What do you think?
Rate this book
Feminist Perspectives on Social Research
As feminist scholarship has developed, it has become increasingly evident that the practice of feminist research is interdisciplinary. Yet there are very few books that address the methodological and theoretical issues raised in doing feminist research from an interdisciplinary standpoint. Feminist Perspectives on Social Research addresses this need by focusing on the theory and research methods that feminist scholars use to study women and gender from the humanities and social and behavioral science perspectives.
Paying attention to the important link between epistemology, methodology, and methods, the editors have chosen readings from a range of fields--including history, sociology, literature, and philosophy--that have proven to be most useful and accessible to their students. The book is divided into three sections. Each section begins with an original chapter, written by the editors, that discusses the overall theme and integrates the range of articles presented. Part One: Method, Methodology, Epistemology presents the theoretical ideas and arguments surrounding feminist research; it covers the contributions made by feminist research, the debates surrounding objectivity and positivism, and the question of whether or not there is 'a' feminist method. Part Two: Issues of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality explains why researchers must pay attention to the variety and plurality of women and women's experiences, both theoretically and practically. Part Three: Applications and Methods outlines
a practical approach to feminist research. Each theoretical reading about a particular method (interviewing, focus groups, survey research, experimental research, field research, and oral history) is paired with research examples using that method. Feminist Perspectives on Social Research is ideal for courses in research methods, feminist methods, qualitative research methods, feminist theory, and women's studies. It is also an excellent companion volume to Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Leavy's Approaches to Qualitative Research (OUP, 2004).
Paying attention to the important link between epistemology, methodology, and methods, the editors have chosen readings from a range of fields--including history, sociology, literature, and philosophy--that have proven to be most useful and accessible to their students. The book is divided into three sections. Each section begins with an original chapter, written by the editors, that discusses the overall theme and integrates the range of articles presented. Part One: Method, Methodology, Epistemology presents the theoretical ideas and arguments surrounding feminist research; it covers the contributions made by feminist research, the debates surrounding objectivity and positivism, and the question of whether or not there is 'a' feminist method. Part Two: Issues of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality explains why researchers must pay attention to the variety and plurality of women and women's experiences, both theoretically and practically. Part Three: Applications and Methods outlines
a practical approach to feminist research. Each theoretical reading about a particular method (interviewing, focus groups, survey research, experimental research, field research, and oral history) is paired with research examples using that method. Feminist Perspectives on Social Research is ideal for courses in research methods, feminist methods, qualitative research methods, feminist theory, and women's studies. It is also an excellent companion volume to Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Leavy's Approaches to Qualitative Research (OUP, 2004).
448 pages, Paperback
First published August 28, 2003
1 person is currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 8, 2025
I’ve been thinking a lot about what feminist research actually is. I’m used to feminism as a political lens or ideology, but I was really curious about how that plays out in terms of research methods. I found it especially interesting that even within feminism, there’s some confusion or debate about what a “feminist mode” of doing research should look like. That actually reassured me, because it made space for the questions I already had.
One big theme that stood out was the question of whether a feminist researcher should be “attached” to their subjects. Some readings seem critical of detached, so-called objective research styles, especially the kind associated with positivism. That surprised me a bit. I’ve always thought feminism could be used to interpret data, no matter how that data was gathered. Like, even if the methods are drawn from positivism, large sample sizes, neutral phrasing, replicable findings, I don’t think that automatically makes the research unfeminist. If the data is collected carefully, ethically, and reflexively, why can’t feminism step in as the framework for how we make sense of it?
I do understand the argument that pure objectivity is a myth. But to me, the real problem isn’t positivism itself, it’s when researchers claim to be neutral while relying on biased samples, narrow categories, or unexamined assumptions. That’s not true neutrality, that’s just lazy or bad research. So I’d argue that feminist researchers don’t have to reject empirical methods; they just have to use them with more intention, more care. It’s not the method that matters as much as the mindset behind it.
An interesting critique was about the subject-object split in traditional science, the idea that the researcher is the knower, and the participant is the thing being known. It’s true that this can easily slide into hierarchical, even dehumanising, dynamics. But I also think it’s worth asking whether all distance between researcher and participant is inherently oppressive. Realistically, some kind of gap is always there, whether due to class, institutional role, authorship, or just the fact that one person is being studied and the other is doing the studying. The issue, for me, is whether that distance is acknowledged and navigated ethically.
That’s where I find Donna Haraway’s idea of “feminist objectivity” helpful. She doesn’t pretend the researcher can fully merge with their subject or erase the power dynamic, but she calls for situated knowledge, objectivity that is partial, transparent, and accountable. Similarly, Sandra Harding talks about turning the binary between objectivity and subjectivity into a productive tension. I love that framing. It means we don’t have to choose between being neutral or being personal. We can be analytical and aware of where we’re standing.
Regarding standpoint epistemology- I appreciate its emphasis on lived experience and the importance of centring voices that have been historically excluded from knowledge production. But at the same time, I’m a bit cautious about how we talk about “standpoints.” I don’t think any one person can speak for a whole group, there’s no singular “woman’s experience,” no fixed identity that covers everyone in a category. We’re all shaped by multiple systems, race, class, gender, geography, and those layers shift constantly. As Patricia Hill Collins writes, identity operates within a “matrix of domination.” So even within a marginalised group, people are positioned differently.
That doesn’t mean we throw out standpoint theory (it’s still incredibly useful) but it does mean we have to treat it with care. Not every experience is representative. That’s okay. Maybe the goal isn’t to find the perfect spokesperson, but to recognise complexity and partiality in all knowledge claims. Feminist research, in that case, is less about declaring what the truth is, and more about asking who gets to speak, whose truths get heard, and why.
One new idea for me was postmodern feminist research. I’d read feminist theory before, but this felt like a next step. It questions not just the results of research, but the entire structure of how knowledge is produced, who defines categories, how identities are constructed, and what counts as legitimate knowledge. It reminded me of Simone de Beauvoir’s line: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Postmodern feminism builds on that, asking not just what a woman is, but how and why that question even gets asked in the first place.
I also liked Adrien Katherine Wing’s idea of “multiple consciousness” and Kum-Kum Bhavnani’s call to examine the historical conditions shaping knowledge itself. These theories don’t just want to include new voices, they want to reshape the systems that silence those voices in the first place. That kind of self-awareness feels deeply feminist to me. It’s not just inclusive; it’s critical, reflexive, and constantly questioning its own position. It doesn’t look for neat answers. It makes room for contradiction, messiness, and change.
And honestly, that feels right. In a world where identity is complex and always shifting, maybe feminist research isn’t about settling into a method, it’s about staying open to disruption. About letting the work remain unfinished. Not in a careless way, but in a way that keeps space for voices we haven’t even heard yet.
One big theme that stood out was the question of whether a feminist researcher should be “attached” to their subjects. Some readings seem critical of detached, so-called objective research styles, especially the kind associated with positivism. That surprised me a bit. I’ve always thought feminism could be used to interpret data, no matter how that data was gathered. Like, even if the methods are drawn from positivism, large sample sizes, neutral phrasing, replicable findings, I don’t think that automatically makes the research unfeminist. If the data is collected carefully, ethically, and reflexively, why can’t feminism step in as the framework for how we make sense of it?
I do understand the argument that pure objectivity is a myth. But to me, the real problem isn’t positivism itself, it’s when researchers claim to be neutral while relying on biased samples, narrow categories, or unexamined assumptions. That’s not true neutrality, that’s just lazy or bad research. So I’d argue that feminist researchers don’t have to reject empirical methods; they just have to use them with more intention, more care. It’s not the method that matters as much as the mindset behind it.
An interesting critique was about the subject-object split in traditional science, the idea that the researcher is the knower, and the participant is the thing being known. It’s true that this can easily slide into hierarchical, even dehumanising, dynamics. But I also think it’s worth asking whether all distance between researcher and participant is inherently oppressive. Realistically, some kind of gap is always there, whether due to class, institutional role, authorship, or just the fact that one person is being studied and the other is doing the studying. The issue, for me, is whether that distance is acknowledged and navigated ethically.
That’s where I find Donna Haraway’s idea of “feminist objectivity” helpful. She doesn’t pretend the researcher can fully merge with their subject or erase the power dynamic, but she calls for situated knowledge, objectivity that is partial, transparent, and accountable. Similarly, Sandra Harding talks about turning the binary between objectivity and subjectivity into a productive tension. I love that framing. It means we don’t have to choose between being neutral or being personal. We can be analytical and aware of where we’re standing.
Regarding standpoint epistemology- I appreciate its emphasis on lived experience and the importance of centring voices that have been historically excluded from knowledge production. But at the same time, I’m a bit cautious about how we talk about “standpoints.” I don’t think any one person can speak for a whole group, there’s no singular “woman’s experience,” no fixed identity that covers everyone in a category. We’re all shaped by multiple systems, race, class, gender, geography, and those layers shift constantly. As Patricia Hill Collins writes, identity operates within a “matrix of domination.” So even within a marginalised group, people are positioned differently.
That doesn’t mean we throw out standpoint theory (it’s still incredibly useful) but it does mean we have to treat it with care. Not every experience is representative. That’s okay. Maybe the goal isn’t to find the perfect spokesperson, but to recognise complexity and partiality in all knowledge claims. Feminist research, in that case, is less about declaring what the truth is, and more about asking who gets to speak, whose truths get heard, and why.
One new idea for me was postmodern feminist research. I’d read feminist theory before, but this felt like a next step. It questions not just the results of research, but the entire structure of how knowledge is produced, who defines categories, how identities are constructed, and what counts as legitimate knowledge. It reminded me of Simone de Beauvoir’s line: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Postmodern feminism builds on that, asking not just what a woman is, but how and why that question even gets asked in the first place.
I also liked Adrien Katherine Wing’s idea of “multiple consciousness” and Kum-Kum Bhavnani’s call to examine the historical conditions shaping knowledge itself. These theories don’t just want to include new voices, they want to reshape the systems that silence those voices in the first place. That kind of self-awareness feels deeply feminist to me. It’s not just inclusive; it’s critical, reflexive, and constantly questioning its own position. It doesn’t look for neat answers. It makes room for contradiction, messiness, and change.
And honestly, that feels right. In a world where identity is complex and always shifting, maybe feminist research isn’t about settling into a method, it’s about staying open to disruption. About letting the work remain unfinished. Not in a careless way, but in a way that keeps space for voices we haven’t even heard yet.
I wrote this about a certain portion of the book. There’s more things covered I haven't written about in this review
Displaying 1 of 1 review