Feminist Research Methods: Studying Women and Gender

Praeger Guide to the Psychology of Gender

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 155-181

  McHugh, Maureen C ^a   Cosgrove, Lisa ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24044513479     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (90)

1. Barad, K. (1995). A feminist approach to teaching quantum physics. In Sue V. Rosser (Ed.), Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, math-ematics, and engineering (pp. 43-76). New York: Teachers College Press.
2. Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Culture Studies, 10, 87-128.
3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28, 801-831.
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. Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Bem, S. (2004). Transforming the debate on sexual inequality: From biological difference to institutionalized androcentrism. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp. 3-15). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
7. Bleir, R. (1984). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon.
8. Bohan, J. (1993). Regarding gender: Essentialism, constructionism and feminist psy-chology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 5-21.
9. Bowker, L. (1984). Coping with wife abuse: Personal and social networks. In A.R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their families (pp. 168-191). New York: Springer.
10. Breen, J., Gustafson, N., Messina, R. (producers), & Stossel, J. (host/writer). (1998, January 17). Men, women and the sex difference: Boys and girls are differ-ent. ABC News special. Available from MPI Home Video, Oak Forest, IL.
11. Brydon-Miller, M., & Tolman, D. L. (1997). Engaging the process of transformation. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 803-810.
12. Burman, E. (1997). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qual-itative methods. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 785-801.
13. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York: Routledge.
14. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
15. Cabello, R. (1999). Negotiating the life narrative: A dialogue with an African Amer-ican social worker. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 309-322.
16. Cacioppo, J.T., Semin, G. R., & Berntson, G. G. (2004). Realism, instrumentalism, and scientific symbiosis: Psychological theory as search for truth and the discovery of solutions. American Psychologist, 59(4), 214-223.
17. Caplan, P., & Caplan, J. (1994). Thinking critically about research on sex and gen-der. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the pol-itics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
19. Cosgrove, L. (1987). The aftermath of sexual assault: An existential-phenomenological investigation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA.
20. Cosgrove, L. (1999, March). Developing social action research for homeless women. Paper presented to the Association for Women in Psychology, Providence, RI.
21. Cosgrove, L. (In press). Toward some rapprochement between social constructionism and phenomenology: Implications for researching women’s experiences of emotional distress. Feminism and Psychology.
22. Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. (2002). Deconstructing difference: Conceptualizing feminist research from within the postmodern. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 20-36). Westport, CT: Praeger.
23. Crawford, M., & Kimmel, E. (1999, March). Promoting methodological diversity in feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 1-6.
24. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105-116.
25. Eagly, A.H. (1994). On comparing men and women. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 501-506.
26. Epstein, C. F. (1988). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27. Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28. Fischer, C.T., & Wertz, F. (1979). Empirical-phenomenological analyses of being criminally victimized. In A. Giorgi, R. Knowles, & D.L. Smith (Eds.), Exi-stential phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 99-112). New York: Plenum.
29. Franz, C.E., & Stewart, A.J. (Eds.). (1994). Women creating lives: Identities, re-silience, and resistance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
30. Garko, M. (1999). Existential phenomenology and feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 170-175.
31. Gergen, M., Chrisler, J.C., & LoCicero, A. (1999). Innovative methods: Resources for research, publishing and teaching. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(2), 431-456.
32. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s devel-opment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Giorgi, A. (Ed.). (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
34. Gondolf, E. W. (1985). Men who batter: An integrated approach for stopping wife abuse. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.
35. Gondolf, E. W. (1993). Treating the batterer. In M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (pp. 105-118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.
37. Halpern, D. (1994). Stereotypes, science, censorship, and the study of sex differences. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 523-530.
38. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
39. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40. Hare-Mustin, R. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy. Family Process, 33, 19-35.
41. Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1994). Asking the right questions: Feminist psy-chology and sex differences. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 531-537.
42. Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and method in psychology: Gender, meaning, and science. London: Sage.
43. Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.
44. Hoshmand, L., & O’Bryne, K. (1996). Reconsidering action research as a guiding metaphor for professional psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 185-200.
45. Hubbard, R. (1981). The emperor doesn’t wear any clothes: The impact of feminism on biology. In D. Spender (Ed.), Men’s studies modified: The impact of feminism on academic disciplines (pp. 214-245). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
46. Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
47. Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Keen, E. (1975). A primer in phenomenological psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
49. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
50. Kelly, L., Burton, S., & Regan, L. (1994). Researching women’s lives or studying women’s oppression? Reflections on what constitutes feminist research. In M. Maynard and J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 22-48). London: Taylor and Francis.
51. Kimball, M.M. (1995). Feminist visions of gender similarities and differences. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
52. Kitzinger, C. (1992). The individuated self: A critical analysis of social construc-tionist writing on individualism. In G. Breakwell (Ed.), The social psychology of identity and self concept. London: Academic Press/Surrey University Press.
53. Kitzinger, C. (1994). Should psychologists study sex differences? Feminism and Psy-chology, 4, 501-546.
54. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the post-modern. New York: Routledge.
55. Layton, L. (1998). Who’s that girl? Who’s that boy? Clinical practice meets post-modern gender theory. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
56. Lyotard, J. F. ([1984] 1993). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi, trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
57. MacKinnon, C.A. (1990). Legal perspectives on sexual difference. In D.L. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 213-225). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
58. Marks, (1993). Case conference analysis and action research. In E. Burman & I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action (pp. 135-154). New York: Routledge.
59. Maynard, M. (1992). Methods, practice, and epistemology: The debate about feminism and research. In M. Maynard & J. Purvis (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective (pp. 10-26). London: Taylor and Francis.
60. McHugh, M. C. (1990). Gender issues in psychotherapy: Victim blame/woman blame. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycholog-ical Association, Boston.
61. McHugh, M.C. (1993). Studying battered women and batterers: Feminist perspectives on methodology. In M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (pp. 54-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62. McHugh, M.C., & Cosgrove, L. (1998). Research for women: Feminist methods. In D. M. Ashcraft (Ed.), Women’s work: A survey of scholarship by and about women (pp. 3-19). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
63. McHugh, M.C., & Cosgrove, L. (2002). Gendered subjects in psychology: Satirical and dialectic perspectives. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 3-19). Westport, CT: Praeger.
64. McHugh, M. C., Frieze, I., & Browne, K. (1992). Research on battered women and their assailants. In M. Paludi & F. Denmrk (Eds.). Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 231-276). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
65. McHugh, M.C., Koeske, R., & Frieze, I. (1986). Issues to consider in conducting nonsexist psychological research: A guide for researchers. American Psychologist, 41, 879-890.
66. Nelson, J. L. (1989). Phenomenology as feminist methodology: Explicating interviews. In K. Carter & C. Spitzack (Eds.), Doing research on women’s communication: Perspectives on theory and method (pp. 221-241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
67. Nelson, L. H. (1993). A question of evidence. Hypatia 8, 174-189.
68. Press, A.L. (1991). Working class women in a middle class world: The impact of television on modes of reasoning about abortion. Critical Studies in Mass Com-munication, 8, 421-441.
69. Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Psychologist, 44, 517-535.
70. Rappaport, J., & Stewart, E. (1997). A look at critical psychology: Elaborating the questions. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An intro-duction (pp. 301-317). London: Sage.
71. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
72. Reitz, R. R. (1999). Batterer’s experience of being violent: A phenomenological study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 143-165.
73. Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
74. Romero, M., & Stewart, A. J. (1999). Introduction. In M. Romero & A.J. Stewart (Eds.), Women’s untold stories: Breaking silence, talking back, voicing com-plexity (pp. ix-xxi). New York: Routledge.
75. Rosenwald, G., & Ochberg, R. (Eds.). (1992). Storied lives: The cultural politics of self-understanding. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
76. Sanger (1998). Outcome assessments for battered women’s shelters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Women’s Psychology. Baltimore, MD.
77. Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human con-duct. New York: Praeger.
78. Schiebinger, L. (2003). Introduction: Feminism inside the sciences. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, pp. 859-866.
79. Sherif, C. (1979). Bias in psychology. In J. A. Sherman & E. T. Beck (Eds.), The prism of sex: Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 93-133). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
80. Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739-754.
81. Spelman, E. V. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston: Beacon Press.
82. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
83. Thorne, B. (1990). Children and gender: Constructions of difference. In D.L. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 100-113). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84. Unger, R. K. (1983). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet! Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 9-31.
85. Unger, R.K. (1998). Resisting gender: Twenty-five years of feminist psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86. Ussher, J. (1992). Women’s madness: Misogyny or mental illness? Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
87. Weisstein, N. (1969/2004). “Kinder kuche, kirch” as scientific law: Psychology constructs the female. Reprinted in T. A. Roberts (Ed.), The Lanahan Readings in Psychology of Women. Boston: New England Free Press.
88. West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.
89. Wilkinson, S. (1999). Focus groups: A feminist method. Psychology of Women Quar-terly, 23(2), 221-244.
90. Worrell, J., & Etaugh, C. (Eds.). (1994). Transformations: Reconceptualizing theory and research with women [special issue]. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4).