The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis (original) (raw)

Authors

DOI:

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

Keywords:

Gender Studies, Objectivity, Epistemology, Subjectivity

Abstract

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

Author Biography

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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