Gender in the Social Sciences

Curthoys, Ann

doi:10.1080/08164649.2014.930553

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Curtin (2013: 82) found that in New Zealand few acknowledge contributions by feminist scholars. Curthoys (1998) found that Australian feminist scholars haven't been able to reconfigure their discipline as feminist historians and sociologists have. Sawer concludes that, after decades of effort to change how traditional political scientists think, "feminist scholarship remains additive rather than transformative of the discipline" (2004: 564, emphasis added).…”

Section: The Main Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing from reports and studies about the five Anglo-American democracies, the paper argues that more women professors, robust politics and gender fields and feminist sub-fields haven't resulted in transformative change in how conventional political scientists think. The paper first maps the judgments of many leading feminist scholars (Curthoys, 1998, 2014; Curtin, 2013; Hartsock, 2001; Johnson, 2014; Keränen, 1990; Randall, 2014; Trimble, 2002) that, while FPS has added much new knowledge, it hasn't been “transformative of the discipline” (Sawer, 2004: 563). This claim is then supported with evidence showing that much of the new knowledge is invisible to the rest of the discipline and gender isn't used as an analytic category outside of FPS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can We Change How Political Science Thinks? “Gender Mainstreaming” in a Resistant Discipline

Vickers

2015

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that, despite significant increases in the number of women professors and the growth of feminist political science, transformative change hasn't occurred in how conventional political scientists think about politics. “Transformative change” requires the successful mainstreaming of gender-focused knowledge and the use of “gender” as a category of analysis in studies of politics. The article first explores the insights of leading feminist political scientists in the five Anglo-American democracies, about why gender mainstreaming has not succeeded to date. It establishes the extent of the failure and explores its causes, including the discipline's fragmented structure, polarized culture and a number of theoretical and methodological incompatibilities between mainstream and feminist political science. Finally, several promising strategies for achieving transformative change are explored.

show abstract

Section: The Main Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Change How Political Science Thinks? “Gender Mainstreaming” in a Resistant Discipline

Vickers

2015

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ethnicity, race, gender, age, sexual preference, disability and religion (Kantola and Nousiainen 2009;McCall 2005). This field has been associated with certain ideologies and political goals (Cronin et al 1997;Curthoys 2014;Hoff Sommers 1995;Liinason 2011;Lykke et al 2007) and influences from post-modernism, relativism, and critical theory (Bergman 2000;Pilcher and Whelehan 2004;Thurén 2002). It has rapidly established itself in academia in Western countries, typically with considerable support from the political establishment Madison 2015, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research on gender studies has mainly focused on its history, growth, and academic standing (e.g. Baird 2010;Bergman 2000;Curthoys 2014;Harding et al 2013;Liinason 2011;Liinason and Holm 2006;Lykke 2006;Pavlidou 2011;Rantalaiho and Bergman 2002;Rönnblom and Eduards 2008;Thurén 2003). A few quantitative analyses consider bibliometric measures within gender studies such as authorship, growth, subject area, citation pattern, source of publication and international visibility (Ali et al 2016;Cronin et al 1997;Hernandez-Pozo and Fernandez-Rius 2013;Jacobsson and Wadskog 2006;Norrbin 2007;Sharma and Rana 2016;Zainab 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: gender studies can do better

Madison

Söderlund

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of gender studies has faced criticism for poor scholarship and methodology, both from within and outside academia. Here, we compare indicators of scientific quality across three samples of peer-reviewed journal articles with more, less and no gender perspective, on the assumption that gender studies tend to apply a gender perspective. The statements in the articles were content-analysed with respect to subject matter, their level of support in surrounding text, and other indicators of scientific quality. The higher the level of gender perspective, the lower was the scientific quality for seven out of nine indicators. Support was higher for the no gender perspective group, but did not differ across the two higher levels. We suggest that the impact of the field can be increased by implementing established research methods employed in other disciplines, especially in terms of bringing about desired social and societal change.

show abstract

“…Debates about this discipline revolve around objectivity and subjectivity bias, different epistemological and philosophical standpoints, impartiality of science, and having an activist plan (Brown, 1997). This field claims to be dominated by the theories and movements of feminists (Anderson, 2015;Curthoys, 2014;Liinason & Holm, 2006) with influences from relativism claimed by Friedman's 1997 (as cited in Söderlund & Madison, 2017), critical theory (Bergman, 2000;Thurén, 2002) and postmodernism (Brodribb, 1993). Moreover, feminists are more concerned about exploring the ways this discipline can bring desirable societal changes (Thurén, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis

Nadeem

2019

RIMCIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social sciences have always been contested on the philosophical and ethical grounds of producing scientific knowledge. Similarly, the standpoints of Gender studies are analytically linked to certain domains of reasoning for human behavior. It discusses social phenomena from a societal and cultural perspective, which raises questions for the scholars of this subject about the application of particular procedures for understanding realities guided by some ideologies (Söderlund & Madison, 2017). This article critically evaluates the theoretical debate on ways of upholding the objectivity in this discipline by minimizing the role of subjectivity in the construction of new knowledge. It is concluded that by adopting techniques such as bracketing, triangulation, reflexivity and various other theoretical stands mentioned by scholars, feminists, and social scientists, the struggle of producing objective systematic knowledge can be promoted in gender studies and other social sciences.

show abstract

Gender in the Social Sciences

Cited by 9 publications

References 3 publications

Can We Change How Political Science Thinks? “Gender Mainstreaming” in a Resistant Discipline

Can We Change How Political Science Thinks? “Gender Mainstreaming” in a Resistant Discipline

Comparisons of content and scientific quality indicators across peer-reviewed journal articles with more or less gender perspective: gender studies can do better

The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About