A Feminist Response to Issues of Validity in Research

Women's Studies in Communication

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 157-181

  Dallimore, Elise J ^a  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18344392988     PISSN: 07491409     EISSN: 2152999X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07491409.2000.10162567     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Acker, J., Barry, K., and Esseveld, J., 1991. “ Objectivity and truth:Problems in doing feminist research ”. In Beyond methodology:Feminist scholarship as lived research Edited by:Fonow, M. M., and Cook, J. A., 133–153. Bloomington, IN:Indiana U Press.
2. Allen, M. R., 1993. Critical and traditional science:Implications for communication research. Western Journal of Communication, 57:200–208.
3. Bakhtin, M., 1981. The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX:U of Texas Press.
4. Blair, C., Brown, J. R., and Baxter, L., 1994. Disciplining the feminine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80:383–409.
5. Bleier, R., 1984. Science and gender. New York:Pergamon.
6. Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D., 1989. Educational research:An introduction, 5th ed. New York:Longman.
7. Bostrom, R., and Donohew, L., 1992. The case for empiricism:Clarifying fundamental issues in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 42:12–20.
8. Burrell, G., and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:Heinemann Educational Books.
9. Comstock, D. E., 1994. “ A method for critical research ”. In Readings in the philosophy of social science Edited by:Martin, M., and McIntyre, L. C., 625–639. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
10. Deetz, S., 1973. An understanding of science and a hermeneutic science of understanding. Journal of Communication, 23:139–159.
11. Deetz, S., and Mumby, D., 1990. “ Power, discourse and workplace control:Reclaiming the critical tradition ”. In Communication yearbook Edited by:Anderson, J., 18–47. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. 13)
12. Ferguson, K. E., 1993. The man question:Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory. Berkeley, CA:U. of California Press.
13. Fitch, K. L., 1994. Criteria for evidence in qualitative research. Western Journal of Communication, 58:32–38.
14. Fonow, M. M., and Cook, J. A., 1991. “ Back to the future:A look at the second wave of feminist epistemology and methodology ”. In Beyond methodology:Feminist scholarship as lived research Edited by:Fonow, M. M., and Cook, J. A., 1–15. Bloomington, IN:Indiana U Press.
15. Foss, K. A., and Foss, S. K., 1994. Personal experience as evidence in feminist scholarship. Western Journal of Communication, 58:39–43.
16. Foss, S. K., and Foss, K. A., 1988. What distinguishes feminist scholarship in communication studies?. Women's Studies in Communication, 11:9–11.
17. Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., and Kreps, G. L., 1991. Investigating communication:An introduction to research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.
18. Ginsberg, E., and Lennox, S., 1996. “ Antifeminism in scholarship and publishing ”. In Antifeminism in the academy Edited by:Clark, V. V., Gardner, S. N., Higonnet, M., and Katrack, K. H., 169–199. New York:Routledge.
19. Glesne, C., and Peshkin, A., 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers:An introduction. White Plains, NY:Longman.
20. Harding, S., 1987. “ Is there a feminist method? ”. In Feminism and methodology Edited by:Harding, S., 1–14. Bloomington, IN:Indiana U Press.
21. Harding, S., 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge?:Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, NY:Cornell U. Press.
22. Hartsock, N., 1979. “ Feminist theory and the development of revolutionary strategy ”. In Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism. Edited by:Einstein, Z. R., New York:Monthly Review Press.
23. Hawes, L. C., 1994. Revisiting reflexivity. Western Journal of Communication, 58:5–10.
24. Hikins, J. W., 1995. Nietzsche, eristic, and the rhetoric of the possible:A commentary on the Whitson and Poulakos 'aesthetic view' of rhetoric. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 79:131–145.
25. Jacobson, W., 1998. Defining the quality of practitioner research. Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (3):125–138.
26. Jayaratne, T. E., 1983. “ The value of quantitative methodology for feminist research ”. In Theories of women's studies Edited by:Bowles, G., and Klein, R. D., 140–161. Boston:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
27. Jayaratne, T. E., and Stewart, A. J., 1991. “ Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences:Current feminist issues and practical strategies ”. In Beyond methodology:Feminist scholarship as lived research Edited by:Fonow, M. M., and Cook, J. A., 85–106. Bloomington, IN:Indiana U Press.
28. Kauffman, B. J., 1992. Feminist facts:interview strategies and political subjects in ethnography. Communication Theory, 2:187–206.
29. Kolodny, A., 1996. “ Paying the price of antifeminist intellectual harassment ”. In Antifeminism in the academy Edited by:Clark, V. V., Gardner, S. N., Higonnet, M., and Katrack, K. H., 3–33. New York:Routledge.
30. LeCompte, M. D., and Goetz, J. P., 1982. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52:31–60.
31. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
32. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
33. Lykes, M. B., and Stewart, A. J., 1986. Evaluating the feminist challenge to research in personality and social psychology:1963–1983. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10:393–412.
34. Miller, G. R., 1983. Taking stock of a discipline. Journal of Communication, 33:31–39.
35. Nagel, E., 1994. “ The value-oriented bias of social inquiry ”. In Readings in the philosophy of social science Edited by:Martin, M., and McIntyre, L. C., 571–584. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
36. O'Keefe, D. J., 1975. Logical empiricism and the study of human communication. Speech Monographs, 42:169–183.
37. Oakley, A., 1981. “ Interviewing women:A contradiction in terms ”. In Doing feminist research Edited by:Roberts, H., 30–61. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
38. Phelan, S., 1994. Getting specific:Postmodern lesbian politics. Minneapolis, MN:U. of Minnesota Press.
39. Presnell, M., 1994. “ Postmodern ethnography:From representing the other to co-producing a text ”. In Interpretive approaches to interpersonal communication Edited by:Carter, K., and Presnell, M., 11–43. Albany:SUNY Press.
40. Putnam, L. L., 1983. “ The interpretive perspective:An alternative to functionalism ”. In Communication and organizations:An interpretive approach Edited by:Putnam, L. L., and Pacanowsky, M. E., 31–53. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
41. Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist methods in social research. New York:Oxford U Press.
42. Rose, H., 1982. “ Making science feminist ”. In The changing experience of women Edited by:Whitelegg, E., Arnot, M., Bartels, E., Beechly, V., Birke, L., Himmelweit, S., Leonard, D., Ruehl, S., and Speakman, M. A., 353–372. Oxford:Martin Robinson.
43. Scheidel, T. M., 1994. On evidence. Western Journal of Communication, 58:67–71.
44. Shields, V. R., and Dervin, B., 1993. Sense-making in feminist social science research:A call to enlarge the methodological options of feminist studies. Women's Studies International Forum, 16:65–81.
45. Self, L. S., 1988. What distinguishes/ought to distinguish feminist scholarship in communication studies?:Progress toward engendering a feminist academic practice. Women's Studies in Communication, 11:1–3.
46. Smith, D., 1974. Women's perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44:7–13.
47. Smith, D., 1977. “ Some implications of a sociology for women ”. In Women in a man-made world:A socioeconomic handbook, 2nd ed. Edited by:Glazer, N., and Waehrer, H., Chicago:Rand McNally.
48. Smith, R., and Eisenberg, E., 1987. Conflict at Disneyland:A root-metaphor analysis. Communication Monographs, 54:367–380.
49. Stanley, L., and Wise, S., 1983. Breaking out:Feminist consciousness and feminist research. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
50. Stewart, J., 1994. “ An interpretive approach to validity in interpersonal communication research ”. In Interpretive approaches to interpersonal communication Edited by:Carter, K., and Presnell, M., 45–81. Albany:SUNY Press.
51. Strine, M. S., 1992. Understanding “how things work”:Sexual harassment and academic culture. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20:361–400.
52. Susman, G. I., 1983. “ Action research:A sociotechnical systems perspective ”. In Beyond method:Strategies for social research Edited by:Morgan, G., 95–113. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
53. Taylor, C., 1994. “ Interpretation and the sciences of man ”. In Readings in the philosophy of social science Edited by:Martin, M., and McIntyre, L. C., 181–211. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
54. Tompkins, P. K., 1994. Principles of rigor for assessing evidence in 'qualitative' communication research. Western Journal of Communication, 58:44–50.
55. Wallston, B., 1981. What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research. Psychology of Women Quarterly., 5:597–617.
56. Ward, K. B., and Grant, L., 1991. “ Coauthorship, gender, and publication among sociologists ”. In Beyond methodology:Feminist scholarship as lived research Edited by:Fonow, M. M., and Cook, J. A., 248–264. Bloomington, IN:Indiana U Press.
57. Westkott, M., 1979. Feminist criticism of the social sciences. Harvard Educational Review, 49 (4):422–430.
58. Wylie, A., 1994. “ Reasoning about ourselves:Feminist methodology in the social sciences ”. In Readings in the philosophy of social science Edited by:Martin, M., and McIntyre, L. C., 611–624. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.