• Contact Us
  • Home
  • Director's Note
  • Calendar Of Events
  • Faculty
  • Undergraduates
  • Graduates
    • Graduate Certificate Clearance Form
    • Syllabi
      • Feminist Methodologies
      • Feminist Theory
      • Men, Women, and Social Change
    • Course Descriptions
    • Ph.D Dissertation List
  • Graduate Consortium of Women's Studies
  • Visiting Scholar Program
  • Feminist Student Organization
  • Pictures
  • News and Publications
  • Resources
  • Frequently Asked Questions

Feminist Methodologies

Feminist Methodologies

SOCL 7212, Tuesdays 4:30 - 6:30 pm

Professor Debra Kaufman
515 Holmes
d.kaufman@neu.edu
ex. 4270
Office Hours: Tues 2:30 - 4:15 pm, or by appointment

Professor Mary Ballou
206 Lake Hall
m.ballou@neu.edu
ex. 5937
Office Hours: Mon 2:00 - 4:00 pm, or by appointment

Course Description:

Doing feminist research involves rethinking disciplinary assumptions and methodologies, developing new understandings of what counts as knowledge, seeking alternative ways of understanding the origins of problems/issues and redefining the relationship between subjects and objects of study. In the past twenty years, the internal critique of the social sciences has drawn increasingly on insights, epistemologies, and research practices from the works of feminist scholars. Feminist scholarship has challenged and reworked basic assumptions about the social world and the research that describes it. This requires what we call the three R's: Rethinking, Reflecting and Rewriting. To do this we need to examine the ways of knowing common to the social sciences and the ways in which new paradigms have, or have not been, integrated into these ways of knowing. In our choice of texts as well as in our classroom discussions, we are committed to reflexivity as a principal tenet of feminist inquiry. For us, reflexivity means maintaining an ongoing open conversation among faculty and students about our personal and disciplinary perspectives, as we share and refine our responses to the texts we read together.

Rethinking: Drawing on the pedagogical issues raised by Patrice Ewick in her excellent article: "Integrating Feminist Epistemologies" (1984) (Gender and Society, 8(l)), the first few weeks of the course will be devoted to looking at the major questions that emerge from feminist criticisms of positivist and post positivist social science: Can the empirical world be known in a culturally unmediated or ahistorical way? Traditional positivist epistemology draws a distinction between the identification of research problems or questions, the development of concepts, and the generation of theories or hypotheses (discovery) from the testing of theories and hypotheses through empirical observation (justification). Rethinking through a feminist lens raises our consciousness to the ways cultural and historical values, interests and unexamined assumptions about the world affect the social production of theories of social science, the separation of discovery from justification and the methods whereby we study and produce scholarship.

Reflecting: In the middle weeks of the course we will discuss the ways theory can emerge inductively from method, the ways feminist thought affects techniques of inquiry, the relationship between the researcher and the subject, and issues about the audiences for our work. Readings in this section explore contemporary efforts of scholars to address questions arising from feminist revisions. For example, upon reflection, feminist rethinking has challenged the notion of a unified subject. As a result, scholars must now pose questions about whether their hypotheses make sense given the multiple identities associated with social location and power (gender, race, ethnicity, class, religion, sexuality).

Rewriting: In this section of the course, we will chart a recurring cluster of issues that feminist scholars address, including: the nature of women�s experience; the role of narrative and language in establishing identity; uses of power of political and symbolic realms; the relation of gender to class and race, and the helpfulness of �patriarchy� as an analytical category.

Course Requirements:

1. Class Participation: This class is a seminar intended to provoke and elicit discussion of issues relevant to students� varied disciplinary interersts. Students are required to come to class prepared to engage in empathetic, critical, and constructive discussion of the assigned readings.

2. Reflection Papers: Each student is required to write a two-paragraph reflection paper each week. These must be posted on blackboard by 8PM on the Monday night before class. Reflection papers should use, as a guideline, the following questions, when applicable:

If gender is key to feminist theory, how do we confront the dilemma of a universal idea of women and the historical particularities of specific women?

Is there (or can there be) a feminist method of inquiry? What is worthy of investigation? What solutions are worthy of acceptance?

How might feminist epistemology be troubling for feminists from groups that are not dominant (with respect to race, class, sexuality, religion, etc.)? How can feminist epistemologies make use of insights from these standpoints?

(To paraphrase Audre Lord) Can only the master's tools destroy the master's house? And if so, how are feminists to use these tools? Can there be a feminist ethnography?

Can (should?) researchers be advocates? How do we reconcile these roles?

3. Seminar Facilitation: Each student will assume responsibility for managing/leading at least 1 seminar over the course of the semester. As facilitator, you should plan to present your own analysis of the reading for approximately 15-20 minutes, identify a number of key questions, concerns, and ideas for the group to discuss, and manage the subsequent discussion. Two copies of your presentation and analysis must be turned in at the conclusion of your presentation or sent to each instructor.

4. Final Presentation/Paper: Students are required to write one final 10-15 page paper. There are two options for this paper. You may prepare a synthetic paper in which you discuss the course material as it sheds light on research in your discipline relevant to your interests. Your papers should describe the methodological issues and controversies relevant to your own project or area of interest, by drawing relevant readings from the course, focusing on the questions used for analysis in your reflection papers, as well as texts relevant to your own discipline. OR if you are currently engaged in research and/or writing a research proposal you could present alternative methods (at least 2) for your project suggesting the ways in which your methodological choices change/rework your original questions. Your presentation will be based on the methodological concerns of your paper. Please select two appropriate readings from among those already assigned in the course to be read again for your presentation. Presentations should be twenty to twenty-five minutes long with about twenty minutes of discussion to follow. Students will be asked to write reflection papers on each of the presentations. Please bring two copies of your paper to the final class or send them to each instructor by email.

Final grades are determined by the following percentages:

Class Participation and Reflection Papers: 25%
Seminar Facilitation: 25%
Final Paper: 50%

Required Readings:

All required articles are on blackboard under course materials. You will need to purchase the book, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (Susan Okin, 1989, Princeton University Press) from Amazon, Alibris, Half.com or through another online distributor.

Course Schedule:

Part One: Rethinking

Week 1 (January 6): Is there a feminist methodology? If so, how would we teach it?

1. Kaufman, DR. (1996). Rethinking, Reflecting, Rewriting: Teaching Feminist Methodology. Journal of Radical Education and Cultural Studies, 18(2): 165 174.
2. Narayan, Uma (1989). The Project of Feminist Epistemology: Perspectives from a Non-Western Feminist. In Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing, Alison Jaggar and Susan Bordo (eds.), pp. 256-269. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
3. Ballou, Mary (1990). Approaching a Feminist-Principled Paradigm in the Construction of Personality Theory Women and Therapy pp. 23-40.

Week 2: (January 13) Ways of Knowing

1. Lutz, C. (1995). The Gender of Theory. In Women Writing Culture. R. Behar and D. Gordon (eds.), pp. 249-266. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2. Jaggar, A.M.(1989). Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology. In Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. Alison Jaggar and Susan Bordo (eds.), pp. 145-169. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
3. Farganis. S. (1986). Social Theory and Feminist Theory: The Need for Dialogue. Sociological Inquiry, 56: 50 68.
4. Morawski, J. (1997). The Science behind Feminist Research Methods. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4): 667 681
5. Riger, S. (2000). Epistemological Debates Feminist Voices Pp. 7-21 in Transforming Psychology: Gender in Theory and Practice Oxford University Press

Week 3: (January 20) Standpoint Theory and Methodology

1. Harding, Sandra. (2006) Ch. 9 "Does the Threat of Relativism Deserve a Panic?" Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Post-Colonial Issues. pp.145-157.
2. Harding Sandra. (2006) Ch. 8 "Are Truth Claims in Science Dysfunctional?" Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Post-Colonial Issues. pp.132-144.
3. Selgas, Fernando J. Garcia. (2004) Ch. 23: "Feminist Epistemologies for Critical Social Theory: From Standpoint Theory to Situated Knowledge." The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. Pp. 292-309.�
4. Bracke, Sarah and de la Bellacasa, Maria Puig.(2004) Ch. 24: "Building Standpoints." The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. pp 309-316.
5. Hirschmann, Nancy J. (2004) Ch. 25: "eminist Standpoint as Postmodern Strategy." The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader pp. 317-331.
6. Mies, Maria and Shiva, Vandana. (2004) Ch. 26: "The Subsistence Perspective." The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. pp. 333-337.
7. Wylie, Alison. (2004) Ch. 27: "Why Standpoint Matters." The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. pp. 339-351.

Week 4: (January 27) Ways of Doing: Quantitative/Qualitative

1. Jayaratne, T.E. & Stewart, A.J. (1991). Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies. In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. M. Fonow and J. Cook (eds.), pp. 85-106. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2. Smith, M.D. (1994). Enhancing the Quality of Survey Data on Violence against Women: A Feminist Approach. Gender and Society, 8(1): 109 127.
3. Acker, Sandra (2000). In/out/side: Positioning the Researcher in Feminist Qualitative Research. Resources for Feminist Research 28 (1/2):189-208.
4. Kaufman, Debra (2005). The Place of Judaism in American Jewish Identity, Chapter 9. In Cambridge University Companion to American Jewish Studies. Dana Kaplan (ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Wolf, Diane (1996) Situating Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. D. Wolf (ed.), pp. 1-55. Boulder: Westview Press.

Part Two: Reflecting

Week 5: (February 3) The Social Construction of Science

1. Martin, Emily (1991). The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16 (3):485-501.
2. Rouse, J. (2004). Feminism and the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge Pp. 353-375 ed. S. Harding in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader Routledge: New York.
3. Traub, V. (1999) The Psychomorphology of the Clitoris Pp. 301-329 Eds. S. Hesse-Biber, C. Gilmartin and R. Lydenberg Feminst Approaches to Theory and Methodology New York: Oxford.

Week 6: (February 10) The Politics of Location

1. Lewin, Ellen (1994). Writing Lesbian Feminist Ethnography. In Women Writing Culture. R. Behar and D. Gordon (eds.), pp. 322-335. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. Behar, Ruth (1994). Writing in my Father�s Name. A Diary of Translated Woman�s First Year. In Women Writing Culture. R. Behar and D. Gordon (eds.), pp. 65-84. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Zavella, Patricia (1996). Feminist Insider Dilemmas: Constructing Ethnic Identity with Chicana Informants. In Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. D. Wolf (ed.), pp. 138-159. Boulder: Westview Press.
4. Minh-ha, Trinh T. (1989). Woman, Native Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 5-44.
5. Collins, Patricia Hill (1991). Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought. In Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. M. Fonow and J. Cook (eds.), pp.35-59. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
6. Tolman, D. (TBA)

Week 7: (February 17) Feminist Research: Controversies and Debates

1. Okin, Susan (1989). Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Part Three: Rewriting

Week 8: (February 24) Voices in Feminist Expression: Whose Voice?

1. The Personal Narratives Group (ed.) (1989). Interpreting Women's Lives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. pp. 3-15, 99-102, and 201-203.
2. Case, Sue-Ellen. "Performing Lesbian in the Space of Technology: Part I." Theatre Journal 47: 1-18.
3. Olsen, Tillie L. 1997. "I Stand Here Ironing." Annual Review of Sociology 23:1226-1232

Week 9: (March 10) Voices in Feminist Telling: Oral History

1. Geiger, Susan (1990). What's So Feminist About Women's Oral History? Journal of Women's History 2(1):169-82.
2. Anderson, K., Armitage, S., Jack, D., and Wittner, J. (1987). Beginning Where We Were: Feminist Methodology in Oral History. Oral History Review, 15 (Spring): 103-127.
3. Romero, Mary. "Millie's Story: Motherhood, Heroin, and Methadone." Pp.142-157 in Women's Untold Stories: Breaking Silence, Talking Back, Voicing Complexity, (eds) Mary Romero and Abigail J. Stewart. Great Britain: Routledge.

Week 10: (March 17) Fictions in Feminist Writing

1. Glaspell, S. K. A Jury of Her Peers
2. Stewart, K. C. (1990). Backtalking in the Wilderness: �Appalachian" En genderings. In Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture. F. Ginsburg and A. Tsing (eds.), pp. 43-56. Boston: Beacon Press.

Week 11: Outline for Presentations Due for all Students (In lieu of class students will meet individually with D. Kaufman and M. Ballou)

Weeks 12- 14: Student Presentations