Hughes, Christina and Cohen, Rachel Lara. (2010) Feminists really do count : the complexity of feminist methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol.13 (No.3). pp. 189-196. ISSN 1364-5579

Preview

PDF WRAP_Hughes_Final_Editorial.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (208Kb)

Abstract

We are delighted to be presenting this special issue on the topic of feminism and quantitative methods. We believe that such an issue is exceptionally timely. This is not simply because of ongoing debates around quantification within the field of feminism and women‟s studies. It is also because of debates within the wider research community about the development of appropriate methodologies that take account of new technological and philosophical concerns and are fit-for-purpose for researching contemporary social, philosophical, cultural and global issues. Two areas serve as exemplars in this respect and both speak to these combined wider social science and specifically feminist methodological concerns. The first is the increasing concern amongst social scientists with how the complexity of social life can be captured and analysed. Within feminism, this can be seen in debates about intersectionality that recognise the concerns arising from multiple social positions/divisions and associated power issues. As Denis (2008: 688) comments in respect of intersectional analysis „The challenge of integrating multiple, concurrent, yet often contradictory social locations into analyses of power relations has been issued. Theorising to accomplish this end is evolving, and we are struggling to develop effective methodological tools in order to marry theorising with necessary complex analyses of empirical data.‟ Secondly, new techniques and new data sources are now coming on line. This includes work in the UK of the ESRC National Data Strategy which has been setting out the priorities for the development of research data resources both within and across the boundaries of the social sciences. This will facilitate historical, longitudinal, interdisciplinary and mixed methodological research. And it may be the case that these developments facilitate the achievement of a longstanding feminist aim not simply for interdisciplinarity but for transdisciplinarity in epistemological and methodological terms.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) H Social Sciences > HQ The family. Marriage. Woman
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Sociology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Feminism -- Research, Quantitative research
Journal or Publication Title:	International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Publisher:	Routledge
ISSN:	1364-5579
Date:	2010
Volume:	Vol.13
Number:	No.3
Page Range:	pp. 189-196
Identification Number:	10.1080/13645579.2010.482249
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
References:	Bacchi, C (2005) Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology, NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3): 198-209 Cohen, R, Hughes, C and Lampard, R (2009) Does Feminism Count? An Analysis of Feminist Methodological Practice, Paper given at Feminist Research Methods Conference, University of Stockholm, 4-6 February 2009 (http://www.kvinfo.su.se/femmet09/papers/pdf/Cohen_Hughes_Lampard_revised.pdf ) Davies, B and Gannon, S (Eds) (2006) Doing Collective Biography, Maidenhead, Open University Press Denis, A (2008) Intersectional Analysis: A Contribution of Feminism to Sociology, International Sociology, 23(5): 677-694 Dunn, D. and Waller, D. (2000) The Methodological Inclinations of Gender Scholarship in Mainstream Sociology Journals, Sociological Spectrum, 20: 239-157 Eveline, J, Bacchi, C and Binns, J (2009) Gender Mainstreaming versus Diversity Mainstreaming: Methodology as Emancipatory Politics, Gender, Work and Organization, 16(2): 198-216 Fonow, M and Cook,J . (2005) Feminist Methodology: New Applications in the Academy and Public Policy, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(4): 2211-2236 Henry, M (2007) If the shoe fits: Authenticity, authority and agency feminist diasporic research, Women's Studies International Forum, 30(1): 70-80 McCall, L. (2005) The Complexity of Intersectionality, SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3): 1771-1800 Mies, M. (1983) Towards a Methodology for feminist research, in G. Bowles and R. Klein (Eds) Theories for Women’s Studies, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp 117-139 Oakley, A. (1981) Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms, in H Roberts (Ed.) Doing Feminist Research, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp 30-61 Oakley, A. (1998) Gender, Methodology and People‟s Ways of Knowing: Some Problems with Feminism and The Paradigm Debate in Social Science, Sociology, 32(4): 707-732 Payne, G., Williams, M. and Chamberlain, S. (2005) Methodological Pluralism, British Sociology and the Evidence-based State: A Reply to May. Sociology, 39(3): 529-533. Platt, J. (2007) The Women's Movement and British Journal Articles, 1950-2004. Sociology, 41(5): 961-975. Power, M. (2004) Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics, Feminist Economics, 10(3): 3-19 Stanley, L and Wise, S (1993) Breaking out Again: feminist ontology and epistemology, London, Routledge Vickers, J (2006) Bringing nations in: Some methodological and conceptual issues in connecting feminisms with nationhood and nationalisms, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8(1): 84-109.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/3736

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item