What do feminist theories have to offer to literacy, education, and research?

Reading Research Quarterly

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 458-468

  Commeyras, Michelle ^a   Orellana, Marjorie Faulstich ^b   Bruce, Bertram C ^c   Neilsen, Lorri ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^d MOUNT SAINT VINCENT UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009384459     PISSN: 00340553     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.31.4.6     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. AISENBERG, N., & HARRINGTON, M. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the sacred grove. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
2. AKRICH, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W.E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. ALVERMANN, D.E., COMMEYRAS, M., YOUNG, J., RANDALL, S., & HINSON, D. (in press). Interrupting gendered discursive practices in classroom talk about texts: Easy to think about, difficult to do. Journal of Literacy Rsearch.
4. BANNERJI, H., CARTY, L., DEHLI, K., HEALD, S., & MCKENNA, K. (1991). Unsettling relations: The university as a site of feminist struggle. Toronto: Women's Press.
5. ™ and her magical house [Computer software]. (1994). New York: Hi Tech Entertainment.
6. BEM, S.L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
7. BERNSTEIN, B. (1972). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization; with some reference to educability. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 465-497). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
8. BIJKER, W.E., HUGHES, T.P., & PINCH, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. BLEIER, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon.
10. BORDO, S. (1988). Feminist skepticism and the "maleness" of philosophy. The Journal of Philosophy, 85, 619-629.
11. BRUCE, B.C. (in press). Current issues and future directions. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for teaching the communicative and visual arts. New York: Macmillan.
12. BRUCE, B.C., PEYTON, J.K., & BATSON, T.W. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. BUTLER, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
14. CAGE, M.C. (1995, October 6). Treating literature as literature. Chronicle of Higher Education, A21-22.
15. CARR, W., & KEMMIS, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.
16. CAZDEN, C.B., JOHN, V.P., & HYMES, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.
17. CHANDLER, S. (1992). Displaying our lives: An argument against displaying our theories. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 126-131.
18. CHRISTIAN-SMITH, L.K. (Ed.). (1993). Texts of desire: Essays on fiction, femininity, and schooling. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
19. Clash of the Dark 1.0. [Computer software]. (1995). Salt Lake City, UT: Pacific HiTech.
20. COCHRAN-SMITH, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. COMMEYRAS, M. (1995, December). The challenges and complexities in using gender as a category of analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans, LA.
22. COMMEYRAS, M., & ALVERMANN, D.E. (1996). Reading about women in world history textbooks from one feminist perspective. Gender and Education, 8, 31-49.
23. CONNELL, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24. CRAWFORD, M., & CHAFFIN, R. (1986). The reader's construction of meaning: Cognitive research on gender and comprehension. In E.A. Flynn & P.P. Schweickart (Eds.), Gender and reading (pp. 3-30). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25. CRAWFORD, M., & MARECEK, J. (1989). Feminist theory, feminist psychology: A bibliography of epistemology, critical analysis, and applications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 477-491.
26. DAVIES, B. (1989). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
27. DAVIES, B. (1993). Shards of glass. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
28. DENZIN, N., & LINCOLN, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. EDELSKY, C. (1986). Writing in a bilingual program: Habia una vez. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30. ELDRED, J., & HAWISHER, G.E. (1995). Researching electronic networks. Written Communication, 12, 330-359.
31. FISHMAN, P. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender and society (pp. 89-102). New York: Newbury House.
32. FOUCAULT, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Random House.
33. FOUCAULT, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.
34. FOUCAULT, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Random House.
35. FOUCAULT, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
36. GARBER, M.B. (1995). Viceversa: Bisexuality and the eroticism of everyday life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
37. GILBERT, P. (1993). Narrative as gendered social practice: In search of different story lines for language research. Linguistics and Education, 5, 211-218.
38. GREEN, J.L., & MEYER, L. (1993). The embeddedness of reading in classroom life: Reading as a situated process. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), The critical sociology of reading pedagogy (pp. 141-160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. GRIMSHAW, J. (1986). Philosophy and feminist thinking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
40. GUBA, E.G., & LINCOLN, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. GUMPERZ, J.J., & HYMES, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
42. HARAWAY, D.J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
43. HARDING, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44. HAWISHER, G.E., & SULLIVAN, P. (in press). Women on the networks: Searching for e-spaces of their own. In S. Jarratt & L. Worsham (Eds.), Feminism and composition. New York: Modern Language Association.
45. HEATH, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46. HEILBRUN, C. (1988). Writing a woman's life. New York: Ballantine Books.
47. HERRING, S. (1994, June). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Library Association, Miami, FL.
48. KAMLER, B. (1993). Constructing gender in the process writing classroom. Language Arts, 70, 95-103.
49. KELLER, E.F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50. KESSLER, S.J., & MCKENNA, W. (1985). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. KRAMARAE, C., & KRAMER, J. (1995). Net gains, net losses. Women's Review of Books, 12(5), 33-35.
52. KRAMARAE, C., & TAYLOR, H.J. (1993). Women and men on electronic networks: A conversation or a monologue? In H.J. Taylor, C. Kramarae, & M. Ebben (Eds.), Women, information technology, scholarship (pp. 52-61). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Advanced Study.
53. LABOV, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. In J. Alatis (Ed.), School of language and linguistics, Report on the 20th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies (pp. 1-43). Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
54. LAKOFF, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.
55. LONGINO, H.E. (1989). Can there be a feminist science? In N. Tuana (Ed.), Feminism & science (pp. 45-57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
56. LONGINO, H.E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57. MACGILLIVRAY, L. (1995, November). Princesses who commit suicide: Primary children writing within and against stereotypes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Diego, CA.
58. MAYER, J., & ABRAMSON, J. (1994). Strange justice: The selling of Clarence Thomas. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
59. MCCARL NIELSEN, J. (1990). Feminist research methods. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
60. MICHAELS, S., CAZDEN, C., & BRUCE, B. (1985). Whose computer is it anyway? Science for the People, 17(36), 43-44.
61. MIES, M. (1993). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics, and practice (pp. 64-82). London: Sage.
62. MILLER, C., & SWIFT, K. (1991). Words & women. New York: HarperCollins.
63. MILLER, N. (1991). Getting personal: Feminist occasions and other autobiographical acts. New York: Routledge.
64. NEILSEN, L. (1989). Literacy and living: The literate lives of three adults. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
65. NEILSEN, L. (1990). Research comes home (The reading professional). The Reading Teacher, 44, 248-250.
66. NEILSEN, L. (1993a). Exploring reading: Mapping the personal text. In S. Straw & D. Bogdan (Eds.), Teaching beyond communication (pp. 96-112). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook/Heinemann.
67. NEILSEN, L. (1993b). Women, literacy, and agency: Beyond the master narratives. Atlantis, 18, (1 & 2), 177-189.
68. NEILSEN, L. (in press). Re-making sense, re-shaping inquiry: Feminist metaphors and a literacy of the possible. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for teaching the communicative and visual arts. New York: Macmillan.
69. NEILSEN, L., & PICHE, G. (1981). The influence of headed nominal complexity and lexical choice on teachers' evaluation of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 65-73.
70. OLDFATHER, P., & WEST, J. (1994). Qualitative research as jazz. Educational Researcher, 21, 22-26.
71. ORELLANA, M.F. (1995). Literacy as a gendered social practice: Tasks, talk, texts, and take-up. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 674-709.
72. ORNER, M. (1992). Interrupting the calls for student voice in "liberatory" education: A feminist poststructuralist perspective. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 74-89). New York: Routledge.
73. PATAI, D. (1994). When method becomes power. In A. Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and educational research (pp. 61-731. New York: Routledge.
74. PICHERT, J.W., & ANDERSON, R.C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315.
75. RICHARDSON, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76. ROCKHILL, K. (1987). Gender, language and the politics of literacy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(2), 153-167.
77. ROSENBLATT, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
78. RUBIN, A., BRUCE, B.C., & BROWN, J. (1976). A process-oriented language for describing aspects of reading comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 13). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
79. SCHATZMAN, L., & STRAUSS, A. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
80. SIMPSON, J.A., & WEINER, E.S.C. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
81. SOLSKEN, J.W. (1993). Literacy, gender, and work. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
82. SPANIER, B. (1995). Stereotypes under the microscope. The Women's Review of Books, 12(5), 25.
83. SPRADLEY, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
84. STANLEY, L., & WISE, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology. New York: Routledge.
85. STOLLER, P. (1989). The taste of ethnographic things. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
86. SUCHMAN, L. (1988, April). Designing with the user: Review of Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6, 173-183.
87. TAYLOR, H.J., KRAMARAE, C., & EBBEN, M. (1993). Women, information technology, scholarship. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for Advanced Study.
88. THORNE, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
89. TURKLE, S. (1984). The second self Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
90. WALKERDINE, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. New York: Verso.
91. WILLIAMS, W. (1987). Women, men, and others. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 135-141.