Whilst the case for the repopulation of psychology made by Billig is supported in principle, it is argued that repopulation without serious reassessment of the underlying phallocentric bias in psychology is not enough. It may even act to reinforce reactionary tendencies within the discipline through coating them in a veneer of liberalism. Following critiques of the inherent sexism in both science and psychology, feminists have already moved to repopulate the discipline, taking a more radical step than is suggested by Billig's `Median Case Reconstruction'. Critiques of objectivity and neutrality, increased reflexivity, and acknowledgements of subjectivity are commonplace in feminist psychology. Yet as feminist critiques and genuine repopulation threaten the very foundations of psychology, it is not surprising that they are not readily accepted by the academic gatekeepers. It is concluded that only a paradigm shift will allow Billig's arguments to be taken seriously in mainstream psychology, and a feminist analysis suggests that this is a long way off.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Fairweather, H. (1976). Sex differences in cognition. Cognition, 4, 231-280.
2.
Fee, E. (1988). Critique of modern science: The relationship of feminism to other radical epistemologies. In R. Bliere (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 42-56). New York: Pergamon.
3.
Foucault, M. (1971). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. London: Tavistock.
4.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Gralton, M.A. , Hayes, Y.A., & Richardson, J.T.E. (1979). Introversion-extroversion and mental imagery. Journal of Mental Imagery, 3, 1-10.
6.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
7.
Healy, D. (1990). The suspended revolution: Psychiatry and psychotherapy reexamined. London: Faber.
8.
Hollway, W. (1989). Subject and method in psychology. London: Sage.
9.
Hollway, W. (1993, 3-8 April). Differences and similarities in a feminist theorisation of heterosexuality. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, Blackpool.
10.
Jacklin, C.N. (1981). Methodological issues in the study of sex-related differences. Developmental Review, 1, 266-273.
11.
Keller, E.F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. London: Yale University Press.
12.
Kitzinger, C. (1990). Resisting the discipline. In E. Burman (Ed.), Feminists and psychological practice (pp. 119-139). London, Sage.
13.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Maccoby, E.E. , & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
Mahoney, M.J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-375.
16.
McGee, M.G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889-918.
17.
Morris, P. , Holloway, J., & Noble, J. (1990). Gender representation within the BPS. The Psychologist, 9(3), 408-411.
18.
Nicolson, P. (1992). The organization of clinical psychology. In J. Ussher & P. Nicolson (Eds.), Gender issues in clinical psychology (pp. 8-38). London: Routledge.
19.
Nyborg, H. (1983). Spatial abilities in men and women: Review and new theory. Advances in Behavioural Research and Therapy, 5, 89-140.
20.
Over, R. (1981). Representation of women on the editorial boards of psychology journals. American Psychologist, 36, 885-891.
21.
Reicher, S. (1988, 15-18 April). It's not what you say it's the way that you do it: The forced abstraction of psychological research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, Leeds.
22.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1982). Introversion-extroversion and experimenter effects on memory tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 327-328.
23.
Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioural research (enlarged ed.). New York: Irvington.
24.
Segal, L. (1983). Sensual uncertainty, or why the clitoris is not enough. In S. Cartledge & S. Ryan (Eds.), Sex and love: New thoughts on old contradictions (pp. 26-38). London: Women's Press.
25.
Segal, L. (1987). Is the future female? Troubled thoughts on contemporary feminism. London: Virago.
26.
Sherif, C.W. (1987). Bias in psychology. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 37-56). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
27.
Sherman, J.A. (1978). Sex-related cognitive differences: An essay on theory and evidence. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
28.
Squire, C. (1989). Significant differences: Feminism in psychology. London: Routledge.
29.
Standing, L. , & McKelvie, S. (1986). Psychology journals: A case for treatment. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 445-450.
30.
Tizard, B. (1990). Research and policy: Is there a link?The Psychologist, 3(10), 435-440.
Ussher, J.M. (1992a). The demise of dissent and the rise of cognition in menstrual cycle research. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Cognition and the menstrual cycle (pp. 39-67). New York: Springer.
33.
Ussher, J.M. (1992b). Sex differences in performance: Fact or fantasy? In A.P. Smith & D.M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of human performance (Vol. III, pp. 63-94). London: Academic Press.
34.
Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.
35.
Weissten, N. (1971). Psychology constructs the female, or the fantasy life of the male psychologist. In M.H. Garskof (Ed.), Roles women play: Readings towards women's liberation (pp. 68-83). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
