Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper discusses how feminist methodologies can be pragmatic and far-ranging, and yet are often not accepted in feminist applied research, within the corporate sector. It raises a pertinent question about the perception of feminism and the challenges in adopting a feminist methodology in practice. It also questions why scholarship, rarely dwells on experiences of feminist action researchers in the Indian context. While documenting the dissent to feminist conscience, this paper deliberates the methodological and epistemological rubrics of feminism, the positionality of the researcher, commodification of feminism, binary overtones and the agency of researchers who are engaged by corporate houses as consultants.

Keywords

Feminist methodology feminism in practice epistemic standpoint binary opposition positionality feminist action research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beck

D. B.

(1998). The ‘F’ word: How the media frame feminism. NWSA Journal, 10(1), 139–153.

Brooks

, & Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(2007). An invitation to feminist research. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

& Leavy

P. L.

(Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 1–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz

(1995). Grounded theory. In Smith

J. A.

, Harre

, & van Langenhove

(Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). SAGE Publications.

Ferguson

K. E.

(1997). Postmodernism, feminism, and organizational ethics: Letting difference be. In Freeman

R. E.

(Ed.), The ruffin series in business ethics (pp. 80–91). Oxford University Press.

Foster

(2016). Lean out: Dawn Foster asks: If one percent are leaning in, what are the other 99% supposed to do? Duncan Baird Publishers.

Ging

, & Siapera

(2019). Introduction. In Ging

, & Siapera

(Eds.), Gender hate online (pp. 1–17). Palgrave Macmillan.

Harding

S. G.

(2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. Routledge.

Harding

S. G.

(1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Cornell University Press.

Hardings

(1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity?’ The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.

10.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

, & Leavy

(2006). The practice of qualitative research. SAGE Publications.

11.

Letherby

(2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education.

12.

Maguire

(2006). Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In Handbook of action research (pp. 60–70).

13.

Medina

(2011). Toward a foucaultian epistemology of resistance: Counter-memory, epistemic friction, and guerrilla pluralism. Foucault Studies, (12), 9–35.

14.

Mohanty

C. T.

(2003). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Zubaan.

15.

Montoya

(2018). Institutions. In Disch

, & Hawkesworth

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 367–384). Oxford University Press.

16.

North

(2009). Rejecting the ‘F-word’: How ‘feminism’ and ‘feminists’ are understood in the newsroom. Journalism, 10(6), 739–757. doi: 10.1177/1464884909344479

17.

Schaffer

(1998). Scare words: ‘Feminism’, postmodern consumer culture and the media. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 12(3), 321–334.

18.

Tadros

(2018). The pitfalls of disentangling women’s agency from accountability for gender equality outcomes: The case of Egypt. Feminist Dissent, 3, 57–87. https://doi.org/10.31273/fd.n3.2018.307

19.

Thompson

T. L.

(2003). Handbook of health communication. Routledge.

20.

Udobang

(2018). This is not a feminist poem. Feminist Dissent, 3, 147–150. https://journals.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/feministdissent/index

Practising Feminist Methodologies in Applied Research: The Undone Deal

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References