Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:55:28.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Method Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Sandra Harding
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A continuing concern of many feminists and non-feminists alike has been to identify a distinctive feminist method of inquiry. This essay argues that this method question is misguided and should be abandoned. In doing so it takes up the distinctions between and relationships among methods, methodologies and epistemologies; proposes that the concern to identify sources of the power of feminist analyses motivates the method question; and suggests how to pursue this project.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 2 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Feminism and Science, Part 1 , Fall 1987 , pp. 19 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Margaret, Alic. 1986. Hypatia's heritage: A history of women in science from antiquity to the late nineteenth century. London: The Women's Press.Google Scholar
David, Bloor. 1977. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Peter, Caws. 1967. Scientific Method. In The encyclopedia of philosophy, Volume 7, ed. Edwards, P.New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Mary, Daly. 1973. Beyond god the father: Toward a philosophy of women's liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Angela, Davis. 1971. Reflections on the black woman's role in the community of slaves. Black Scholar 3: 2–15.Google Scholar
Elizabeth, Fee. 1980. Nineteenth century craniology: The study of the female skull. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 53.Google Scholar
Carol, Gilligan. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D.W. 1967. History of epistemology. In The encyclopedia of philosophy, Volume 3, ed. Edwards, P.New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Sandra, Harding ed., 1976. Can theories be refuted? Essays on the Duhem‐Quine thesis. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Sandra, Harding ed., 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sandra, Harding, ed. 1987. Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sandra, Harding and Hintikka, Merrill eds., 1983. Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Sandra, Harding and O'Barr, Jean eds., 1987. Sex and scientific inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heidi, Hartmann. 1981. The unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism. In Women and revolution, ed. Sargent, L.Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Nancy, Hartsock. 1983. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality. See Harding and Hintikka 1983.Google Scholar
Ruth, Hubbard. 1983. Have only men evolved? In Discovering reality. See Harding and Hintikka 1983.Google Scholar
Kelly‐Gadol, Joan. 1976. Did women have a renaissance? In Becoming visible: Women in European history, eds. Bridenthal, R. and Koonz, C.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bruno, Latour. 1987. Science in action. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bruno, Latour and Woolgar, Steve. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Catharine, MacKinnon. 1982. Feminism, marxism, method and the state: An agenda for theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 7(3): 515–544.Google Scholar
Biddy, Martin and Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1986. Feminist politics: What's home got to do with it? In Feminist studies/Critical studies, ed. de Lauretis, Teresa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hilary, Rose. 1979. Hyper‐reflexivity: A new danger for the counter‐movement. In Countermovements in the sciences, eds. Nowotny, Helga and Rose, Hilary. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hilary, Rose and Rose, Steven. 1979. Radical science and its enemies. In Socialist register, eds. Miliband, Ralph and Saville, John. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Margaret, Rossiter. 1982. Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Carolyn, Sherif. 1979. Bias in psychology. In The prism of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge, eds. Sherman, Julia A. and Beck, Evelyn Torton. Madison: Univerity of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dorothy, Smith. 1979. A sociology for women. In The prism of sex. See Sherif 1979.Google Scholar
Liz, Stanley and Wise, Sue. 1983. Breaking out: Feminist consciousness and feminist research. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Werkerle, Gerda R. 1980. Women in the urban environment. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5:3 Supplement.Google Scholar