Feminist Research Methodology: challenges to the main (male) stream
research
Introduction-:
Feminism and feminist movement in the 70’s aimed at ending the subordination and
suffering of women. Its endeavor was to emancipate women and bring gender equality in various
fields including that of theory and research. The feminist critique of research in general and of
social science research in particular has emerged as a legitimate, relevant and popular research
model against the male bias prevalent in the existing theory and research. With the rise of the
feminist movement many feminist scholars argued that traditional social sciences reflected a
deep rooted male centric, sexist and patriarchal representation of society in theory and
knowledge. This approach was condemned for neglecting or ignoring the standpoint of women,
her values and experiences in the society. Hence with the advent of critical theoretical approach*
and strong feminist movements, a model was introduced which aimed to “serve the interests of
dominated, exploited and oppressed groups, particularly women”. (Mies, 1993: 68-69).
The paper proposes to discuss the broad area of feminist research methodology with
reference to the theoretical foundation, its nature and objectives, contributions of feminist
research scholars in standpoint epistemology and various research methodologies employed
under its domain. The paper is divided into three sections, the first section deals with the
evolution of feminist research, its purpose and its basic arguments against the conventional
research. The standpoint epistemology and its major contributors, post modern feminist
methodology, and its critique are discussed in section two. The third section elaborates upon the
qualitative methods employed by feminists in research.
Section –I
Background and evolution-:
It has been argued that ‘Until the 1960s the dominant view of the sciences was that
scientific knowledge consisted of logical reasoning applied to observational and experimental
1
data acquired by value neutral and context-independent methods’. (Keller and Longino, 1996:1).
Much of our understanding of the world, our societies and us that we accept today is based on
theories and knowledge historically generated predominantly by men, and men of certain
nationalities and economic classes. This has often resulted in an exclusion policy as far as
women and her knowledge is concerned. Since the 17th century where, science and intellectual
revolution became the foremost source of knowledge, it was predominantly a male enterprise.
“The reason of this absence of women in science was because of the prevailing normative
construction of the gender and socio-economic and political structures that perpetuated their
subordination”. (Poonacha, 2010: 144).
This idea was dominated the positivist approach towards society. This approach was later
critiqued by interpretative approach which holds that “to explain human behaviour, social
researchers need to understand the meanings and interpretation that people attach to phenomena
in the social world” (Henn, Weinstein, Foard, 2009: 27). Both these approaches dominated the
arena of theory and knowledge until 1970’s.
However, with the beginning of the emancipatory social movements including the
feminist movements in 1970’s, there was a call for an approach which would change the society
for the better. Drawing inspiration from the Frankfurt school of Social Research**, critical social
researchers contended that social research should serve an emancipator role for oppressed groups
within the society. The foundations of feminist research are those of critical theory, and hence
this research model is critical and emancipatory. Feminists argue that much of our understanding
of the world or societies is based on the theory or knowledge predominantly generated by men
which has resulted in exclusion or marginalization of women and her social milieu. With a view
to critique the hitherto conventional and male-stream knowledge building, a new feminist
research methodology was developed by the feminist researchers.
Feminist criticism of conventional research:
In arguing that traditional social research had been carried out about men, by men and for
men, feminist attacked this mainstream (male-stream), patriarchal social methodology on the
following grounds….
2
It’s over emphasis on empirical, quantitative and objective data ignored the validity of
qualitative data.
“That the traditional research had used overwhelmingly male point of reference, and had
therefore over generalized largely from the men’s experience of the family, employment and
society in general, to the experience of all the people in the society.
By assuming the traditional, exploitative gender roles, social scientific enquiry was guilty of
maintaining unequal gender relations and acceptance of women’ subordination in the family
and society”. (Henn et al, 2006: 30).
Male bias was also carried into the field research. Men in the field were considered as the key
informants and respondents for the authentic source of knowledge. Hence knowledge was
often filtered through male prism. Women were peripheral when it came to understanding of
the society.
Issues and problems pertaining to women were seldom included as variables in social
research. Her contribution was rarely recorded or documented at that time. Her experience in
the cultural and social world was been downplayed and marginalized.
In general, various practitioners of feminist epistemology argue that dominant knowledge
practices disadvantage women by “(1) excluding them from inquiry, (2) denying them epistemic
authority, (3) denigrating their “feminine” cognitive styles and modes of knowledge, (4)
producing theories of women that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the
ways they serve male interests, (5) producing theories of social phenomena that render women's
activities and interests, or gendered power relations, invisible.” (Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy, 2009: 1).
Purpose of feminist research methodology
Drawing from many feminist researchers the purpose can be suggested as
To alter the existing “andocentrism”. (Perceiving world from a male perspective).
Empower women and give them a voice to speak about social life from their perspective and
ultimately contribute towards social change and reconstruction.
3
Engaging in value-laden methods and procedures that bring the researcher close to the
subject.
To establish subjective principles of research, encouraging taking sides and personal
commitment to the feminist cause. (Sarantakos, 2004: 55)
Critique and transform gender relations
To reveal the inequalities in gender relations (Henn et al, 2006: 31).
To give equal representation to women and women’s experience in empirical research.
Consider women as a significant informant or respondent in the field.
Acknowledge the contribution of women scholars and researchers in the disciplines and give
them appropriate credit for the same.
Recognize women’s contribution in the public world as revolutionaries, social reformer,
wage/salary workers and high achievers.
Section-II
Feminist standpoint epistemology
Before initiating the discussion on feminist research methodology and standpoint
epistemology it is necessary to define the terms method, methodology and epistemology, which
are often used indifferently. ‘Method refers to a range of techniques that are available to us to
collect evidence about the social world. Methodology however concerns the research strategy as
a whole’. (Henn, Weinstein, Foard, 2006: 9). As rightly argued by Sandra Harding, method for a
feminist researcher is an evidence gathering process which is centered on listening to
(interrogating), observing behaviour or examining historical traces and records. That means
feminist researcher may use the same methods that the mainstream, andocentric researchers have
used. But, precisely how they carry out these methods of evidence gathering is strikingly
different. Methodology includes the choice and application of research methods to establish
theories. For Harding, a methodology is a theory and analysis of how research does or should
proceed; it includes accounts of how “the general structure of theory finds its application in
particular scientific disciplines”. (Harding, 987: 3).
4
Feminist researchers have argued that traditional theories have been applied in ways that
makes it difficult to understand women’s participation in social life, or to understand men’s
activities as gendered. Epistemology is theory of knowledge. “It often attempts to answer the
questions who can be the ‘knower’ or informant of reality, what tests beliefs must pass in order to
be legitimated as knowledge, can ‘subjective truths’ count as knowledge”. The conventional
epistemology often excluded women as a ‘knower’ or the agent of knowledge. Critiquing this
exclusion of women voices in science and history, feminists have proposed alternative theories of
knowledge that legitimate women as knowers.
The most influential of feminist epistemologies is standpoint epistemology. The term
standpoint employs viewing of society from a specific position. In gender studies standpoint
research model stands for a critique of traditional model of scientific inquiry. Crafted in 1980s by
Patricia Hill Collins, Nancy Hartsock, Sandra Harding, Hilary rose and Dorothy Smith, it has its
roots in second-wave feminist consciousness-raising. This research model works on the
theoretical proposition that “women, due to their personal and social experience as females, are
in a better position than men to face and understand the world of women”. (Sarantakos, 2004:
58). “It is research about women, which generates knowledge in opposition to dominant
(patriarchal) construction of women’s position and experiences and so is also research for
women”.(Pilcher and Whelehan, 2004: 164). Standpoint epistemologist tries to understand the
truth about society not just from empirical research and statistical relationships but through
understanding women’s experience in their own context which is subject to revision. They argue
that no version of empiricism-feminist or otherwise- can offer sufficiently radical analyses of the
structural factors that shape women’s practices and consciousness in ‘the everyday world’, where
authoritative knowledge derives from the experiences of the dominant. (Code, 2000: 461).
For Dorothy Smith, an eminent scholar in women’s studies, there were major two
difficulties with the conventional methodology. One, “how sociology was thought- its methods,
conceptual schemes, and theories –has been based on and built up within the male social
universe”…. “There is a disjunction between how women find and experience the world
beginning from their place and the concepts and schemes available to think about it”. And the
second difficulty is that the two worlds and the two basis of knowledge and experience don’t
5
stand in an equal relation. The world as it is constituted by men stands in authority over that of
women”. (Smith, 1996: 18).
Liz Stanley and Sue Wise argue that feminist research should be “not only located in but
proceeding from, the grounded analysis of women’s experiences”….according to them “all
knowledge necessarily, results from the conditions of its production, is contextually located, and
irrevocably bears the marks of its origin”. (Haralambos and Holburn, 2000: 987). However,
Stanley and Wise also argue that women from different strata of society have a different
understanding of their situation, and hence one set of knowledge should not be generalized for
the entire group and should be looked at from different standpoints. The experience of black
middle class women differs from their white middle class counterparts. The experience of
working class women differs from a group of elite women. Similarly experience differs on the
basis of women’s sexual orientation of being a heterosexual or a lesbian. They are in favour of
plurality of feminist theories deriving from the study of various oppressed groups where no one
theory dominates over the other.
Standpoint model critiques the traditional model of scientific inquiry and of knowledge in
more fundamental ways. These scholars challenge the very notion of truth and reality in research.
They argue against the idea of value neutrality and objectivity in knowledge. The “researcher” is
an important stakeholder and his/her perception or identity which gives rise to power relation is
an inevitable aspect of analysis. For them research is a moral-political activity that requires
researchers to commit to a value position. Along with the objectivity, validity and reliability of
the data they often emphasize on the trustworthiness of the data. So for feminist researchers in
general and standpoint epistemologist in particular it is not just how the research was conducted
but also who conducts the research and in what manner is imperative. In standpoint epistemology
the nature of relationship between the researcher and the respondents is non-hierarchical. This is
established by considering them as participants rather than a ‘subject’ and by being open about
the purpose and possible use of the research. Standpoint theorists contest epistemic neutrality,
exposing the patterns of dominance and subordination in which knowledge is produced and
legitimated.
6
Contributions of Ann Oakley, Sandra Hardings and Nancy Hartsock.
Ann Oakley
Among the early feminists who advocate gendering of sociology and its research
methods, Ann Oakley was most influential. She criticized the hitherto masculine model of
interviewing. For her, “there is a feminist way of conducting interviews which is superior to a
more dominant, masculine model of such research”. (Haralambos and Holburn, 2000: 988). She
infers that a value such as objectivity and detachment in research often ignores the individualized
concerns.
In ‘Housewife’ (1974) Oakley pioneered the discussion on women’s work. Women’s
house work till then was an ignored territory in social sciences. She gave a detailed analysis of
work done by women and pointed out how this was a major concern under gendered division of
emotional and physical labour both within and outside family. In her subsequent work on ‘The
Sociology of house work’ (1974), she highlights the oppression and subjugation women undergo
while doing the housework. She argues “The assignment to women of domestic activities both
inside and outside the home, and women’s own seeming predilection for domesticity, are
structural features of their general situation in industrialized societies at the present time.
Therefore any research which examines women’s feelings and attitudes about housework can be
expected to have something to say about both the ‘oppression’ and the ‘liberation’ of women”.
(Oakley, 1974).
Giving an alternative to masculine model of interviewing she gave a path breaking work
on motherhood and the birth of the children in early 1980s. She conducted detailed interviews
with women twice before and twice after the birth of their children. She was present at the time
of the birth and for her “it helped those women as she herself shared her experience of pregnancy
with them”. Her research approach towards her respondents was one of collaboration i.e. she
7
wanted them to become collaborators in her research rather than just passive respondents. It
helped in getting subjective viewpoints of the women being studied.
Strongly arguing for a feminist interviewing she says “the mythology of hygienic
research with its accompanying mystification of the researcher and the researched as objective
instruments of data production be replaced by the recognition that personal involvement is more
than dangerous bias- it is the condition under which people come to know each other and to
admit others into their lives”.(Oakley,1981: 58) Oakley’s approach to interviewing has been quite
influential amongst the feminists and her ideas are widely quoted in the works about
methodology.
Sandra Harding
Harding’s work is important, first in defining feminist epistemology and
philosophy of science, and later in pursuing issues in these fields in multicultural and post
colonial contexts. Her major contributions to the field of feminist methodology include The
Science Question in Feminism (1986), Feminism and Methodology (1987) and Whose Science?
Whose Knowledge? (1991). For Harding, it is necessary to redefine the goals and structures of
inquiry for feminist research with new empirical and theoretical resources (of women’s
experience), new purposes of social science, new subject matter of inquiry by locating the
researcher in the same critical plane as the overt subject matter.
Arguing against the traditional scientific approach, Harding states that “Scientific
knowledge seeking is supposed to be value-neutral, objective, dispassionate, disinterested and so
forth. It is supposed to be protected from the political interests, goals and desires by the norms of
science. In particular, science’s ‘method’ is supposed to protect the results of research from the
social values of researchers. (Harding, 1987: 182). Her work demonstrates how feminist
criticisms raised important issues not only about the social structure and uses of the science but
also about the origins, problematics, social meanings, agendas, and theories of scientific
knowledge-seeking. For her women were not just asking the “women question in science but
also the “the science question in feminism”: is it possible to use the laboratory model which is
intimately involved western, bourgeois and masculine approach? (Harding, 1991: 7).
8
Against the popular question raised by her hitherto social scientists and feminist scholars,
whether men can be a feminist researcher, she rightly argues that anyone who actively struggles
against the exploitation of women in everyday life and does not claim to overtake the feminist
research which becomes significant in the public world can be a feminist.
Nancy Hartsock
Hartsock was on of the pioneers in defining the feminist Marxism in USA. She
adopts the Marx’s theory of standpoint of the proletariat in capitalist society to the position of
women in patriarchal society. Her major contribution to the arena of feminist research include
‘Money, Sex and Power: towards a Feminist Historical Materialism’ (1983) and ‘The Feminist
Standpoint revisited and other essays’ (1998).
Hartsock’s epistemology attempts to develop a tool for understanding and
opposing all forms of domination, in which women’s experience is taken as the ground of
account and the concern is to sketch the ‘epistemological consequences’ of women’s life
activity”. (Hartsock, 1983: 284). Feminist standpoint for her allows women to identify the ‘the
abstract masculinity’ underlying the exploitation associated with her material roles of
reproduction, care and nurture of the family members and attending to the daily bodily needs of
the men. She also asserts that this sexual division of labour provides for the ground for a distinct
epistemology because this experience gives women the possibility of privileged access to reality,
one which is not available to men as the dominant group. For Hartsock, to understand the social
relations beneath the material world both the theoretical and political activities are inevitable. “
Feminist theorists must demand that feminist theorizing be grounded in women’s material
activity and must as well be a apart of the political struggle necessary to develop areas of social
life modelled on this activity”.( Harding, 1991:71).
Postmodern feminism
9
The social sciences were under the strong influence of postmodernism and post
structuralism at the close of the 20th century. The term modernism was first used in architecture
to describe the ways in which architects were breaking with the conventions of international
modernism. It was subsequently taken up in various ways within humanities and social sciences
and was mainly an attack on modernism, which emphasized on objectivity and progress,
associated with enlightenment. Post modernism draws heavily from post structuralism. Post
structuralism refers to a body of theories which take their initial point of reference from the
structural linguistics. Writers whose work is often characterised as post-structuralist include
Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler and Julia Kristeva.
Post modernism involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social
constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of
language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications
and binary opposites such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and
imperial versus colonial. It holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the
interested parties are and what their interests consist in. French feminism from the 1970s until
now, with the psychoanalytic theory writers Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray have forged specific
routes in postmodern feminism and in feminist psychoanalysis.
Post modern feminists view the world as non-foundationlist, contexualist and non dualist.
“They question the foundational grounding of knowledge, the universalizing the scope of
knowledge and the employment of dualist categories of though. They see truth as a ‘destructive
illusion’ and the world as endless stories of texts, many of which sustain the integration of power
and oppression.” (Sarntakos, 2004: 59-60).
Post modern feminists are critical not only of conventional research but also of feminist
practices which consider gender and patriarchy as essentialist. They also questioned the
sovereignty of experience, which was the central idea of feminist standpoint epistemology.
Instead they stress upon the representation and interpretation of texts. For them how cultural
objects or texts like video, music, films etc are produced, reproduced how they are analysed and
interpreted, how meaning is constructed and circulated in everyday life are the major concerns.
10
Drawing from Foucault’s idea of knowledge and power, post modern feminist argue that
knowledge is incomplete and partial in representing particular interests. They critique the
process of producing a discourse without challenging the metanarratives, which in turn results in
reinserting the power relations.
Hélène Cixous is a writer of prose who built on Derrida's works to criticize the very
nature of writing. According to Cixous, man's writing is filled with binary oppositions but
woman's writing is scribbling, jotting down, interrupted by life's demands. She also relates
feminine writing to female sexuality and women's body concepts. Luce Irigaray is a
psychoanalyst whose primary focus is to liberate women from men's philosophies, including the
ones of Derrida and Lacan, on which she's building. Irigaray takes on Freudian and Lacanian
conceptions of child development, and is one of the thousands who criticize the Oedipal
complex.
Julia Kristeva rejects the idea that the biological man and the biological woman are
identified with the "masculine" and "feminine" respectively. To insist that people are different
because of their anatomy is to force both men and women into a repressive structure. Kristeva
openly accepts the label of feminist, but refuses to say there is a "woman's perspective". She sees
the problems of women as similar to the problems of other groups excluded from the dominant:
Jews, homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities. Like other postmodern feminists, she viewed
the use of language as crucial. In her view, linear, logical "normal" writing was repressed.
Critiques of Postmodern Feminism
A major critique of postmodern feminism is its seeming identification of women with the
feminine and the biological body. The other most prevalent criticisms of Postmodern Feminism
and postmodernism in general is its apparently nonsensical writing. Much of the writing of
postmodernists rejects linear construction in their writing. And so accusations of eliticism have
been leveled at the postmodern feminism as a whole. Considering that postmodernist reject
essentialist, there is an obvious lack of conceptual understanding of postmodern feminism
11
reflected in these criticisms. So in fact, being obtuse and chaotic is their way of introducing
change and therefore offering new meanings.
Postmodern Feminism has resulted in some of the most ground breaking research in the
last twenty years. Its major technique, discourse analysis has been used in many different fields
to ask many different questions. A logical progression of postmodern theory, it has revitalized
feminism by questioning many assumptions that were previously unexamined. While as of yet it
has not been a major presence in the field of library and information studies, the number of
studies utilizing it is steadily increasing.
Critique of feminist research methodology
In spite of its wide popularity among the feminist scholars and researchers, standpoint
epistemology was later condemned of following a path of relativism. Since standpoint
epistemology emphasises on experience, especially, it is difficult to generalise it as an experience
of women in general. It is ultimately reduced as different and equally valid views of different
sections of women in society.
It is also criticized on the ground that feminist methodology did not develop its own
methodology and often draws from Marxism, critical theory, psychoanalytical theory,
empiricism, postmodernism and post structuralism. Without having distinct principles it is not
possible to claim a separate methodology. Most of the methods employed by them are found in
the non-feminist research domain too. The objection to ‘objectivity’ in research was long back
questioned by qualitative researchers and hence, it is not justifiable to propose a methodology
which was already established.
In response to these and many other criticism it is rightly argued by Harding that “there
can never be a feminist science, sociology, anthropology or epistemology, but only many stories
that different women tell about the different knowledge they have”.(Harding, 1987: 188)
Section-III
Qualitative methods and feminist research
12
Data collection in social research is broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative
methods of data collection. Quantitative research techniques, based on translate individual’s
experiences in predefined categories and emphasise more on the objectivity and universality of
the research. Qualitative research techniques on the other hand takes into consideration the
experiences, emotions and understanding of the given situation and interpretation of the same
with subjective and contextual perspective.
Since the last couple of decades, the feminist research community has engaged in a
dialogue concerning the use of quantitative versus the qualitative research techniques.
Traditionally, many feminists have argued against the use of quantitative research methods
because it was seen to be inconsistent with goals of the feminist movement. Oakley, for example,
suggests that “quantitative methods, in the form of surveys and experiments, manipulate people
who are used for the purpose of the research simply as information-rich units”. (Henn et al, 2006:
36). Quantitative research is often criticised of making the respondents “subjects” rather than
participants. Feminist researchers, on the other hand argue that women are not just simply
disembodied sources of data, but emotional participants in the process. They advocate a non-
hierarchical, less mechanical relationship between the researcher and the researched. Some of the
arguments in favour of qualitative methods by feminist researchers are as follows.
Women’s experiences have not been articulated and conceptualized within social science.
Quantitative methods have concealed women’s real experience, and hence there is a need
for a qualitative method which permits women to express their experience fully in their
own terms. (Jayaratne and Stewart, 1991: 89).
Qualitative research allows for an explanation and understanding of the lives of people as
they really lived. It focuses on the meanings and interpretations of those being
researched.
In qualitative research, there is closer degree of involvement with those who participate
in the research, and consequently a greater sensitivity to the rights of participants as
people, rather than an object of research. ( Henn et al, 2006: 37)
13
Feminist believes that women posses intuitive ability to relate to people and are natural
facilitators of conversation and hence, connect well with tools of qualitative research
such as life histories, focus group, case study, personal interviews etc.
Different type of qualitative methods in feminist research
There are a wide variety of qualitative methods used in feminist research. It includes life
stories, historiography, oral histories, focus group discussion, case study, personal interview,
narratives etc. Here an attempt is made to illustrate some of these methods, although briefly.
Personal Interview:
Unstructured and semi structured interviews have become extremely prominent methods
of data collection within feminist research framework. Although interview has always been a
dominant method in social science research, it is the personal interview which enables a face-to-
face, in-depth conversation with women participants. “The survey interviews with a structured
format are one way process with hierarchical relationship between the interviewer and
interviewee. Personal interview ensures a rapport and reciprocity in the interview”. (Bryman,
2001: 326) Ann Oakley, as mentioned earlier, extensively used this method and propagated it as a
“feminist method”. Emphasising on reciprocity in this method, she noted that in her research on
the transition to motherhood, she was frequently asked questions by her respondents, and it was
ethically indefensible for feminist not to answer them. It is believed that women are more
comfortable in a conversational set up rather than answering questions as passive objects of
research and hence, Personal interview has gained popularity in feminist research methods.
Focus group discussion
The focus group discussion is a group interview in which there are several people
questioned on a specifically defined issue or topic. The method initially used for market research
has been extensively used in feminist research in recent years. Since it emphasizes on group
interaction which is a part of everyday social life for women, it enables to create a natural setting
for research. “Feminist researchers have expressed a preference for methods that avoid
decontextualisation-that it successfully studies individuals within a social context. Sharing of
ideas become more influential as focus group discussions are generally conducted with women
14
of same ethnicity, socioeconomic background and value system. One of the promoters of focus
group discussion Esther Madriz argues that “focus group can be an important element in the
advancement of an agenda of social justice for women, because they can serve to expose and
validate women’s everyday experiences of subjugation and their individual and collective
survival and resistance strategies”. (Madriz, 2000: 837).
Life stories and Oral Histories
Life story essentially understood as narratives about ones life and experiences. “As
subjectivity became one of the core approaches to research in the field of women’s history in
1980s, both oral history and feminism engaged themselves with spoken histories and life story
became a theme of central concern within the oral history movement. These stories help to see
how the larger macro historical processes impinge upon individual lives, and how each
individual, given her special circumstances, shape their lives.” (Munshi, 2008, 12-13). With
women’s life experiences becoming a central component of research, oral sources like folklores,
folksongs, lullabies and stories started being viewed as an important source of information.
Unlike many other methods, life stories and oral histories has a strength of accessing the inner
world of women including the aspirations, motivation, imaginations and subjective experiences.
Feminist Historiography
There is also attempt to rewrite history from women’s perspective. Often known as
Feminist Historiography, its rationale lies in the exclusion or invisibility of women in the official
versions of history. As put forward by Veena Poonacha, “this search for the forgotten voices from
the past, suggest that the scope of history has become broader and that it will now have resonate
in multiple (though often dissonant) voices”. The prevalent invisibility in the official history was
a apolitically motivated step to rationalise women from public domain. And hence to assemble
the livid experiences of women in hitherto existing societies it is important create an alternative
source history. Usually such alternative source of history combines the oral sources with
documentary sources. The aim of feminist historiography, like many other qualitative methods, is
not of arriving at objective truth, but rather to conceptualise truth as subjective, and influenced
by the socio-economic, cultural and political location of the researcher and the researched.
15
Critique of qualitative methods
Although gaining enormous popularity in the feminist research circle, there are certain
arguments made against the extensive use of qualitative methods in feminist research. It is
criticized of not being helpful policy formulation. The data collected through qualitative methods
are often subjective and partial which cannot be generalize for the entire community or society
and hence, cannot be employed in policy formulation. It is also condemned of being
inappropriate for changing or challenging the exploitative social structure given its limited
applicability. The critique of qualitative methods label it as unscientific, politically motivated and
biased. However feminist research scholars strongly believe that to reflect upon the complexities
of women’s experiences and problems, qualitative method is the only answer.
Conclusion
Since its inception, in last four decades the feminist research methodology has emerged
as a strong critique of mainstream social science research. Feminists from different schools of
thought have promoted and propagated varieties of methods and approaches that can be
employed in conducting feminist research. It is no longer seen as just a critique of the
conventional research but as an independent research model. It has been growing in spite of
strong critique against it of being biased and non-objective. However the main aim of feminist
research was not just of understanding and explaining but to emancipate and transform the social
structure which seems to be far fetched. Since the applicability of the methods in policy making
is limited there is a need to have research which can strike a balance of collecting a large scale
data and yet reflect upon women’s life experiences.
16
Notes
*Critical theory in Sociology finds its roots in Marxist theory. It was against the
positivist theory. It was a theoretical explanation to reduce the domination and
dependence by increasing the autonomy in society.
** Frankfurt school of social research founded in 1923 was a critique of orthodox
Marxism and the thinkers are often known as neo- Marxist. They were critical of
the totalitarian form of domination developed in modern industrial societies.
References
1. Bryman, Alan, 2001. ‘Social Research Methods’, Oxford University Press. NewYork.
2. Code, L. (eds) 2000. ‘Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories’, Routledge. London.
3. Haralambos, M and Holburn M. 2000. ‘Sociology: Themes and Perspectives’, Collins
Publication ltd. London.
4. Harding, S. 1987. Is there a Feminist method? In Harding, S. (ed) ‘Feminism and
Methodology’, Indiana University Press. Bloomington and Indianapolis.
5. Harding, S. 1991. ‘Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? : Thinking from women’s lives’.
Open University Press. Milton Keynes.
6. Hartsock, N. 1983. ‘Money, Sex and Power: towards a Feminist Historical Materialism’.
Northeastern University press. Boston.
7. Henn M., Weinstein M., Foard N. 2006. ‘A short introduction to social research’, Vistaar
publication, New Delhi.
8. Henn M., Weinstein M., Foard N. 2009. ‘A critical introduction to social research’, Sage
publication, New Delhi.
17
9. Jayaratne T.E. and Stewart A.J. 1991. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social
Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies. In Fonow M. and Cook J.
(eds), ‘Beyond Methodology’, Indiana University. USA.
10. Keller E.F., Longino H.E. (eds), 1996. ‘Feminism and Science’, Oxford University press,
New York.
11. Madriz, E. 2000. Focus Groups in Feminist Research, In Norman, D. and Yvonna S.L,
‘Handbook of qualitative research’, Sage Publication, California.
12. Munshi. I. 2008. ‘Adivasi life stories: context, constraints, choices’, Rawat Publication.
Jaipur.
13. Mies, M. 1993. Towards a methodology for feminist research in M.Hammersely (ed)
‘Social Research: philosophy, politics, practice’, sage publication, London.
14. Oakley, A. 1974. ‘The Sociology of Housework’, Martin Robertson, London.
15. Oakley, A. 1981. Interviewing women: A contradiction in Terms. In H. Roberst (ed),
‘Doing Feminist Research’, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
16. Pilcher, J and Whelehan I. 2004. ‘50 key concepts in Gender studies’, Sage publication,
London.
17. Poonacha, V. 2007. ‘Writing Women’s Lives: Some Methodological Questions for
Feminist Historiography’. Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts. N. Delhi.
18. Poonacha, V. 2010. Gender Exclusion in Science: Questions about Epistemology,
Policies and Institutional Framework. In, Subramanian K. (ed), ‘The episteme reviews:
18
Research trends in Science, Technology and mathematics education’. Vol.3, McMillan
Publishing House, New Delhi.
19. Sarantakos S. 2004. Feminist research in ‘Social Research’, Plagrave Macmillan
Publication, UK.
20. Smith, Dorothy, 1996. A radical critique of sociology. In Keller E.F., Longino H.E. (ed)
‘Feminism and Science’, Oxford University press, New York.
21. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ‘Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of
Science’, Wed Aug 9, 2000.
19
