Candidate No 0138037

Introduction
When one hears the term ‘Feminist research’ many images come to mind
including protests and general man hating women. However this is most likely
associated with the modifier ‘Feminist’ and not research at all. The field of
qualitative research involves observing society and individuals beyond the numbers
and beyond statistics. There are many different approaches to qualitative research all
with the main goal of finding a better understanding of society through observation
and analysis. The reference to ‘Feminist research’ is in regards to the statement that
‘Feminist research is research by women, about women, for women’ and it is this
statement that will be the focus of this paper.
The exclusive nature of this statement is what I take issue with when it comes
to the tenets of sociological research with special attention paid to the field of
qualitative research. The qualitative approach which at times is challenged for its
direct involvement with research subjects / participants and the observed borderless
interaction between researcher and researched does not define itself as a sociological
form of analysis that requires certain immutable characteristics (biological sex) to be
involved in research. However, there is a belief especially within ‘Feminist
Standpoint epistemology’ which is a subset of ‘Feminist research’ that holds that to
have the ‘Feminist’ standpoint is not merely having perspective but to actually have
experienced the “intellectual and political struggle necessary to see nature and social
life from the point of view of that disdained activity which produces women’s social
experiences”(Kemp & Squire 1997, pg 169). The question remains if ‘Feminist
research’ is truly only the domain for women and if the researcher must be
biologically female to produce valid results. I would suggest that the answer to this
proposition is a resounding NO.
This paper will first address approaches/types of ‘Feminism’ in order to
understand the rationale behind an exclusive field of research. The focus will then
shift to a discussion of the variance in ‘Feminist research’ looking at both ‘Feminist
empiricism’ and ‘Feminist Standpoint epistemology’ as means of approaching
qualitative sociological research. I will then share My Story of barriers to access in
the process of forming my MSc dissertation topic and the obstacles that remain due to
my own biological sex with a comparison to research on ‘Gay Dads’ by Gillian
Dunne. Finally the paper will address the fractured nature of ‘Feminist’ movement

1
 Candidate No 0138037

including but not limited to the sociological approaches mentioned above in order to
illustrate that the field of ‘Feminist research’ is not a field that must be conducted BY
women, about women, for women but in the fact it can be conducted BY people,
about women, for the betterment of society as a whole.

What is Feminism?
This is a question that could be the topic of its own paper. However, the focus
of this paper is the role ‘Feminism’ plays in sociological research and the various
types of ‘Feminism’ which would contribute to the belief that one must have the
immutable biological sex of female to conduct, analyze, and report research about
women that is considered valid and without the bias of the pre-existing male
patriarchy that is said to permeate the whole of science which includes sociological
research.
The types of ‘Feminism’ I shall discuss are Liberal feminism, Cultural
feminism, Socialist feminism, and Radical feminism with final discussion of
Postmodern feminism that itself questions the structure of the ‘Feminist’ movement
and methods (Etaugh & Bridges 2006, pp. 3-5).
Liberal feminism “is the belief that women and men should have the same
political, legal, economic, and educational rights and opportunities (Henley et al.,
1998; Ens & Sinacore, 2001)”(Etaugh & Bridges 2006). Furthermore Liberal
feminists view the differences between men and women as a function of unequal
opportunities (Etaugh & Bridges 2006). Would this type of feminism conclude that
‘Feminist research is by women, about women, for women’? It would appear that this
statement does not mesh well with the position of Liberal feminism since the goal is
to equalize opportunity and rights for both men and women therefore this type would
not advocate the research is exclusive to the biological sex of female.
Cultural feminism “reflects ‘the belief that women and men are different and
that more respect should be given to women’s special qualities, such as nurturance,
concern about others, and cooperativeness (Ens & Sincore, 2001; Henley et al.,
1998)’”(Etaugh & Bridge 2006). This approach to feminism honors the interpersonal
skills associated with women and seeks to address the destructive nature of masculine
traits (Etaugh & Bridge 2006). Would Cultural feminism support the statement that is
the focus of this paper? Well Cultural feminism would seek to empower women

2
 Candidate No 0138037

based around their inherent interpersonal approach gained through experience

however when we evaluate the totality of the statement Cultural feminists would most
likely not agree with the statement that ‘Feminist research’ is for women exclusively.
Socialist feminism concerns itself with ‘the attitude that gender inequality is
rooted in economic inequality (Ens & Sinacore 2001, Henley et al., 1998)’(Etaugh &
Bridge 2006). This type of feminism believes that oppression can not be overcome as
long as the capitalist structure of Western Society is maintained. This type would be
closely allied to Marxist Feminism (which looks at the class structure between
bourgeois and proletariat that contributes to female oppression. Would Socialist
feminists believe that ‘Feminist research’ is strictly limited to the biological sex of
female and to the benefit of only women? I would suggest that Socialist feminism is
more concerned with capitalist structure of society as a whole and that ‘Feminist
research’ can be effective if its relevance is beyond women to impact the structure of
society to bring about fundamental social change.
Radical feminism is ‘the belief that gender inequality is based on male
oppression of women (Ens & Sinacore, 2001; Henley et al., 1998; Johnson, 1997)’
(Etaugh & Bridge 2006). Radical feminism would be the most supportive of the
stance that ‘Feminist research’ is by women, about women, for women because the
root goal of Radical feminism is to end the oppression of women by men and the
patriarchy that is prevalent in society. Radical feminist would most likely be of the
opinion that male involvement in ‘Feminist research’ would be an act of continued
oppression and a means to maintain male dominance in society. This is the form of
feminism that would support the exclusivity of ‘Feminist research’.
Postmodern feminism ‘involves a rejection of any metanarrative (any grand
general theory) which purports to identify the basis of women’s subordination’
(Jackson 1993, pg 20). Furthermore the basis tenet of postmodernism would suggest
that ‘once we call into question the status of knowledge as objective truth, we can no
longer claim that feminist theory can provide a definitive account of gender relations’
(Jackson 1993, pg 20). Postmodern feminism therefore challenges the absolute nature
of the feminist movement to supply the one and only answer to the oppression of
women. The logical argument that then follows from the Postmodern argument is that
the one and absolute answer does not exist and even if one answer did exist it would
have to be devoid of the influence, bias, or perception of women to be a truth.
Therefore postmodern approach to feminism would question the basis of ‘Feminism’

3
 Candidate No 0138037

the uniqueness of women. Would Postmodern feminism support the exclusivity

inherent in the statement of ‘Feminist research’? The answer would be no since the
Postmodern feminist approach would question the need of the female biological sex
both in the researcher and the target audience.
With these classifications of ‘Feminism’ it would seem apparent that almost
all six types described above would not accept the absolute statement that is the focus
of this paper. This of course implies the interpretation that the statement ‘Feminist
research is research by women, about women, for women’ would completely and
absolutely exclude the study of women by men because such knowledge would be
inherently flawed because of the inability of male to be female. There is however a
divide in the philosophies of feminist sociological research when it comes to the
involvement of males as well as the target of such research.

Philosophies behind Qualitative Research:

Feminist Empiricism vs. Standpoint epistemology
Qualitative social research is a means to investigate the behavior of
individuals and society in general. The hope of such research is to investigate the
unique qualities that are inherent in all individuals through research methods that
embrace interaction and involvement with the research participants while at the same
time trying to establish some level of scientific accountability. When I use the term
scientific accountability it implies that research that is not planned and structured with
formal goals and procedures may come under attack by quantitative researchers.
Evidence of such an attack is evident in the following statement:

Even though the virtue of qualitative research is seldom questioned in the

abstract, its practice is sometimes criticized for being nonscientific and thus
invalid. However, these critics tended to lose sight of the probability factor
inherent in quantitative practices and replaced it with an assumption of
certainty. (Berg 2006, pg. 3).

The reality is that most of ‘Feminist research’ is qualitative in nature and utilizes the
interaction between the researcher and the researched as well as involvement in the
research process to empower. Support for this statement is found in the following
description of the way women learn:

…a substantial number of the 135 women in a study of women’s cognitive

development were ‘connected knowers’ … and drawn to …knowledge that
emerges from first hand observation (Belenky et al. 1986). Such women felt
that because such knowledge comes from experience, the best way of

4
 Candidate No 0138037

understanding another person’s ideas was to develop empathy and share the
experiences that led the person to form those ideas (Hill Collins 1990, pg.
210).

The statement may only cover a small group of women however this notion of
knowledge through interaction is continually repeated throughout the literature on
‘Feminist research’ by such people as Sandra Harding and Carol Gilligan.
The philosophical foundation of ‘Feminist research’ is split however between
empiricism and standpoint epistemology with some debate about the presence of
postmodernism. This paper will look specifically on the debate between Feminist
empiricism (which appears to accept biological males as contributors) and Feminist
Standpoint epistemology (which does not directly state but implies that such a
standpoint is not merely a perspective but something more) as applied to Qualitative
research.
‘Feminist empiricism’ looks to balance the scientific nature of inquiry with the
political movement that is Feminism. Clearly when one thinks of the process of
research or scientific inquiry it is believed that bias or a political motivation should be
excluded from such a process. ‘Feminist’ empiricists hold to the belief that the
problem in research in the presence of social biases which lead to sexist and
androcentric claims in research (Kemp & Squires 1997, pg. 166). The solution to
remove these biases is a strict adherence to the scientific process as suggested by
Sandra Harding:

Feminist empiricists argue that sexist and androcentric biases are eliminable
by stricter adherence to the existing methodological norms of the scientific
inquiry; it is ‘bad science’ or ‘bad sociology’, etc, which is responsible for
these biases in the results of research. (Kemp & Squires 1997, pg. 166)

With this premise Feminist empiricism seeks to utilize the existing framework and
process of the scientific method to bring about social change through the researchers
as well as what is researched. This does not mean to ignore the political nature of the
Women’s movement but to acknowledge that the movement brings about increased
access for women researchers and encourages more work by feminist researchers
(both male and female) who are able to identify more accurately the biases present in
sociological research over a sexist male (Kemp & Squires 1997, pg. 166). Clearly
‘Feminist empiricism’ would not embrace the notion the ‘Feminist research’ is
research only BY women as it would inherently see such an approach in violation of

5
 Candidate No 0138037

the scientific method it rigorously adheres to in a move to remove sexist and

androcentric biases.
“Feminist Standpoint’ epistemology in contrast is suggested to be a unique
product of experience and not a perspective that can be learned without actual
experience. The basis of the ‘Feminist standpoint’ is the recognition that ‘knowledge
is supposed to be based on experience’ and that claims formulated through the
‘Feminist standpoint’ is preferable because it is ‘a more complete and less distorting
kind of social experience’(Kemp & Squires 1997, pg. 168). Harding suggests that the
justification for the ‘Feminist standpoint’ originates in Hegel’s insight into the
relationship between master and slave which suggests that human activity not only
shapes life but sets limits on understanding (Kemp & Squires 1997, pg 168). To
summarize the ‘Feminist standpoint’ is the product of the subordination of women by
men and a patriarchy created in a similar fashion to the dynamic between master and
slave and it is this dynamic that allows women (slave) to have this ‘Feminist
standpoint’. Conversely the male (master) through their human activity is unable to
perceive the experience and realities of the female and therefore can not offer a
contribution to the subject without the requisite intellectual and political struggle.
The ‘Feminist standpoint’ is the most closely related to ‘Radical feminism’ which
embraces the premise that women are oppressed by men and that only by excluding
the oppressor from the forum can the oppression end through the voices of women.
When comparing ‘Feminist empiricism’ and “Feminist standpoint’
epistemology the relevance of the statement which is the subject of this article comes
to the forefront. If you (woman) choose to embrace a ‘Feminist standpoint’ you
therefore exclude the involvement of the oppressor in research and social change and
“Feminist research’ can be research by women, about women, for women. However,
‘Feminist empiricism’ believes that the political nature of the Woman’s movement
can bring about the desired social change by empowering women to research and also
feminist researchers (male and female) to recognize the shortcomings of prior
research. Both of these approaches can be embraced in qualitative research with the
more likely candidate being a “Feminist standpoint’ approach to the analysis since
such an approach embraces interaction and shared experience between researcher and
researched that would otherwise not be present in ‘Feminist empiricism’. However
‘Feminist empiricism’ does not exclude itself from qualitative research by hiding
itself amongst the number crunching of quantitative research and it more than an

6
 Candidate No 0138037

acceptable premise for research design and methodological approaches to such

inquiries as document review and historical analysis.

My Story: Barriers to Research

When selecting this topic to discuss the approaches of ‘Feminist research’ it
was quite close to home. The exclusivity and essentialism contained in the statement
that ‘Feminist research is research by women, about women, for women’ alarmed me
however it is also a social reality and would appear to be prevalent within at least
three academic institutions that I have contacted for assistance. I am setting out as a
biological male to research the impact of British family law on the lesbian mother. I
have previously suggested that the ‘lesbian mother’ should be recognized as a distinct
class within critical theory. This however is not the main focus of my concern with
the resistance I have received from academics in the field of gender studies. In
seeking assistance with my MSc dissertation on the bias that may effect a custody
decision surrounding a lesbian mother, based on sexual preference, I have been
referred to many scholars in the field. The most notable individuals include Gillian
Dunne (Plymouth), Carol Smart (Manchester), and Leanne Smith (Cardiff). When
contacting these academics I have received some assistance in trying to locate
individuals for my research however what has alarmed me is the frequency in which I
get told that maybe I should re-evaluate my research. I am very open about my
biological sex (male) because it is a reality, it is immutable. One such piece of advice
was:

I am delighted to hear of a man who is prepared to work on issues

surrounding women, parenting and sexuality. However, I will warn you that, if
you are hoping to interview lesbians for your research, I think you will have
great difficulty finding subjects willing to talk to you. I think you will find that
the majority of lesbians would, understandably, have deep misgivings about
disclosing information about their lives to a male, and would also have
serious doubts about your motives. I think you will need to reflect very
carefully on what sort of research would be viable for you, and how you will
go about it. (Smith, Nov 24 2006)

Reading the following statement does seem to imply that there is truly a barrier to
social research surrounding biological sex.
However unlike my experiences, Gillian Dunne seems to have had an easier
time with access when it came to researching ‘Gay Dads’. Dr. Dunne elaborates that
through a ‘Feminist approach’ which involved interaction with a limited number of

7
 Candidate No 0138037

respondents in interviews after a larger survey by questionnaire it was actually easy to

get men to open up in her research. There may be many reasons for the ease at which
Dr. Dunne was able to have men open up to her but I would suggest that the most
important approach is learning to listen to both men and women. People desire to be
listened to and it is something that needs to be developed in qualitative social
research. It can not be assumed that both men and women are fully able to know how
to listen or that such a technique is inherently non-male. However there is some
support that males need to learn how to listen in general (See Murphy 2004, pp. 50-
56). I would also counter the stance that my biological sex (male) is an automatic
barrier to discussion with the words of Dr. Dunne:

None of the sample appeared to be surprised that a woman had initiated and
was conducting research [on gay fathers], although I suspect some of the
North American respondents originally assumed I was a man (the name Gil is
a man’s name there). (Dunne 1999, pg. 11)

It seems evident from the above discussion that there may be a barrier that is unique
to the interchange between lesbians (assumed to be more ‘Radical feminist’) and a
man than the interchange between a woman and gay men.
The resolution of this issue is still pending however, it is my belief that along
with the response to this question about the essentialism or exclusivity of ‘Feminist
research’ that the barriers to access and knowledge can be removed and a ‘Feminist
empiricism’ can be embraced in which male feminists do not have to endure the
barriers that women have faced. However a ‘Feminist standpoint” epistemology
might suggest that it is through this struggle alone that one can gain the standpoint
necessary to do research. The question then remains can a biological male use the
‘Feminist standpoint’ or would it remain only a perspective, even with engagement in
the intellectual and political struggle experienced by women.

Internal Struggles:
‘Feminist Standpoints’ in every flavor & ‘Emancipatory’ research
What remains in the analysis of ‘Feminist research’ is the appearance of
variations on the proposed ‘Feminist standpoint’ which is attacked as being a
representation of white, middle-class, suburban women and limited in its ability to be
a voice for all women. The most ardent speaker on this matter is Patricia Hill Collins
who has suggested the creation of an ‘Afrocentric feminist’ epistemology. The basis

8
 Candidate No 0138037

for this position is that the experience of Black women is not included in the
established ‘Feminist standpoint’ because the experiences of a Black female are
inherently unique and not experienced by white females (Truman, Mertens &
Humphries 2000, pg. 8). Hill Collins conceptualizes this stance:

Black feminist thought …reflects the interest and standpoint of its creators.
… Because elite white men and their representative control structures of
knowledge validation, white male interests pervade the thematic content of
traditional scholarship. Black women’s experiences … have been rountinely
distorted in or excluded from traditional academic discourse. (Hill Collins
1990, pg. 201)

Furthermore, Hill Collins suggests that a Black feminist can merge and work between
a ‘Feminist standpoint’ and ‘Afrocentric feminist’ standpoint but the two are unique
standpoints. However the question remains if there is a unique standpoint for all
varieties of Feminist does this not cause a weakening within the Women’s movement
and undermine the traditional ‘Feminist standpoint’.
The next significant discussion comes from the ‘emancipatory’ research
paradigm which includes not only ‘Feminist research’ but also any research which
seeks to bring a voice to the oppressed (Truman, Mertens & Humphries 2000).
‘Feminist research’ is seen as emancipatory in its nature however the true nature of
this empowerment is again questioned by both Black and Third-World women who
see ‘Feminist research’ as plagued by universalist and imperialist assumptions
(Truman, Mertens & Humphries 2000, pg. 8). This calls into question what “Feminist
research’ is empowering if there is not recognition of positions such as Afrocentric,
lesbian, and disabled feminists. This question remains to be resolved with reference
to the current ‘Feminist standpoint’. In Hearing voices, Clare Woodward describes
her ‘Feminist’ perspective that is brought to the table when conducting her
‘emancipatory’ research into victims of childhood sexual abuse (Truman, Mertens &
Humphries 2000, pp. 40-44). Woodward uses qualitative methods of review applied
to letter written by survivors of CSA in light of her ‘Feminist’ perspective and
discusses the researcher- researched relationship and that bringing emotion and
empathy to reading the letters was essential. Furthermore, Woodward discusses the
use of ‘conscious subjectivity’ instead of pure objectivity to convey the nature of her
research (Truman, Mertens & Humphries 2000, pg. 42). The belief is that recognition
of the experiences of the researcher will assist and not hinder analysis of the research
participants. The most startling reality of this research into CSA is that 12% of the

9
 Candidate No 0138037

respondents were men and therefore this boldly challenges that ‘Feminist research’ is
about women and more acutely that the results are for women and not society as a
whole.

Conclusion
The analysis above has challenged the statement that ‘Feminist research is
research by women, about women, for women’ by reviewing six prevalent types of
feminism and the degree to which they adhere to the statement, looking at the
philosophical foundations of ‘Feminist research’ to discover if essentialism is truly
present, sharing a personal narrative in order to illuminate the reality in social
research currently, and discussing the movement to recognize multiple ‘Feminist
standpoints’ based on the unique experiences of all women. Through this critical
analysis it should be evident that besides the tenets of ‘Radical feminism’ where men
are the oppressors of women and appropriately excluded from ‘Feminist research’
because of an inability to share in the ‘Feminist standpoint’ the other forms of
‘Feminism’ and ‘Feminist empiricism’ recognize the contributions of all members of
society, even biological males.
I would state that my research into the impact of the British family law on the
lesbian mother will continue undaunted and that such work is important. Not because
I seek to re-establish the androcentric and sexist attitudes of men in reference to
lesbian mothers but on the other hand work through the process of ‘emancipatory’
research to bring a voice to those that would otherwise go unheard.

10
 Candidate No 0138037

Bibliography

Articles:

1. DUNNE, G. A. (1999) The Different Dimensions of Gay Fatherhood. Report to The

Economic And Social Research Council, (October, 1999). (Translated into French and
German). http://www.sociology.plymouth.ac.uk/~gdunne/gaydads.pdf

Books:

2. Berg, B. L. 2006, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th edition,
Pearson Education, New York

3. Etaugh, C. & Bridges, J. 2006, Women’s Lives: A Topical Approach, Pearson

Education, New York

4. Harding, S. 1986, The Science Question in Feminism, Open University Press,

Milton Keynes

5. Hill Collins, P. 1990, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment, Routledge, New York

6. Murphy, P.F. ed. 2004, Feminism & Masculinities, Oxford University Press, New
York

7. Nicholson, L.J. ed. 1990, Feminism / Postmodernism, Routledge, New York

8. Nicolson, D & Bibbings, L. eds. 2000, Feminist Perspectives on Criminal Law,

Cavendish Publishing, London

9. Jackson, S et al eds. 1993, Women’s Studies: A reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New

York

10. Kemp, S. & Squires, J eds. 1997, Feminisms, Oxford University Press, New York

11. Truman, C., Mertens, D. & Humphries, B. eds. 2000, Research and Inequality,
UCL Press, London

11