It is the thesis of this article that efforts to identify a distinctive set of “feminist methods” for psychological research are not only futile but unwise. We begin by discussing the defining features of feminist research in psychology. We then evaluate several proposals for distinctively feminist methods in psychology. Suggestions that feminists should avoid experimentation and quantitative research as inherently less feminist than other approaches are considered and rejected, as are criteria based on the sex of the research participants or the researcher. We further argue that the proposed distinction between “agentic” and “communal” approaches to research is misleading. We conclude that any research method can be misused in sexist ways, and that no method comes with a feminist guarantee. Feminist researchers should be skeptical of the limitations of all research methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association [APA]. (1983). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.
3.
BemS. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
4.
BernardJ. (1973). My four revolutions: An autobiographical history of the ASA. In HuberJ. (Ed.), Changing women in a changing society (pp. 11–29). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BleierR. (1988). A decade of feminist critiques in the natural sciences. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 186–195.
6.
BrannonR. (1981). Current methodological issues in paper-and-pencil measuring instruments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 618–627.
7.
CarlsonR. (1972). Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 17–32.
8.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
DeauxK.MajorB. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.
10.
DuBoisB. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing, and method in feminist social science. In BowlesG.KleinR. D. (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 105–115). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42, 756–757.
12.
FineM. (1985). Reflections on a feminist psychology of women: Paradoxes and prospects. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 167–183.
13.
GergenK. J. (1988). Feminist critique of science and the challenge of social epistemology. In GergenM. M. (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 27–48). New York: New York University Press.
14.
GergenM. M. (Ed.). (1988a). Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge. New York: New York University Press.
15.
GergenM. M. (1988b). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the social sciences. In GergenM. M. (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 87–104). New York: New York University Press.
16.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
GradyK. E. (1981). Sex bias in research design. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 628–636.
18.
GrahamD. L. R.RawlingsE. I. (1980, September). Feminist research methodology: Comparisons, guidelines, and ethics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.
19.
GrantL.WardK. B.RongX. L. (1987). Is there an association between gender and methods in sociological research?American Sociological Review, 52, 856–862.
20.
HardingS. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
HardingS. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In HardingS. (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 1–14). Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
22.
HolmesD. S.JorgensenB. W. (1971). Do personality and social psychologists study men more than women?Representative Research in Social Psychology, 2, 71–76.
23.
HornerM. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157–175.
24.
HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (Eds.). (1986). The psychology of gender: Advances through metaanalysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69.
26.
JayarantneT. E. (1983). The value of quantitative methodology for feminist research. In BowlesG.KleinR. D. (Eds.), Theories of women's studies. London: Routledge.
27.
KellerE. F. (1982). Feminism and science. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7, 589–602.
28.
KellerE. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
KitzingerC. (1986). Introducing and developing Q as a feminist methodology: A study of accounts of lesbianism. In WilkinsonS. (Ed.), Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice (pp. 151–172). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
30.
LermanH. (1986). From Freud to feminist personality theory: Getting here from there. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 1–18.
31.
LorberJ. (1988). From the editor. Gender and Society, 2, 5–8.
32.
LottB. (1985). The potential enrichment of social/personality psychology through feminist research and vice versa. American Psychologist, 40, 155–164.
33.
MackieM. (1985). Female sociologists' productivity, collegial relations, and research style examined through journal publications. Sociology and Social Research, 69, 189–209.
34.
McGuireW. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven koan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446–456.
35.
McHughM. D.KoeskeR. D.FriezeI. H. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41, 879–890.
36.
McKennaW.KesslerS. J. (1977). Experimental design as a source of sex bias in social psychology. Sex Roles, 3, 117–128.
37.
MiesM. (1983). Toward a methodology for feminist research. In BowlesG.KleinR. D. (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 117–139). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
38.
MyrdalG. (1972). How scientific are the social sciences?Journal of Social Issues, 28(4), 151–170.
39.
ParleeM. B. (1979). Psychology and women. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5, 121–133.
40.
ParleeM. B. (1981). Appropriate control groups in feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 638–644.
41.
Report of the task force on sex bias and sex-role stereotyping in psychotherapeutic practice. (1975). American Psychologist, 1169–1175.
42.
RoseH. (1986). Beyond masculinist realities: A feminist epistemology for the sciences. In BleierR. (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 57–76). New York: Pergamon.
43.
SherifC. (1979). Bias in psychology. In ShermanJ.BeckE. T. (Eds.), The prism of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 93–133). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
44.
SherifM. (1935). An experimental study of stereotypes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 371–375.
45.
StaceyJ.ThorneB. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems, 32, 301–316.
46.
UngerR. K. (1981). Sex as a social reality: Field and laboratory research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 1981, 645–653.
47.
UngerR. K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! (The reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 9–32.
48.
UngerR. K. (1984–1985). Explorations in feminist ideology: Surprising consistencies and unexamined conflicts. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 4, 395–403.
49.
UngerR. K. (1988). Psychological, feminist, and personal epistemology: Transcending contradiction. In GergenM. M. (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (124–141). New York: New York University Press.
50.
UngerR. K. (in press). The selection of method and content in psychology: The contribution of feminism. In HartmanJ.Messer-DavidowE. (Eds.), Critical issues in feminist inquiry. Washington, DC: Modern Language Association.
51.
UngerR. K.DraperR. D.PendergrassM. L. (1986). Personal epistemology and personal experience. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 67–79.
52.
WallstonB. S. (1981). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 597–617.
53.
WallstonB. S.GradyK. E. (1985). Integrating the feminist critique and the crisis in social psychology: Another look at research methods. In O'LearyV.UngerR. K.WallstonB. S. (Eds.), Women, gender and social psychology (pp. 7–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54.
WilkinsonS. (Ed.). (1986a). Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
55.
WilkinsonS. (1986b). Sighting possibilities: Diversity and commonality in feminist research. In WilkinsonS. (Ed.), Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice (pp. 7–24). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
56.
WittigM. A. (1985). Metatheoretical dilemmas in the psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 40, 800–811.
57.
YlloK. (1986, Nov.). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. Working paper for the National Council on Family Relations Theory and Methodology Workshop, Detroit.
58.
YlloK.BogradM. (Eds.). (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
