This article challenges HRD professionals to critically evaluate HRD research and practice using the lens of feminism. This article defines feminist research; makes the case for conducting feminist research; describes the purpose, processes, and products of feminist research; and identifies the inherent challenges in being more critical of our research and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acker, J.
, Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423-435.
2.
Allen, K. R.
, & Baber, K. M. (1992). Ethical and epistemological tensions in applying a postmodern perspective to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 1-15.
3.
Arnold, D. E.
(1996). An exploration of the type of research appearing in the AHRD conference proceedings. In E. F. Holton (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 817-821). Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development.
4.
Belenky, M. F.
, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
5.
Bierema, L. L.
(1997). A feminist approach to HRD research. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development conference.
6.
Bierema, L. L.
, & Cseh, M. (2000). Evaluating HRD research using a feminist research framework. In P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 141-148). Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Human Resource Development.
7.
Bierema, L. L.
, & Cseh, M. (in press). Evaluating HRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
8.
Bologh, R. W.
(1984). Feminist theorizing and moral reasoning: On difference and dialectic. In American Sociological Association (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp. 373-393). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Brody, C. M.
, Fuller, K. A., Gosetti, P. P., Moscato, S. R., Nagel, N. G., Pace, G., et al. (2000). Gender consciousness and privilege. London: Palmer.
10.
Burke, C. G.
(1978). Report from Paris: Women’s writing and the women’s movement. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3(4), 843-855.
11.
Calas, M. B.
, & Smircich, L. (2000). Dangerous liaisons: The feminine-in-management “meets” globalization. Business Horizons, 36(2), 71-82.
12.
Caputo, R. K.
, & Cianni, M. (1997). The job training experiences of Black and White women, 1970-1991. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3), 197-217.
13.
Carter, T. J.
, Confessore, S. J., & Cranton, P. (2000). Talk as transformative learning: Four “voices” in developmental relationships. In C. A. Wiessner, S. R. Meyer, & D. A. Fuller (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international Transformative Learning Conference (pp. 1-6). New York: Columbia University Teacher’s College.
14.
Cejka, M. A.
, & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413-423.
15.
Coyner, S.
(1988-1989). Feminist theory in research and teaching. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 1, 290-296.
16.
Denmark, F.
, Russo, N. F., Frieze, I. H., & Sechzer, J. A. (1988). Guidelines for avoiding sexism in psychological research: Report of the ad hoc committee on nonsexist research. American Psychologist, 43(7), 582-585.
17.
DeVault, M. L.
(1996). Talking back to sociology: Distinctive contributions of feminist methodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 29-50.
18.
Diekman, A. B.
, & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171-1188.
19.
Egan, K. S.
(1996). Flexible mentoring: Adaptations in style for women’s ways of knowing. Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 401-426.
20.
Eichler, M.
(1997). Feminist methodology. Current Sociology, 45(2), 9-36.
21.
England, K.V.L.
(1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Women in the Field, 46(1), 81-89.
22.
Fernandez, J.
(1999). Race, gender and rhetoric: The true state of race and gender relations in corporate America. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Fine, M.
(1985). Reflections on a feminist psychology of women: Paradoxes and prospects. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 167-183.
24.
Garrick, J.
(1998). Informal learning in the workplace: Unmasking human resource development. London: Routledge.
25.
Gedro, J. A. (2000). Urban cowgirls: How lesbians learn to negotiate the heterosexism of corporate America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
26.
Gee, J. P.
, Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
27.
Gilligan, C.
(1979). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Hanscome, M. L. (2000). Influence of gender and power relationships among human resource development managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
29.
Harding, S.
(Ed.). (1987). Feminism & methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
Helgesen, S.
(1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday.
31.
Hixon, J. A.
, & McClernon, T. R. (1999). Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 897-902). Arlington, VA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
32.
Howell, S. L.
, Carter, V. K., & Schied, F. M. (2002). Gender and women’s experience at work: A critical and feminist perspective on human resource development. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(2), 112-127.
33.
Hughes, C.
(2000). Painting new (feminist) pictures of human resource development (and) identifying research issues for political change. Human Resource Development International, 31(1), 51-65.
34.
Jacobs, R. L.
(1990). Human resource development is an interdisciplinary body of knowledge. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 65-71.
35.
Knight, M.
(2000). Ethics in qualitative research: Multicultural feminist activist research. Theory Into Practice, 3(3), 170-176.
36.
Kolb, J.
(1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4), 305-320.
37.
Korten, D. C.
(1996, March). When corporations rule the world. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
38.
Larson, A.
, & Freeman, R. E. (1997). Introduction. In A. Larson & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), Women’s studies and business ethics: Toward a new conversation(pp. 3-10). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
Leimbach, M. P.
, & Baldwin, T. T. (1997). How research contributes to the HRD value chain. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice (pp. 21-46). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
40.
Lykes, M. B.
, & Stewart, A. J. (1986). Evaluating the feminist challenge to research in personality and social psychology: 1963-1983. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 393-412.
41.
Mahlstedt, D.
(1999). Power, social change, and the process of feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 111-115.
42.
Mainiero, L. A.
(1994). Getting anointed for advancement: The case of executive women. Academy of Management Executive, 8(2), 53-67.
43.
McHugh, M. C.
, Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986, August). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 879-890.
44.
McLean, G. M.
, & Russ-Eft, D. (1997). Examples of excellent HRD research. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice (pp. 161-182). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
45.
Mednick, M. T.
(1991). Currents and futures in American feminist psychology: State of the art revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 611-621.
46.
Meyerson, D. E.
, & Fletcher, J. K. (2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126-138.
47.
Morawski, J.
(1997). The science behind feminist research methods. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 667-681.
48.
Nicolson, P.
(1997). Feminist social psychology: A re-view. Feminism & Psychology, 7(2), 248-254.
49.
Oakley, A.
(1989). Women’s studies in British sociology: To end at our beginnings?British Journal of Sociology, 40, 442-470.
50.
Oakley, J. G.
(2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEO’s. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321-334.
51.
Pascall, G.
(1997). Social policy: A new feminist analysis. London: Routledge.
52.
Peplau, L. A.
, & Conrad, E. (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379-400.
53.
Reinharz, S.
(1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
Rosener, J.
(1990, November/December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, pp. 119-126.
55.
Ross, C.
(1996). Struggling for inclusion: Black women in professional and management education. In L. Moreley & V. Walsh (Eds.), Breaking boundaries: Women in higher education (pp. 90-101). London: Taylor and Francis.
56.
Russ-Eft, D.
, Preskill, H., & Sleezer, C. (1997). Human resource development review: Research and implications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Schied, F. M.
(2001). Struggling to learn, learning to struggle: Workers, workplace learning, and the emergence of human resource development. In V. Sheared & P. A. Sissel (Eds.), Making space: Merging theory and practice in adult education (pp. 124-137). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
58.
Schweickart, P.
(1986). Reading ourselves: Toward a feminist theory of reading. In E. Flyn & P. Schweickart (Eds.), Gender and reading: Essays on readers, texts, and contexts (pp. 31-62). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
59.
Sleezer, C. M.
, & Sleezer, J. H. (1997). Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference.
60.
Sleezer, C. M.
, & Sleezer, J. H. (1998). The status of HRD research in the United States from 1980 to 1994: process and results. Human Resource Development International, 1(4), 451-464.
61.
Strudler Wallston, B.
(1981). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(4), 597-617.
62.
Swanson, R. A.
(1997). HRD research: Don’t go to work without it! In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice (pp. 3-20). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
63.
Swanson, R. A.
, & Holton, E. F. (1997). Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
64.
Townley, B.
(1994). Reframing human resource management: Power, ethics and the subject at work. London: Sage.
65.
Unger, R. K.
(1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! (The reciprocal relationship between methodology and models of reality). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8(1), 9-32.
66.
van Hooff, N. M.
, & Mulder, M. (1997). The analysis of conference proceedings for the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) 1996: A review. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 178-185). Atlanta, GA: Academy of Human Resource Development.
67.
Woolf, V.
(1938). Three guineas. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
68.
Worrell, J.
(1996). Opening doors to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 469-485.
69.
Worrell, J.
, & Etaugh, C. (1994). Transforming theory and research with women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 443-450.
