women is thus forged in connection with community. Collins (2008) suggests “the significance of a Black feminist epistemology may lie in its ability to enrich our understanding of how subordinate groups create knowledge that fosters both empowerment and social justice” ( Collins, 2008 , p. 256).

In an elaboration of double consciousness, feminist standpoint approaches have developed into a method, as well as an epistemological position ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ; Sandoval, 2000 ). Feminist standpoint as a method begins with the “collection and interrogation of competing claims about a single phenomenon” ( Hawkesworth, 2006 , p. 178). The method involves the contrast and analysis of competing situated (theoretical and value-laden) claims to understand the role theoretical presuppositions play in cognition. The feminist standpoint analysis may suggest ways to resolve seemingly intractable conflicts ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Hawkesworth (2006) illustrates the method with an analysis of multiple feminist positions on Affirmative Action.

Oppositional Consciousness

Authors and theorists from varied backgrounds and geographies have described and theorized a form of consciousness referred to as “oppositional consciousness.” The recognition and development of “oppositional consciousness” is considered both a social movement and a method ( Sandoval, 2000 ). As a method, cultural theorists aim to specify and reinforce particular forms of resistance to the dominant social hierarchy. “The methodology of the oppressed is a set of processes, procedures and technologies for de-colonizing the imagination” ( Sandoval, 2000 , p. 68). The theory and method of oppositional consciousness is a consciousness developed within women of color feminism ( Sandoval, 2000 , p. 180), where it has been employed as a methodology of the oppressed. The methodology of oppositional consciousness, as theorized by a racially diverse (US) coalition of women of color, demonstrates the procedures for achieving affinity and alliance across difference ( Sandoval, 2000 ). Through a series of dialogues, processes, meaning-making, deconstructions, and consciousness, people in search of emancipation from oppression voice, interrogate, and theorize their experiences, recognize (resist) ideologies and practices of oppression, and transcend differences to achieve an alliance, a coalition of consciousness that opposes oppression and transcends difference ( Sandoval, 2000 ).

Trans/Feminist Methodology

In a related approach, Pryse (2000) argued that the interdisciplinarity of women’s studies can contribute to the development of a “trans/feminist methodology.” Pryse (2000) contends that there is a special opportunity in the study of women’s studies scholars; faculty and students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds collaborate over questions regarding gender and its interconnections with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, ability, and culture. Envisioning a hybrid or “trans” methodology is the challenge of interdisciplinary collaborations ( Friedman, 1998 ; Pryse, 2000 ). She examines interdisciplinarity as involving intellectual flexibility and engagement in cross-cultural analyses, both of which can be conducive to cross-cultural insight and may enhance receptivity to difference. Pryse is hopeful that the work of interdisciplinary teams can develop the transversal political perspective described by Yuval-Davis (1997) . Transversal political perspectives are contrasted with identity politics in which women from different classes, regions, nations, races, or ethnicities recognize and emphasize the differences in their material and political realities. In a transversal political perspective, women could “enter into a dialogue concerning their material and political realities without being required to assert their collective identity politics in such a way that they cannot move outside their ideological positioning” ( Pryse, 2000 , p. 106). Yuval-Davis (1997) described interactions of Palestinian and Israeli women who engaged in a dialogue that could be indicative of transversalism. Each member of the interaction remained rooted in her own identity, but shifted to a position that allowed an exchange with a women with another identity. This dialogue, labeled transversalism was contrasted with universalism. In transversalism, a bridge that can cross borders or differences is constructed, whereas universalism assumes homogeneity among women. In her vision, Pryse sees transversalism as a methodology that can allow feminist researchers to construct questions that emerge from women’s lives without committing the error of universalizing women and by remaining specific about the differences among women. Furthermore, the transversal approach can help researchers transcend disciplinary boundaries and methods. A transversal approach is consistent with a postmodern perspective in that multiple realities and partial truths are recognized and essentialism is avoided ( Pryse, 2000 ). The transversal viewpoint allows both difference and similarity to be simultaneously recognized and appreciated as we study women’s lives. This can be seen as a form of dialectic thinking, as opposed to the traditional tendency to engage in dichotomous thinking.

Dialectic Thinking

In a similar approach, Kimball argued that “The major goal of practicing double visions is to resist the choice of either similarities or differences as more true or politically valid than the other” ( Kimball, 1995 , p. 12). Kimball (1995) called for a rejection of simplistic dichotomous thinking (about gender) and for the practice of double visions with regard to feminist theory and research on gender. Kimball’s reference to double visions originates in the postmodern position that we can only have partial knowledge and that partial knowledge is, by definition, not fully accurate. Accordingly, Kimball is suggesting that we are not forced to choose between one piece of partial knowledge and another. Thus, we do not have to choose between evidence that women are caring and evidence that women are aggressive. One might chose a particular position in a certain context or prefer a given perspective on gender, but, as Kimball has noted, practicing double visions means that neither alternative is foreclosed; feminist psychologists would recognize the partiality of any perspective and respect theoretical diversity. This means that we should actively resist making a choice and instead maintain a tension between/among the alternative positions. The way forward for feminist research, according to Tuana (1992) , is to avoid dichotomous thinking and either/or choices. In terms of the sex/gender difference debate, this could mean that we recognize that men and women are both alike and different or are alike in some settings and different in others ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ).

Double visions, or a dialectic approach to sex/gender, describes the movement between or among positions as a sophisticated and theoretically grounded practice. Previously, the perspective of individuals who vacillated between denying gender differences and focusing on the common experiences of women may have been labeled as contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent, or confused. This is similar to the problem of either focusing on the differences among women or examining the common experience of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Privileging the dialectic perspective legitimizes our current confusion, giving us permission to hold contradictory, paradoxical, and fragmented perspectives on gender and women’s experiences.

Applying a postmodern or dialectic approach can help to resolve epistemological and theoretical debates. For example, feminists and family researchers have been engaged in an ongoing debate about intimate partner violence as battering (of women by their male partners) or as family violence (equally perpetrated by men and women) ( McHugh, Livingston, & Ford, 2005 ). A postmodern or dialectic approach allows us to recognize how issues of method, sample, and conceptualization have contributed to the debate and to realize that, in a postmodern world, there is not a single truth, but multiple, complex, and fragmented perspectives. Thus, women may contribute to family violence, and battering may be perpetrated mostly by men against female intimates ( McHugh et al., 2005 ).

Ferguson (1991) and Haraway (1985) recommend irony as a way to resolve the dichotomous tensions created by two (seemingly opposing) projects or perspectives. In irony, laughter dissuades us from premature closure and exposes both the truth and the non-truth of each perspective. Ferguson (1991) describes irony as “a way to keep oneself within a situation that resists resolution in order to act politically without pretending that resolution has come” (p. 338). Similarly, Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) have encouraged the use of satire to expose and challenge the limitations of the scientific method; irony and satire can contribute to the transformation of both science and society.

Feminist scholars have taken issue with dominant disciplinary approaches to knowledge production. Feminist researchers have asked a range of questions, examined and adopted varied epistemological positions, and employed diverse methods. While employing varied methods, feminist researchers share a commitment to promote women’s freedom, to examine/expose oppression based on gender (and other subordinated statuses), and to revolt against institutions, practices, and values that subordinate and denigrate women.

Feminists have a long tradition of challenging the theories, methods, and “truths” that traditional social scientists believe to be real, objective, and value-free. Feminists have posed a serious challenge to the alleged value neutrality of positivistic social science. In an attempt to transform social science, feminists have developed innovative ideas, methods, and critiques, some of which were reviewed here. Classic and emergent qualitative methods have been deployed in a variety of contexts as feminist researchers critique traditional methods and assumptions and struggle to conduct research that empowers women or improves their lives. The current chapter represents an attempt to help researchers understand the methodological and epistemological underpinning of feminist research, to reflect on their own choice of methods, and to practice feminist research by engaging in a nonhierarchical and collaborative process that leads to an understanding of some aspect of women’s lives and contributes to the transformation of society. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007) have provided a guide to feminist research practice. In conclusion to their guide, Hesse-Biber (2007) characterized the research process as a “journey... where the personal and the political merge and multiple truths are discovered and voiced where there had been silence” (p. 348).

One possibility for the future is that increasing numbers of researchers will be exposed to the feminist critique of science and will contribute to the transformation of research by developing a postmodern or dialectical approach to research. According to a postmodern approach, the transformation of society begins with a transformation of our understanding of how and what we can know. Traditional approaches to knowledge constructed, confirmed, and constrained our understanding of gender and our ideas of what is possible. The postmodern position provides a powerful epistemological position for deconstructing rather than regulating gender ( Cosgrove, 2003 ). Thus, the transformation of science and research is an initial step toward the feminist transformation of gender and the dismantling of male dominance. Larner (1999) viewed the postmodern perspective as encouraging us to “think the unthought and ask questions unasked.”

However, changing the practices of science and social science so that we can better attend to issues of social injustice is neither an easy nor straightforward task. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) note that quantitative methods continue to be privileged over qualitative in a variety of ways. In my own experience, despite the varied epistemological perspectives and the array of methodological approaches available, the majority of research reported in journals and textbooks continues to employ empirical and quantitative methods. When qualitative methods are employed, they tend to be the established classic approaches, like open-ended survey interview questions that are thematically coded. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the top undergraduate research methods texts of 2009, I observed that qualitative methods were not substantially described or discussed in most texts, and feminist critiques or research were not mentioned ( Eagly, Eaton, & McHugh, 2011 ). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) cite research and university culture as supporting the status quo and limiting the use of innovative and emergent methods. Funding sources may contribute to conservativism in science, and gatekeepers, such as journal editors, may also limit researchers’ willingness to engage in innovative feminist research.

Although she was writing in 1988, Morawski could be talking about today when she suggests that a new (US) conservatism is indicated by recent losses in Affirmative Action, challenges to reproductive rights, and legislation that negatively affects large numbers of American women. She notes that feminist progress is transforming traditional social science but may easily become or remain mired in such a climate. In response to such a societal impasse, Morawski considers some possibilities for feminist deconstruction and reconstruction. She recommends that we continue to be critical and reflective and that we not commit the same errors that we have identified, for example, essentialism. She encourages us to develop a vision of emancipation, to use our imagination, creativity, and irony to overcome our current impasse.

Future Directions

Satire and irony represent one approach to the future of feminist research. “Through the resources of irony, we can think both about how we do feminist theory, and about which notions of reality and truth make our theories possible” ( Ferguson, 1991 , p. 339). Irony is also recognized by Shotter and Logan (1988) as a requisite for feminist research as it attempts to resist patriarchal thinking and practices even as it produces meaning within the current patriarchal context. They see the feminist research project as developing new practices while still making use of resources that are part of the old. Shotter and Logan argue for a feminist alternative that would “allow a conversation within which the creative, formative power of talk could be put to use in reformulating, redistributing and redeveloping both people’s knowledge of themselves and their immediate circumstances, and the nature of their practical-historical relations to one another” (p. 82). Moving forward toward an egalitarian community requires a reflection and understanding of our immediate practical relationships to one another, a consideration of “in what voices we allow to speak, and which voices we take seriously” (p. 83).

One form of irony, farce, involves exaggerated versions of a phenomena resulting in both laughter and sometimes a new understanding of the issues involved. Taking an ironic approach can lead to a richer and more complex picture and necessitates a re-visioning of the epistemological and methodological frameworks that underlie psychological research and feminist theory ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Although the empirical satiricism described by Cosgrove and McHugh (2008 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ) is a quantitative method, qualitative methods based on irony and satire can certainly be developed within the participatory action or performative approaches.

(Whereas my younger colleagues may need to limit their research to methods that are acceptable to funding sources and journal editors, I realize that I am not limited by these factors. A decade preretirement, I am in a position to use emergent methods to conduct research that challenges existing ideas regarding women and gender or advocates for marginalized women. I am willing to rethink (again) my epistemological and ontological perspectives, to go beyond my disciplinary boundaries, and to engage in dialectic thinking and irony. Although I may not be successful in jumping publication hurdles, there are alternative methods for distributing or performing transformative knowledge. I hope to conduct participatory and performative research that is ironic, even farcical, to incite new knowledge).

Multidisciplinary collaborations can contribute to the adoption of new perspectives and methods that ignore or transgress boundaries set by traditional disciplines that have served to restrict or constrain our conceptions on how to conduct research. The interdisciplinary practice of women’s studies has contributed to innovations in feminist research practice. Through women’s studies and other multidisciplinary approaches, feminists from more conservative disciplines can be introduced to postmodern perspectives and other post-postmodern and emerging forms of research. Feminists can contribute to progress by affirming, approving, and applauding the attempts at methodological innovation employed by others.

For example, feminist psychology in the United States has not yet taken the “performative turn,” although feminist researchers from other disciplinary contexts have. Leavy (2008) characterized performance as an interdisciplinary methodological genre used in a variety of fields including sociology, health, and education. Performance can be viewed as a new epistemological stance that disrupts conventional ways of knowing ( Gray, 2003 ). In a performance, individuals act out, and the performance is experienced “in the moment.” Profound theoretical insight can occur to researcher and audience alike when we shift from the representation of reality in written records to the flow of performance. In performance, the actors and the audience help to make or co-create the meaning, and understanding involves an interaction among members of the cast and the audience ( Leavy, 2008 ). Audience members do not need special skills or training to understand or appreciate a performance, and different perspectives on the performance may result in different interpretations or insights. Thus, the knowing that results from a performance is different from the meaning constructed by the researcher in more traditional research. Leavy (2008) points out the relevance of performance to feminist perspectives that emphasize the embodied experience of women (e.g., Bardo, 1989 ). Leavy (2008) described arts-based methods as a hybrid of arts and science; she characterized performative methods as innovative, dynamic, holistic, creative, as involving reflection and problem solving.

An aspect of the performative turn is the emerging interest in research on the mundane, or the study of the everyday. Contemporary nonrepresentational theory calls us to study the flow of everyday practices in the present rather than constructing post hoc interpretations of past events. Profound theoretical insight and innovations in methods could result if we were to shift from the representation of reality to the flow of performance, if we were to take the mundane or everyday practices of women seriously ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). This philosophical position builds on the phenomenological approach, an approach Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) have recommended for integration into feminist methods. This approach is also consistent with the position taken by some feminists that women’s ways of being in the world (i.e., as emotional and connected beings) have validity and importance and should not be eliminated in the name of rationality and science.

As early as 1988, Aebischer marveled at the feminist transformation that social science had undergone, when it had become possible to intellectually study “aspects of everyday life and everyday people and to be taken seriously.” Even then, she recognized the study of personal experiences, intimate relationships, emotional reactions, and body experiences as a significant transition from one value system to another. Contemporary calls for the exploration of the everyday reveal the extent to which social science in the past had been focused on the unusual, the non-normative, or the pathological. Emphasis on the exceptional, on public domains, on cognition, and on achievements (of men) reflects the androcentric bias of social science. Furthermore, traditional approaches to research such as the experiment, the survey, and systematic observation are not conducive to the study of everyday routines and experiences. Women’s everyday experiences such as gossip ( McHugh & Hambaugh, 2010) , feeling at home ( McHugh, 1996 ), and street harassment ( Sullivan, Lord, & McHugh, 2010 ) have traditionally not been valued as significant topics. In some ways, the current emphasis on the study of everyday lives is a continuation or an extension of an angle of vision adopted primarily within sociology ( Scott, 2009 ). Perhaps what is more innovative is the development of new and emerging methods, including the performative, for the study of affect and the everyday.

The study of the everyday experiences and routines of women is just one example of the directions that future US feminist researchers may take as they shift away from the limitations of logical positivism and, with postmodern permission, strategically adopt multiple ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives. Removing the methodological shackles of positivism, modernism, and empiricism, we can exercise epistemological and methodological freedom and move toward feminist research that transforms science and society and liberates women.

(Writing this chapter has been challenging and has caused me to further reflect on myself as a feminist researcher. I have recognized the barriers that have impeded my research in the past decades. Some of these barriers are personal and others are more about the reception that I have received as a feminist researcher and a postmodern theorist. I have reaffirmed the importance to myself of intrinsic motivation and finding meaning in my work, as opposed to external recognition. Through writing this chapter, I have come to an appreciation of the value of research that I have conducted (for example, on the meaning of home and the positive aspects of gossip) and could continue to conduct that provides partial and situated knowledge and research that adopts an emergent research method. I am inspired to pursue more feminist research and to encourage my students to employ varied and more innovative feminist methods.)

Alcoff, L. ( 2008 ). The problem of speaking for others. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 484–495). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Aebischer, V. ( 1988 ). Knowledge as a result of conflicting intergroup relations. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 142–151). New York: New York University Press.

Belenky, M. F. , Clinchy, B. M. , Goldberger, N. J. , & Tarule, J. M. ( 1986 ). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind . New York: Basic Books.

Bohan, J. ( 1993 ). Regarding gender: Essentialism, constructionism and feminist psychology.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 17 , 5–21.

Brodsky, A. ( 1973 ). The consciousness-raising group as a model for therapy with women.   Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice , 10 (1), 24–29. doi: 10.1037/h0087537.

Brooks, A. ( 2007 ). Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: Building Knowledge and Empowerment Through Women’s Lived Experience. In S. N. Hess-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp 53–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brooks, A., & Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 ). An invitation to feminist research. In S. N. Hess-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bleir, R. ( 1984 ). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women . New York: Pergamon.

Bardo, S. ( 1989 ). Feminism, postmodernism, and gender skepticism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 133–156). New York: Routledge.

Burman, E. ( 1997 ). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods.   Journal of Social Issues , 53 (4), 785–801.

Burr, V. ( 1995 ). An introduction to social constructionism . New York: Routledge.

Cabello, R. ( 1999 ). Negotiating the life narrative: A dialogue with an African American social worker.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 309–322.

Chrisler, J. C. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2011 ). Feminist psychology in the US: Positions and perspectives. In A. Rutherford , R. Capdevila , V. Undurti , & I. Palmary (Eds.), Handbook of international feminisms: Perspectives on psychology, women, culture, and rights (pp. 37–58). New York: Springer.

Code, L. ( 1995 ). How do we know? Questions of methods in feminist practice. In S. Burt & L. Code (Eds.), Changing methods; Feminists transforming practice . (pp 13–44). Orchard Park, New York: Broadview Press.

Collins, P. H. ( 1989 ). The social construction of black feminist thought.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture , 14 , 745–773.

Collins, P. H. ( 1990 ). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment . New York: Routledge.

Collins, P. H. ( 2008 ). Black feminist epistemology. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 247–256). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Cook, J. A., & Fonow, M. M. ( 1990 ). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In J. M. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cosgrove, L. (March, 1999). Developing social action research for homeless women . Paper presented to the Association for Women in Psychology, Providence, RI.

Cosgrove, L. ( 2002 ). Resisting essentialism in feminist therapy theory: Some epistemological considerations.   Women & Therapy , 25 (1), 89–112.

Cosgrove, L. ( 2003 ). Feminism, postmodernism, and psychological research.   Hypatia , 18 (3), 85–112.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2000 ). Speaking for ourselves: Feminist methods and community psychology.   American Journal of Community Psychology , 28 , 815–838.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2002 ). Deconstructing the difference: Conceptualizing feminist research from within the postmodern. In L. Collins , M. Dunlap, & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 20– 36). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2008 ). A post-Newtonian, postmodern approach to science: New methods in social action research. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods . (pp. 73–86). New York: Guilford.

Crawford, M., & Popp, D. ( 2003 ). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research.   Journal of Sex Research , 40 (1), 13–26.

Crenshaw, K. ( 1989 ). De-marginalizing the intersection of race and sex; A Black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.   University of Chicago Legal Forum , 4 , 139–167.

Davis, K. ( 1994 ). What’s in a voice? Methods and metaphors.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 353–361.

Deaux, K. ( 1984 ). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender.   American Psychologist , 39 , 105–116.

DeVault, M. ( 1990 ). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis.   Social Problems , 37 , 96–116.

Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. ( 2009 ). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Eagly, A. , Eaton, A., & McHugh, M. C. (March, 2011 ). Feminist transformation of psychology. Invited panel: Feminist science track , Association for Women in Psychology, Philadelphia.

Eagly, A. H. , Eaton, A. , Rose, S. M. , Riger, S. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2012 ). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender.   American Psychologist , 67 (3), 211–230.

Epstein, C. F. ( 1988 ). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ferguson, K. E. ( 1991 ). Interpretation and genealogy in feminism.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 16 (21), 322–339.

Fine, M. ( 1992 ). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fischer, C. T. , & Wertz, F. ( 1979 ). Empirical-phenomenological analyses of being criminally victimized. In A. Giorgi , R. Knowles , & D. L. Smith (Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 99–112). New York: Plenum Press.

Franz, C. E., & Stewart, A. J. ( 1994 ). Women creating lives: Identities, resilience, and resistance . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freire, P. ( 1970 ). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Continuum.

Friedman, S. ( 1998 ). Mappings: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of Encounter . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frieze, I. H. , Whitley, B. E. , Hanusa, B. H. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 1982 ). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure.   Sex Roles , 9 (4), 333–343.

Frieze, I. H. , McHugh, M. C. , & Hanusa, B. (Eds.), ( 1982 ). Sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure: A current assessment. (Special Issue) Sex Roles , 8 (4).

Garko, M. ( 1999 ). Existential phenomenology and feminist research.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 , 176–175.

Geiger, S. ( 1990 ). What’s so feminist about doing women’s oral history.   Journal of Women’s History , 2 , 169–182.

Gergen, K. J. ( 2001 ). Psychological science in a postmodern world.   American Psychologist , 56 , 803–813.

Gergen, M. , Chrisler, J. C., & LoCicero, A. ( 1999 ). Innovative methods: Resources for research, publishing and teaching.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 431–456.

Gergen, M. M. ( 1988 ). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the social sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 87–104). New York: New York University Press.

Gergen, M. M. ( 2010 ). Qualitative inquiry in gender studies. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds), Handbook of gender research in psychology. Volume 1 gender research in general and experimental psychology (pp. 103–131). NY: Springer.

Giorgi, A. ( 1985 ). Phenomenology and psychological research . Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Gray, R. ( 2003 ). Performing on and off the stage: The place(s) of performance in arts-based approaches to qualitative inquiry.   Qualitative Inquiry , 9 (2), 254–267.

Gremmen, I. ( 1994 ). Struggling at the crossroads.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 362–366.

Hall, B. ( 1979 ). Participatory research: Breaking the academic monopoly. In J. Niemi (Ed.), Viewpoints on adult education (pp. 43–69). Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

Hanish, C. ( 1969 ). The personal is political.   Feminist Revolution, March, pp 204–205.

Haraway, D. ( 1985 ). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism.   Socialist Review , 15 , 65–107.

Haraway, D. ( 2008 ). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 346–351). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Harding, S. ( 1986 ). The science question in feminism . Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. ( 1987 ). Feminism and Methodology . NY: Open University Press.

Harding, S. ( 1991 ). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. ( 2008 ). Borderlands epistemology. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 331–341). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. (Eds.), ( 1990 ). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. ( 1994 a). Asking the Right questions: Feminist psychology and sex differences.   Feminism and Psychology , 4 , 531–537.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. ( 1994 b). Feminism and postmodernism: Dilemmas and points of resistance.   Dulwich Centre Newsletter , 4 , 13–19.

Hare-Mustin, R . ( 1994 ). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy.   Family Process , 33 , 19–35.

Harstock, N. ( 1983 ). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (eds), Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science (pp 283–310). Boston: D. Reidel.

Hawkesworth, M. ( 2006 ). Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hennink, M. M. ( 2008 ). Emergent issues in international focus group discussions. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 a ). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 b ). Putting it together: Feminist research praxis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 329–349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (Eds.). ( 2007 ). Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Introduction: Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need for emergent methods within and across the disciplines. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press.

Hollway, W. ( 1989 ). Subjectivity and method in psychology: Gender, meaning and science . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hooks, b. ( 2000 ). Where we stand: Class matters . Routledge.

Hoshmand, L., & O’ Bryne, K. ( 1996 ). Reconsidering action research as a guiding metaphor for professional psychology.   Journal of Community Psychology , 24 , 185–200.

Hubbard, R. ( 1988 ). Some thoughts about the masculinity of the natural sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp 1–16). New York: New York University Press.

Husserl, E. ( 1970 ). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology . ( D. Carr , Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Hyde, J. S. ( 1986 ). The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Hyde, J. ( 1994 ). Should psychologists study gender differences? Yes, with some guidelines.   Feminism and Psychology , 4 (4), 507–512.

Jaggar, A. ( 2008 a). Forward. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. vii–xi). Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers.

Jaggar, A. ( 2008 b). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 378–391). Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers.

Keller, E. F. ( 1982 ). Science and gender.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 7 , 589–602.

Keller, E. F. ( 1985 ). Reflections on gender and science . New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Kelly, J. G. ( 1986 ). Content and process: An ecological view of the interdependence of practice and research.   American Journal of Community Psychology , 14 , 581–589.

Kimball, M. M. ( 1995 ). Feminist visions of gender similarities and differences . New York: Harrington Park Press.

Kitzinger, C. ( 1995 ). Introduction. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 1–9). London: Sage Publications.

Kitzinger, J. ( 1994 ). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants.   Sociology of Health and Illness , 16 , 103–121.

Larner, G. ( 1999 ). Derrida and the deconstruction of power as context and topic in therapy. In I. Parker (Ed.), Deconstructing psychotherapy . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lather, P. ( 1991 ). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern . New York: Routledge.

Lather, P. ( 1992 ). Postmodernism and the human sciences. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Postmodernism and psychology (pp. 88–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Layton, L. ( 1998 ). Who’s that girl? Who’s that boy? Clinical practice meets postmodern queer theory . Northvale, NJ: JaJ.J.son Aronson.

Leavy, P. ( 2007 ). Feminist postmodernism and poststructuralism. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice (pp. 83–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leavy, P. ( 2008 ). Performance based emergent methods. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 343–358). New York: The Guilford Press.

Leckenby, D., & Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 ). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Letherby, G. ( 2003 ). Feminist research in theory and practice . Philadelphia: Open University Press.

MacKinnon, C. A. ( 1990 ). Legal perspectives on sexual difference. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 213–225). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Maguire, P. ( 1987 ). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach . Boston: University of Massachusetts Center.

Maguire, P. ( 2008 ). Feminist participatory research. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.) Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 417–432). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Marks, D. ( 1993 ). Case conference analysis and action research. In E. Burman and I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action (pp. 135– 154). New York: Routledge.

Maynard, M. ( 1992 ). Methods, practice, and epistemology: The debate about feminism and research. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 10–26). London: Taylor and Francis.

Mayo, C. ( 1982 ). Training for positive marginality.   Applied Social Psychology Annual , 3 , 57–73.

McCall, L. ( 2005 ). The Complexity of Intersectionality.   Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society , 30 (3), 1771–1800.

McHugh, M. C. ( 1993 ). Studying battered women and batterers: Feminist perspectives on methodology. In M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (pp. 54–68). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

McHugh, M. C. (March, 1996). The gendering of home . Paper presented to the Association for Women in Psychology, Portland, OR.

McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. ( 1998 ). Research for women. In D. Ashcraft (Ed.), The work of women (pp. 19–43). New York: Haworth Press.

McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. ( 2002 ). Gendered subjects in psychology: Dialectic and satirical positions. In L. Collins , M. Dunlap, & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 3–19). Greenwood Press.

McHugh, M. C. , & Cosgrove, L. ( 2004 ). Feminist research methods: Studying women and gender. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 155–182). New York: Praeger.

McHugh, M. C., & Hambaugh, J. L. ( 2010 ). Gender, language, and power. In J. C. Chrisler & D. M. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in social and applied psychology (vol. I, pp. 379–410). New York: Springer.

McHugh, M. C. , Koeske, R. D. , & Frieze, I. H. ( 1986 ). Issues to consider in conducting non-sexist psychology: A guide for researchers.   The American Psychologist , 41 (8), 879–890.

McHugh, M. C. , Livingston, N. A., & Ford, A. ( 2005 ). A postmodern approach to women’s use of violence: Developing multiple and complex conceptualizations.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29 (3), 323–336.

McHugh, M. C. , Livingston, N., & Frieze, I. H. ( 2008 ). Intimate partner violence: Perspectives on research and intervention. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 555–589). Westport: Preager.

McHugh, M. C. , Sciarrillo, S. & Watson, B. ( 2012 ). Constructing women as sexy: Implications for coercive sexuality and rape. In D. Castaneda & M. Paludi (Eds.), An Essential Handbook of Women’s Sexuality , Praeger.

Morawski, J. ( 1988 ). Impasse in feminist thought. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 182–194). New York: New York University Press.

Morawski, J. ( 1994 ). Practicing feminism, reconstructing psychology: Notes on a liminal science . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Morgan, D. ( 2004 ). Focus groups. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 263–286) . New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, D., & Krueger, R. ( 1993 ). When to use focus groups and why. In D. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3–19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Nelson, J. L. ( 1989 ). Phenomenology as feminist methodology: Explicating interviews. In K. Carter and C. Spitzack (Eds.), Doing research on women’s communication: Perspectives on theory and method (pp. 221–241). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Oakley, A. ( 1981 ). Interviewing women: A contribution in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61) . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Parr, J. ( 1998 ). Theoretical voices and women’s own voices: The stories of mature women students. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research (pp. 87–102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. ( 1996 ). Discourse and psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior . London: Sage Publications.

Press, A. L. ( 1991 ). Working class women in a middle class world: The impact of television on modes of reasoning about abortion.   Critical Studies in Mass Communication , 8 , 421–441.

Pryse, M. ( 2000 ). Trans/feminist methodology: Bridges to interdisciplinary thinking.   National Women’s Studies Journal , 12 , 105.

Rappaport, J., & Stewart, E. ( 1997 ). A look at critical psychology: Elaborating the questions. (301–317). In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 301–317. London: Sage Publications.

Reinharz, S. ( 1992 ). Feminist methods in social research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Romero, M., & Stewart, A. J. ( 1999 ). Introduction. In M. Romero & A. J. Stewart (Eds.), Women’s untold stories: Breaking silence, talking back, voicing complexity (pp. ix– xxi). New York: Routledge.

Rosser, S. ( 2008 ). Gender inclusion, contextual values, and strong objectivity: Emergent feminist methods for research in the sciences. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 53–72). New York: Guilford Press.

Sandoval, C. ( 2000 ). Methodology of the oppressed . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). ( 1986 ). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct . New York: Praeger.

Schewan, N. ( 2008 ). Epistemology resuscitated: Objectivity as trustworthiness. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 401–413). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Schiebinger, L. ( 1999 ). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scott, S. ( 2009 ). Making sense of everyday life . Maldin, MA: Polity Press.

Sherif, C. W. ( 1979 ). Bias in psychology. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 37–57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Shields, S. A. ( 1975 ). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth.   American Psychologist , 30 , 739–754.

Shotter, J., & Logan, J. ( 1988 ). The pervasiveness of patriarchy: On finding a different voice. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 69–86). New York: New York University Press.

Smith, C. A. , Johnston-Robledo, I. , McHugh, M. C. , & Chrisler, J. C. ( 2010 ). The language of gender. In J. C. Chrisler & D. M. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in social and applied psychology (vol. I, pp. 361–378). New York: Springer.

Smith, D. ( 1987 ). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, D. ( 2008 ). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In A. Jaggar (Ed.). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 39–43). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Smith, D. E. ( 1990 ). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge , Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. ( 1993 ). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology . New York: Routledge.

Sullivan, H. , Lord, T. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2010 ). Creeps and Casanovas: Experiences, explanations and effects of street harassment. In M. Paludi & F. Denmark (Eds.), Victims of sexual assault and abuse: Resources and responses for individuals and families (pp. 237–258). Westport: Praeger.

Sullivan, H., & McHugh, M. C. (March, 2009). Sluts and studs: Teaching the double standard . Paper presented to The Association for Women in Psychology, Newport, RI.

Tavris, C. ( 1994 ). Reply to Brown and Gilligan.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 350–352.

Tuana, N. ( 1992 ). The radical future of feminist empiricism.   Hypatia , 7 (1), 100–114.

Unger, R. ( 1983 ). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet!   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 8 , 9–31.

Unger, R. ( 1988 ). Psychological, feminist and personal epistemology: Transcending contradictions. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 124–141). New York: New York University Press.

Unger, R. ( 1998 ). Resisting gender: Twenty five years of feminist psychology . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Unger, R. K. ( 1979 ). Female and male: Psychological perspectives . New York: Harper & Row.

Ussher, J. ( 1991 ). Women and madness: Misogyny or mental illness? London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Westkoff, M. ( 1979 ). Feminist criticism of the social science.   Harvard Educational Review , 49 (4), 422–430.

Wallston, B. S. ( 1981 ). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 5 , 597–617.

Whitley, B. E. , McHugh M. C. , & Frieze, I. H. ( 1986 ). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wilkinson, S. (Ed.). ( 1986 ). Feminist social psychology . Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Wilkinson, S. ( 1998 ). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction and co-construction of meaning.   Women’s Studies International , 21 (1), 111–125.

Wilkinson, S. ( 1999 ). Focus groups: A feminist method.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 221–244.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives . London: Sage Publications.

Wiley, A. ( 1990 ). Feminism in philosophy of science: Making sense of contingency and constraint. In M. Fricker & J. Hornsby (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy (pp. 166–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, A. , Okruhlik, K. , Thielen-Wilson, L. , & Morton, S. ( 1989 ). Feminist critiques of science: The epistemological and methodological literature.   Women’s Studies International Forum , 12 (3), 379–388.

Worrell, J. , & Etaugh, C. (Eds.). ( 1994 ). Transforming theory and research with women: Themes and variations.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 18 (4), 433–440.

Yuval-Davis, N. ( 1997 ). Women, ethnicity, and empowerment: Towards transversal politics. In N. Yuval-Davis (Ed.), Gender and nation (pp. 116–133). London: Sage Publications.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Gender-Competent Legal Education pp 183–213 Cite as

Gender Research and Feminist Methodologies

• Zara Saeidzadeh 4  
• Open Access
• First Online: 03 January 2023

10k Accesses

1 Altmetric

Part of the book series: Springer Textbooks in Law ((SPTELA))

This chapter is structured around the issue of gender research and what it means to conduct research with a gender perspective. Thus, it discusses research methodologies inspired by feminist ontological and epistemological approaches. Drawing on feminist standpoint theory, situated knowledge, feminist poststructuralism and intersectionality, the chapter shows how feminist scholars, especially feminist legal scholars, have adopted feminist epistemologies in challenging gender inequalities in law and society. The chapter draws on legal methods combined with feminist social theories that have assisted feminist scholars to go about legal reforms. Furthermore, focusing on qualitative methods, the chapter explains some of the methods of data collection and data analysis in gender research which have been applied interdisciplinarily across social science and humanities studies. The last part of the chapter concentrates on practical knowledge about conducting gender research that is informed with feminist epistemologies and methodologies. Finally, through some exercises, the students are given the opportunity to design and outline a gender research plan with a socio-legal approach.

Gender research

• Situated knowledge
• Discursive construction of law and gender
• Feminist legal methodologies
• Intersectionality
• Research design

Download chapter PDF

1 Introduction

Feminist scholars have been conducting research criticizing traditional and male dominated research and knowledge production. Therefore, feminists have proposed alternative methodologies which are informed by a variety of epistemological and ontological approaches across different disciplines including law and sociology. This chapter draws on feminist methodologies including feminist critical legal studies through a gender sensitive lens, in other words, feminist socio-legal approach in gender research (aims, objectives, outcomes).

Learning Goal

The first learning objective of the chapter is to elaborate on how feminist research methodologies are developed in order to contribute to the production of knowledge about social reality; a production of knowledge that is not based on male dominated perspectives. Thus, it stresses the distinctiveness of feminist methodologies from traditional and patriarchal mainstream methodologies. In the process of knowledge production, feminist researchers have attempted to make connection between the idea of gender, gender equality, experience, and the reality of intersectional gender discrimination. Consequently, feminist research methodologies move from the mainstream scientific methods, from only collecting data for objective purposes, towards gender sensitive data collection and analysis. Feminist methodologies aim to produce knowledge through ethical and political perspectives, which focus on the critique and overcoming of gender blind scientific approach, in addition to the articulation of gender equality contents, concepts, conceptions, aims, objectives and outcomes. Feminist methodologies also aim at producing a so-called situated knowledge, which encompasses active role of the subject of creating the knowledge in the process of knowledge production.

The second objective of the chapter is to show diversity among feminist epistemologies that opt for challenging power structure in various ways which capture complexities of gender and gender relations. It shows how feminist methodologies have developed from focusing on the category of women to moving beyond emphasizing women’s commonality, which risks suppressing important differences existing among women who live life differently. There is a diversity of experiences in different social positions; white, black, heterosexual, lesbian, poor, privileged, colonized.

The third objective of the chapter is to put an emphasis on qualitative methods in feminist research based on the feminist epistemologies presented in the chapter. Qualitative research method is thought to be the most appropriate to investigate the complex socio-historical, political, relational, structural and material existence of gender. Thus, qualitative methods of data collections such as interviews and documents are described. Qualitative methods of analysis including thematic analysis, document analysis and discourse analysis in conducting socio-legal research are also included.

Finally, the fourth objective of this chapter is to provide the necessary knowledge and practical skills on academic writing. Writing an academic paper is challenging when it is based on research. Feminist writings are grounded on gender sensitive approach to political and ethical reflections which stand out across disciplines. Such reflections ought to be weighed more in educational purposes.

The key concepts that are covered in this chapter are:

Epistemology and ontology in feminist research

Situated knowledge and women’s experiences

Reflexivity and positionality

Feminist standpoint theory

Discourse and discursive construction of power

Feminist legal methods

Feminist intersectionality research

Research design and research strategy

Thematic analysis, critical discourse analysis and document analysis

2 Gender Research

This section introduces the notion of gender research, and conducting research from a gender perspective. It explains why it is important to conduct gender research and how methodologies are adopted to carry out research within the field of law and sociology with an emphasis on gender. Applying gender perspective in research refers to the analysis of gender as a social construct that impacts all aspects of people’s lives with regards to social interactions and extends to intimate relations. Gender perspective in research questions unequal power relations in social structures. Moreover, gender perspective in social and legal research pays careful attention to the process of knowledge production in relation to power structure and contributes to development of gender equality within law and society.

The kind of research that only documents differences between the sexes offers no understanding of gender relations and gender practices, neither does it elaborate on the gendering process of laws and policies. Therefore, legal scholars have adopted methodologies with gender perspective to show an approach that recognizes multiple dimensions of gendered relations and power structure in the legal system. Gender research in sociological studies problematises hierarchical power relations between genders in everyday life and integrates diversity of social structures such as race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic status, age, and disability into analysis of structural inequalities. Footnote 1 What’s more, Gender researchers have addressed traditional bias by adopting alternative methods of qualitative and quantitative data collection, that not only pay attention to gender differences, but also captures the complexity of gender relations. Footnote 2

2.1 Gender Research in Law and Society

Why is it important to conduct gender research through analysing the interaction between law and society?

The emergence of gender studies as a field of research has contributed to critical study of law as being a rule of the state. Gender studies have explored law as a social process that is discursively constructed. Understanding law as a social phenomenon challenges the mainstream ‘black letter’ definition of law as fixed and immutable. Gender research that is conducted by sociolegal scholars have attended to the lack of gender sensitivity in law using critical social theories. Examples of such are matters of sexual harassment and domestic violence.

Legal policies are constituted in interaction with social norms and realities that are often gendered. Gendered social relations and practices have taken shape through historicity of sociocultural, political, and economic processes. Therefore, gender research helps to tease out the ways in which legal and social policies and practices shape people’s lives. Law is an important and constitutive element of social life and gender is an important and constitutive element of human being. Together, the two are important in such research and more pressing in educational practices of law and gender.

Studying a social phenomenon with an emphasis on gender at interplay between law and society is important in many ways. It analyses law in terms of its power, potential and actual shortcomings in society. It investigates social realities of gender relations and constructions within law. It explores gendered social and legal process, and practices of legislation, judgements, jurisprudence and advocacy among legal professionals and institutions.

3 Feminist Research Methodologies

This section covers the ways in which feminist epistemologies as opposed to traditional and objective epistemologies have been developed to adopt methodologies for gender research. Feminist methodologies emerged from feminist politics, being feminist theories and practices. This section reflects on three feminist methodological approaches in studying gender and gender relations, which will be explained in the following subsections.

Feminist research does not stem from a unified set of thought and perspective. However, feminist perspectives do share common ideas. These common ideas imply that feminist research reflects on marginalization of women in social and political life. Footnote 3 Moreover, feminist research criticizes dominant norms of science which maintain male superiority by problematising hierarchical gender power relations and by establishing research approaches that are based on equal grounds. Footnote 4

Methodology concerns the use of theories and methods in conducting research, which are informed by different epistemological and ontological approaches. In criticizing traditional and male dominated research, feminists have proposed alternative methodologies which are informed by their epistemology and ontology; the ways in which one understands the world and the knowledge produced about the world.

Feminist methodologies claim that knowledge is produced within a context in which meanings and experience cannot be simply distinguished. Footnote 5 In the process of knowledge production, feminist scholars and researchers have tried to make connection between idea, experience, and reality. Footnote 6 Moreover, feminist research is based on, and feeds, feminist theoretical perspectives which are a considerable part of feminist politics, challenging male-biased knowledge production and power. Thus, feminist researchers have consciously developed theories based on practice. Therefore, most researches that are conducted by feminists draw on experiences, especially women’s experiences. Footnote 7

Feminist epistemologies identify how gender influence our conception of knowledge and practices of inquiry. Footnote 8 Feminist epistemologies problematize how dominant conceptions and practices of knowledge production exclude and subordinate some groups of people, including women. Thus, feminist epistemologies offer diverse accounts of how to overcome this problem by developing new theories and methods. Central to this endeavour is situated knowledge, a kind of knowledge that reflects a particular position of the knower. Situated knowledge means that the situatedness of the subject in relation to the power structure produces a type of knowledge that problematizes the ‘universal’ male-dominated knowledge. Footnote 9 Donna Haraway reminds researchers how to tell the truth rather than proving how objective is the truth, by introducing the concept of situated knowledge. She encourages feminist researchers to hold on to the notion of partial visions instead of struggling to reduce their research to patriarchal knowledge. Footnote 10

Feminist epistemologies focus on how the social location of an individual affects everyday life experiences, and how social structures are based on factors such as; gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, age, place and socioeconomic status. These factors are imbued with power which ultimately results in situated knowledge. Thus, feminist epistemologies have opted for various ways to understand social phenomena and the ways in which knowledge is produced. This chapter explains standpoint theory, poststructuralism and intersectionality. However, it should be mentioned that feminist methodologies are developed across disciplines, adopting different approaches including; critical realism, historical materialism, new materialism and social structuralism to name but a few. Footnote 11

Feminist researchers in various disciplines, including feminist legal scholars, have discussed how to incorporate feminist theories, women’s experiences and knowledge production through gendered social relations into their analyses. That is to say, the following methodological approaches: standpoint theory, poststructuralism, intersectionality have also been employed by feminist researchers in legal studies. It should be mentioned that the following methodologies are chosen for students to understand how only some feminist methodologies are applied due to the limited scope of this chapter. Therefore, it does not imply rigid classification of these methodologies nor does it suggest they should be prefered in conducting gender research.

3.1 Feminist Standpoint Theory

This approach emerged in the 1970s out of discussions among feminists regarding masculinist science defining ‘women’ based on biology. Sandra Harding and Nancy Hartstock are known to be pioneer of this approach. Feminist standpoint theory finds out how knowledge production is entrenched with power relations. Feminist standpoint varies as different approaches are taken among feminists, which itself informs variety of feminist epistemological positions.

Feminist standpoint’s central conception is that women’s experiences speak the truth, resulting in the creation of knowledge that is situated in relation to power. Footnote 12

In privileging women’s standpoint, this epistemological stand presents strong reasons for how women understand the world differently from men in social division of labour. Feminist standpoint essentially adds gender to the already existing class analysis in scientific research.

Taking a feminist standpoint approach means to emphasize women’s lives as they experience life differently from men. This is required to fully understand the relationship between experience, reality and knowledge, meaning it would be possible to remedy the kinds of misrepresentation and exclusion of women from dominant knowledge. According to Patricia Hill Collins, making knowledge claims about women must involve women’s concrete experience to make that knowledge claim credible. Women’s experiences refer to activities in everyday life including emotions and embodiment. Footnote 13

For feminist standpoint theorists, knowledge is partial and does not implicate universal truth. Instead, it indicates the relations between power and knowledge. Empirical study is needed to investigate the specific forms of power, social relation and social positionality. Footnote 14

Knowledge is constituted through everyday life. The everyday life of people is authoritative knowledge, as Dorothy Smith describes through ‘work knowledge’. Footnote 15 A woman’s standpoint begins to unravel the underpinnings of gender. However, experience must be spoken or written for it to come in to existence, meaning it does not exist before its entry to language as authentic. Therefore, experience is already discursively determined by the discourse in which it is spoken. Footnote 16

Feminist legal scholars have adopted feminist standpoint theory to draw on women’s point of view and experiences of matters in life which have been systematically excluded from legislations and supportive legal mechanisms. (Please see all the other chapters of the Textbook especially Sociology of Law chapter).

3.2 Feminist Poststructuralism

Influenced by literary criticism, poststructuralism emerged in the 1960s in France. Many thinkers of this philosophy such as Jacque Derrida, Michel Foucault and Julia Kristeva were initially structuralist thinkers who became critical to structuralism and abandoned the idea. Therefore, poststructuralism was created. It is fair to say that the work of thinkers who were initially known as structuralists, was developed to a more fluid and complex kind of idea called poststructuralism.

Poststructuralism upholds that language produces meanings which constitutes subjects. Poststructural theories explain how discourse produces subjects. How do discourses function and what are their effects in society.

The lines between postmodernism and poststructuralism are blurry and many have argued that the two cannot be assumed separately. Postmodern theory emerged in response to the limitation of modernism and the metanarratives produced by modernists. Footnote 17 Poststructuralism (i.e. Derrida) is usually associated with a theory of knowledge and language, while postmodernism (i.e. Foucault and Lyotard) is often linked to theory of society, culture and history. Footnote 18

Feminists allied with postmodern and post-structural themes on fluidity of identities, and some have opted for deconstruction of identities, such as category of woman. Furthermore, the rejection of epistemology altogether is also said to be taken by postmodern feminists who aim to abandon any attempt to claim knowledge. Footnote 19

Feminist poststructuralism transcends situatedness by stressing on locality, partiality, contingency and ambiguity of any view of the world. Footnote 20 Feminists started to revise the standpoint theory. Hartstock, for example, made a revision to her original presentation of standpoint approach, in which she says that emphasizing women’s commonality will risk suppressing important differences existing between women and their life experiences in different social positions; white, black, heterosexual, lesbian, poor, privileged, colonized and so on. Footnote 21 According to poststructuralism, reality is socially and discursively constructed. Thus, feminist poststructuralists do claim that gender is socially and discursively constructed as a result of the effect of social regulations.

Postmodern feminist researchers criticize feminist standpoint and feminist empiricism for being essentialists in the ways they use identity categories such as women, due to their focus on gender differences that are portrayed as essential and universal. Footnote 22 Poststructuralist scholar Joan Scott criticizes standpoint theory and its focus on women’s experience which she argues exists in language and discourse, hence the discourses of women’s experiences are constructed beyond the speaker or writer’s intention. Footnote 23 In poststructuralist epistemology, power is understood as discursive and not the property of one gender. Thus, agency of the subject, according to feminist poststructuralist view is not free from discursive power.

Feminist poststructuralism, usually known as third wave feminism, problematizes the binary category of male and female, and argue that language and discourse create gendered subject through interactive process of everyday life. Footnote 24 It shows how relations of power are produced and reproduced. Thus, it subscribes to knowledge being produced discursively through particular social and historical contexts. According to feminist poststructuralism, the subject is basically dead, one’s subjectivity and understanding of self is constructed through discourse. Hence, the agency of the subject is limited, as Judith Butler holds that ‘the subject is not just a product a constitutive force of her discursive practices, it rather is a disruptor of the process through which she is constituted’. Footnote 25

Feminist legal scholars’ approach to law as a social phenomenon, seeing law as being discursively constructed, has led them to decentralize the states’ power and push forward for gender equal legal reforms. (please see Sociology of Law chapter).

3.3 Feminist Intersectionality

The concept of intersectionality is said to be developed by Black feminism in 1980s, particularly by Kimberlé Crenshaw who focused on the intersection of gender and race. She defined the concept of intersectionality as a different way in which the factor of race, along with gender, affect the ways black women experience employment and social life. The experiences of women of colour were excluded and lost in forms of multiple discrimination and marginalization. Footnote 26 It is worth noting that long before the inception of the concept of intersectionality, feminists had already been analysing gender at intersection with other structures of dominations such as class. For example, US feminist anti-slavery movement in the nineteenth century. Footnote 27 Therefore, we can say that the early use of the concept of intersectionality in feminist practice was based on the intersection of at least two axes of domination. This included gender and race, or gender and class, yet was not considered in either politics or research. Intersectionality has brought a conceptual shift in feminist philosophy and research through which scholars understand social actors.

Feminist intersectionality focuses on multidimensional and multi layered understandings of power and knowledge. To understand power relations in production of knowledge, it is important to know how subjects are situated; the situatedness or social location of people in the intersections of power. Situatedness engender knowledge from specific circumstances where power struggle is immediately at work, and when a particular type of knowledge is generated.

The recent work of feminists on intersectionality focuses on multiple forms of systems of dominations and privileges. Thus, in intersectionality research, the perspective of multiple marginalized groups is included in analysis, including the social experiences of privileged groups. The consequence here is to problematise and challenge universalisation. Footnote 28 For example, the category of woman as a universal aspect is challenged. Furthermore, intersectionality research illustrates that no one single factor is the reason for marginalisation and dominance; they are part of a broader pattern. According to Kathy Davis, “intersectionality is the interaction between gender, race, and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional arrangements and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power”. Footnote 29

Power is an important element in intersectional analysis. Feminist studies, together with anti-racist, postcolonial, queer studies, masculinity and disability studies, continue to enhance how norms are constructed and how power relations interact with each other. “Intersections of power can be found in all relations, at all levels of social structure from individual actions to institutional practice”. Footnote 30

The aim of employing intersectionality in feminist research is not to simply add as many categories as possible to our analysis, but to broaden the perspective and reflect on what factors may be relevant in a particular context, with specific socio-historical and spatial context. “An intersectional approach goes beyond just identifying power patterns. It is applied to problematizing the underlying social categories and see how these are reinforced or challenged”. Footnote 31

Feminist legal scholars have critically analysed the one-dimensional approach of law through intersectional perspective. Intersectional analysis has enabled feminist legal scholars in their legal analysis and judgments to scrutinize the multiplicity of underpinning social structures of both oppression and privilege at macro, meso and micro levels. Thus, relationality of social structures of gender, sexuality, class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, (dis)ability is being analysed with respect to socio-historicity of the context.

The formation of intersectionality has not been without criticism. Scholars often remain critical towards the use of intersectionality as an additional component of research. The critiques extend to debate that in trying to present multiple forms of discrimination and oppression, the grounds of intersectionality are used as additive and multiplicative approaches. This often reduces oppression to discrete categories of sexism, racism, heterosexism, classism. Footnote 32

4 Feminist Legal Methodologies

This section provides an overview of the development of feminist legal methods in doing and making laws. This extends from asking the woman’s question, to addressing other genders and multiple forms of gender inequality approach, through methods such as feminist judgments and gender mainstreaming applying intersectional analysis (i.e., gender, race, class, sexuality etc.).

4.1 Feminist Legal Methods

What are feminist legal methods? Feminists have long been criticizing law and what the law should entail. Therefore, they have proposed legal reforms which recognize women and other marginalized groups, including provision for, and protection of, their needs and rights in different areas of law.

In order to challenge power structures, feminists have defined their own methods of legal analysis; without having methods, feminists claims about law would have been dismissed. Footnote 33 Bartlett explains that “feminists like other lawyers use a range of methods of conventional legal reasoning such as deduction, induction, analogy and general techniques”. However, what distinguishes feminist legal methods from the traditional legal methods is that feminist legal methods try to “unveil legal issues which are overlooked and suppressed by traditional methods”. Footnote 34

Feminist legal methods are strongly imbued with feminist theoretical and methodological approaches. The following sections explain how feminist legal methods have adopted standpoint theory, by including women’s and other ‘marginalized’ genders into law making and legal reasonings adopting feminist intersectional approach. Furthermore, the section explains how feminist socio-legal scholars have adopted poststructuralist methodologies to problematize gendered power relations. This is achieved through discursive analysis and active engagement with practices of law and society, to rewrite judgments and policies through gender perspective.

4.1.1 From women’s Question to Multiple Gender Inequality

Feminist legal methods are seen as contributor to the modification of traditional legal methods, dominated by heterosexual male perspective. Legal methods were first initiated and adopted by feminists for practical reasoning and consciousness raising on issues experienced by women. Feminist legal methods, according to Bartlett, is about discussions over what kind of methodology feminist legal theory should adopt to identify and problematize the existing legal structure. Footnote 35 Feminist legal methods started to develop by problematising those parts of law that are discriminatory towards women. In other words, including women’s perspectives into legal methods and ask questions from women’s point of views.

Feminist legal methods, three methods as explained by Bartlett, are as follows. The first method is about asking the question of women, which is applied to expose how the substance of law subtly excludes the perspectives of women. So, feminist legal method considers the experience of women and asks the women’s question in law.

The case of Myra Bradwell vs. State of Illinois in 1873 asked the United States Supreme Court about why women are excluded from practicing law and why women are not included in the privileges and immunities of citizenship according to 14th amendment. This led to Illinois legislation prohibiting gender discrimination in occupation. Footnote 36

The second method regards feminist practical reasoning that is applied to move beyond the traditional notion of legal relevance in legal decision making. Practical reasoning is more sensitive to the cases, instead of simply reflecting already established legal doctrine. In this method, the reasoning is dependent on women’s context and experiences, which are unique.

The issue of abortion among teenagers is contingent on specific situations. Actual and specific circumstances might not be in favour of pregnant children who ought to obtain their parents’ consent, as it might lead to abusive behaviours of parents forcing pregnancy on the child.

The third method covers consciousness raising, which is applied to examine how legal principles correspond directly with people’s personal experience. Footnote 37 Consciousness raising is a process through which one reveals experience for collective empowerment. Personal experience becomes a political matter.

Women employ consciousness raising method when they share their experiences of rape and sexual assault publicly through MeToo campaign.

Critiques have raised some shortcomings with regards to the practicality of feminist legal methods focusing on women only. They have argued that the focus on the elimination of bias against women is limiting and such methods will be used by legal professionals who are not necessarily feminists, and certainly not all legal decision makers are concerned about the women’s question. Moreover, feminist legal method is criticized for its biased focus on women and women’s way of thinking, which is discussed to be elevating women over other issues such as disability, racism, poverty and ethnicity to name but a few. It is argued, as a consequence, this would ultimately lead to privilege of women’s experiences over other groups of people. Footnote 38

4.1.2 Intersectional Perspective in Law

Previously, the dominant kind of civil society activism within the EU had usually focused on one particular identity category when acted against discrimination which resulted in a way that, “the EU equality and anti-discrimination policies addressed specific groups of people as being subject of inequality and discrimination. For example, women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities were only targeted in relation to one single dimension of inequality and discrimination such as either gender or ethnicity or sexuality”. Footnote 39 Instead of foregrounding one category over others for addressing discrimination, Hancock has proposed academic researchers should adopt multiple approach to inequality. This approach recognizes that people are not one-dimensional with grounds of inequality being manifold and multiple. In turn, this demands recognition of multiple discriminations in law. Footnote 40 However, an intersectionality approach has been argued to replace ‘multiple discrimination’ approach in research, because the multiple discrimination approach might lead to focusing on inequality grounds at individual level, rather than accounting for discrimination at structural level.

Intersectionality and intersectional perspective in law and policies concerning European institutions has not yet been adequately used to deal with intersectional violence and discrimination. Intersectionality within law reveals and tackles violence against women who are marginalized due to the interplay of different structural and individual reasons. Footnote 41 Intersectionality in law is not just about understanding the ways in which discrimination is experienced on grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on. Intersectional perspective in law also unveils the structural barriers that produce social inequalities.

Intersectionality in law has been discussed in relation to antidiscrimination laws and gender-based violence in Europe. The problem with law is that it does not acknowledge fluidity and intersecting elements of people’s lives. It often focuses on one element of a human being. Most laws tend to adopt a one-dimensional approach. For example, in law on violence against women, the law usually addresses violence as crime that occurred on one ground and that is usually identity. Footnote 42 Other grounds of inequality such as sexuality, class, age, ethnicity, disability in protecting violence against women are rarely considered by legal policies.

Although the legal framework of the Council of Europe’s Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR) allows lawyers and judges to have an intersectional perspective, Footnote 43 it has remained less practiced on the ground among legal professionals and within legal culture. Namely, given the behaviour and attitudes of legal professionals towards law, it is rare to examine, for example, the intersection of heterosexism or patriarchy in relation to sexist or racial behaviour. To demonstrate this, the cases of forced sterilization of Muslim Roma women in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungry at ECtHR which were either settled or declared inadmissible in 2016 Footnote 44 did not involve intersectional analysis of gender, age, class, ethnicity and religion. Bello discusses how the application of intersectionality within legal reasoning can contribute to protection of Roma women’s rights. Footnote 45

An Intersectional approach is also hugely missing within European national and international laws with regards to LGBTQIA+ groups of people who are immigrants, refugees, sex workers, domestic workers, and disabled. The EU policies have not adequately taken an intersectional approach addressing inequalities among and within LGBTQIA+ groups who experience violence and discrimination differently. Moreover, laws and policies often homogenize lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex people as one identity category, lumping them altogether into one cluster of entity. This has often overlooked people’s different needs. An inequality ground for a gay person may not be a concern for a trans persons. The intersectional approach within and among each group would allow for specific and common policy objectives. Footnote 46

4.2 Feminist Socio-Legal Methods

The term socio-legal has a broad definition that might differ in different contexts. The main component of socio-legal study is that it acknowledges the law is not just the product of the state. Rather, it is a product of social processes and practices. Footnote 47 Feminists have adopted social theories in combination with legal methods to criticize the role of law, not as law in the books, instead law in the context in creating and reinforcing gendered relations and practices. During the past few decades, feminist socio-legal scholars have worked with feminist methodological approaches, including poststructuralism and intersectionality, to highlight the “the implications of gendered power relations in law and society”. Footnote 48 (see chapter on Sociology of Law).

4.2.1 Feminist Judgements

As part of critical legal scholarship and legal reforms, feminist legal scholars, judges, lawyers and activists have engaged in specific cases to provide critical analyses of law in construction of gender. In their attempt to re-write judgments, they tackle power relations and problematise judicial and legal norms embedded in society. Footnote 49 Feminist judgements have impacted legal understanding and gender equality policies through socially engaging with matters such as marriage, parenthood, sexual consent, rape, and domestic violence. Moreover, feminist judgements consider the concept of judging as a ‘social practice’ which does not take place in isolation. Footnote 50 (Please see chapter on Feminist Judgement).

4.2.2 Gender Mainstreaming

Feminists have defined and debated gender mainstreaming differently, although the transformative potential of gender mainstreaming, that is revealing patriarchal structures and bringing marginalized issues into the centre of policy and law making, has been consistently valued.

Gender mainstreaming became the focus of international attention through adoption of the Beijing platform for action at the UN conference in 1995. The Amsterdam treaty imagined gender equality within all activities in the EU in 1997. The Council of Europe defined gender mainstreaming as a way to call for “incorporation of gender equality perspective into all policies at all levels and stages of policy making”. Footnote 51 Gender mainstreaming involves discursive analysis of the process and practices, through which laws and policies are created. Dragica Vujadinović emphasizes the necessity of gender mainstreaming to a gender sensitive approach within legal education. Vujadinovic shows how this is mostly non-existent in universities across the globe, including universities in developed ‘Western countries’ and the European Union. Footnote 52 Introducing gender mainstreaming projects in different countries depends on their approach to gender equality. For example, a broader approach to gender equality rather than conceiving it in terms of equal opportunities and equal treatment, allows for incorporating gender mainstreaming or a gender sensitive approach in educational practices.

Moreover, gender mainstreaming has provided opportunities for feminists to problematize ‘gender blindness’ at an institutional level, in public services and private matters.

5 Feminist Empirical Methods of Gender Research

This section describes the steps in conducting empirical sociological and qualitative research with a gender perspective. It explains the process of research including research design, research plan, research methods and method analysis. It should be noted that feminist research can be based on empirical as well as theoretical studies.

5.1 Feminist Positionality and Reflexivity

Feminist researchers study power relations, and yet unequal power relations are always present between the researcher and the subjects of research. Therefore, it is crucial to reflect upon the existing unequal power relations between the researcher and the research participants throughout the process of knowledge production. One should begin by clarifying one’s own positionality in relation to the research, as well as one’s position in relation the research participants. Conducting qualitative study based on fieldwork and sharing the findings collected from people, would be best done through destabilising power hierarchies. This is a task that feminist researchers have achieved by applying reflexivity into their theory and methods. Feminist researchers tend to define their positionality within research to avoid claiming objective truth in the process of knowledge production. Footnote 53

Feminist approaches to mainstream methodology vary, because they try to discover reliable accounts of socially constituted ‘reality’ rather than reproducing the ‘objective’ truth. Feminists have taken different approaches to challenge mainstream scientific methods of knowledge production, which aim to criticize universal criteria for knowledge claim. The feminist approaches that are elaborated in this chapter are: feminist standpoint theory or epistemology, feminist post-structuralism and feminist intersectionality.

As for research ethics, conducting empirical research based on interviews, for example, require researchers to obtain ethical approval; the practical aspect of research ethics. Ethical considerations in research are not limited to obtaining permissions. Ethics involve the ways in which the researcher relates to the research participants, and the data and information gathered from the research participants. Feminist research ethics emphasizes on the coproduction of knowledge with the research participants. Footnote 54 Researchers need to address ethical issues in qualitative research with regards to informed consent, privacy, and protection of information and lives of research participants, during and after the fieldwork.

5.2 Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Due to feminists’ criticism of traditional research being reliant on quantitative methods in the social sciences, increased use of qualitative research is suggested to better understand people’s social life. The dialogue between quantitative and qualitative researchers has continued for decades, as to which method better captures complexities of social issues. The use of quantitative data in conjunction with qualitative material is encouraged by feminist researchers to develop feminist theories.

Quantitative research has a numeric and statistical approach. It employs strategies and methods of data collection such as surveys and other statistical instruments through which information can be quantified. Footnote 55 Quantitative research consists of experiments that either test or confirm the existing theories. Therefore, the research is independent of the researcher in a quantitative method, tending to give an objective account of reality.

Three broad classifications of quantitative research are identified: descriptive, experimental, and causal comparative. The descriptive approach examines the current situation as it exists. The experimental approach investigates an independent variable in a study and then measures the outcome. The causal comparative approach examines how an independent variable is affected by a dependent variable, before analysing the cause-and-effect relationships between the variables. Footnote 56 Moreover, different methods of examination are used in quantitative research such as correlational design, observational studies, and survey research.

Qualitative research has a holistic approach. It does not entail a fixed definition, as the nature of qualitative research is deemed ‘ever-changing’. This is due to the variety of frameworks and approaches within which researchers conduct qualitative inquiry. Footnote 57

Common characteristics of qualitative research are: (1) it is conducted in a natural setting, (2); directed by the researcher; (3) involving inductive and deductive reasoning; (4) it focuses on participants’ views; (5) conducted in a specific context; (6) involves flexibility and creativity during the research process and; (7) is based on the researcher’s complex interpretation of the issue, but involves reflexivity. Footnote 58 Qualitative research engages with matters in everyday life, discourses, experiences and practices in a variety of dimensions. Poststructuralists have shown particular interests in qualitative research. Feminist research has had a significant impact in developing qualitative research as exists today. Qualitative methods, particularly face-to-face in-depth interviews, have become definitive of feminist qualitative research. Here we focus on interviews and documents as methods of data collection in qualitative research.

5.3 Research Plan, Design and Strategy

Before going through the steps of planning research, the following aspects need to be addressed:

In order to conduct the research, there are a few fundamental matters that the researcher needs to address. First, the researcher should know about the nature of the phenomenon, entities or the social reality that are in question. What is the research about? Second, the researcher must have an ontological and epistemological position as to how the researcher thinks the world exists, how knowledge about the world is produced and what social reality is made of. These are the epistemological questions: how social phenomenon can be known and how knowledge can be demonstrated.

If the researcher thinks that social reality is constituted of people, relations, institutions, structures, social process, discourses, practices, and rules, the researcher ought to establish how to investigate the social phenomenon in question, within this framework of understanding of social reality.

The answers to such questions form the strategy of the research. Research strategy is about how the researcher outlines the epistemological and ontological approaches to investigate the subject matter of their research. For instance, a socio-legal approach is a way to strategise research.

The next step is to clarify the aim of the research, that is to find out exactly why the researcher wants to conduct the research. It should be noted that the research objectives are less broad than the research aims and they basically pave the way to achieve the research aims.

If the aim of a research is to reduce violence against women in the workplace, the research objectives to achieve this aim would be: (1) understand how violence in workplace is perceived by employers, (2) explore all forms of violence experienced by women during their employment, and (3) investigate employment laws and policy.

The next step is to design the research. Designing research starts after ascertaining the position and approach in conducting the research. Research design is a kind of planning that maps out the ways through which the researcher conducts a study; helping the researcher to conduct an organised and coherent study. Footnote 59 In qualitative research, designing starts from the moment the researcher starts to formulate the research questions, problems or hypotheses. A qualitative research design consists of research questions, methods of data collection, methods of analyses and findings. After investigating the topic and reading the literature, the researcher drafts research questions. The questions can be refined later during the research process. After defining the questions, the researcher maps out relevant information for each question. This information concerns the sources of data and material, how to gather data and how to analyse the data.

In studying violence against women in the workplace, one research question could be how violence against women in the workplace is defined by law and policy makers? To answer this question, the researcher needs information or data from specific sources that can answer the question. The sources of data collection to answer the questions would be legal documents and interviews with stake holders. How to collect data from these sources could be gathered through documents and interviews. After gathering the data, the analysis could be done by applying critical discourse analysis and/or policy analysis. This outline is called research design.

5.3.1 Socio-Legal Research Strategy

How to design research which investigates the subject matter through a socio-legal approach? One way is to examine how policies and practices of gender at individual, meso and macro levels are influenced by, and influence the subject matter in question, within a specific context that is also contingent on socio-historical background.

Studying ‘law in context’ Footnote 60 as one of the approaches within social-legal research contributes to the production of knowledge that is informed by people’s experiences and existing social issues. In turn, these are tied to the processes of making and implementing law.

The policy research approach to socio-legal research is concerned with issues related to social policy, regulations, implementation, and enforcement. For example, examining how efficient implementation of law can affect access to justice, can be a policy research. The use of survey to evaluate a piece of legislation is another common policy research. Footnote 61

5.4 Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research

Based on the methodological approaches explained in previous sections, the following methods of data collection have been adopted by feminist researchers cross disciplines, including socio-legal scholars.

5.4.1 Interviews

An interview is understood to be a simple conversation that constitutes everyday life. It is a valuable method for gathering knowledge from an individual’s experience. An interview constitutes a further way to collect intellectual information in a social process from people. Footnote 62 As Kvale and Brinkmann suggest, the act of interviewing is a craft, which means it is based on practical skills and the decisions made by the interviewer during every step of the process. Footnote 63 Interview in social research is a guided, informal conversation through which the interviewee and the interviewer contribute to the process of knowledge production. The two sides interact with each other ethically and politically. Footnote 64

Learning how to conduct interviews for social research can be achieved only through engaging in actual interviews. In other words, one learns by doing. However, it is important to consider that interviewing is composed of several general steps. The interviewer logically follows these steps, including; identifying the population, classifying the questions, reaching out to the population, designing the interview guide, determining the location of interviews, recording interviews, transcribing interviews and analysing interviews. Footnote 65

It is up to the researcher to determine what type of interviews are deemed more suitable for answering the research questions; either structured interviews or semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews involve the researchers asking a set of questions from each interviewee. The nature of these interviews, however, allows the interviewee to raise ideas and issues about which the researcher has not thought. This type of interview is flexible and gives the opportunity for the researcher to receive new questions or change the existing ones.

5.4.2 Documents

What are documents? Documents contain texts and sometimes images that have been produced without the researcher’s involvement. Footnote 66 Documents in social research could include a variety of materials, from personal journals to official organisational records or state datasets. Researchers have also identified other documents for social research, such as maps, photographs, newspaper reports, autobiographies, and even social media or SMS conversations. Electronic and digital documents constitute a significant part of documents in our world today, especially within organizations and institutions.

Documents can also be the sort of data and evidence through which people, groups, institutions, and organizations are accounted for. Documents here are tools to enable understanding of social and organizational practices. Footnote 67 Documents exist in many varieties such as legal, medical, financial, personal and so on. In terms of their form, documents can be literary, textual, or visual devices that create information. Therefore, documents are artifacts produced for a particular purpose, representing social conventions, being the analytical component of documents. Amanda Coffey maintains: “documents are social facts which means they are produced, shared and used in socially organized ways”. Footnote 68 Policy documents, legislations, strategic plans, press release, annual reports, newspaper articles are included as such.

5.5 Methods of Analysis in Qualitative Research

Based on the methodological approaches explained in previous sections, the following methods of data collection have been adopted by feminist researchers cross disciplines including socio-legal scholars.

Analysis is a process of generating, developing and verifying concepts. Footnote 69 The process of analysis begins even before starting the research project, as researchers choose a topic in which they have prior ideas. Footnote 70 Researchers require to have some ideas while collecting information about their studies; these ideas continue to develop during the research process and might modify along the way, by going back and forth between ideas and collected information. Analysis is not the last phase of research, as some might think. It is rather a process that actively involves information gathering. Footnote 71 Nevertheless, no consensus is achieved among scholars on what analysis means. Despite this lack of consensus, there are common characteristics to all methods of qualitative analysis. These are; reflexivity of the researcher, systematic but not rigid analytical approach, organizing the data, and inductive (that is data led) analysis. In addition, methodological knowledge is required. This does not mean that one should subscribe to one approach only and follow through the entire process. Flexibility and reflexivity should be counted. Footnote 72

Analysis involves interpretation where qualitative researchers translate other people’s acts and words. It is not straightforward to convey exact meanings, and therefore, some details may be lost in translation. Footnote 73 Interpretation consequently becomes a never-ending process, as researchers must always consider their data; reflect, reinterpret or amend interpretations. This may lead the researcher to new ideas. The process of analysis according to Denzin and Lincoln, is neither terminal nor mechanical. It is an ongoing emergent unfinished, changeable process. Footnote 74

5.5.1 Thematic Analysis

As a method of analysing data, thematic analysis searches for themes that emerge from the data or information to describe the phenomenon. “The process of analysis involves identifying themes through reading of the data. These themes become categories of analysis for the researcher”. Footnote 75

Thematic analysis can be applied within many ontological and epistemological frameworks. The researcher should make their theoretical approach explicit to the reader, as thematic analysis is a theoretical independent method of analysis. Footnote 76 Thematic analysis does not concern counting predetermined words or phrases, rather, it identifies implicit and explicit ideas in the data.

Thematic analysis is ‘a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ inductively or deductively. Footnote 77 Due to its flexibility, thematic analysis is suitable for analysing a wide range of data types, for instance; interviews, focus group discussion, textual data (i.e., qualitative surveys, diaries), online discussion forums and other textual and visual media sources. Footnote 78

Applying this method in research requires the identification of patterns, paying particular regard to important issues in relation to the research questions and theoretical framework, which must form some level of prevalence across the whole data. Similar to many other qualitative methods, thematic analysis is not a linear process. The researcher moves back and forth between different phases of the process of analysis. A six-phase analytic process is introduced by Terry et al., which are: “1) familiarising with the data, 2) generating codes, 3) constructing themes, 4) reviewing potential themes, 5) defining and naming themes, and 6) producing the report”. Footnote 79

5.5.2 Document Analysis

In qualitative research, document analysis is applied to close examination of documents to understand how they are authored or produced, including how they are used. Much of the organizational knowledge is stored in documents. Social actors are the authors of documents, and the examination of those documents is one way of understanding how social structure operates. Footnote 80 Documents also represent reality, albeit in a distorted and selective fashion, and can be used as a medium through which the researcher can find correspondence with the subject of study. However, they cannot be read separately from the social, historical and political contexts. Footnote 81

‘Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing and evaluating both printed and electronic materials. Footnote 82 Document analysis starts with finding the documents, selecting and synthesizing information in the documents, which then can be organized into themes or categories and interpretation. This process involves content analysis that entails identifying meaningful and relevant passages of the text. Scholars have discussed applying thematic analysis to analyse documents, involving the recognition of patterns within the data and consequently exposing emerging themes. Footnote 83

Document analysis involves data selection instead of collection . Content information in documents is what the researcher analyses without being involved in gathering it, which is said to be unaffected by the research process. Many documents are publicly available, making it easier for the researcher to access.

Document analysis is used as a single method, in a triangulation, or mixed-methods, where two or more methods are used in research. For example, questionnaires and interviews in research are used in combination with document analysis. Footnote 84 As an illustration, gathering and analysing documents such as state laws and institutional regulations, as a stand-alone method provides the researcher in-depth knowledge about the purpose and intentions of the creators of the documents, and how they are used to shape people’s lives.

5.5.3 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a method which investigates how meanings are produced within narratives of, for example, conversation, newspapers or interviews. Discourse analysis refers to a set of approaches that can be used to examine the ways in which power relations are reproduced, through the function of language within texts and narratives. Discourse analysis is the result of Foucault’s work on discursive construction of power. Hence, it focuses on how power relations are constructed by means of language. Within social science research, discourse analysis takes a political approach by finding out who is constructed as marginalized and who gains hegemony in social relations. Thus, discourse analysis pays attention to the socio-political context of discourse and conveys how people are positioned by dominant discourses. Footnote 85

Discourse analysis method aims to move away from finding truth, instead working towards the functionality of discourse critically. Critical discourse analysis is an interdisciplinary type of discourse studies, examining how ‘social practices become contextualized as they are represented in discourse in instances of communication’. Footnote 86 Furthermore, critical discourse analysis concentrates on the role of language and communication in discursive construction of social domination, discrimination and social injustice. Footnote 87 The analysing process of research, focuses on the use of language to understand how people, practices and processes are represented, and what the underlying forces of such representations are. However, critical discourse analysis does not simply regard texts, rather, establishing what connects the text to a social context where people and events are produced. Footnote 88

Identifying discourses vary among researchers as there is no one way. In common, discourse analysis involves general steps, as any other qualitative methods, such as; formulating research questions, selection of sample, gathering data (i.e., records and documents etc.) and transcribing, coding data before writing up.

Critical discourse analysis of legal documents such as judicial opinions, statutes, constitutions, procedural laws and administrative laws can reveal the subtle and invisible nature discrimination based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, religion, nationality etc.

Discourse analysis of a supreme court’s judgement on refusing a request of a trans woman to gain the custody of her child or visitation, unravels the discrimination based on discursive practices and policies of creating gendered subjects, gendered roles, womanhood and parenthood.

6 Writing a Research Paper

This section elaborates basic knowledge on how to write a scholarly paper; a paper that is the result of either an empirical or conceptual/theoretical research on gender.

Feminist researchers have published extensively on writings of research, especially research based on fieldwork. Feminist writings have paid special attention to reflexivity or reflection, by emphasizing the complex relationship between the researcher and the research participants in the process of knowledge production in various contexts. Writing on issues related to gender requires critical engagement and more of an explanatory than descriptive writing.

Essential skills for writing rationally and effectively are discussed in many textbooks. Footnote 89 These skills include using arguments, building arguments, understanding the cause-and-effect relations, making comparison, using references and describing visual and textual materials.

6.1 Structuring a Paper

The structure of the paper is proven to be the most difficult part of writing for writers. The main and few substantial components of a research paper are basically comprised of the introduction, the main text (theory, methods, analysis), the conclusion and references.

The purpose of the introduction in a research paper is firstly, to provide a rationale for the paper and explain why a particular question within the topic of the paper is being investigated. Secondly, it is important to illuminate on why it is interesting for the reader to know about the topic of the paper, particularly the issue in question.

The theory section describes the theoretical tools and concepts that are used to interpret and analyse data. The method section in the main text of the paper elaborates on what kind of data have been gathered for the purpose of this paper and how. It further draws on the methodological approach that has been adopted.

The section on analysis in the paper discusses the interpretation of data within the adopted theoretical framework.

The conclusion is the final section of the paper. The purpose is to summarize the main points of the paper, restates the thesis of the paper and makes final comments of the arguments of the paper.

To write a clear and organized paper, the writer should be especially confident about the ideas contained within. Moreover, it is important that the topic is written with passion.

Some general strategies are suggested for writing which focus on how to manage an academic paper in a timely manner. Planning and revising are the two general strategies that have been found in writing research.

6.2 Referencing and Plagiarism

Since writing a scholarly paper depends on the research and studies conducted by others, it is crucial for the writer to indicate the used sources. Providing references and citations are important as it shows that first, the writer has read other people’s work on the subject and is aware of the existing literature. As a second function, it allows the reader to find further sources on the topic. Lastly, it prevents plagiarism. Footnote 90

The use of the sources in a research paper can be presented as a citation, summary/paraphrasing or quotation. A list of references including all sources cited in the paper is provided at the end of the paper. There are various referencing systems in academia. Therefore, it is important to know which system to use, and thereafter maintain consistency in referencing throughout the paper.

Plagiarism happens when someone uses an intellectual property that belongs to another without acknowledging or referencing accurately. For example, copying or paraphrasing of texts, images or any other data without correct citation, or acknowledging the source, is plagiarism.

7 Exercises

The aim of these exercises is to encourage students to use the knowledge they have acquired in the course and deepen their understanding about feminist methodology and gender research in a practical way.

Understanding feminist Epistemologies in research

Formulate a research question that investigates a matter in relation to violence and law. Explain the problem and how you understand the problem and why you have chosen to explore it? In your explanation elaborate on your epistemological and ontological approach for carrying out this research.

Designing research

Following previous exercise, in a structured manner, map out how you plan to investigate the research question. Specify the data and material, sources, place and time, methods of data collection as well as methods of analysis for each material or data. You are required to justify your choices.

Structuring a scholarly paper

Following the last two exercises, write a disposition (no longer than 1 page) where you elucidate how you are about to write this paper based on your research. Explain how each section unfolds in the paper including theory, methods, and analysis.

Further Reading

Callaway H (1992) Ethnography and experience: gender implications in fieldwork and texts. Anthropol Autobiogr 29:29–49

Carastathis A (2014) The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philos Compass 9:304–314

Conaghan J (2008) Intersectionality and the feminist project in law. Routledge-Cavendish, London

DeVault ML (1996) Talking back to sociology: distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annu Rev. Sociol 22:29–50

McEwan C (2001) Postcolonialism, feminism and development: intersections and dilemmas. Prog Dev Stud 1:93–111

McLeod J (2020) Beginning postcolonialism. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Mills J, Birks M (2014) Qualitative methodology: a practical guide. SAGE Publications, New York

Nash JC (2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Fem Rev 89:1–15

Wolf DL (2018) Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In: Wolf DL (ed) Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Routledge, London, pp 1–55

Verloo M (2005) Displacement and empowerment: reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality. Soc Polit Int Stud Gender State Soc 12:344–365

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Örebro University, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro, Sweden

Zara Saeidzadeh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zara Saeidzadeh .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Law, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Dragica Vujadinović

Europa-Institut, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

Mareike Fröhlich

Thomas Giegerich

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Saeidzadeh, Z. (2023). Gender Research and Feminist Methodologies. In: Vujadinović, D., Fröhlich, M., Giegerich, T. (eds) Gender-Competent Legal Education. Springer Textbooks in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14360-1_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14360-1_6

Published : 03 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-14359-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-14360-1

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Feminist Issues

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Feminist Philosophy Follow Following
• Feminist Theory Follow Following
• Gender Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thesis Helpers

Find the best tips and advice to improve your writing. Or, have a top expert write your paper.

205 Engaging Feminist Research Topics For Your Thesis

It’s not a new movement. Every active citizen of many liberal countries already knows about feminism. Women rally against the inequality that exists and request for gender equality. Men are dominant in many countries, while women are relegated to the background.

Uncovering female rights, emphasizing them, and promoting different feminist philosophies remains an essential part of academics. There is already feminist sociology, even feminist psychology, as groups of study in tertiary Institutions. That said, if you need feminism project ideas or feminism essay topics, you’ll find custom and unique ideas in this article.

What is the Feminist Thesis Statement?

It’s all about equality. Women deal with sexual harassment, repression, oppression, and other forms of social and political deprivation.

Feminism emerges as a historical, political, and social movement by women to pursue all-around equality and an end to all forms of discrimination. Feminist activists are on the rise, and their thesis statement is basically about:

Equality Preservation of woman dignity Women empowerment Women political participation

The feminism movement also engages the issue of patriarchy, sexual objectification of women, oppression, stereotyping, and other social, political, and historical challenges.

How To Write an Outline for a Feminism Research Paper

While racking your head for interesting research papers on feminism, you need to go through a few processes before outlining. They are:

• Introduction This is the first stage for any academic work. This determines if your readers will keep reading or pick another book. Your introduction must be both engaging, informative, and intriguing. It must show readers that they’re amongst your target audience. Your introduction must also have your thesis statement where your points are clearly stated. Also, you should include the feminist methodology to be employed in your research and the encompassing feminist research questions.
• Body This is where you examine each detail of what you’re writing about. The body includes the arguments and the available literature that supports such an argument. It shows all the evidence found during your research. You can examine counterarguments and give answers to them to enhance your academic reputation on the subject. Your professors know everything about what you need to write, so don’t sound dull while writing.
• Conclusion This is the last section of your paper, and it includes the summary of all arguments and your ideas. This could be followed by a call to action to provoke your readers to take bold, instructive steps.

Feminist Research Questions

While looking for feminism topics to write about, you need to decide which questions to answer. Feminism paper topics aim to answer questions like:

• What is the relevance of feminism today?
• Has the movement helped or endangered women?
• Is there a future for global Feminism?
• What is the threat of the movement to society?
• What is the anti-feminist movement, and why are people sensitive about it?

Feminist Topics For Discussion

Different feminism essay topics are increasingly challenging in the world today. You can get on an in depth conversation from these feminist paper topics:

• Examine the role of domestic violence in enhancing the feminist movement
• What is the role of women in the contemporary world of entrepreneurship?
• How has the rise of social media shaped feminism?
• What are the ways feminism defines sex and gender differences?
• How has the #MeToo movement fueled the adoption of feminism?
• Does modern feminism equal men-hatred?
• Are men a threat to feminism?
• The mass media has affected the global understanding of feminism
• Is feminism merely a relic of the history of a subject of contemporary need
• Because the Taiwanese President is a female, does that mean that a female president can emerge in America or the UK?
• How does feminism equate to human rights?
• The perspective of feminism can change as long as every woman is empowered
• How has feminism reconstructed gender roles
• Would you say feminist critics (three of your choice) are suitable with any of their perspectives?
• How can the world cope with the rise in feminist activism, agitation, and advocators
• Sexism is unrelated to feminism
• Examine the rise of domestic violence as a need promoting Feminism
• Examine the reasons why men discrimination is on the high
• Examine the relationship of feminism with sports
• Is there a presence of feminism in sport and equal Empowerment?
• How does feminism affect modern lifestyle and fashion?
• What are your thoughts about female officials in different capacities of their world?
• What are your thoughts are the lack of women political representation
• How does the lack of women’s political representation affect women’s political participation?
• Examine the possibility of a female president in America
• How does feminism contribute to traditional ideologies of gender roles
• How has feminism been used to promote Advocacy for equal rights
• Is there a particular theory on feminism
• Is feminism all about male dominance?
• Does the lack of women’s rights affect universal politics?
• What is the public response to feminism?
• The attack of feminist activists show aggression against feminists
• How have women also impeded feminist advocacy?
• Could religion be said to be a contributing factor to the present sad state of women now?
• The internet has been a driving force to achieve equality
• The feminist movement is just a platform to increase women power
• How have the environmental and feminist challenges affect national policies?
• Have other movements absorbed feminism?
• How has the feminist movement also fought for black lives matter?
• Is feminism still all-encompassing or just about women?

Feminism Project Ideas

There are numerous feminist topics to write about. Some feminist research paper topics bordering issues contemporary feminists try to uncover includes:

• The role of notable female figures who are either or not branded feminists and how they’ve shaped the world
• The activities of three feminists in advocating for women’s right
• How feminism has semblance with rebellion
• The differences between sexual role and gender role in the society
• The distinction between gender women role and the Feminist role in the society
• Examining the advantages and disadvantages of identifying as a feminist
• Assess the privileges of being a feminist in a developed country and an underdeveloped one
• Examine the future of feminism in the Taliban controlled Afghanistan
• Examine the motivating factors, across history, of feminism
• Highlight and explain how feminism has helped increase education against rape
• Feminism and government support: how government support can end all vices against women
• The detailed consideration of equity and equality in feminism
• The position of feminism in the modern world has shifted: discuss
• Examine the life, times, and the biography of any male feminist of your choice
• Examine the morality of feminism
• What is the role of American women in the feminist movement?
• What is the role of Asian women in the feminist movement?
• Rationalize the activities of African women in pursuit of gender equality
• Rationalize the role of Middle Eastern women in the call for support for gender equality
• Examine the actions of any European government in the promotion of feminist ideas
• Examine the part of any Southern American government in the preservation of women’s rights
• Examine the connection between feminism and lesbianism
• Examine the relationship between feminism and the rise of single women in America
• Assess the significance of the rise of liberal ideas over conservatism in the promotion of feminism
• Identify the future of feminism as hoodlums and violators
• Give an overview of women in combat in both Taiwan and the U.S.
• The recruitment of women in combat in Taiwan still embraces stereotypes, discuss
• Discuss how women in the U.S. military still face discrimination, sexual assault, and violence
• Discuss the means to eradicate sexual violence and discrimination in the military of any two countries of your choice
• Analyze the role of women in any US election of your choice
• Explore the topic of gender equality in Contemporary Britain
• Give an overview of the British monarchy and the reconstruction to allow female monarchs
• Examine the activities of women during the Civil Rights Movement
• Explore the gender gap in the pursuit of any country’s independence
• Examine the role of women in the Communist Revolution of Russia
• Explore the history of women rights in Europe
• Explore the work of women in the technology and automobile industries
• What are the challenges of women during the Second World War?
• Reestablish the goals and the founding beliefs of the Women’s Trade Union League
• Examine the significance of women’s rights to own property and when it started

Feminist Issues to Write About

As earlier established, there are pressing feminism topics to discuss. In any society, these topics must be considered significant to achieving gender equality:

• Examine how the internet has infused feminism into a public subject of both ridicule and pride
• Explore the theoretical challenge between gender and sex
• Examine the history of the #MeToo movement as well as the victim challenge about feminism
• Examine the stance of different feminists who are still staunch believers on Islam about Female Genital Mutilation
• Underscore the feminist methodology and means to drive home the point of feminism
• How does feminism construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct gender roles according to five literature or notable feminists/anti-feminist of your choice?
• Assess the ways through which feminists cope with societal discrimination and violence
• Examine the employability of women who identify as feminists in the US
• What is the feminist critics’ position in the face of global gender inequality?
• What are the leading women’s rights violations in the world today?
• Why is the feminist movement a threat to make dominance in the world today?
• Assess the connection between criminality and feminism in the radical society
• What are the means feminists employ to boycott men and other anti-feminists?
• Examine the activities of radical feminists, black feminists, white feminists, and male feminists
• How literature is used to undermine women
• How contemporary beauty standards remain an impediment to what and who is considered beautiful online and offline
• How the understanding of beauty is also a radical social and political stereotype depriving women of some inalienable rights
• Examine the gender inequality and equality in the politics of America
• Explore the gender inequality and equality in the UK government
• Examine the gender equality in the Russian government
• The benefits of men in gender discrimination
• How do fitness clubs discriminate against women?
• Rationalize clubs and drinking bars as an agent of sexually objectifying women
• Rationalize the definition of ecofeminism and everything it entails
• Examine the possibility of reconciling religion, feminism, and liberal morality
• Analyze the challenges of women in the face of violence in countries like India and Pakistan
• Analyze feminist psychology as it applies to Middle Eastern women
• Analyze the evolving feminist philosophy in the world of the academy and the real world
• How governments weaponize feminism as an agent of social mobilization leading to the death of their culture
• Examine how terrorist organizations use women as a means to achieve political goals

Feminism Research Paper Topics

If you’re interested in examining custom feminist research topics for your dissertation or long essay, consider these:

• How are feminism and fashion interwoven?
• What does cyber feminism imply, and how has it boxed feminism into a social space?
• How do feminist groups achieve financial security to educate the public?
• Critically analyze the activities of any Feminist NGO of your choice
• What is understood by the Bitch Manifesto, and what has been its significance?
• Give examples of the modern feminist manifesto, and what have they included in the feminist ideology?
• How is the feminist idea reflected in five literary texts of your choice
• Examine the distinct evolution of pro-feminists and anti-feminist movements
• What are the effects of feminism on teenagers, and how has it enhanced radicalism?
• What is the negative influence of feminism on teenagers, and how has it promoted hatred for men?
• Give a step by step guide on how to adopt feminism
• Base your writings on a satire about how to become a feminist
• Examine the role of celebrities in the feminist movement
• Would you say feminism is out for the blood of men?
• Following the imprisonment of R Kelly, what is the public stance on women’s power against celebrities in the face of the law?
• Speak to a self-branded feminist and engage their ideas of feminism
• Examine the controversial issues of feminism and give answers to questions that remain unanswered
• Analyze the books or Mona Elhatawy and exhaust her ideas of feminism in comparison with any black Feminist’s books
• Would you say black feminism is another movement?
• Examine how women from different countries in the world have carved up their understanding of feminism
• Examine how being a gentleman could be insulting to feminists
• What are the stereotypes against feminism I’m Islamic countries?
• What are the excesses of three feminist NGOs in educating people in underdeveloped areas about women’s rights?
• What are the challenges of radical feminism?
• Distinguish the responsibilities of radical feminists, anarchists, and liberal feminists
• Does been anti-racist equals being a feminist?
• Does feminism instill a matriarchal society?
• Examine Ghana feminism; a country where high regard to paid to the matriarch before further western civilization
• Examine the theories of Chimamanda Adichie’s “We Should All be Feminists” and the possibilities of men being Feminists
• Drawing from empirical evidence, rationalize if matriarchal societies would be better than patriarchal societies
• Drawing from any literary text of your choice, compare and contrast the methods used in equipping women with feminist ideologies
• Examine what provocative feminism means
• Should unisex bathrooms in bars, restaurants, and hotels be advisable in a rife world with sexual violence?
• Examine the prejudice transgender women are faced with and how the feminist movement can be a form of stereotypical liberation
• Explore the distinct types of feminism and how hairstyles are also a form of political statements.

Controversial Feminist Topics

The very nature of feminism should not be controversial, but it is. To examine a few advanced feminism topics for your essay or research paper, consider:

• An examination of Black Feminism
• The education of men and women into feminism
• The philosophy of men and women duties in the traditional society
• The history of feminism in Europe
• The gender gap in African politics
• The gender gap in American politics
• The gender gap under the Trump administration
• The sexism prevalent in Asian countries
• The challenges of men fighting for the feminist ideology
• The cognitive significance of gender equality
• The Examination of misogyny and how it affects the promotion of feminist literature and exposures
• The role of bullying in limiting female and girl self-belief
• An exploration of the distribution of toys as a means of achieving teenage sex education
• The subject of raising boys and girls differently
• Why should there be all-boys schools and all-girls schools?
• How some women oppress other women with feminist ideologies
• How can make feminism help in achieving total equality
• Is the feminist fight a women’s fight or a global fight?
• Is the feminist movement a fight against patriarchy or a war against men?
• The anarchists are extreme and may also be branded terrorists, although they’re on the theoretical level now: discuss
• Examine women’s suffrage as a significant and fundamental part of feminism
• Examine why there are limited women in both politics and business
• The controversy on “what a man can do, a woman can do better” has raised the suggestion of women being guards and bouncers; what has been the response to this?
• What are the differences between the waves of feminism as well as the results produced by each stage?
• Is feminism needed the most in an aspect of society than another?
• How does feminism preach the incorporation of men’s traditional responsibilities into women’s?
• Examine the activities of feminists in advocating against harassment and male-work domination in America
• Is total global gender equality possible in two generations to come?
• Examine the possibility of splitting up the society through feminism
• Why should everyone adopt feminism?

Feminist Argumentative Essay Topics

Feminist argumentative essays go back and forth at reasonable lengths. You can also consider these arguments for your debate:

• Feminism is another politics
• Women’s suffrage didn’t liberate women
• Girls and boys should be taught sex education differently
• The feminist movement also fuels women ego
• Girls and boys should be raised differently
• Modern men have no work fighting for women’s right
• Men can be isolated in empowerment education
• Sexism doesn’t contribute to gender discrimination
• Feminism is a fight against men, not patriarchy
• Feminism should also be a fight against women brainwashed by the patriarchy
• Domestic violence is a terror on the feminist movement
• Feminism enhance women hatred for men
• Mixed schools can also promote feminism
• It’s the teachers’ role to enhance feminism, not parents
• NGOs have limited control over feminist education
• Feminist critics are apologetics
• Feminism is mere psychology
• Religion is right; liberal morality is wrong
• Religion is an excuse for women violence
• Female Genital Mutilation is nothing but a culture
• Men’s domination was a myth until the feminist movement fueled it
• Society’s definition of beauty should define women
• Should women still be subject to men after achieving gender equality?
• Should women still obey their husbands in their marriages?
• Marriage is the limitation to women rights

Is Your Feminist Thesis Giving You Trouble?

With these topics revealed, you can create a proper and interesting paper on feminism. If, after reading this, you say words like “help with my dissertation,” there are exceptional writers who can help with researching, proofreading, and editing.

With a rise in writing experts online, you’ll find highly intellectual writers on our team to help with your college or university essays to bag your degree easily. Through our trustworthy experts, you can be assured of fast and exceptional writing. Our professionals boast incredible research on your PhD feminism thesis or essays that leave your professors delighted.

Make PhD experience your own

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AFS Programs

90 Topic Ideas For Research Paper On Feminism: Exploring the Controversial and Timely Issues

Feminism is a social and political movement that advocates for equal rights and opportunities for all genders. It is a philosophy that aims to challenge and dismantle the systems of oppression that have historically disadvantaged women and marginalized communities. This research paper aims to explore the controversial and timely issues within the feminist movement, and provide 90 topic ideas that can help college students discover and advance their understanding of feminism.

When choosing a topic for a research paper on feminism, it is important to consider the practical and theoretical aspects of the subject. Feminism encompasses a wide range of topics, including but not limited to gender equality, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, sexual harassment, domestic violence, workplace discrimination, and the intersectionality of oppressions. To help you in your research, here are 90 topic ideas that you can explore further:

1. The Role of Feminism in the Workplace: Advancing Gender Equality

In this research paper, you can explore the role of feminism in promoting gender equality within the workplace. Examine the challenges women face in male-dominated industries, the strategies employed by feminists to achieve work-life balance, and the effects of gender discrimination on women’s career advancement.

2. The Impact of Feminist Movements on Society: How They Have Shaped the Future

Investigate the historical and contemporary feminist movements that have shaped society. Analyze the major achievements that these movements have made in advancing gender equality, and discuss the ongoing challenges faced by feminists in their fight against misogyny and patriarchy.

3. Exploring Intersectionality: How Gender, Race, and Class Intersect in Feminist Theory

Examine the concept of intersectionality within feminist theory. Discuss how gender, race, and class intersect and shape the experiences and oppressions of women. Analyze how an inclusive feminist movement can address the unique struggles faced by women of color and women from marginalized communities.

4. The Impact of Feminism on Men: Challenging Traditional Gender Roles

Explore how feminism challenges traditional gender roles and stereotypes, and the impact this has on men. Discuss the effects of toxic masculinity and how feminist ideologies can help men in creating healthier and more equal relationships.

5. Feminism and Sexuality: The Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights and Gender Identity Equality

Investigate the intersection of feminism and sexuality, particularly focusing on LGBTQ+ rights and gender identity equality. Discuss the issues faced by queer and trans individuals within the feminist movement, and analyze the efforts made by feminists to create an inclusive and safe space for all genders and sexualities.

These are just a few topic ideas to help you get started on your journey of exploring feminism and its various aspects. Remember, the best research papers are those that delve deep into a specific topic and provide a well-argued and informed perspective. Good luck with your research and writing!

The Evolution of Feminism: From First-Wave to Fourth-Wave

Here are some key points about the different waves of feminism:

First-Wave Feminism:

• Started in the late 19th century.
• Main concerns: women’s right to vote, property rights, and access to higher education.
• Significant figures: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

Second-Wave Feminism:

• Gained popularity in the 1960s and 1970s.
• Focused on addressing the inequality and oppression faced by women in various aspects of their lives, including the workplace, reproductive rights, and sexuality.
• Tackled issues such as domestic violence and gender roles.
• Major figures: Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and bell hooks.

Third-Wave Feminism:

• Began in the 1990s.
• Explored the intersectionality of gender with race, class, and sexuality.
• Emphasized inclusivity and sought to amplify the voices of women of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalized groups.
• Major figures: Kimberlé Crenshaw, Judith Butler, and Audre Lorde.

Fourth-Wave Feminism:

• The current wave of feminism, which started around the early 2010s and is still evolving.
• Addresses new challenges faced by women, including online harassment, revenge porn, and the fight against rape culture.
• Calls for a more intersectional approach and focuses on issues related to gender identity and transgender rights.
• Main figures: Malala Yousafzai, Emma Watson, and Tarana Burke.

The evolution of feminism has been a response to the changing social, political, and economic realities faced by women. Each wave has built upon the achievements and shortcomings of the previous waves, aiming to strike a balance between theory and practical actions to advance women’s rights and achieve gender equality.

Research and sociology papers on feminism offer opportunities to discover more about the history, effects, and potential future of feminist movements. Students in college and higher education can select from a range of topics, from somewhat controversial views on gender roles to the fight for women’s rights within the workplace. Writing essays on feminism can help raise awareness about the ongoing struggles faced by women and contribute to a more inclusive and equal society for all genders.

Intersectionality in Feminist Theory: Examining the Intersections of Gender, Race, and Class

Many feminists believe that a holistic approach to understanding gender and inequality is necessary, as it allows for a more accurate analysis of the complex issues faced by women from different backgrounds. Intersectionality allows feminists to think critically about how these various social categories work together to create unique experiences of discrimination or privilege.

Exploring Gender, Race, and Class

Intersectionality helps feminists understand the ways in which gender, race, and class interact with one another. For example, white women may experience gender inequality in the workplace, but they may also benefit from their race by having greater access to job opportunities compared to women of color. On the other hand, women of color may face additional barriers in addition to gender discrimination, such as racial stereotypes and class-based disadvantages.

Furthermore, intersectionality allows for a deeper exploration of the different roles and experiences of women within different social groups. For instance, middle-class women may have different opportunities for advancement compared to working-class women. This understanding can help feminists advocate for policies and programs that address the unique needs and challenges faced by women of all backgrounds.

Incorporating Intersectionality in Research and Activism

Intersectionality has had a significant impact on feminist research and activism. It has encouraged scholars to explore the effects of multiple social identities on women’s lives and to challenge narrow or one-dimensional views of gender inequality. By incorporating intersectional perspectives, researchers can uncover the complex ways in which different systems of oppression intersect and shape women’s experiences in society.

Moreover, intersectionality has helped to broaden the scope of feminist activism by highlighting the need to address a range of issues affecting women. It has made feminists more aware of the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism, and has prompted them to fight for social justice that addresses the intersecting inequalities experienced by women.

Feminism and Pop Culture: Analyzing the Representation of Women in Film and Music

The influence of feminism on pop culture.

In the past, portrayals of women in popular culture were often limited to objectified and submissive roles. However, with the rise of the feminist movement, there has been a shift towards more empowering and diverse representations of women. This is evident in the increasing number of female directors, screenwriters, and musicians who are challenging the status quo and advocating for gender equality.

The Controversial and Problematic Representations

While progress has been made, it is important to acknowledge that there are still problematic representations of women in pop culture. Some argue that certain portrayals perpetuate harmful stereotypes or objectify women, creating a threat to the feminist movement. For instance, the hyper-sexualization of women in music videos or the limited range of roles for women in Hollywood films can reinforce societal inequalities and deny women agency.

Future Directions and Implications

Research on feminist representations in film and music is crucial for understanding the effects of popular culture on societal attitudes towards women. By analyzing the messages and imagery presented in these media, we can shed light on the progress made and the work that still needs to be done.

Understanding the practical implications of feminist representations in pop culture is also vital. For example, how do these portrayals impact the everyday lives of women? Do they inspire women to fight for their rights and challenge societal norms? Or do they reinforce existing power imbalances and limit opportunities?

Media and Feminism: Investigating the Influence of Media on Feminist Discourse

The influence of media on feminist discourse can be explored through various lenses: sociology, health, theory, and more. It is crucial to study how media portrays feminist ideas and movements to understand the impact it has on women and society at large.

One of the major issues in media representation of feminism is the tendency to focus on narrow and controversial topics while neglecting the broader and more inclusive aspects of the movement. This can distort the public’s understanding of feminism and perpetuate stereotypes about feminists.

For example, popular media often portrays feminists as angry, man-hating women, which undermines the fight for gender equality and denies the impact of patriarchy on both men and women. By presenting a one-sided view, media can harm the feminist movement by alienating potential allies and reinforcing societal biases.

Furthermore, media often overlooks the significant contributions of women of color to the feminist movement. This lack of representation perpetuates the notion that feminism is a white, middle-class movement and excludes the experiences of marginalized groups.

Media can also influence how society perceives domestic violence and sexual assault. The way media presents these issues can either raise awareness and provoke discussion or perpetuate victim-blaming and denial. It is crucial to examine the role of media in shaping public opinion on these sensitive matters.

In recent years, the internet and social media have provided new platforms for feminist discourse. While they have enabled marginalized voices to be heard and amplified feminist movements, they have also created new challenges. The rapid spread of information and the prevalence of online harassment pose significant threats to the safety and well-being of feminist activists.

Research on the influence of media on feminist discourse can help identify practical strategies to improve media representation and ensure a more accurate portrayal of feminist ideas and movements. It can also guide media professionals, students, and activists in creating more inclusive and balanced content.

To conclude, the impact of media on feminism is undeniable. By investigating the influence of media on feminist discourse, we can better understand the role it plays in shaping societal views and perceptions. Moreover, it can help us advance the feminist movement by challenging harmful narratives and promoting inclusive and accurate representations of all genders.

The Global Fight for Women’s Rights: Exploring Feminism in Different Cultural and Geographical Contexts

1. feminism in the united states: advancements and controversies.

When it comes to the history of feminism, the United States has been a significant player. From the suffrage movement to reproductive rights, American feminist movements have made major strides towards gender equality. However, controversies and debates surrounding issues such as intersectionality, sexual harassment, and the gender pay gap persist.

2. Feminism in Different Cultures: Challenging Norms and Breaking Barriers

Feminism looks different in every culture, as it responds to the unique challenges and social norms of each society. Exploring the feminist movements in different cultures can provide valuable insights into how women’s rights are viewed and fought for around the world. From the Middle East to Asia, discover how feminism operates within diverse cultural contexts.

3. The Role of Feminism in Shaping Women’s Health and Reproductive Rights

One of the most significant areas affected by feminism is women’s health and reproductive rights. Understanding the impact of feminism on these issues can shed light on the progress made and the challenges faced by women in accessing healthcare, family planning, and reproductive autonomy.

4. Feminism and its Effects on Workplace Equality

The fight for gender equality in the workplace has been a major focus of feminist activism. Examining how feminism has influenced workplace policies, the gender wage gap, and the representation of women in leadership roles can provide insight into the progress made and areas that still require attention.

5. Feminism and the Controversial Topic of Sexuality

The topic of sexuality within feminism has been a source of debate and discussion. From sex-positive feminism to critiques of the objectification of women, understanding the various perspectives on sexuality can help us navigate this complex aspect of feminist philosophy.

By exploring feminism in different cultural and geographical contexts, we can gain a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of the global fight for women’s rights. It is essential to acknowledge the significance of feminist movements around the world and to continue advocating for gender equality in all aspects of society.

Feminist Sociology Research Paper Topics

The impact of feminist movements on women’s rights.

One interesting topic to explore is the impact of feminist movements on women’s rights. This research could delve into the history of feminist movements, describing their major milestones and the significant changes they brought about in areas such as education, employment, and politics. It could also examine the current state of women’s rights and the challenges that still need to be addressed.

The Role of Women in the Workplace

Another compelling topic is the role of women in the workplace. This research could analyze the progress and barriers women have faced in accessing higher-level positions, the impact of gender discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and strategies for promoting gender equality and advancing women’s careers.

Domestic Work and Gender Roles

The topic of domestic work and gender roles offers an opportunity to explore the division of household labor and its impact on women’s lives. This research could examine the historical and cultural factors that have influenced traditional gender roles, as well as the ways in which they are changing. It could also investigate the consequences of gendered divisions of labor, both in terms of individual well-being and societal norms.

Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender in Feminist Sociology

An important aspect of feminist sociology is the exploration of how race, class, and gender intersect to shape women’s experiences. This research could examine the ways in which white, black, Indigenous, and other women of color experience oppression differently and how their struggles for equality intersect with broader feminist movements. It could also investigate the challenges faced by low-income women and the role of class in shaping women’s opportunities and access to resources.

The Future of Feminist Sociology

For a more future-oriented topic, consider researching the future of feminist sociology. This could involve exploring emerging issues and debates within the field, discussing the potential impact of new technologies on gender relations, or examining the ways in which feminist sociology can continue to evolve to address the changing needs and experiences of women in the 21st century.

These are just a few examples of the many interesting and controversial topics that can be explored within the realm of feminist sociology. Whether you are writing essays or conducting research, these topics can provide a starting point for delving deeper into the complexities of women’s lives and the ongoing fight for gender equality.

Feminist Approaches to Social Stratification: Exploring Gender Inequality

Theoretical frameworks.

Feminists employ various theoretical frameworks to examine social stratification and gender inequality. Some of the major theoretical frameworks used by feminists include intersectionality, standpoint theory, and feminist economics. These frameworks help us understand the complex interplay of factors that contribute to gender inequality and shed light on the experiences of different groups of women.

Gender Inequality in the Workplace

One of the most common topics within the feminist movement is the issue of gender inequality in the workplace. Feminists argue that women face significant barriers when it comes to career advancement and equal pay. They call for policies and practices that promote equal opportunities and challenge gender stereotypes in the workplace.

Furthermore, feminists examine how the gender pay gap affects women of different races and ethnicities. Studies have shown that women of color face even greater wage disparities compared to white women, highlighting the intersectionality of race and gender in shaping the experiences of women in the workforce.

Gender Inequality in Health and Reproductive Rights

Feminists also focus on gender inequality in the realm of health and reproductive rights. They argue that women’s health issues have historically been ignored or marginalized, and that women should have control over their own bodies and reproductive choices. Feminists advocate for accessible healthcare services, comprehensive sex education, and the right to safe and legal abortion.

Domestic Violence and Gender Inequality

Another important issue that feminists address is domestic violence and its connection to gender inequality. Feminists argue that domestic violence is a result of patriarchal power structures and the enforcement of gender norms. They advocate for policies and support systems that protect survivors of domestic violence and challenge societal attitudes towards gender roles.

Future Directions in Feminism

As feminism continues to evolve, there are several interesting and controversial topics that feminists are exploring. These include the intersection of feminism with other social justice movements, the inclusion of transgender and non-binary individuals in feminist discussions, and the role of men in advancing gender equality.

Feminists are also discussing the effects of technology and social media on gender inequality, the balance between individual rights and collective action, and the implications of feminist theory in different cultural contexts.

What are some current issues in feminism that could be explored in a research paper?

There are several current issues in feminism that could be explored in a research paper. One such issue is the gender pay gap, where women are paid less than men for doing the same work. Another issue is reproductive rights, including access to contraception and abortion. Violence against women, both domestic and sexual, is also a pressing issue. Other topics could include intersectional feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and the representation of women in media.

What are some key feminist theories that can be used as frameworks for research papers?

There are several key feminist theories that can be used as frameworks for research papers. One such theory is intersectionality, which acknowledges that women’s experiences of oppression are shaped not only by their gender but also by other intersecting factors such as race, class, and sexuality. Another theory is postcolonial feminism, which examines how Western feminism has often excluded or marginalized women from non-Western cultures. Other theories include ecofeminism, which explores the connections between the oppression of women and the destruction of the environment, and standpoint theory, which argues that marginalized groups have unique insights into social relations.

What are some controversial issues within feminism that could be discussed in a research paper?

There are several controversial issues within feminism that could be discussed in a research paper. One such issue is sex work and whether it can ever be empowering for women. Another controversial topic is pornography and its depiction of women, with debates about whether it perpetuates misogyny or can be a valid form of sexual expression. The inclusion of transgender women in feminist spaces is also a contentious issue, with differing opinions on whether transgender women should be included in women-only spaces. Other controversial topics could include the use of trigger warnings, the concept of “cancel culture,” and the role of men in feminist movements.

How can feminism be applied in different areas of society, such as healthcare, education, or politics?

Feminism can be applied in various areas of society to promote gender equality. In healthcare, feminist approaches can address reproductive health issues, ensure access to comprehensive care, and work towards dismantling gender biases in medical research and treatment. In education, feminism can advocate for equal opportunities and resources for girls and boys, challenge gender stereotypes in curriculum and teaching, and promote awareness of consent and healthy relationships. In politics, feminism can push for gender parity in leadership positions, advocate for policies that address gender-based violence and discrimination, and promote women’s participation in decision-making processes.

What are some controversial issues that can be explored in a research paper on feminism?

Some controversial issues that can be explored in a research paper on feminism include the gender pay gap, reproductive rights, intersectionality, and the representation of women in the media.

By Alex Koliada, PhD

Alex Koliada, PhD, is a well-known doctor. He is famous for studying aging, genetics, and other medical conditions. He works at the Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics. His scientific research has been published in the most reputable international magazines. Alex holds a BA in English and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California , and a TEFL certification from The Boston Language Institute.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: mm1: methods, analysis & insights from multimodal llm pre-training.

Abstract: In this work, we discuss building performant Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In particular, we study the importance of various architecture components and data choices. Through careful and comprehensive ablations of the image encoder, the vision language connector, and various pre-training data choices, we identified several crucial design lessons. For example, we demonstrate that for large-scale multimodal pre-training using a careful mix of image-caption, interleaved image-text, and text-only data is crucial for achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) few-shot results across multiple benchmarks, compared to other published pre-training results. Further, we show that the image encoder together with image resolution and the image token count has substantial impact, while the vision-language connector design is of comparatively negligible importance. By scaling up the presented recipe, we build MM1, a family of multimodal models up to 30B parameters, including both dense models and mixture-of-experts (MoE) variants, that are SOTA in pre-training metrics and achieve competitive performance after supervised fine-tuning on a range of established multimodal benchmarks. Thanks to large-scale pre-training, MM1 enjoys appealing properties such as enhanced in-context learning, and multi-image reasoning, enabling few-shot chain-of-thought prompting.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Download PDF
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Intermittent fasting linked to higher risk of cardiovascular death, research suggests

Intermittent fasting, a diet pattern that involves alternating between periods of fasting and eating, can lower blood pressure and help some people lose weight , past research has indicated.

But an analysis presented Monday at the American Heart Association’s scientific sessions in Chicago challenges the notion that intermittent fasting is good for heart health. Instead, researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China found that people who restricted food consumption to less than eight hours per day had a 91% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease over a median period of eight years, relative to people who ate across 12 to 16 hours.

It’s some of the first research investigating the association between time-restricted eating (a type of intermittent fasting) and the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

The analysis — which has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in an academic journal — is based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected between 2003 and 2018. The researchers analyzed responses from around 20,000 adults who recorded what they ate for at least two days, then looked at who had died from cardiovascular disease after a median follow-up period of eight years.

However, Victor Wenze Zhong, a co-author of the analysis, said it’s too early to make specific recommendations about intermittent fasting based on his research alone.

“Practicing intermittent fasting for a short period such as 3 months may likely lead to benefits on reducing weight and improving cardiometabolic health,” Zhong said via email. But he added that people “should be extremely cautious” about intermittent fasting for longer periods of time, such as years.

Intermittent fasting regimens vary widely. A common schedule is to restrict eating to a period of six to eight hours per day, which can lead people to consume fewer calories, though some eat the same amount in a shorter time. Another popular schedule is the "5:2 diet," which involves eating 500 to 600 calories on two nonconsecutive days of the week but eating normally for the other five.

Zhong said it’s not clear why his research found an association between time-restricted eating and a risk of death from cardiovascular disease. He offered an observation, though: People who limited their eating to fewer than eight hours per day had less lean muscle mass than those who ate for 12 to 16 hours. Low lean muscle mass has been linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular death .

Cardiovascular and nutrition experts who were not involved in the analysis offered several theories about what might explain the results.

Dr. Benjamin Horne, a research professor at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, said fasting can increase stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline, since the body doesn’t know when to expect food next and goes into survival mode. That added stress may raise the short-term risk of heart problems among vulnerable groups, he said, particularly elderly people or those with chronic health conditions.

Horne’s research has shown that fasting twice a week for four weeks, then once a week for 22 weeks may increase a person’s risk of dying after one year but decrease their 10-year risk of chronic disease.

“In the long term, what it does is reduces those risk factors for heart disease and reduces the risk factors for diabetes and so forth — but in the short term, while you’re actually doing it, your body is in a state where it’s at a higher risk of having problems,” he said.

Even so, Horne added, the analysis “doesn’t change my perspective that there are definite benefits from fasting, but it’s a cautionary tale that we need to be aware that there are definite, potentially major, adverse effects.” 

Intermittent fasting gained popularity about a decade ago, when the 5:2 diet was touted as a weight loss strategy in the U.K. In the years to follow, several celebrities espoused the benefits of an eight-hour eating window for weight loss, while some Silicon Valley tech workers believed that extreme periods of fasting boosted productivity . Some studies have also suggested that intermittent fasting might help extend people’s lifespans by warding off disease .

However, a lot of early research on intermittent fasting involved animals. In the last seven years or so, various clinical trials have investigated potential benefits for humans, including for heart health.

“The purpose of intermittent fasting is to cut calories, lose weight,” said Penny Kris-Etherton, emeritus professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University and a member of the American Heart Association nutrition committee. “It’s really how intermittent fasting is implemented that’s going to explain a lot of the benefits or adverse associations.”

Dr. Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, a cardiologist at Mayo Clinic, said the timing of when people eat may influence the effects they see. 

“I haven’t met a single person or patient that has been practicing intermittent fasting by skipping dinner,” he said, noting that people more often skip breakfast, a schedule associated with an increased risk of heart disease and death .

The new research comes with limitations: It relies on people’s memories of what they consumed over a 24-hour period and doesn’t consider the nutritional quality of the food they ate or how many calories they consumed during an eating window.

So some experts found the analysis too narrow.

“It’s a retrospective study looking at two days’ worth of data, and drawing some very big conclusions from a very limited snapshot into a person’s lifestyle habits,” said Dr. Pam Taub, a cardiologist at UC San Diego Health.

Taub said her patients have seen “incredible benefits” from fasting regimens.

“I would continue doing it,” she said. “For people that do intermittent fasting, their individual results speak for themselves. Most people that do intermittent fasting, the reason they continue it is they see a decrease in their weight. They see a decrease in blood pressure. They see an improvement in their LDL cholesterol.” 

Kris-Etherton, however, urged caution: “Maybe consider a pause in intermittent fasting until we have more information or until the results of the study can be better explained,” she said.

Aria Bendix is the breaking health reporter for NBC News Digital.