Feminist Methods in International Law

Feminist Methods in International Law

— Hilary Charlesworth

You're feeling conflicted about participating in a symposium as the feminist voice.

● While you want to support the inclusion of feminism in international legal

methodologies, you're aware of the limitations of your perspective and that you can't
speak for all women.
● You hope to be seen as more than just a feminist, aiming to be recognized as a
full-fledged international lawyer.
● You're hesitant about presenting feminism as a rival methodological tradition and
don't see it as superior to others.
● Instead, feminist methods focus on dialogue and challenging traditional views of law,
emphasizing gender relations as an important aspect of analysis.

The term "gender" here refers to the social construction of differences between women
and men and ideas of "femininity" and "masculinity"-the excess cultural baggage associated
with biological sex.

The philosopher Elizabeth Grosz emphasizes that feminist theorizing aims to balance
two goals: challenging overwhelming masculinity of privileged & male-dominated knowledge
and supporting feminist political goals.

● This creates tension between intellectual rigor , investigating the hidden gender of
the traditional canon and political activism, dedication to political change. This
tension has been criticized both for lacking objectivity and for being co-opted by
patriarchal structures through participation in male structured debates.

Feminist methodologies challenges many accepted traditional scholarly approaches by

prioritizing political agendas over neutral objectivity and embracing personal
perspectives over detachment.

● Consequently, they are often perceived as disruptive or unscholarly or mad within

academic circles.
● Similar to how nineteenth-century women writers used madness as a symbol of
liberation, twentieth-century feminist scholars have adopted unconventional methods
to challenge established academic boundaries.
● However, despite their divergence, feminists are often constrained by their
environment.
 ● If we want to achieve change, we must learn and use the language and methods of
the dominant order

Feminist methods prompt us to reflect on how knowledge is produced by feminists. This

paper, for instance, depends on social, cultural, economic, and institutional factors. I can
freely express myself because I work in a university in a developed country and have the
privilege of time to think and write without fear of jeopardizing my career. Additionally, having
a supportive partner and sharing household responsibilities enables me to engage in
academic work.

● Overall, the opportunity for feminist theorizing is influenced by a specific

intersection of economic and political circumstances, as highlighted by Rey Chow,
who notes that Western feminism thrives in a context of material well-being,
intellectual freedom, and personal mobility, despite its discourse on oppression.

Writing about feminist perspectives on law concerning human rights abuses in armed conflict
is possible because I'm not directly at risk of these harms. Feminist methods in international
law shed light on accountability for such violations. These methods, like an archaeological
dig, uncover layers of gender biases within legal systems, from the absence of women in
legal institutions to the gendered nature of basic legal concepts of international law — states,
security, order and conflict. Instead of sticking to fixed categories, feminist approaches
embrace a range of theories and methods to fully understand complex issues.

broad theoretical approaches are needed initially to address obvious sexist practices,
followed by more refined methods to uncover hidden biases. While using a variety of
techniques may be criticized as methodologically impure, it's inevitable in analyzing complex
situations. Feminist investigations of international law rely on "situated judgment" rather than
a single overarching theory to determine the most suitable approach.

FEMINIST METHODOLOGIES Searching for Silences

Questioning the objectivity of a discipline often involves identifying what it doesn't

address I.e detecting its silence. In international law, the absence of women's
perspectives is significant. This silence isn't just a gap to be filled; it's deeply ingrained in
the structure of international law, affecting its stability.

● While women are not entirely absent from international law, they are often
portrayed in limited roles, primarily as victims or mothers in need of protection.
● Even initiatives like the Beijing Platform for Action tend to reinforce these narrow
stereotypes. For example, discussions during the conference highlighted women's
roles as balancing work and family responsibilities, without acknowledging the
diverse experiences and roles of women in society.
In international law, identifying and decoding silences involves examining the use of
various dichotomies used in its structure.

● These include distinctions like objective/subjective, legal/political, and logic/emotion,

among others.
● Feminist scholars point out the gendered nature of these binary oppositions,
where the first term typically signifies "male" characteristics valued more highly than
their counterparts female. This reinforces stereotypes of women and men within
international legal discourse.

In international law, the distinction between public and private spheres often overlooks the
realities of women's lives.

● For example, the Convention against Torture defines torture as involving a public
official, which limits the recognition of sexual violence against women as a human
rights issue unless it's linked to the public realm.
● Similarly, the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women refrains from
explicitly addressing violence against women as a human rights issue.
● This reluctance stems from a fear that broadening the concept of human rights
abuses to cover private behavior might weaken the overall human rights framework.

However, this public/private distinction isn't neutral; it reflects gendered norms where
men dominate the public sphere while women are associated with the private sphere. As a
result, many women's experiences are overlooked and their voices silenced in
international law.

World Travelling
The second methodological issue Feminists face in international law is the challenge of
addressing the differences among women.

● International law asserts generality & universality, which doesn't align with the
reality of nearly two hundred different nationalities and numerous cultural, religious,
linguistic, and ethnic groups.
● For instance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women may be interpreted differently depending on political systems and
levels of discrimination.
● Despite occasional acknowledgments of diversity, such as categorizations like
"Western women" and "Third World women," these labels oversimplify complex
realities and carry stereotypes.
● In truth, women's experiences are shaped by a multitude of factors including
class, culture, religion, and ideology, making it inaccurate to treat them as a
homogeneous group solely based on economic systems or policies.
In exploring feminist perspectives internationally various mathods have been proposed,
Isabelle Gunning proposes "world traveling," which involves multicultural dialogue and
seeking common ground and values.

● It's essential to understand one's own historical context, perceive how women in
different cultures view the issues, and appreciate the complexities of their situations.

Rosi Braidotti suggests using "multiple literacies," engaging with diverse feminisms
globally by conversing in various styles, disciplines, and languages. She advises letting go of
the idea of a universal language and aiming for temporary political consensus on specific
issues instead.

Mohanty suggests the concept of an "imagined community" in the context of addressing

Third World feminisms in a general yet meaningful manner. This term contrasts with
existing boundaries of nation, race, and sexuality, indicating the potential for
collaborative efforts across these divisions.

● It envisions a horizontal comradeship across hierarchies, fostering strategic

political alliances rather than seeking homogeneity.
● Mohanty emphasizes that these struggles are not defined by color or sex, but by the
political connections we establish between race, class, and gender issues.

These responses to diversity among women in the international community suggest

several related approaches for reflecting them in international legal analysis.

● First, feminist international lawyers should acknowledge the limitations of their own
experiences and avoid imposing universal principles based solely on their
perspectives.
● Second, questioning assumptions and challenging prevailing ideas within
international law can be more effective than creating overarching theories of women's
oppression.
● Third, it's crucial to recognize the roles of racism and economic exploitation in
shaping the experiences of women worldwide. This involves understanding the
complex and intersecting structures of domination that affect women differently
across historical contexts, rather than subscribing to a simplistic notion of universal
patriarchy.
● Achieving this analytical integration of race, sex/gender, and class can be
challenging, but it's essential for a nuanced understanding of women's experiences in
the international legal framework.

Some feminists argue that in certain situations, a purely gendered or women-centered

analysis may not be suitable.
 ● For example, after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Rey Chow suggested
that using gender as the sole analytical category to interpret the events in China is
inadequate because people are seen simply as "Chinese" in moments of crisis,
transcending gender distinctions.
● Instead, she proposes questioning the limits of gender as a category and exploring
where it applies and where it doesn't, especially in the context of the Third World.
● Chow criticizes liberal feminism for reducing women to narrowly sexualized
categories, but acknowledges that discussions about gender and sexuality can
challenge traditional knowledge systems outside of immediate political crises.

II. INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN INTERNAL

CONFLICTS

A feminist international lawyer would approach the question of individual accountability

for human rights abuses in armed conflict by recognizing the unique ways in which women
are impacted. Women are disproportionately affected by armed conflict, often experiencing
sexual violence as a tool of warfare. They constitute a small percentage of regular army
personnel but suffer disproportionately as civilians, especially in African conflict zones.

● For example, women and children are the majority of victims in these areas. In
situations like northern Uganda, young girls are abducted to become "wives" of
commanders, while in refugee camps, women face risks of rape, torture, and death
while collecting essential resources. Additionally, women's lower social status can
disadvantage them in relief operations, where decisions are often made by men.
● Overall, violence against women is considered one of the most serious and
pervasive human rights abuses during armed conflict. Despite this, governments,
donors, humanitarian organizations, and development agencies often fail to
adequately address women's needs in the aftermath of conflict.

Feminist methodologies suggest several directions for analyzing international law regarding
individual criminal accountability for human rights abuses in internal conflicts. While the
acknowledgment of women's experiences and the use of gender terminology in statutes of
international tribunals like those for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the International
Criminal Court (ICC) might seem like progress influenced by feminist activism, there are
deeper issues.

● Despite these surface-level changes, the underlying structure of international criminal

law still primarily reflects the experiences and perspectives of men.

From a feminist perspective, the traditional dichotomy between international humanitarian

law (IHL) (individual conduct during armed conflict) and human rights law (During peace
time) has resulted in anomalies and inconsistencies.
 ● This distinction has allowed IHL, rooted in codes of warriors' honor, to overlook
issues not relevant to the warrior caste, such as the exclusion of women from
workplaces by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
● While human rights law offers broader coverage than IHL, it still provides a limited
response to the harms faced by women compared to men.
● International criminal law, which merges elements of both IHL and human rights law,
inherits the gendered blind spots of both traditions.
● In this context, questions arise about the nature of international legal knowledge,
including which knowledge is privileged and which is silenced and devalued.

Human Rights Abuses

The concept of "human rights abuses" is contested from a feminist perspective, as the
definition of human rights in international law is often limited and androcentric. This bias is
particularly evident in international humanitarian law (IHL), where the way it treat rape and
sexual assault exemplifies this issue.

● For instance, Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention focuses on protecting

women's honor rather than condemning the violence itself, reinforcing the idea of
women as men's property.
● Additional Protocol I emphasizes special respect for women, linking it to their role in
childbearing.
● Notably, provisions on rape are not categorized as grave breaches of international
humanitarian law.
● In the context of non-international armed conflict, common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions does not specifically address sexual violence, instead prohibiting
various forms of mistreatment.

In international humanitarian law (IHL), rape and sexual assault are often viewed as attacks
on the honor of warriors or on the sanctity of motherhood, rather than being explicitly
categorized as severe breaches like compelling a prisoner of war to serve in enemy forces.

● However, the statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals and the International Criminal Court
(ICC) provide more comprehensive responses to sexual violence, recognizing it as
potentially constituting genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, depending
on the circumstances.
● This recognition is the result of significant advocacy efforts by women's
organizations, but it has limitations. For instance, these categories of international
crimes only address sexual violence when it is part of a widespread, systematic, or
large-scale attack, such as the destruction of a community.
An example of this approach is seen in a trial chamber of the Yugoslav Tribunal, which
invited the prosecution to consider broadening the definition of genocide when reviewing
indictments against individuals like Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

● The chamber suggested that systematic rape could be aimed at transmitting a new
ethnic identity to children born as a result or at humiliating and terrorizing a group,
perpetuating the view of women as cultural objects or bodies instrumentalized for
waging war.
● Similarly, the decision in the 1998 Akayesu case by the Rwanda Tribunal
categorized rape as an act of genocide if committed with the intent to destroy a
particular group, reflecting this limited understanding of women's roles.

The emphasis on harm to the Tutsi people as a whole, as required by the international
definition of genocide, illustrates the law's difficulty in properly addressing the issue.
Rape is condemned not primarily as violence against women and a manifestation of male
dominance, but as an assault on a community defined by its racial, religious, national, or
ethnic composition.

● This approach minimizes the violation of a woman's body and prioritizes the
humiliation of the group.
● International criminal law also incorporates a problematic public/private distinction,
operating in the public realm of collectivity while leaving the private sphere of the
individual untouched. This distinction, defined by men, has gendered consequences.

Additionally, international criminal law's distinction between state and non-state actors,
via human rights law, also has gendered aspects when applied to violence against women.

● While the ICC statute defines torture more broadly than the Convention against
Torture, omitting reference to public officials' involvement, some argue for retaining
this distinction to differentiate between actions deserving international criminal
responsibility and those that do not. However, feminists highlight the reinforcement of
gender inequality through such distinctions, as they may affect women's and men's
lives differently.
● For instance, defining certain rapes as public in international law may diminish the
seriousness of private rapes, reflecting the implications for the male-dominated public
sphere rather than women's experiences.

Another silence in the legal protection of women's human rights in armed conflict is the
predominant focus on sexual violence. This emphasis overshadows other human rights
issues, particularly the protection of women's economic, social, and cultural rights. Conflict
worsens gender inequalities in various ways.
 ● For instance, women bear unique burdens during food and medical shortages, often
due to cultural norms prioritizing men's access to resources. Women also face
challenges accessing humanitarian aid, as relief distribution is often controlled by
men.
● Economic sanctions imposed during or after conflicts disproportionately affect women
and girls, who are more likely to be impoverished.
● Despite the disproportionate impact on women, these practices are not recognized
as human rights abuses under international law, thus failing to trigger state or
individual responsibility.

Internal Conflict

The distinction between international and noninternational conflicts, as outlined in the

Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II, and the statute of the International Criminal
Court, privileges Non international conflict over international conflict as states are reluctant to
give international status those challenging their authority.

● Noninternational conflicts are regulated more cautiously, with states preferring to

classify insurgents as criminals under domestic jurisdiction rather than giving them
international status.
● This distinction/dichotomy has a gendered dimension because it offers stronger
protection to male combatants in international conflicts while providing weaker and
more contentious protection to the civilian population, predominantly women. From
the perspective of those affected by conflict, the distinction is arbitrary as human
rights abuses do not change based on this criterion.

The distinction/dichotomy between international and internal conflicts overlooks the role of
international institutions in exacerbating internal tensions, as highlighted by Anne Orford.

● This distinction often simplifies complex conflicts by attributing them solely to ethnic
or nationalist factors, ignoring broader economic and political influences.
● While international criminal law has somewhat blurred this distinction by including
crimes against humanity and war crimes, these categories still require the existence
of hostilities.
● Overall, this distinction fails to address the root causes of conflicts and the human
suffering they entail.

The definitions of conflict and attacks can be unclear and contentious. Violence against
women often persists even after military hostilities cease, and times of peace may still
involve significant conflict and human rights violations for women.

● For instance, near foreign military bases, women may be coerced into prostitution or
become prostitutes to survive. Women have also experienced violence and abuse
from United Nations peacekeepers in various countries.
 ● Economic sanctions imposed after armed conflict can disproportionately harm
women. The negotiation of peace agreements, like the Dayton Peace Accords, may
neglect to address the suffering of vulnerable groups, such as Bosnian women who
were victims of rape and abuse during the conflict, perpetuating their pain.

Individual Accountability
The idea of individual accountability, as opposed to state responsibility, is seen as a
more effective deterrent against human rights abuses because responsible states might not
punish actual perpetrators. Individual accountability at the international level could be crucial
in addressing human rights violations against women, as international systems may be more
receptive to women's claims than national legal systems.

● However, determining which violations warrant individual accountability and which do

not is complex. While not every breach of human rights should lead to criminal
responsibility, it's essential to ensure that the principle of accountability doesn't
reinforce gender inequalities. The criterion of official conduct, previously discussed,
may inadvertently contribute to this issue.

Feminists have diverse views on responding to crimes against women in national legal
systems. While some advocate for strict enforcement of existing laws and harsh penalties in
case of violence against women , others emphasize the need for compensating and
supporting victims.

● However, involvement in legal processes, whether national or international, can

cause further trauma for survivors who was object of violence.
● Focusing solely on individual criminal accountability may overlook the root causes of
violence against women, including underlying power dynamics and societal
structures. For instance, rape in armed conflict mirrors patterns of rape in times of
peace. International trials of individuals for human rights abuses aim to serve various
purposes, such as retribution and deterrence. However, they often uphold a notion of
justice tied to maintaining order, which can perpetuate violence and reinforce gender
inequality.

Accountability for human rights violations extends beyond criminal responsibility. Truth
commissions in various countries, like Uganda, Chile, El Salvador, and South Africa, aim to
uncover patterns of violations without pursuing individual prosecutions. The idea is that
revealing the truth can foster social healing and reconciliation. While some feminist scholars
support these non-adversarial approaches, the commissions' effectiveness in promoting
reconciliation varies and depends on political backing and comprehensive mandates.
Gender-related concerns have not been adequately addressed within their scopes.

The notion of state responsibility has recently been developed in ways that encompass
gendered harm. For example,
In the case of Mejia Egocheaga v. Peru, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
found Peru responsible for the rape of Raquel Mejia by its security forces.

● The Commission emphasized that sexual assault by state agents, whether

deliberately promoted by state or as a result of failure by state , violates the victim's
human rights, especially their physical and mental integrity.
● This ruling highlights international accountability when national systems fail to
address crimes against women adequately. However, international law is less
equipped to address broader structural issues in legal systems that may offer formal
remedies but fail to deliver justice for women in practice.

Conclusions

Feminist methods offer a unique perspective by emphasizing gender as a crucial issue in

international law. Unlike other methodologies discussed in this symposium, feminism
highlights how ideas of "femininity" and "masculinity" shape international legal rules and
structures, often silencing women's voices and perpetuating male domination.

● While other methods may address various aspects of international law, they generally
overlook the significance of gender and the position of women as an international
concern.
● Thus, feminist approaches stand out for their explicit focus on gender dynamics and
their impact on global issues affecting women.

Feminist methods challenge the notion of objectivity in international law, which is often
emphasized over subjectivity by other approaches like enlightened positivism, legal process
theory, and law and economics.

● These approaches prioritize impartiality and neutrality, aiming to mediate conflicts

without subjective biases.
● However, feminists question the possibility of true objectivity in a system that
excludes women's perspectives, viewing supposed neutrality as reflective of male
viewpoints.
● While skepticism about objectivity is also present in critical legal studies, feminists
uniquely highlight its implications for gender politics and the marginalized.
● They argue that binary structures in international law, often examined by critical
thinkers, also uphold systems of gender-based subordination.
While some feminist methods share similarities with other approaches, such as the New
Haven School approach and international relations, there are key differences. The New
Haven School emphasizes clarifying the observer's standpoint, akin to feminist concerns
with identity politics.

● However, this approach overlooks the significance of the observer's sex and its
impact on the gendered world of international law. Similarly, the influence of feminist
international relations literature on legal scholars, and vice versa, has been largely
disregarded.
● This highlights the marginalization of feminists within both disciplines.

The feminist methods I've outlined suggest a need for a significant shift in international law's
perspective, particularly concerning accountability for human rights abuses in internal
conflicts.

● However, some feminists may question the effectiveness of legal reform, preferring
political campaigns or media coverage for social change.
● Yet, international law holds symbolic and moral weight, influencing political discourse.
While radical changes in international law are cautioned against, there's recognition
that law's ability to create distance from immediate fears and hopes can be
beneficial.

Koskenniemi's stance leans towards accepting international law's framework for its
protection against unchecked subjectivity and politics. However, my argument differs,
suggesting that international law is inseparable from a gendered subjectivity, reinforcing
male-centric symbols. Feminist methods delve deeper into understanding women's
subordination beyond mere legal discrimination. To merge feminist activism and theorizing in
holding individuals accountable for human rights violations in internal armed conflicts, equal
participation of women in international criminal law institutions is crucial. Yet, true change
necessitates a commitment from all, including men, to explore and revalue silenced
perspectives.

International lawyers need a deeper understanding of gender beyond the ICC statute's
definition, which overlooks the constructed nature of gender roles. They should recognize
how gendered dichotomies in international law validate traditional roles for men and women.
Rape and sexual assault should be seen as crimes against women, not just their
communities. Recognizing gender-based persecution as a crime against humanity can
challenge the narrow view of social order in international law. Ultimately, lawyers must grasp
how our field legitimizes violence by accepting it as inevitable in international relations,
kaffecting our daily lives.
Feminist Research Methods
Feminist Research Methods
— Joyce McCarl Nielsen

Introduction

Feminist research methods are a new and potentially revolutionary academic

subdiscipline, but they are also controversial.

● Some argue it's impossible to identify methods as distinctly feminist, and some even
think the term is contradictory.
● Parlee (1986) noted that some see "feminist methodology" as nonsense, while
others find it useful.

To understand this controversy, we need to know what traditional social scientists mean
by methods.

● First, I'll describe the scientific method as typically presented, showing that it
seems contradictory to feminist inquiry at first.
● Then, I'll show that there is a distinct feminist approach to research grounded in
both older positivist-empirical and newer post-empirical traditions.
● I'll argue that feminist methods are part of a broader intellectual movement that
is fundamental shift away from traditional social science methodology, much
like feminist scholarship has transformed various academic disciplines such as
literary criticism, history, anthropology, and psychology.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD AS A WAY OF KNOWING

Most people understand "methods" to mean the scientific method, which is best seen as a
way to answer the question, "How do we know what we know?"

● For example, how do we prove the earth is round, or that human infants need love to
thrive? We need evidence or proof for such statements. We might trust
self-reflective knowledge, practical reasoning, or traditional authority to decide
what is true.

Throughout history of western philosophy, different schools of thought, or epistemologies,

have defined what is considered true knowledge. Examples include:

● Greek rationalism: Logic as the test of truth.

● Empiricism (17th-18th century): Sense perception as the source of knowledge.
 ● Hegelian dialectics: Knowledge through contradiction and reconciliation.
● Dialectical materialism (Karl Marx): Knowledge as reflections of material conditions.
● Mysticism: Knowledge communicated through poetic imagery and metaphor.

Today, the scientific method is widely regarded as the best way to study both natural and
social phenomena.

In the scientific tradition, two main dominant tendencies are rationalism and empiricism.

● Rationalism: Emphasizes pure reason and logic, often without observation. Early
Greek philosophers like Parmenides made statements like "What is, is" and "What is
not, is not." In the 17th century, Descartes's statement "I think; therefore, I am"
exemplified this trust in rational thought, showing that thinking proves existence.

● Empiricism: Involves direct observation and recording of the social and natural
world. Modern scientists use advanced tools to measure and manipulate the natural
world.

While there are other ways to justify knowledge (e.g., divine revelation), the combination of
rationalism and empiricism defines the dominant trends in Western thinking.

In Western thought, the debate of "objectivism versus relativism" has been ongoing and is
crucial to understanding feminist methods.

Objectivism: Philosophers like Descartes, Kant, and Hegel believed in the possibility of
obtaining absolute, indubitable knowledge about an objective world that exists independently
of the knower.

Relativism: Others, like the Greek sophists and Paul Feyerabend, argue that there is no
final measure of truth.

● Modern relativists claim that all knowledge is dependent on culture, theory, and
history. They believe that knowledge is only valid within specific contexts.
● Some distinguish between cognitive relativism (scientific knowledge) and moral
relativism (ethical judgments). Others argue that all knowledge, including scientific
knowledge, is contextual.
● Some relativists, or pluralists, claim that competing explanations or theories are
equally valid because there are no sure grounds for choosing between them.

The dilemma of how we can be sure of our knowledge has persisted, but it has gained new
urgency due to a loss of faith in science and a redefinition of the scientific method in
contemporary society.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN TEXTBOOKS
Defining what makes science scientific is challenging.

● Science evolved over hundreds of years from a small reform movement against
traditional authority into a large, bureaucratic, and specialized system supported by
governments and the military.
● Science is often seen as a method shared by different disciplines, not a specific
subject matter. People usually associate science with physical/natural disciplines like
astronomy, physics, geology, and chemistry. However, philosophers and scientists
define science more abstractly as disciplines using scientific methods to gain
knowledge.

Scientific method typically includes empirical evidence, experimentation (manipulating

physical matter or events to gauge effects), and inductive and deductive logic. Deductive
logic moves from premise to conclusion, while inductive logic generalizes from specific
observations.

However, as noted by Bernstein and Harding, no single procedure is common to all

scientific disciplines. For instance, astronomy, geology, and math are not primarily
experimental, unlike physics. Moreover, empirical evidence and logical reasoning are used
by many who don't consider themselves scientists.

Physics is often seen as the model of science due to its use of experimentation, formal
logic, simplicity of subject matter, and minimal need for interpretation.

● Unlike physics, other scientific disciplines, especially social sciences, deal with
more complex and self-reflective subjects like human behavior.

Social sciences adopted the methods of physics to gain academic respectability, assuming
the social world could be studied like the physical world. However, this model is not very
representative of all scientific disciplines.

The argument here is that the scientific method is not as distinct from other ways of knowing
as previously thought. Social scientists who adopt naturalistic approach to social
phenomenon often claim to use a method that assumes:

● 1st assumptions that The social world is knowable in a certain, non-relativistic way,
similar to the natural world i.e through observation of objective reality by subjective
(independent) Researcher. There is an objective reality independent of the subjective
researcher (objectivity assumption).
● 2nd assumption There is a clear separation between the subjective knower and the
objective world to be known (subject-object separation assumption).

These assumptions imply that the subjective perspective should not influence objective truth,
meaning the researcher's biases should be excluded.
 ● The third assumption, called the empirical assumption, is that claims about the
social world should be verified through the senses (touch, sight, smell, hearing),
which are believed to provide accurate information about human behavior. This is
seen as a way to be objective. Different observers are expected to reach similar
conclusions from the same data, making intersubjective verification possible and
desirable.

● The fourth assumption, the cause-and-effect assumption, is that social life is

patterned and follows cause-and-effect relationships. Social scientists aim to develop
universal laws about social behavior that hold true across different times and places,
implying that there is something consistent and rational about social life.

● The fifth assumption is the unity of the sciences, meaning all sciences, including
social sciences, use the same method to learn about the world, and this method is
considered the best way to ground knowledge. Scientific conclusions are always
tentative and open to modification, and scientific methods aim to minimize
subjectivity and bias.

These assumptions support a knowledge-generating approach that emphasizes

rationality, objectivity, and the prediction and control of events. While natural sciences
use prediction and control for human benefit, social sciences aim to explain and solve social
problems, though they have been less successful in achieving control and intervention due
to the unpredictable nature of social phenomena.

THE FEMINIST CHALLENGE: A FIRST LOOK

Oakley's (1981) study of the transition to motherhood for fifty-five women shows the
importance of feminist research methods.

● Traditional textbook interviewing advice, like maintaining distance between yourself &
interviewer and avoiding personal questions, proved ineffective.
● Oakley found it necessary to answer personal questions from the participants,
becoming a source of information and reassurance. She even formed lasting
friendships with some participants, directly challenging the subject-object
separation.

Freeman's (1975) study of the women's movement of the 1960s also highlights the
limitations of traditional scientific methods.
 ● Her research revealed that the women's movement emerged due to factors like
communication networks, a crisis around the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and a sense of
relative deprivation.
● Freeman's research was heavily based on her active participation in the movement,
attending meetings, interviewing key figures, and using various sources of
information.
● This multimethodological approach required personal involvement, contradicting
the idea of "objective" scientific work.

Feminist research is often described as contextual, inclusive, experiential, involved,

socially relevant, multimethodological, complete but not necessarily replicable, open to
the environment, and inclusive of emotions and experiences (Reinharz, 1983). These
characteristics starkly contrast with traditional definitions of scientific research, making
"feminist research methods" seem contradictory.

However, the traditional portrayal of the scientific method in textbooks is incomplete or

false. To understand this, we need to explore the crisis in contemporary philosophy of
science. This context will help us re-examine feminist inquiry and its role in modern scientific
discourse.

THE POSTEMPIRICAL CRISIS IN KNOWLEDGE

Science has long been considered the most reliable source of knowledge, but in the past 25
years, philosophers of science have identified a postempirical period.

● This period is characterized by the realization that the scientific method isn't the
ultimate test of knowledge or truth as once believed.
● This realization is critical because if science isn't the foundation of knowledge,
what can we rely on? This crisis is felt more strongly by philosophers,
historians, epistemologists, and sociologists of knowledge than by practicing
social or natural scientists.

Several factors have contributed to this skepticism and crisis, including two traditions of
thought in the social sciences: the interpretive and the critical.

The Hermeneutic Tradition

The interpretive tradition, also known as the hermeneutic tradition, focuses on
interpreting meaningful human action. Unlike the dominant trend in the social sciences,
scholars in this tradition question the wholesale application of natural science methods
to the study of social life.
 ● They emphasize the importance of understanding the meaning attached to
human actions by the participants themselves.

However, they still endorse the subjective-objective distinction.

● Scholars like Max Weber argue that studying social phenomena involves
understanding conscious human agents who attribute meaning to their actions.
● While true objectivity may be impossible, social scientists should strive to remain
value-free.
● This distinction sets them apart from later critics who not only reject the
subjective-objective distinction but also question whether traditional scientific
methods are appropriate for both natural and social sciences.

Schutz argued that social scientists should temporarily set aside their own personal
concerns and adopt a disinterested observer stance to study subjective meaning
objectively. This approach endorses the subjective-objective dichotomy, where researchers
aim to understand others' subjectivity without being influenced by their own.

● Although it's uncertain whether researchers can truly suspend their subjectivity as
Schutz described, this approach has provided alternative research models, especially
during periods dominated by naturalistic methods. For example, participant
observation, where researchers directly participate and observe the community or
social group being studied, is common in this tradition.

The feminist research examples mentioned earlier could also be considered interpretive.
While it may seem contradictory to say that these projects benefited from researchers
getting involved yet also adhered to a disinterested observer model, it raises questions
about the feasibility of true disinterest in research.

Feminist work incorporates an interpretive dimension that aims to move beyond personal
biases. Published case histories of research projects highlight a discrepancy between how
research is presented and how it's actually conducted, challenging traditional conceptions of
science.

In the positivist tradition, research strategies like interviewing and participant observation
used by phenomenologists generate data considered less "objective" than those produced
by physical scientists. However, they are still considered "scientific" because they share the
underlying assumption that there's an objective reality separate from the researcher.

The interpretive tradition critiques the natural science model's emphasis on

objectivism but doesn't replace it. Instead, it provides a legitimate alternative for those
who want to incorporate the subjective into their research while staying within the
scientific tradition.
Critical theory
Critical theorists, also known as the Frankfurt School, argue against using a science
model for social inquiry and criticize natural science itself. Their criticism involves detecting
and exposing beliefs that restrict human freedom, aiming to emancipate individuals by
uncovering ideologies that maintain the status quo.

While positivists aim to predict and control, hermeneutics is to understanding, and critical
theorists seek to emancipate by questioning dominant ideologies, particularly those related
to capitalist political and economic organization.

● Critical theory challenges beliefs that support the status quo, like the idea that
individuals are naturally competitive and deserve their outcomes, which justify social
patterns such as extreme individualism, competitiveness, and poverty.

Critical theory contrasts with positivism by rejecting the idea of "objective" knowledge.

● Advocates argue that there's no such thing as a neutral or disinterested

perspective; everyone is socially and historically situated, influencing the
knowledge they produce. In short, knowledge is socially constructed.

This assertion brings us back to the issue of foundationalism versus relativism in

methods.

● If knowledge is grounded in history and social structure, whose view should

prevail, and what criteria should we use? Critical theorists, relevant to feminist
inquiry, propose standpoint epistemology as an answer to this question.

Standpoint Epistemology

Standpoint epistemology suggests that less powerful members of society, due to their
disadvantaged position, have the potential for a more complete view of social reality
than others. This is because they are attuned to both the perspective of the dominant class
and their own. For example, women, as a subordinate group, understand both the dominant
male perspective and their own female perspective. This double consciousness allows
them to navigate both worlds and perceive societal dynamics from multiple angles.
Women's understanding of the world is shaped by their subordinate position relative
to men, yet their experiences differ due to sex-specific socialization and division of
labor.

● As a result, women may have a separate "women's culture" that is less dominant
but still influential. Feminists describe this as an "underground" or "less visible"
aspect of society, acknowledging that not all women are equally aware of it.
However, members of subordinate groups have the potential for this awareness due
to their position within the societal hierarchy.
Standpoint epistemology, as outlined by Hartsock, is based on several premises.

● Firstly, one's material circumstances, such as occupation and living conditions,

shape one's understanding of life. For instance, a coal miner and a CEO would
have vastly different perspectives.
● Secondly, members of powerful and less powerful groups may have opposing
understandings of the world.
● Thirdly, the viewpoint of the dominant group is considered "partial and
perverse," as it serves to maintain their dominance rather than seek a complete
understanding.
● Finally, it's noted that the standpoint of the less powerful group must be
consciously developed through education and awareness-raising efforts, as they may
otherwise accept the dominant worldview. Despite being disadvantaged, they have
the potential to possess a more comprehensive understanding of society.

In summary, the critical tradition offers an alternative to the dominant view of the scientific
method, providing a different methodology and set of assumptions.

● Marxist and socialist feminists have further developed this tradition, which will be
discussed later in relation to feminist standpoints.
● These alternative traditions, interpretive-hermeneutic and critical, differ in their
focus, methodologies, purpose, and level of analysis, but both have contributed to
postempirical epistemology by offering alternatives to empirical-analytical social
science.
● Later, we will explore further developments in this area by various scholars, including
feminists. Additionally, we will discuss two events—one from within science and one
from its history—that have challenged the assumption of objectivity within the study
of the natural world.

Science as Paradigm Shifting

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" reshaped our
view of science. He showed that science isn't just about finding the ultimate truth but
involves shifts in paradigms over time. This challenged the idea of science as a linear
progression toward truth and highlighted its social and historical nature.

Paradigms, as defined by Kuhn, encompass the shared beliefs and methods within a
scientific community. They serve as both overarching frameworks and specific
problem-solving tools.
 ● A paradigm shift occurs when new perspectives replace old ones, guiding scientific
inquiry in new directions.
● For instance, Newton's laws of motion dominated scientific thought until Einstein
introduced a new paradigm with his theory of relativity.

Kuhn outlines two conditions for paradigm transitions.

● Firstly, presence & awareness of anomalies—phenomena that don't fit existing

paradigms—must be acknowledged and seen as challenges to the current paradigm.
● Secondly, there must be an alternative paradigm capable of explaining both existing
phenomena and anomalies.
● During normal science periods, there's widespread acceptance of a paradigm,
leading to routine work. However, during transition periods, extraordinary science
occurs, marked by competition between paradigms. Kuhn's work highlights that data
are theory-laden, theories are paradigm-laden, and paradigms are culture-laden. This
challenges the notion of scientific universality, suggesting that scientific statements
are relative to historical context and paradigms.

Kuhn's work challenges the idea of a fixed reality, suggesting that reality changes with
shifting paradigms. This prompts a reevaluation of criteria for determining the correctness of
competing paradigms, highlighting the importance of consensus within the scientific
community. Traditional criteria like predictive accuracy are supplemented by shared values
and reasoned judgment. The notion of a crucial experiment is challenged because theories
are grounded in different frames of reference. This openness to discourse raises questions
about the progressive nature of subsequent paradigms compared to their predecessors.
There's growing recognition of the interpretive dimension of science among philosophers
and historians of science.

Quantum physics

Another series of events that occurred within science itself has contributed to the questioning
of the infallibility of scientific knowledge.
Physics in the early 20th century challenged the distinction between subjective knower and
objective world.

● Subatomic particles exhibited both wave-like and particle-like characteristics

depending on experimental conditions.
● This suggested that atomic objects don't possess intrinsic properties but are
defined by their interconnections.
● Subatomic particles are understood only in relation to other systems, not as isolated
entities. This shift emphasizes studying relationships rather than individual
objects.
The development of quantum theory challenges the idea of an external, independent
physical reality by introducing a view of reality that is organic, holistic, and systemic.
Quantum events occur spontaneously and are influenced by the dynamics of a system
rather than a single cause. This theory emphasizes interconnectedness at the subatomic
level. Importantly, quantum mechanics suggests that an observer is necessary to reveal the
properties of subatomic phenomena, blurring the distinction between mind and matter and
challenging the subject-object dichotomy.

Kuhn's insights into the practice of science suggest that theory or paradigm choice relies
heavily on normative consensus within the scientific community, blurring the distinction
between physical and social sciences. Both fields interpret data through theory and use
metaphorical language to understand phenomena. This challenges the subject-object
distinction and emphasizes the interpretive dimension in both sciences. Similarly, feminist
research questions traditional assumptions of the scientific method, contributing to the
broader crisis of knowledge..

THE FEMINIST CHALLENGE: A SECOND LOOK

The nature of the feminist challenge is perhaps best illustrated by (1986) Harding and
Haraway's (1978) discussions of androcentric and feminist accounts of the origin of
human society.
Harding (1986) and Haraway (1978) discuss different perspectives on human evolution. Both
acknowledge the transition from forest to savanna life and the development of human traits
like bipedalism, upright posture, tool use, and symbolic communication. They also explore
the links between savanna life, technology, diet, social organization, and selective
processes. However, their interpretations diverge from this point.

Androcentric theories, such as those by Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sherwood Washburn,
emphasize hunting as a key adaptation.

● Zuckerman argues that humans are solitary due to competition for resources, with
males dominating females and competing for them to reproduce. He claims male
dominance is necessary for social order and includes sexist ideas, such as female
prostitution arising from trading sex for scarce goods, harems being biologically
rooted, and females threatening social order due to their reproductive value.

Washburn's "man-the-hunter" theory also emphasizes hunting, but focuses on both

production and reproduction. He argued that male aggression toward females is adaptive for
mating and offspring, and that tool use for hunting led to larger brains and language. This
theory credits males with most human traits and social structures, raising questions
about the role of females in evolution.

Tanner and Zihlman, however, offer a different view, suggesting that gathering, not
hunting, was key.
 ● They believe females were active in evolution through gathering, using tools, and
socializing children.
● Gathering required knowledge of edibles and local ecology, which drove the
development of symbolic communication.

Survival in the savanna relied on intelligence, not aggression, and on cognitive skills,
not fighting. Raising human babies, which takes longer than for primates, required females
to choose friendly, cooperative males, promoting male-female cooperation in child-rearing.
This contrasts with androcentric theories that emphasize female passivity in reproduction.

Both feminist and androcentric accounts are based on modern science. However,
Tanner and Zihlman's feminist account aligns better with current evidence from foraging
societies and chimpanzee studies, which show that female chimps use tools, have flexible
social structures, maintain social continuity, and choose their mates.

● This supports the idea that females played an active role in evolution. The feminist
perspective highlights the biases in earlier androcentric theories and offers a more
inclusive understanding of early human societies.

Harding (1986) posed a paradox challenging the traditional scientific method by using
similiar contrast between androcentric and feminist accounts.

● She asked how feminist research, which is openly political, can be more plausible
and supported by evidence than the so-called objective androcentric research.
● Although feminist researchers aimed to highlight women's contributions and counter
previous biases, their work is still scientifically sound. Haraway noted that Zihlman
and Tanner adapted sociobiology for feminist purposes. The question is why such
political research better fits the facts.

Longino and Doell (1983) argued that androcentric accounts were simply bad science,
suggesting that more objective research would eventually have provided a fairer treatment of
women.

● However, Harding pointed out that this idea, which she calls "feminist empiricism,"
implies that objectivity in science depends as much on the researcher as on the
method, contradicting the notion that science is a foolproof process based on
observation.

If objectivity relies on the researcher, it can't be guaranteed. If androcentric results are just
bad science to be replaced by better science, why did androcentric theories like
man-the-hunter persist for so long without challenge? And why are they now being corrected
not by androcentric scientists but by feminists intent on changing this bias? The central
question is how feminist consciousness can produce better science than androcentric
scientists. This implies that using data or observation as the ultimate criterion for proving or
disproving theories does not guarantee objectivity.

Feminist scholars face the same dilemma as relativists: without agreed-upon criteria for
knowledge, they must either appeal to shared standards or accept multiple perspectives.
However, feminists aim to replace patriarchal models with feminist ones, not merely add to a
plurality of views. This creates tension between wanting to replace nonfeminist models and
tolerating multiple feminist approaches.

Feminist work challenges the absoluteness of scientific knowledge by highlighting biases in

previous research and offering more comprehensive, feminist perspectives. This approach
illustrates the weaknesses of traditional explanations and provides better alternatives,
making feminist contributions significant and potentially transformative. Unlike some critical
traditions that merely critique, feminist inquiry actively produces alternative explanations,
which is its most significant achievement. This book showcases exemplary feminist work to
emphasize this contribution.

FEMINIST INQUIRY AS A PARADIGM SHIFT

Feminist scholarship has played a key role in addressing the current epistemological crisis.
To understand its impact, we can consider the new scholarship on women as a Kuhnian
paradigm shift. Many writers have noted the transformative potential of feminist scholarship,
though sociology has not fully embraced this change.

I've drawn two conclusions.

First, the development of women's studies as a discipline serves as a test for the abstract
concept of a paradigm shift. We can examine how much women's studies represent a
paradigm shift and how well the concept describes this reality. This is useful given the
confusion and disagreement about what constitutes a paradigm in the social sciences.

● Kuhn eventually limited his broad definition of a paradigm to two aspects: a general
worldview and a puzzle-solving formula. However, his examples are all from the
natural sciences. In the social sciences, the term "paradigm" is often used loosely to
mean perspective, worldview, or theoretical orientation, which aligns more with
Kuhn's first definition than his second.

A second conclusion from considering feminist scholarship as a paradigm shift is that its
core element is the focus on women's distinctive experiences, placing women at the center
of analysis. This shift influences what is studied and how it is studied. As Stimpson (1983)
said, "The study of women is important."

For instance, feminist perspectives have led to the study of previously overlooked
phenomena such as rape, wife abuse, and sexual harassment. This has made the invisible
visible, like scientists seeing x-rays for the first time after 1895. Examples of studies include
Fishman's work on how everyday conversation maintains male dominance and Kathlene's
study on gender differences in legislative processes.

Adopting a woman's perspective allows us to see new things and reinterpret the
familiar. This is seen in the many reanalyses of existing data from a feminist perspective,
such as Weiner's reexamination of Trobriand kinship and Gough's reexamination of Nuer
kinship. In this book, Kushner's reinterpretation of suicide data and Hyde's reanalysis of sex
differences in abilities exemplify this feminist approach.

Feminist inquiry has also uncovered anomalies—data that do not fit existing theories.
For example, Kelly-Gadol (1976) showed that the Renaissance was not a renaissance for
women, prompting historians to question other historical periods from women's
perspectives. Gilligan (1982) found that Kohlberg's model of moral development did not
apply to middle-class women and developed an alternative theory to better explain women's
moral development. Ferree's research on German working women challenged the
public/domestic life dichotomy in family and occupational studies.

Feminist research shows resistance and conversion similar to Kuhn's paradigm

shifts. Established scientists often resist new ideas and maintain existing theories, but
exposure to feminist work can lead to acceptance of new paradigms. Younger and
interdisciplinary researchers are more likely to adopt new feminist perspectives, as they
have grown up with these ideas in their professional training. Women’s studies, marked by
young, interdisciplinary scholars, exemplifies this paradigm shift.

Feminist scholarship sometimes aligns with Kuhn's idea of "mopping up operations" in

normal science. Once the commitment to study women is made, scholarship tends to follow
predictable paths, such as questioning whether existing theories apply to women and
generating new research based on women's experiences. This process helps identify
anomalies and contributes to the growth and maturity of the discipline. For instance, feminist
scholars have recognized the exclusion of nonwhite women and men from their theories,
highlighting the ongoing evolution of feminist scholarship.

In women's studies, there's a distinction between ongoing normal scholarship, which

addresses standard questions within the discipline, and extraordinary conversion processes
seen in integration projects. These projects deliberately juxtapose existing "men's studies"
with new scholarship on women, leading to resistance but also gradual conversion. While
this distinction isn't always clear-cut, it reflects the ongoing evolution of women's studies.
MacKinnon defined consciousness-raising as central to the women's movement, highlighting
its significance in feminist analysis. Kuhn's model of scientific revolution, while insightful,
overlooks external factors like political and economic contexts, which are crucial in
understanding shifts in scholarly perspectives. Feminist research emerged from the women's
movement of the 1960s, illustrating the influence of external events on scholarly
development.

In essence, the feminist revolution in research and scholarship didn't originate from within
academia but rather from a broader societal interest in women's issues. Feminist
consciousness revealed anomalies in existing studies, such as David McClelland's work
on achievement and Lawrence Kohlberg's research on moral development, which
overlooked the experiences of women. This juxtaposition of feminist awareness with
traditional disciplines is leading to new theories and paradigms centered on women's
inclusion.

Describing feminist research as a paradigm shift suggests a nontraditional approach to

teaching feminist methods. Instead of abstract methods presented in textbooks, it's better to
learn from exemplars or models of exemplary work. This text focuses on empirical research
to show the connection between theory and data, reflecting the ongoing development of
feminist methods. While some well-known feminist theory texts exist, this volume
emphasizes the transformative power of feminist research, even if the included works aren't
the most cited or widely recognized.

FROM PARADIGM SHIFT TO FEMINIST STANDPOINTS AND DIALECTICAL

PROCESSES
Feminist inquiry aligns with what scholars like Hartsock, Harding, and Jaggar term "feminist
standpoints," which emphasize the importance of understanding reality from the
perspective of women's experiences.

● These standpoints go beyond mere perspectives, involving a heightened awareness

of one's social position and its relation to lived experiences.

Women's work in modern industrial societies, including childrearing, housework, and some
market work, differs from men's work in several ways. Women's work often focuses on
change, involves direct interaction with natural substances, emphasizes quality over
quantity, and integrates mind and body unity. Additionally, women typically work more hours
per day, a greater proportion of their work is unpaid, and their work is more repetitive and
sensuous. Reproductive work, such as childbearing and childrearing, is particularly
characterized by bodily involvement and interpersonal relations. This distinction between
women's work and men's work was also noted by Smith, who described women's work as
"bodily" and men's work as "abstract" and "conceptual."

Differences in everyday work activities and socialization experiences between women and
men result in potentially very different perspectives, sometimes even conflicting ones.
Feminist standpoint advocates argue that women, due to their roles and experiences, may
have a deeper and more complete understanding of both men's and women's viewpoints.
This suggests that a woman's perspective, when transformed through
consciousness-raising, can lead to more accurate and complex knowledge.

However, there are challenges with standpoint epistemologies. Firstly, they imply that the
more oppressed or disadvantaged group has greater potential for knowledge construction.
This raises questions about determining degrees of oppression and privileging certain
perspectives over others. Additionally, it can lead to unproductive discussions about who is
more oppressed and therefore more knowledgeable.
Dialectical processes, as described by Westkott, highlight the contradictions and tensions
inherent in women's experiences within patriarchal societies. These include dilemmas such
as conforming to feminine ideals while also needing to be effective in the broader world, or
facing societal expectations of presenting as cheerful while risking social invisibility if not
complying. Similarly, decisions about sexuality or conforming to body-damaging fashion
norms illustrate the no-win situations women often find themselves in, where conformity can
be damaging yet nonconformity leads to social stigma. These dilemmas reflect the opposing
conditions to which women conform, highlighting the complexities of their experiences.

Westkott's examples of dialectical tension highlight the contradictions experienced by

women scholars and researchers, such as being both inside and outside their disciplines
due to their feminist perspectives, and the disconnect between consciousness and action in
women's creativity. These dialectical processes are evident in various contributions to this
book. For example, Anderson et al. emphasize the importance of understanding women's
subjective meanings, which often differ from societal norms. Tsing's account of an
Indonesian shaman illustrates the simultaneous endorsement and challenge of cultural
traditions. Ferree discusses the precarious position of working-class women between public
and domestic spheres. Additionally, Kushner suggests that female suicide may be a form of
rebellion against oppressive situations, contradicting assumptions about women's
nonaggressive nature.

FROM FEMINIST STANDPOINTS TO FUSION OF HORIZONS

I mentioned earlier that feminist inquiry is reshaping methodology and addressing the
epistemological crisis by producing exemplary research within a reconstructive postempirical
framework. This period has seen various attempts to outline research strategies as
alternatives to positivism, often termed "contextual" approaches. While these approaches
recognize that social knowledge is constructed within specific contexts and interactions, they
don't fully address the question of how we validate knowledge. However, emerging from this
context are criteria for evaluation. As a starting point, we can adopt Bernstein's suggestion
that a comprehensive social theory must be empirical, interpretive, and critical. Several
writers have advocated for integrating feminist epistemology with hermeneutic and critical
theory traditions, providing a framework for further development.

Bernstein proposed moving beyond the dichotomy of relativism and objectivism to embrace
a new approach to knowledge and research, acknowledging the limitations of both extremes.
This synthesis involves integrating ideas from various traditions. For instance, when
anthropologists study other cultures, they can approach them in different ways. One
approach is to use their own cultural standards to evaluate the other culture, known as
ethnocentrism, which is widely criticized. Another is to suspend their own judgments and
adopt a neutral stance, but this is seen as impossible by some hermeneutic thinkers like
Gadamer, who argue that one's assumptions always influence understanding.
A third possibility is to immerse oneself in the other culture, known as "going native," which
embraces relativism but can lead to skepticism about determining the validity of
interpretations.

Bernstein compared the challenge of studying other cultures without bias to the process of
choosing among different paradigms in the sciences or interpreting works of art. While
embracing a plurality of views may seem appealing, decisions must eventually be made,
especially in practical matters like forming policies or addressing ethical issues. For instance,
deciding on abortion policy or imposing Western norms on non-Western cultures requires
taking a stance, which inevitably reflects underlying assumptions about human nature and
social relations. The dilemma arises when rejecting objectivism leads to unsatisfactory forms
of relativism. These examples highlight how ethical and practical considerations are
intertwined with the process of knowledge formation, illustrating the complexity of modern
epistemology.

Gadamer argued that one's existing beliefs, or prejudices, are crucial in developing
knowledge. These prejudices, far from hindering understanding, actually facilitate
open-mindedness when they are challenged by exposure to different perspectives.
Prejudices serve as the foundation for experiencing and interpreting the world around us.
Gadamer emphasized that prejudices are inherent to human existence and should not be
disregarded but embraced as essential components for acquiring new knowledge. Rather
than attempting to transcend them, one should acknowledge and engage with their
prejudices, continually oscillating between old and new perspectives to create a synthesis.
This approach contrasts with earlier phenomenology, which focused on individual
interpretation and struggled to recognize the collective and negotiated nature of meaning.

Westkott's characterization of feminist inquiry as dialectical and Gadamer's notion of "fusion

of horizons" provide a deeper understanding of feminist inquiry. A horizon encompasses
one's perspective shaped by various factors like historical context, culture, and class. Fusion
occurs when seeking knowledge grounded in feminism without setting aside this perspective
during inquiry. This fusion enlarges one's horizon by connecting with other perspectives,
enriching it beyond its initial limitations. This concept goes beyond standpoint epistemologies
by suggesting a transcendent synthesis, often referred to as "beyond" or "post-" feminism.
While some hint at this next step without a feminist perspective, women's studies integration
projects support the idea. These projects show faculty moving from male-centered to
increasingly female-centered thinking, reaching a post-feminist stage where perspectives
clash and enrich each other, similar to the fusion of horizons.

To illustrate the fusion notion and emphasize the critical and emancipatory aspect of feminist
inquiry, consider an ordinary conversation between two people. When the context allows for
freedom, respect, trust, and equality between the participants, the dialogue becomes
dynamic, constructive, creative, and unpredictable. Even with one party having preconceived
notions, the conversation's course and outcome remain unpredictable as ideas are
exchanged and developed.
This dynamic interaction mirrors the pursuit of knowledge when it's truly free. Knowledge
formation, being dialogic, thrives in an environment of equality. It requires conditions that
foster freedom, equality, and unhindered dialogue. Feminist inquiry, being emancipatory,
identifies and challenges obstacles to such equality, aiming to remove structural barriers that
impede open and free dialogue in knowledge construction.

Feminist scholars like Smith, Westkott, and others emphasize that feminist research is not
just about women but is also for women. The original aim of feminist inquiry was to combat
sexism and promote women's liberation through creative and scholarly efforts. Both theory
and praxis, the practical action component of critical theory, are integral to feminist inquiry.
This means not only understanding and critiquing sexism but also envisioning a new feminist
worldview.

The feminist scholarship featured in this text is inherently critical. Some chapters highlight
women's active involvement in social change efforts, while others critique male-dominated
perspectives in research and documentation processes. For example, Kushner criticizes
stereotypes in suicide statistics, Hyde critiques the misuse of statistically derived sex
differences in cognitive ability, and Fishman examines how women manage everyday
conversations. Kathlene's analysis of public policy formation implicitly celebrates a
contextualist approach.

Feminist research encompasses interpretive, emancipatory, and empirical aspects. While

some may view empiricism as part of an outdated, objective tradition, it remains essential for
several reasons.

Firstly, retaining empiricism helps guard against superstition and personal bias, providing a
basis for knowledge. Although empirical evidence doesn't guarantee validity, it serves to
ground inquiry in observable phenomena.

Secondly, a modified definition of objectivity distinguishes it from objectivism, emphasizing

that objective findings are accessible to others and subject to communal examination. This
communal, intersubjective approach aligns with feminist ideals and contributes to a more
inclusive knowledge production process.

Lastly, the reliance on empirical evidence is practical for engaging with others who are
grounded in empiricist science. To persuade and communicate effectively, feminist
researchers need to present facts, observations, and data to support their arguments.

In summary, while feminist research acknowledges the constructed nature of all knowledge,
including facts, empirical evidence remains crucial for grounding inquiry, fostering communal
examination, and engaging with broader audiences.

Conclusions
The Introduction began by questioning what constitutes knowledge and ends by urging
knowledge to address practical yet significant questions. This feminist perspective
emphasizes understanding what is needed for survival and promoting peaceful coexistence.
Exemplary feminist inquiry included in this book covers various social science disciplines like
sociology, history, anthropology, and political science.

Part 1 elaborates on themes introduced earlier, featuring works by authors such as Keller,
who explores the masculine nature of science; Westkott, focusing on dialectical tension in
feminist research; Cook and Fonow, who detail feminist methodologies; and Anderson et al.,
who discuss oral history.

Part 2 showcases feminist inquiry through diverse methods. Gluck uses oral history, Tsing
combines anthropological fieldwork with feminist literary analysis, Ferree examines survey
and interview data with women workers, Kushner reinterprets suicide rate data, Hyde
challenges arguments on sex differences in cognitive abilities, and Fishman and Kathlene
present linguistic analyses.