The Library

The methodological impact of feminism : a troubling issue for sociology?

Tools

Cohen, Rachel Lara, Hughes, Christina and Lampard, Richard. (2011) The methodological impact of feminism : a troubling issue for sociology? Sociology, Vol.45 (No.4). pp. 570-586. ISSN 0038-0385

PDF
WRAP_Hughes_Does_Feminism_Count_Final_Revised_Version.pdf - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 August 2012. - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (581Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038511406599

Abstract

As British sociology seeks to overcome a historical distaste for quantitative research methods, one of the discipline's most dynamic sub-fields may prove troublesome. Feminist research thrives both within and outside sociology. As such it provides new insights and enriches the discipline, something recognized by the 2010 Benchmarking Review of Sociology. Yet feminist research has long been associated with an antipathy towards quantitative methods. This article explores the extent to which this persists. Methodological patterns in articles from 19 journals in the interdisciplinary field of 'women's studies' are analysed. Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion of articles employed quantitative methods. Those engaged with feminist literature or epistemologies were, however, unlikely to be quantitative. This article also highlights the importance of national contexts, suggesting perhaps we should not ask why UK research is so qualitative, but why US research is so quantitative.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Sociology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Feminism -- Research, Women's studies -- Methodology, Quantitative research
Journal or Publication Title:	Sociology
Publisher:	Sage Publications Ltd.
ISSN:	0038-0385
Date:	August 2011
Volume:	Vol.45
Number:	No.4
Page Range:	pp. 570-586
Identification Number:	10.1177/0038038511406599
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
References:	Abbott, A. (2005) ‘Process and temporality in sociology: The idea of outcome in US Sociology’, in G. Steinmetz (ed.) The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences, pp. 393-426. Durham: Duke University Press. BSA/HaPS/ESRC. (2010) International Benchmarking Review of UK Sociology. Swindon: ESRC. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Sociology%20IBR%20Report_tcm6-36279.pdf (accessed 30.08.10) Crompton, R. (2008) ‘Forty Years of Sociology: Some Comments’, Sociology, 42(6): 1218-27. Dunn, D. and Waller, D. (2000) ‘The Methodological Inclinations of Gender Scholarship in Mainstream Sociology Journals’, Sociological Spectrum 20(2): 239-57. Erola, J. (2010) ‘Why Probability Has Not Succeeded in Sociology’, Sociology 44(1): 121-38. Fonow, M.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): 2211-36. Lather, P. (2006) ‘Paradigm Proliferation as a Good Thing to Think With: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 19(1): 35-57. Letherby, G. (2003) Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Lovell, T. (2000) ‘Thinking feminism with and against Bourdieu’, Feminist Theory, 1(1): 11-32. May, C. (2005) ‘Methodological Pluralism, British Sociology and the Evidence-based State: A Reply to Payne et al.’, Sociology 39(3): 519-28. Oakley, A. (1981) ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms’, in H. Roberts (ed.) Doing Feminist Research, pp. 30-61. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Oakley, A. (2004) ‘Response to Quoting and Counting: An Autobiographical Response to Oakley’, Sociology, 38(1): 191-2. Payne, G., Williams, M. and Chamberlain, S. (2004) ‘Methodological Pluralism in British Sociology’, Sociology, 38(1): 153-63. Payne, G., Williams, M. and Chamberlain, S. (2005) ‘Methodological Pluralism, British Sociology and the Evidence-based State: A Reply to May’, Sociology 39(3): 529-33. Payne, G. (2007) ‘Social Divisions, Social Mobilities and Social Research: Methodological Issues after 40 Years’, Sociology 41(5): 901-15. Platt, J. (2007) ‘The Women's Movement and British Journal Articles, 1950-2004’, Sociology 41(5): 961-75. Power, M. (2004) ‘Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics’, Feminist Economics 10(3): 3-19. Ramazanoglu, C. and Holland, J. (2002) Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage. Ryan, L. and Golden, A. (2006) ‘‘Tick the Box Please’: A Reflexive Approach to Doing Quantitative Social Research.’ Sociology 40(6):1191-1200. Scott, J. (2010) ‘Quantitative methods and gender inequalities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13(3): 223-36. Savage, M. and Burrows, R. (2009) ‘Some Further Reflections on The Coming Crisis of Empirical Sociology’, Sociology 43(4): 762-72. Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1993) Breaking Out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge. Undurraga, R. (2010) ‘How quantitative are feminist research methods textbooks?', International Journal of Social Research Methodology 13(3): 277-81. Waller, D., Dunn, D. and Watson, J. (1998) ‘The Incorporation of Gender Scholarship into Sociology’, The American Sociologist 29(3): 43-58.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/38538