Knowledge Practices,Institutional Strategies,and External Influences in the Making of an Interdisciplinary Field

Abstract

This article analyzes the formation of women’s and gender studies as an interdisciplinary academic field. The author draws on comparative case studies of three early-adopter women’s studies departments from historical records and interviews with faculty members. Existing research on disciplinary formation focuses on the way practitioners forge institutional niches for new academic programs but not on sustained analysis of knowledge-making processes. Research on processes of knowledge construction focuses on established research situations, such as physics labs or literary seminars, as opposed to newly emerging fields and fields with politicized origins. The author combines institutional and practice-oriented approaches to explain the formation of knowledge-making agendas in new interdisciplinary research fields. In the case of women’s and gender studies, practitioners’ strategies for promoting the growth of their programs corresponded with the kinds of knowledge that they produced. In the period of adoption in the 1970s, scholars across the three units defined the intellectual goals of women’s studies similarly in working to redress the lack of research on women in existing disciplines and to analyze social problems affecting contemporary women’s lives. Each program acquired institutional stability, which involved the negotiation of budgeted faculty hires in specific research areas and the development of degree programs. Over time, practitioners at each program justified the continued existence of women’s studies programs by claiming expertise in a diverse range of topics relating to human gender and sexual experience and by constituting their academic programs in relation to local intellectual agendas.

Keywords

women gender knowledge

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Boxer

(1998). When women ask the questions: Creating women’s studies in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Camic

(1995). Three departments in search of a discipline: Localism and interdisciplinary interaction in American sociology, 1890-1940. Social Research, 62, 1003-1033.

Clarke

(2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the post-modern turn. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Collins

P. H.

(1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, 14-32.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

Crowley

(1999). Women’s studies: Between a rock and a hard place or just another cell in a beehive? Feminist Review, 61, 131-150.

Ferree

M. M.

Martin

P. Y.

(Eds.). (1995). Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women’s movement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

10.

Frickel

(2004). Building an interdiscipline: Collective action framing and the rise of genetic toxicology. Social Problems, 51, 269-287.

11.

Frickel

Gross

(2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70, 204-232.

12.

Fujimura

(1988). The molecular biological bandwagon in cancer research: Where social worlds meet. Social Problems, 35, 261-283.

13.

Gieryn

(1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.

14.

Gordon

(1990). Gender and higher education in the Progressive era. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15.

Guetzkow

Lamont

Mallard

(2004). What is originality in the humanities and social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69, 190-212.

16.

Haraway

(1990). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Hartsock

(1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Harding

Hintikka

(Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283-310). Amsterdam, Netherlands: D. Reidel.

18.

Jacobs

(1996). Gender inequality and higher education. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 153-185.

19.

Knorr Cetina

(1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Mallard

(2005). Interpreters of the literary canon and their technical instruments: The case of Balzac criticism. American Sociological Review, 70, 992-1010.

21.

Messer-Davidow

(2002). Disciplining feminism: From social activism to academic discourse. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

22.

Mills

C. W.

(1966). Sociology and pragmatism: The higher learning in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Postsecondary participation rates by sex and race/ethnicity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

24.

Riley

(1988). Am I that name? Feminism and the category of “women” in history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

25.

Roby

(1972). Women and American higher education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 404, 118-139.

26.

Rojas

(2007). Black studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

27.

Rose

Hartmann

(2004). Still a man’s labor market: The long term earnings gap. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

28.

Small

(1999). Departmental conditions and the emergence of new disciplines: Two cases in the legitimation of African-American studies. Theory and Society, 28, 659-707.

29.

Smith

(1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44, 1-13.

30.

Snow

D. A.

Rochford

E. B.

Jr. Worden

S. K.

Benford

R. D.

(1986). frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.

31.

Solomon

(1985). In the company of educated women: A history of women and higher education in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

32.

Star

S. L.

Griesemer

(1989). Institutional ecology, “translations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 12, 129-140.

33.

Steinmetz

(2005). The epistemological unconscious of US sociology and the transition to post-Fordism: The case of historical sociology. In Adams

Clemens

Orloff

A. S.

(Eds.), Remaking modernity: Politics, history, and sociology (pp. 109-157). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

34.

Stimpson

Kressner-Cobb

(1986). Women’s studies in the United States: A report to the Ford Foundation. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.

35.

Tanner

Zihlman

(1976). Women in evolution, Part I: Innovation and selection in human origins. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1, 585-608.

36.

West

Zimmerman

(1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.

37.

Wiegman

(2002). Introduction: On location. In Wiegman

(Ed.), Women’s studies on its own (pp. 1-44). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

38.

Wilson

(2003). Sexing the hyena: Interspecies readings of the female phallus. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 755-779.

39.

Wood

(1984). The adoption of academic women’s studies programs: Regional differences. Science Communication, 5, 509-536.

40.

Yee

(1997). The “women” in women’s studies. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 9, 47-64.

41.

Zihlman

(1978). Women in evolution, Part II: Subsistence and social organization among early hominids. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4, 4-20.