research papers feminist theory

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Feminist theory and its use in qualitative research in education.

• Emily Freeman Emily Freeman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1193
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Feminist theory rose in prominence in educational research during the 1980s and experienced a resurgence in popularity during the late 1990s−2010s. Standpoint epistemologies, intersectionality, and feminist poststructuralism are the most prevalent theories, but feminist researchers often work across feminist theoretical thought. Feminist qualitative research in education encompasses a myriad of methods and methodologies, but projects share a commitment to feminist ethics and theories. Among the commitments are the understanding that knowledge is situated in the subjectivities and lived experiences of both researcher and participants and research is deeply reflexive. Feminist theory informs both research questions and the methodology of a project in addition to serving as a foundation for analysis. The goals of feminist educational research include dismantling systems of oppression, highlighting gender-based disparities, and seeking new ways of constructing knowledge.

• feminist theories
• qualitative research
• educational research
• positionality
• methodology

Introduction

Feminist qualitative research begins with the understanding that all knowledge is situated in the bodies and subjectivities of people, particularly women and historically marginalized groups. Donna Haraway ( 1988 ) wrote,

I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, position, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims on people’s lives I’m arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity. Only the god trick is forbidden. . . . Feminism is about a critical vision consequent upon a critical positioning in unhomogeneous gendered social space. (p. 589)

By arguing that “politics and epistemologies” are always interpretive and partial, Haraway offered feminist qualitative researchers in education a way to understand all research as potentially political and always interpretive and partial. Because all humans bring their own histories, biases, and subjectivities with them to a research space or project, it is naïve to think that the written product of research could ever be considered neutral, but what does research with a strong commitment to feminism look like in the context of education?

Writing specifically about the ways researchers of both genders can use feminist ethnographic methods while conducting research on schools and schooling, Levinson ( 1998 ) stated, “I define feminist ethnography as intensive qualitative research, aimed toward the description and analysis of the gendered construction and representation of experience, which is informed by a political and intellectual commitment to the empowerment of women and the creation of more equitable arrangements between and among specific, culturally defined genders” (p. 339). The core of Levinson’s definition is helpful for understanding the ways that feminist educational anthropologists engage with schools as gendered and political constructs and the larger questions of feminist qualitative research in education. His message also extends to other forms of feminist qualitative research. By focusing on description, analysis, and representation of gendered constructs, educational researchers can move beyond simple binary analyses to more nuanced understandings of the myriad ways gender operates within educational contexts.

Feminist qualitative research spans the range of qualitative methodologies, but much early research emerged out of the feminist postmodern turn in anthropology (Behar & Gordon, 1995 ), which was a response to male anthropologists who ignored the gendered implications of ethnographic research (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ). Historically, most of the work on feminist education was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, with a resurgence in the late 2010s (Culley & Portuges, 1985 ; DuBois, Kelly, Kennedy, Korsmeyer, & Robinson, 1985 ; Gottesman, 2016 ; Maher & Tetreault, 1994 ; Thayer-Bacon, Stone, & Sprecher, 2013 ). Within this body of research, the majority focuses on higher education (Coffey & Delamont, 2000 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Diller, Houston, Morgan, & Ayim, 1996 ; Gabriel & Smithson, 1990 ; Mayberry & Rose, 1999 ). Even leading journals, such as Feminist Teacher ( 1984 −present), focus mostly on the challenges of teaching about and to women in higher education, although more scholarship on P–12 education has emerged in recent issues.

There is also a large collection of work on the links between gender, achievement, and self-esteem (American Association of University Women, 1992 , 1999 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Gilligan, 1982 ; Hancock, 1989 ; Jackson, Paechter, & Renold, 2010 ; National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2002 ; Orenstein, 1994 ; Pipher, 1994 ; Sadker & Sadker, 1994 ). However, just because research examines gender does not mean that it is feminist. Simply using gender as a category of analysis does not mean the research project is informed by feminist theory, ethics, or methods, but it is often a starting point for researchers who are interested in the complex ways gender is constructed and the ways it operates in education.

This article examines the histories and theories of U.S.–based feminism, the tenets of feminist qualitative research and methodologies, examples of feminist qualitative studies, and the possibilities for feminist qualitative research in education to provide feminist educational researchers context and methods for engaging in transformative and subversive research. Each section provides a brief overview of the major concepts and conversations, along with examples from educational research to highlight the ways feminist theory has informed educational scholarship. Some examples are given limited attention and serve as entry points into a more detailed analysis of a few key examples. While there is a large body of non-Western feminist theory (e.g., the works of Lila Abu-Lughod, Sara Ahmed, Raewyn Connell, Saba Mahmood, Chandra Mohanty, and Gayatri Spivak), much of the educational research using feminist theory draws on Western feminist theory. This article focuses on U.S.–based research to show the ways that the utilization of feminist theory has changed since the 1980s.

Histories, Origins, and Theories of U.S.–Based Feminism

The normative historiography of feminist theory and activism in the United States is broken into three waves. First-wave feminism (1830s−1920s) primarily focused on women’s suffrage and women’s rights to legally exist in public spaces. During this time period, there were major schisms between feminist groups concerning abolition, rights for African American women, and the erasure of marginalized voices from larger feminist debates. The second wave (1960s and 1980s) worked to extend some of the rights won during the first wave. Activists of this time period focused on women’s rights to enter the workforce, sexual harassment, educational equality, and abortion rights. During this wave, colleges and universities started creating women’s studies departments and those scholars provided much of the theoretical work that informs feminist research and activism today. While there were major feminist victories during second-wave feminism, notably Title IX and Roe v. Wade , issues concerning the marginalization of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity led many feminists of color to separate from mainstream white feminist groups. The third wave (1990s to the present) is often characterized as the intersectional wave, as some feminist groups began utilizing Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality ( 1991 ) to understand that oppression operates via multiple categories (e.g., gender, race, class, age, ability) and that intersecting oppressions lead to different lived experiences.

Historians and scholars of feminism argue that dividing feminist activism into three waves flattens and erases the major contributions of women of color and gender-nonconforming people. Thompson ( 2002 ) called this history a history of hegemonic feminism and proposed that we look at the contributions of multiracial feminism when discussing history. Her work, along with that of Allen ( 1984 ) about the indigenous roots of U.S. feminism, raised many questions about the ways that feminism operates within the public and academic spheres. For those who wish to engage in feminist research, it is vital to spend time understanding the historical, theoretical, and political ways that feminism(s) can both liberate and oppress, depending on the scholar’s understandings of, and orientations to, feminist projects.

Standpoint Epistemology

Much of the theoretical work that informs feminist qualitative research today emerged out of second-wave feminist scholarship. Standpoint epistemology, according to Harding ( 1991 , 2004 ), posits that knowledge comes from one’s particular social location, that it is subjective, and the further one is from the hegemonic norm, the clearer one can see oppression. This was a major challenge to androcentric and Enlightenment theories of knowledge because standpoint theory acknowledges that there is no universal understanding of the world. This theory aligns with the second-wave feminist slogan, “The personal is political,” and advocates for a view of knowledge that is produced from the body.

Greene ( 1994 ) wrote from a feminist postmodernist epistemology and attacked Enlightenment thinking by using standpoint theory as her starting point. Her work serves as an example of one way that educational scholars can use standpoint theory in their work. She theorized encounters with “imaginative literature” to help educators conceptualize new ways of using reading and writing in the classroom and called for teachers to think of literature as “a harbinger of the possible.” (Greene, 1994 , p. 218). Greene wrote from an explicitly feminist perspective and moved beyond simple analyses of gender to a larger critique of the ways that knowledge is constructed in classrooms.

Intersectionality

Crenshaw ( 1991 ) and Collins ( 2000 ) challenged and expanded standpoint theory to move it beyond an individual understanding of knowledge to a group-based theory of oppression. Their work, and that of other black and womanist feminists, opened up multiple spaces of possibility for feminist scholars and researchers because it challenged hegemonic feminist thought. For those interested in conducting feminist research in educational settings, their work is especially pertinent because they advocate for feminists to attend to all aspects of oppression rather than flattening them to one of simple gender-based oppression.

Haddix, McArthur, Muhammad, Price-Dennis, and Sealey-Ruiz ( 2016 ), all women-of-color feminist educators, wrote a provocateur piece in a special issue of English Education on black girls’ literacy. The four authors drew on black feminist thought and conducted a virtual kitchen-table conversation. By symbolically representing their conversations as one from the kitchen, this article pays homage to women-of-color feminism and pushes educators who read English Education to reconsider elements of their own subjectivities. Third-wave feminism and black feminism emphasize intersectionality, in that different demographic details like race, class, and gender are inextricably linked in power structures. Intersectionality is an important frame for educational research because identifying the unique experiences, realities, and narratives of those involved in educational systems can highlight the ways that power and oppression operate in society.

Feminist Poststructural Theory

Feminist poststructural theory has greatly informed many feminist projects in educational research. Deconstruction is

a critical practice that aims to ‘dismantle [ déconstruire ] the metaphysical and rhetorical structures that are at work, not in order to reject or discard them, but to reinscribe them in another way,’ (Derrida, quoted in Spivak, 1974 , p. lxxv). Thus, deconstruction is not about tearing down, but about looking at how a structure has been constructed, what holds it together, and what it produces. (St. Pierre, 2000 , p. 482)

Reality, subjectivity, knowledge, and truth are constructed through language and discourse (cultural practices, power relations, etc.), so truth is local and diverse, rather than a universal experience (St. Pierre, 2000 ). Feminist poststructuralist theory may be used to question structural inequality that is maintained in education through dominant discourses.

In Go Be a Writer! Expanding the Curricular Boundaries of Literacy Learning with Children , Kuby and Rucker ( 2016 ) explored early elementary literacy practices using poststructural and posthumanist theories. Their book drew on hours of classroom observations, student interviews and work, and their own musings on ways to de-standardize literacy instruction and curriculum. Through the process of pedagogical documentation, Kuby and Rucker drew on the works of Barad, Deleuze and Guattari, and Derrida to explore the ways they saw children engaging in what they call “literacy desiring(s).” One aim of the book is to find practical and applicable ways to “Disrupt literacy in ways that rewrite the curriculum, the interactions, and the power dynamics of the classroom even begetting a new kind of energy that spirals and bounces and explodes” (Kuby & Rucker, 2016 , p. 5). The second goal of their book is not only to understand what happened in Rucker’s classroom using the theories, but also to unbound the links between “teaching↔learning” (p. 202) and to write with the theories, rather than separating theory from the methodology and classroom enactments (p. 45) because “knowing/being/doing were not separate” (p. 28). This work engages with key tenets of feminist poststructuralist theory and adds to both the theoretical and pedagogical conversations about what counts as a literacy practice.

While the discussion in this section provides an overview of the histories and major feminist theories, it is by no means exhaustive. Scholars who wish to engage in feminist educational research need to spend time doing the work of understanding the various theories and trajectories that constitute feminist work so they are able to ground their projects and theories in a particular tradition that will inform the ethics and methods of research.

Tenets of Feminist Qualitative Research

Why engage in feminist qualitative research.

Evans and Spivak ( 2016 ) stated, “The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it.” Feminist researchers are in the classroom and the academy, working intimately within curricular, pedagogical, and methodological constraints that serve neoliberal ideologies, so it is vital to better understand the ways that we can engage in affirmative sabotage to build a more just and equitable world. Spivak’s ( 2014 ) notion of affirmative sabotage has become a cornerstone for understanding feminist qualitative research and teaching. She borrowed and built on Gramsci’s role of the organic intellectual and stated that they/we need to engage in affirmative sabotage to transform the humanities.

I used the term “affirmative sabotage” to gloss on the usual meaning of sabotage: the deliberate ruining of the master’s machine from the inside. Affirmative sabotage doesn’t just ruin; the idea is of entering the discourse that you are criticizing fully, so that you can turn it around from inside. The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it. (Evans & Spivak, 2016 )

While Spivak has been mostly concerned with literary education, her writings provide teachers and researchers numerous lines of inquiry into projects that can explode androcentric universal notions of knowledge and resist reproductive heteronormativity.

Spivak’s pedagogical musings center on deconstruction, primarily Derridean notions of deconstruction (Derrida, 2016 ; Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ; Spivak, 2006 , 2009 , 2012 ) that seek to destabilize existing categories and to call into question previously unquestioned beliefs about the goals of education. Her works provide an excellent starting point for examining the links between feminism and educational research. The desire to create new worlds within classrooms, worlds that are fluid, interpretive, and inclusive in order to interrogate power structures, lies at the core of what it means to be a feminist education researcher. As researchers, we must seriously engage with feminist theory and include it in our research so that feminism is not seen as a dirty word, but as a movement/pedagogy/methodology that seeks the liberation of all (Davis, 2016 ).

Feminist research and feminist teaching are intrinsically linked. As Kerkhoff ( 2015 ) wrote, “Feminist pedagogy requires students to challenge the norms and to question whether existing practices privilege certain groups and marginalize others” (p. 444), and this is exactly what feminist educational research should do. Bailey ( 2001 ) called on teachers, particularly those who identify as feminists, to be activists, “The values of one’s teaching should not be separated sharply from the values one expresses outside the classroom, because teaching is not inherently pure or laboratory practice” (p. 126); however, we have to be careful not to glorify teachers as activists because that leads to the risk of misinterpreting actions. Bailey argued that teaching critical thinking is not enough if it is not coupled with curriculums and pedagogies that are antiheteronormative, antisexist, and antiracist. As Bailey warned, just using feminist theory or identifying as a feminist is not enough. It is very easy to use the language and theories of feminism without being actively feminist in one’s research. There are ethical and methodological issues that feminist scholars must consider when conducting research.

Feminist research requires one to discuss ethics, not as a bureaucratic move, but as a reflexive move that shows the researchers understand that, no matter how much they wish it didn’t, power always plays a role in the process. According to Davies ( 2014 ), “Ethics, as Barad defines it, is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think” (p. 11). In other words, ethics is what is made to matter in a particular time and place.

Davies ( 2016 ) extended her definition of ethics to the interactions one has with others.

This is not ethics as a matter of separate individuals following a set of rules. Ethical practice, as both Barad and Deleuze define it, requires thinking beyond the already known, being open in the moment of the encounter, pausing at the threshold and crossing over. Ethical practice is emergent in encounters with others, in emergent listening with others. It is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think. Ethics is emergent in the intra-active encounters in which knowing, being, and doing (epistemology, ontology, and ethics) are inextricably linked. (Barad, 2007 , p. 83)

The ethics of any project must be negotiated and contested before, during, and after the process of conducting research in conjunction with the participants. Feminist research is highly reflexive and should be conducted in ways that challenge power dynamics between individuals and social institutions. Educational researchers must heed the warning to avoid the “god-trick” (Haraway, 1988 ) and to continually question and re-question the ways we seek to define and present subjugated knowledge (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Positionalities and Reflexivity

According to feminist ethnographer Noelle Stout, “Positionality isn’t meant to be a few sentences at the beginning of a work” (personal communication, April 5, 2016 ). In order to move to new ways of experiencing and studying the world, it is vital that scholars examine the ways that reflexivity and positionality are constructed. In a glorious footnote, Margery Wolf ( 1992 ) related reflexivity in anthropological writing to a bureaucratic procedure (p. 136), and that resonates with how positionality often operates in the field of education.

The current trend in educational research is to include a positionality statement that fixes the identity of the author in a particular place and time and is derived from feminist standpoint theory. Researchers should make their biases and the identities of the authors clear in a text, but there are serious issues with the way that positionality functions as a boundary around the authors. Examining how the researchers exert authority within a text allows the reader the opportunity to determine the intent and philosophy behind the text. If positionality were used in an embedded and reflexive manner, then educational research would be much richer and allow more nuanced views of schools, in addition to being more feminist in nature. The rest of this section briefly discussrs articles that engage with feminist ethics regarding researcher subjectivities and positionality, and two articles are examined in greater depth.

When looking for examples of research that includes deeply reflexive and embedded positionality, one finds that they mostly deal with issues of race, equity, and diversity. The highlighted articles provide examples of positionality statements that are deeply reflexive and represent the ways that feminist researchers can attend to the ethics of being part of a research project. These examples all come from feminist ethnographic projects, but they are applicable to a wide variety of feminist qualitative projects.

Martinez ( 2016 ) examined how research methods are or are not appropriate for specific contexts. Calderon ( 2016 ) examined autoethnography and the reproduction of “settler colonial understandings of marginalized communities” (p. 5). Similarly, Wissman, Staples, Vasudevan, and Nichols ( 2015 ) discussed how to research with adolescents through engaged participation and collaborative inquiry, and Ceglowski and Makovsky ( 2012 ) discussed the ways researchers can engage in duoethnography with young children.

Abajian ( 2016 ) uncovered the ways military recruiters operate in high schools and paid particular attention to the politics of remaining neutral while also working to subvert school militarization. She wrote,

Because of the sensitive and also controversial nature of my research, it was not possible to have a collaborative process with students, teachers, and parents. Purposefully intervening would have made documentation impossible because that would have (rightfully) aligned me with anti-war and counter-recruitment activists who were usually not welcomed on school campuses (Abajian & Guzman, 2013 ). It was difficult enough to find an administrator who gave me consent to conduct my research within her school, as I had explicitly stated in my participant recruitment letters and consent forms that I was going to research the promotion of post-secondary paths including the military. Hence, any purposeful intervention on my part would have resulted in the termination of my research project. At the same time, my documentation was, in essence, an intervention. I hoped that my presence as an observer positively shaped the context of my observation and also contributed to the larger struggle against the militarization of schools. (p. 26)

Her positionality played a vital role in the creation, implementation, and analysis of military recruitment, but it also forced her into unexpected silences in order to carry out her research. Abajian’s positionality statement brings up many questions about the ways researchers have to use or silence their positionality to further their research, especially if they are working in ostensibly “neutral” and “politically free” zones, such as schools. Her work drew on engaged anthropology (Low & Merry, 2010 ) and critical reflexivity (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008 ) to highlight how researchers’ subjectivities shape ethnographic projects. Questions of subjectivity and positionality in her work reflect the larger discourses around these topics in feminist theory and qualitative research.

Brown ( 2011 ) provided another example of embedded and reflexive positionality of the articles surveyed. Her entire study engaged with questions about how her positionality influenced the study during the field-work portion of her ethnography on how race and racism operate in ethnographic field-work. This excerpt from her study highlights how she conceived of positionality and how it informed her work and her process.

Next, I provide a brief overview of the research study from which this paper emerged and I follow this with a presentation of four, first-person narratives from key encounters I experienced while doing ethnographic field research. Each of these stories centres the role race played as I negotiated my multiple, complex positionality vis-á-vis different informants and participants in my study. These stories highlight the emotional pressures that race work has on the researcher and the research process, thus reaffirming why one needs to recognise the role race plays, and may play, in research prior to, during, and after conducting one’s study (Milner, 2007 ). I conclude by discussing the implications these insights have on preparing researchers of color to conduct cross-racial qualitative research. (Brown, 2011 , p. 98)

Brown centered the roles of race and subjectivity, both hers and her participants, by focusing her analysis on the four narratives. The researchers highlighted in this section thought deeply about the ethics of their projects and the ways that their positionality informed their choice of methods.

Methods and Challenges

Feminist qualitative research can take many forms, but the most common data collection methods include interviews, observations, and narrative or discourse analysis. For the purposes of this article, methods refer to the tools and techniques researchers use, while methodology refers to the larger philosophical and epistemological approaches to conducting research. It is also important to note that these are not fixed terms, and that there continues to be much debate about what constitutes feminist theory and feminist research methods among feminist qualitative researchers. This section discusses some of the tensions and constraints of using feminist theory in educational research.

Jackson and Mazzei ( 2012 ) called on researchers to think through their data with theory at all stages of the collection and analysis process. They also reminded us that all data collection is partial and informed by the researcher’s own beliefs (Koro-Ljungberg, Löytönen, & Tesar, 2017 ). Interviews are sites of power and critiques because they show the power of stories and serve as a method of worlding, the process of “making a world, turning insight into instrument, through and into a possible act of freedom” (Spivak, 2014 , p. xiii). Interviews allow researchers and participants ways to engage in new ways of understanding past experiences and connecting them to feminist theories. The narratives serve as data, but it is worth noting that the data collected from interviews are “partial, incomplete, and always being re-told and re-membered” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 , p. 3), much like the lived experiences of both researcher and participant.

Research, data collection, and interpretation are not neutral endeavors, particularly with interviews (Jackson & Mazzei, 2009 ; Mazzei, 2007 , 2013 ). Since education research emerged out of educational psychology (Lather, 1991 ; St. Pierre, 2016 ), historically there has been an emphasis on generalizability and positivist data collection methods. Most feminist research makes no claims of generalizability or truth; indeed, to do so would negate the hyperpersonal and particular nature of this type of research (Love, 2017 ). St. Pierre ( 2016 ) viewed the lack of generalizability as an asset of feminist and poststructural research, rather than a limitation, because it creates a space of resistance against positivist research methodologies.

Denzin and Giardina ( 2016 ) urged researchers to “consider an alternative mode of thinking about the critical turn in qualitative inquiry and posit the following suggestion: perhaps it is time we turned away from ‘methodology’ altogether ” (p. 5, italics original). Despite the contention over the term critical among some feminist scholars (e.g. Ellsworth, 1989 ), their suggestion is valid and has been picked up by feminist and poststructural scholars who examine the tensions between following a strict research method/ology and the theoretical systems out of which they operate because precision in method obscures the messy and human nature of research (Koro-Ljungberg, 2016 ; Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2017 ; Love, 2017 ; St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000 ). Feminist qualitative researchers should seek to complicate the question of what method and methodology mean when conducting feminist research (Lather, 1991 ), due to the feminist emphasis on reflexive and situated research methods (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Examples of Feminist Qualitative Research in Education

A complete overview of the literature is not possible here, due to considerations of length, but the articles and books selected represent the various debates within feminist educational research. They also show how research preoccupations have changed over the course of feminist work in education. The literature review is divided into three broad categories: Power, canons, and gender; feminist pedagogies, curriculums, and classrooms; and teacher education, identities, and knowledge. Each section provides a broad overview of the literature to demonstrate the breadth of work using feminist theory, with some examples more deeply explicated to describe how feminist theories inform the scholarship.

Power, Canons, and Gender

The literature in this category contests disciplinary practices that are androcentric in both content and form, while asserting the value of using feminist knowledge to construct knowledge. The majority of the work was written in the 1980s and supported the creation of feminist ways of knowing, particularly via the creation of women’s studies programs or courses in existing departments that centered female voices and experiences.

Questioning the canon has long been a focus of feminist scholarship, as has the attempt to subvert its power in the disciplines. Bezucha ( 1985 ) focused on the ways that departments of history resist the inclusion of both women and feminism in the historical canon. Similarly, Miller ( 1985 ) discussed feminism as subversion when seeking to expand the canon of French literature in higher education.

Lauter and Dieterich ( 1972 ) examined a report by ERIC, “Women’s Place in Academe,” a collection of articles about the discrepancies by gender in jobs and tenure-track positions and the lack of inclusion of women authors in literature classes. They also found that women were relegated to “softer” disciplines and that feminist knowledge was not acknowledged as valid work. Culley and Portuges ( 1985 ) expanded the focus beyond disciplines to the larger structures of higher education and noted the varies ways that professors subvert from within their disciplines. DuBois et al. ( 1985 ) chronicled the development of feminist scholarship in the disciplines of anthropology, education, history, literature, and philosophy. They explained that the institutions of higher education often prevent feminist scholars from working across disciplines in an attempt to keep them separate. Raymond ( 1985 ) also critiqued the academy for not encouraging relationships across disciplines and offered the development of women’s, gender, and feminist studies as one solution to greater interdisciplinary work.

Parson ( 2016 ) examined the ways that STEM syllabi reinforce gendered norms in higher education. She specifically looked at eight syllabi from math, chemistry, biology, physics, and geology classes to determine how modal verbs showing stance, pronouns, intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and gender showed power relations in higher education. She framed the study through poststructuralist feminist critical discourse analysis to uncover “the ways that gendered practices that favor men are represented and replicated in the syllabus” (p. 103). She found that all the syllabi positioned knowledge as something that is, rather than something that can be co-constructed. Additionally, the syllabi also favored individual and masculine notions of what it means to learn by stressing the competitive and difficult nature of the classroom and content.

When reading newer work on feminism in higher education and the construction of knowledge, it is easy to feel that, while the conversations might have shifted somewhat, the challenge of conducting interdisciplinary feminist work in institutions of higher education remains as present as it was during the creation of women’s and gender studies departments. The articles all point to the fact that simply including women’s and marginalized voices in the academy does not erase or mitigate the larger issues of gender discrimination and androcentricity within the silos of the academy.

Feminist Pedagogies, Curricula, and Classrooms

This category of literature has many similarities to the previous one, but all the works focus more specifically on questions of curriculum and pedagogy. A review of the literature shows that the earliest conversations were about the role of women in academia and knowledge construction, and this selection builds on that work to emphasize the ways that feminism can influence the events within classes and expands the focus to more levels of education.

Rich ( 1985 ) explained that curriculum in higher education courses needs to validate gender identities while resisting patriarchal canons. Maher ( 1985 ) narrowed the focus to a critique of the lecture as a pedagogical technique that reinforces androcentric ways of learning and knowing. She called for classes in higher education to be “collaborative, cooperative, and interactive” (p. 30), a cry that still echoes across many college campuses today, especially from students in large lecture-based courses. Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) provided a collection of essays that are rooted in feminist classroom practice and moved from the classroom into theoretical possibilities for feminist education. Warren ( 1998 ) recommended using Peggy McIntosh’s five phases of curriculum development ( 1990 ) and extending it to include feminist pedagogies that challenge patriarchal ways of teaching. Exploring the relational encounters that exist in feminist classrooms, Sánchez-Pardo ( 2017 ) discussed the ethics of pedagogy as a politics of visibility and investigated the ways that democratic classrooms relate to feminist classrooms.

While all of the previously cited literature is U.S.–based, the next two works focus on the ways that feminist pedagogies and curriculum operate in a European context. Weiner ( 1994 ) used autobiography and narrative methodologies to provide an introduction to how feminism has influenced educational research and pedagogy in Britain. Revelles-Benavente and Ramos ( 2017 ) collected a series of studies about how situated feminist knowledge challenges the problems of neoliberal education across Europe. These two, among many European feminist works, demonstrate the range of scholarship and show the trans-Atlantic links between how feminism has been received in educational settings. However, much more work needs to be done in looking at the broader global context, and particularly by feminist scholars who come from non-Western contexts.

The following literature moves us into P–12 classrooms. DiGiovanni and Liston ( 2005 ) called for a new research agenda in K–5 education that explores the hidden curriculums surrounding gender and gender identity. One source of the hidden curriculum is classroom literature, which both Davies ( 2003 ) and Vandergrift ( 1995 ) discussed in their works. Davies ( 2003 ) used feminist ethnography to understand how children who were exposed to feminist picture books talked about gender and gender roles. Vandergrift ( 1995 ) presented a theoretical piece that explored the ways picture books reinforce or resist canons. She laid out a future research agenda using reader response theory to better comprehend how young children question gender in literature. Willinsky ( 1987 ) explored the ways that dictionary definitions reinforced constructions of gender. He looked at the definitions of the words clitoris, penis , and vagina in six school dictionaries and then compared them with A Feminist Dictionary to see how the definitions varied across texts. He found a stark difference in the treatment of the words vagina and penis ; definitions of the word vagina were treated as medical or anatomical and devoid of sexuality, while definitions of the term penis were linked to sex (p. 151).

Weisner ( 2004 ) addressed middle school classrooms and highlighted the various ways her school discouraged unconventional and feminist ways of teaching. She also brought up issues of silence, on the part of both teachers and students, regarding sexuality. By including students in the curriculum planning process, Weisner provided more possibilities for challenging power in classrooms. Wallace ( 1999 ) returned to the realm of higher education and pushed literature professors to expand pedagogy to be about more than just the texts that are read. She challenged the metaphoric dichotomy of classrooms as places of love or battlefields; in doing so, she “advocate[d] active ignorance and attention to resistances” (p. 194) as a method of subverting transference from students to teachers.

The works discussed in this section cover topics ranging from the place of women in curriculum to the gendered encounters teachers and students have with curriculums and pedagogies. They offer current feminist scholars many directions for future research, particularly in the arena of P–12 education.

Teacher Education, Identities, and Knowledge

The third subset of literature examines the ways that teachers exist in classrooms and some possibilities for feminist teacher education. The majority of the literature in this section starts from the premise that the teachers are engaged in feminist projects. The selections concerning teacher education offer critiques of existing heteropatriarchal normative teacher education and include possibilities for weaving feminism and feminist pedagogies into the education of preservice teachers.

Holzman ( 1986 ) explored the role of multicultural teaching and how it can challenge systematic oppression; however, she complicated the process with her personal narrative of being a lesbian and working to find a place within the school for her sexual identity. She questioned how teachers can protect their identities while also engaging in the fight for justice and equity. Hoffman ( 1985 ) discussed the ways teacher power operates in the classroom and how to balance the personal and political while still engaging in disciplinary curriculums. She contended that teachers can work from personal knowledge and connect it to the larger curricular concerns of their discipline. Golden ( 1998 ) used teacher narratives to unpack how teachers can become radicalized in the higher education classroom when faced with unrelenting patriarchal and heteronormative messages.

Extending this work, Bailey ( 2001 ) discussed teachers as activists within the classroom. She focused on three aspects of teaching: integrity with regard to relationships, course content, and teaching strategies. She concluded that teachers cannot separate their values from their profession. Simon ( 2007 ) conducted a case study of a secondary teacher and communities of inquiry to see how they impacted her work in the classroom. The teacher, Laura, explicitly tied her inquiry activities to activist teacher education and critical pedagogy, “For this study, inquiry is fundamental to critical pedagogy, shaped by power and ideology, relationships within and outside of the classroom, as well as teachers’ and students’ autochthonous histories and epistemologies” (Simon, 2007 , p. 47). Laura’s experiences during her teacher education program continued during her years in the classroom, leading her to create a larger activism-oriented teacher organization.

Collecting educational autobiographies from 17 college-level feminist professors, Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) worried that educators often conflated “the experience and values of white middle-class women like ourselves for gendered universals” (p. 15). They complicated the idea of a democratic feminist teacher, raised issues regarding the problematic ways hegemonic feminism flattens experience to that of just white women, and pushed feminist professors to pay particular attention to the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality when teaching.

Cheira ( 2017 ) called for gender-conscious teaching and literature-based teaching to confront the gender stereotypes she encountered in Portuguese secondary schools. Papoulis and Smith ( 1992 ) conducted summer sessions where teachers experienced writing activities they could teach their students. Conceptualized as an experiential professional development course, the article revolved around an incident where the seminar was reading Emily Dickinson and the men in the course asked the two female instructors why they had to read feminist literature and the conversations that arose. The stories the women told tie into Papoulis and Smith’s call for teacher educators to interrogate their underlying beliefs and ideologies about gender, race, and class, so they are able to foster communities of study that can purposefully and consciously address feminist inquiry.

McWilliam ( 1994 ) collected stories of preservice teachers in Australia to understand how feminism can influence teacher education. She explored how textual practices affect how preservice teachers understand teaching and their role. Robertson ( 1994 ) tackled the issue of teacher education and challenged teachers to move beyond the two metaphors of banking and midwifery when discussing feminist ways of teaching. She called for teacher educators to use feminist pedagogies within schools of education so that preservice teachers experience a feminist education. Maher and Rathbone ( 1986 ) explored the scholarship on women’s and girls’ educational experiences and used their findings to call for changes in teacher education. They argued that schools reinforce the notion that female qualities are inferior due to androcentric curriculums and ways of showing knowledge. Justice-oriented teacher education is a more recent iteration of this debate, and Jones and Hughes ( 2016 ) called for community-based practices to expand the traditional definitions of schooling and education. They called for preservice teachers to be conversant with, and open to, feminist storylines that defy existing gendered, raced, and classed stereotypes.

Bieler ( 2010 ) drew on feminist and critical definitions of dialogue (e.g., those by Bakhtin, Freire, Ellsworth, hooks, and Burbules) to reframe mentoring discourse in university supervision and dialogic praxis. She concluded by calling on university supervisors to change their methods of working with preservice teachers to “Explicitly and transparently cultivat[e] dialogic praxis-oriented mentoring relationships so that the newest members of our field can ‘feel their own strength at last,’ as Homer’s Telemachus aspired to do” (Bieler, 2010 , p. 422).

Johnson ( 2004 ) also examined the role of teacher educators, but she focused on the bodies and sexualities of preservice teachers. She explored the dynamics of sexual tension in secondary classrooms, the role of the body in teaching, and concerns about clothing when teaching. She explicitly worked to resist and undermine Cartesian dualities and, instead, explored the erotic power of teaching and seducing students into a love of subject matter. “But empowered women threaten the patriarchal structure of this society. Therefore, women have been acculturated to distrust erotic power” (Johnson, 2004 , p. 7). Like Bieler ( 2010 ), Johnson ( 2004 ) concluded that, “Teacher educators could play a role in creating a space within the larger framework of teacher education discourse such that bodily knowledge is considered along with pedagogical and content knowledge as a necessary component of teacher training and professional development” (p. 24). The articles about teacher education all sought to provoke questions about how we engage in the preparation and continuing development of educators.

Teacher identity and teacher education constitute how teachers construct knowledge, as both students and teachers. The works in this section raise issues of what identities are “acceptable” in the classroom, ways teachers and teacher educators can disrupt oppressive storylines and practices, and the challenges of utilizing feminist pedagogies without falling into hegemonic feminist practices.

Possibilities for Feminist Qualitative Research

Spivak ( 2012 ) believed that “gender is our first instrument of abstraction” (p. 30) and is often overlooked in a desire to understand political, curricular, or cultural moments. More work needs to be done to center gender and intersecting identities in educational research. One way is by using feminist qualitative methods. Classrooms and educational systems need to be examined through their gendered components, and the ways students operate within and negotiate systems of power and oppression need to be explored. We need to see if and how teachers are actively challenging patriarchal and heteronormative curriculums and to learn new methods for engaging in affirmative sabotage (Spivak, 2014 ). Given the historical emphasis on higher education, more work is needed regarding P–12 education, because it is in P–12 classrooms that affirmative sabotage may be the most necessary to subvert systems of oppression.

In order to engage in affirmative sabotage, it is vital that qualitative researchers who wish to use feminist theory spend time grappling with the complexity and multiplicity of feminist theory. It is only by doing this thought work that researchers will be able to understand the ongoing debates within feminist theory and to use it in a way that leads to a more equitable and just world. Simply using feminist theory because it may be trendy ignores the very real political nature of feminist activism. Researchers need to consider which theories they draw on and why they use those theories in their projects. One way of doing this is to explicitly think with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ) at all stages of the research project and to consider which voices are being heard and which are being silenced (Gilligan, 2011 ; Spivak, 1988 ) in educational research. More consideration also needs to be given to non-U.S. and non-Western feminist theories and research to expand our understanding of education and schooling.

Paying close attention to feminist debates about method and methodology provides another possibility for qualitative research. The very process of challenging positivist research methods opens up new spaces and places for feminist qualitative research in education. It also allows researchers room to explore subjectivities that are often marginalized. When researchers engage in the deeply reflexive work that feminist research requires, it leads to acts of affirmative sabotage within the academy. These discussions create the spaces that lead to new visions and new worlds. Spivak ( 2006 ) once declared, “I am helpless before the fact that all my essays these days seem to end with projects for future work” (p. 35), but this is precisely the beauty of feminist qualitative research. We are setting ourselves and other feminist researchers up for future work, future questions, and actively changing the nature of qualitative research.

Acknowledgements

Dr. George Noblit provided the author with the opportunity to think deeply about qualitative methods and to write this article, for which the author is extremely grateful. Dr. Lynda Stone and Dr. Tanya Shields are thanked for encouraging the author’s passion for feminist theory and for providing many hours of fruitful conversation and book lists. A final thank you is owed to the author’s partner, Ben Skelton, for hours of listening to her talk about feminist methods, for always being a first reader, and for taking care of their infant while the author finished writing this article.

• Abajian, S. M. (2016). Documenting militarism: Challenges of researching highly contested practices within urban schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 25–41.
• Abajian, S. M. , and Guzman, M. (2013). Moving beyond slogans: Possibilities for a more connected and humanizing “counter-recruitment” pedagogy in militarized urban schools. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 29 (2), 191–205.
• Allen, P. G. (1984). Who is your mother? Red roots of white feminism. Sinister Wisdom , 25 (Winter), 34–46.
• American Association of University Women . (1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report: A study of major findings on girls and education . Washington, DC.
• AAUW . (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . New York, NY: Marlowe.
• Bailey, C. (2001). Teaching as activism and excuse: A reconsideration of the theory−practice dichotomy. Feminist Teacher , 13 (2), 125–133.
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Behar, R. , & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bezucha, R. J. (1985). Feminist pedagogy as a subversive activity. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 81–95). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Bieler, D. (2010). Dialogic praxis in teacher preparation: A discourse analysis of mentoring talk. English Education , 42 (4), 391–426.
• Brown, K. D. (2011). Elevating the role of race in ethnographic research: Navigating race relations in the field. Ethnography and Education , 6 (1), 97–111.
• Calderon, D. (2016). Moving from damage-centered research through unsettling reflexivity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 5–24.
• Ceglowski, D. , & Makovsky, T. (2012) Duoethnography with children. Ethnography and Education , 7 (3), 283–295.
• Cheira, A. (2017). (Fostering) princesses that can stand on their own two feet: Using wonder tale narratives to change teenage gendered stereotypes in Portuguese EFL classrooms. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 146–162). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Coffey, A. , & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher: Research, praxis, and pedagogy . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299.
• Culley, M. , & Portuges, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching . Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Davies, B. (2003). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davies, B. (2016). Emergent listening. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davis, A. Y. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement . Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
• Denzin, N. K. , & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2016). Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Digiovanni, L. W. , & Liston, D. D. (2005). Feminist pedagogy in the elementary classroom: An agenda for practice. Feminist Teacher , 15 (2), 123–131.
• Diller, A. , Houston, B. , Morgan, K. P. , & Ayim, M. (1996). The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• DuBois, E. C. , Kelly, G. P. , Kennedy, E. L. , Korsmeyer, C. W. , & Robinson, L. S. (1985). Feminist scholarship: Kindling in the groves of the academe . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Duncan-Andrade, J. M. , & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review , 59 (3), 297–324.
• Evans, B. , & Spivak, G. C. (2016, July 13). When law is not justice. New York Times (online).
• Gabriel, S. L. , & Smithson, I. (1990). Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the resistance . Malden, MA: Polity Press.
• Golden, C. (1998). The radicalization of a teacher. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Gottesman, I. H. (2016). The critical turn in education: From Marxist critique to poststructuralist feminism to critical theories of race . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Greene, M. (1994). Postmodernism and the crisis of representation. English Education , 26 (4), 206–219.
• Haddix, M. , McArthur, S. A. , Muhammad, G. E. , Price-Dennis, D. , & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2016). At the kitchen table: Black women English educators speaking our truths. English Education , 48 (4), 380–395.
• Hancock, E. (1989). The girl within . New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies , 14 (3), 575–599.
• Harding, S. (1991). Whose science/Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hesse-Biber, S. N. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hoffman, N. J. (1985). Breaking silences: Life in the feminist classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 147–154). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Holzman, L. (1986). What do teachers have to teach? Feminist Teacher , 2 (3), 23–24.
• Jackson, A. , & Mazzei, L. (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, A. Y. , & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, C. , Paechter, C. , & Renold, E. (2010). Girls and education 3–16: Continuing concerns, new agendas . Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Johnson, T. S. (2004). “It’s pointless to deny that that dynamic is there”: Sexual tensions in secondary classrooms. English Education , 37 (1), 5–29.
• Jones, S. , & Hughes, H. E. (2016). Changing the place of teacher education: Feminism, fear, and pedagogical paradoxes . Harvard Educational Review , 86 (2), 161–182.
• Kerkhoff, S. N. (2015). Dialogism: Feminist revision of argumentative writing instruction . Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice , 64 (1), 443–460.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitiative research: Methodologies without methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. , Löytönen, T. , & Tesar, M. (Eds.). (2017). Disrupting data in qualitative inquiry: Entanglements with the post-critical and post-anthropocentric . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Kuby, C. R. , & Rucker, T. G. (2016). Go be a writer! Expanding the curricular boundaries of literacy learning with children . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against . Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
• Lauter, N. A. , & Dieterich, D. (1972). “Woman’s place in academe”: An ERIC Report. English Education , 3 (3), 169–173.
• Levinson, B. A. (1998). (How) can a man do feminist ethnography of education? Qualitative Inquiry , 4 (3), 337–368.
• Love, B. L. (2017). A ratchet lens: Black queer youth, agency, hip hop, and the Black ratchet imagination . Educational Researcher , 46 (9), 539–547.
• Low, S. M. , & Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Current Anthropology 51 (S2), S203–S226.
• Maher, F. (1985). Classroom pedagogy and the new scholarship on women. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 29–48). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Maher, F. A. , & Rathbone, C. H. (1986). Teacher education and feminist theory: Some implications for practice. American Journal of Education , 94 (2), 214–235.
• Maher, F. A. , & Tetreault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look a how professors and students are transforming higher education for a diverse society . New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Martinez, D. C. (2016). “This ain’t the projects”: A researcher’s reflections on the local appropriateness of our research tools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 59–77.
• Mayberry, M. , & Rose, E. C. (1999). Meeting the challenge: Innovative feminist pedagogies in action . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative research: Putting poststructural theory to work . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2013). A voice without organs: interviewing in posthumanist research . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 26 (6), 732–740.
• McIntosh, P. (1990). Interactive phases of curricular and personal revision with regard to race . New York: State University of New York Press.
• McWilliam, E. (1994). In broken images: Feminist tales for a different teacher education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Miller, N. K. (1985). Mastery, identity and the politics of work: A feminist teacher in the graduate classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 195–202). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher , 36 , 388–400.
• National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education . (2002). Title IX at thirty: Report card on gender equity .
• Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Papoulis, I. , & Smith, C. A. (1992). Could Cherryl or Irene just take a few minutes to explain this feminist view of literature? English Education , 24 (1), 52–60.
• Parson, L. (2016). Are STEM syllabi gendered? A feminist critical discourse analysis. Qualitative Report , 21 (1), 102–116.
• Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls . New York, NY: Ballentine.
• Raymond, J. G. (1985). Women’s studies: A knowledge of one’s own. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 49–63). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Revelles-Benavente, B. , & Ramos, A. M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsiblity in times of political crisis . London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Rich, A. (1985). Taking women students seriously. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 21–28). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Robertson, L. (1994). Feminist teacher education: Applying feminist pedagogies to the preparation of new teachers. Feminist Teacher , 8 (1), 11–15.
• Sadker, M. , & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls . New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Sánchez-Pardo, E. (2017). “It’s a hell of a responsibilty to be yourself”: Troubling the personal and the political in feminist pedagogy. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 64–80). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Simon, L. (2007). Expanding literacies: Teachers’ inquiry research and multigenre texts. English Education , 39 (2), 146–176.
• Spivak, G. C. (1974). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). (pp. ix–xc). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Speculations on widow-sacrifice. Wedge , 7 (8), 120–130.
• Spivak, G. C. (2006). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2009). Outside in the teaching machine . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2012). An aesthetic education in the era of globalization . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (2014). Readings . New York, NY: Seagull Books.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 13 (5), 477–515.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). The long reach of logical positivism/logical empiricism. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
• St. Pierre, E. A. , & Pillow, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Thayer-Bacon, B. J. , Stone, L. , & Sprecher, K. M. (2013). Education feminism: Classic and contemporary readings . Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism . Feminist Studies , 28 (2), 337–360.
• Vandergrift, K. E. (1995). Female protagonists and beyond: Picture books for future feminists. Feminist Teacher , 9 (2), 61–69.
• Wallace, M. L. (1999). Beyond love and battle: Practicing feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 12 (3), 184–197.
• Warren, K. J. (1998). Rewriting the future: The feminist challenge to the malestream curriculum. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Weiner, G. (1994). Feminisms in education: An introduction . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Weisner, J. (2004). Awakening teacher voice and student voice: The development of a feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 15 (1), 34–47.
• Willinsky, J. (1987). Learning the language of difference: The dictionary in the high school. English Education , 19 (3), 146–158.
• Wissman, K. K. , Staples, J. M. , Vasudevan, L. , & Nichols, R. E. (2015). Cultivating research pedagogies with adolescents: Created spaces, engaged participation, and embodied inquiry. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 46 (2), 186–197.
• Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Related Articles

• Gender, Justice, and Equity in Education
• Education, Women, and the Politics of Curriculum
• Risky Truth-Making in Qualitative Inquiry
• Ecofeminism and Education
• Qualitative Approaches to Studying Marginalized Communities
• Poststructural Temporalities in School Ethnography
• Gender and Technology in Education
• Gender and the Superintendency
• Activism and Social Movement Building in Curriculum
• Gender Equitable Education and Technological Innovation

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism pp 13–36 Cite as

The Theoretical Framework of Feminism

• Aleksandra Gasztold 2  
• First Online: 02 April 2020

1795 Accesses

This chapter examines the general principles of feminist theory, which are presented as part of the post-positivist approach. It exposes the essence of feminism, its conceptual grid, gender variable, and the waves of development of feminist thinking and theoretical currents (factions). Moreover, author refers to the trends in feminist epistemology (feminist empiricism, feminist position, and feminist postmodernism). Focusing on theoretical feminist frameworks, this chapter also draws attention to the evolution of women’s studies and gender studies. The author demonstrates the value of the analytical feminist approach in political science, especially in consideration of the ease with which it integrates the gender perspective in the study of specific phenomena and its critical approach to the institution of the state. The chapter also includes brief comments on the specifics of feminist research within the author’ academic milieu in Poland.

Women are to be found on the periphery—on the garbage heap of the symbolic order, among the refuse of the patriarchal narrative. Iwasiów ( 2008 , p. 90)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Term introduced by Laura Mulvey ( 1975 ).

This notion was introduced by Marsha Weinman Lear in The New York Magazine of March 10, 1968.

This term was adopted mainly within the medical sciences. See Giarratano ( 2016 ).

“Nurty feminizmu” In. Rudaś-Grodzka et al. ( 2014 , p. 251).

For example, the all-Polish conferences Płeć, ciało i tożsamość w dyskursach wyborczych , University of Wrocław/University of Warsaw, October 9–10, 2019; Ewolucja postaw kobiecych w przestrzeni publicznej w XX i XXI wieku , Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, March 30, 2019; Kobiety i Bezpieczeństwo , University of Warsaw, March 8, 2018. Kobiety w polskich służbach Mundurowych , April 20, 2017, University of Białystok; Feminizm , May 14–15, 2014, Maria Skłodowska Curie University in Lublin; Perspektywa gender w badaniach nad bezpieczeństwem narodowym i międzynarodowym – bezpieczeństwo bez kobiet? March 7, 2012, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

Within the framework of International Political Scientist Association (IPSA) a women section was created at first as a research group in 1976 was created and then in 1979 granted as a research committee Gender Politics and Policy. The section Women and Political Research was founded in 1986 in American Political Science Association (APSA).

The function of PTNP chairperson was for many years filled by women—Prof. Grażyna Ulicka (1998–2001), and Prof Teresa Sasińska-Klas (2004–2010). Presently (term of office 2016–2019), Dr. Ewelina Waśko-Owsiejczuk is the chairwoman of the PTNP Białystok branch; Dr. Alina Kaszkur of the Bydgoszcz branch; Prof. Agnieszka Kasińska-Metryka of the Kielce branch; Dr. hab. Krystyna Leszczyńska of the Lublin branch; Prof. Alicja Stępień-Kuczyńska of the Łódź branch; Prof. Teresa Astramowicz-Leyk of the Olsztyn branch; Prof. Agnieszka Pawłowska of the Rzeszów branch; Dr. Anna Chabasińska of the Gorzów Wielkopolski branch and Prof. Renata Podgórzańska of the Szczecin branch. Source: Polish Political Science Association. http://ptnp.org.pl . Accesed on 1 September 2019.

Agaciński, S. (2000). Polityka płci (M. Falski, Trans.). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo KR.

Google Scholar  

Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63 (3), 689–718.

Anderson, E. (2005). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defence. In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 188–209). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Andruszkiewicz, I. (2017). Polityka równości: polskie realia . Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe WNPiD UAM.

Ashley, R. K. (1998). Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17 (2), 227–262.

Auclert, H. (1882). La Citoyenne, 54, 19-25 février.

Barry, K. (1996). Deconstructing deconstruction (or whatever happened to feminist studies). In D. Bell & R. Klein (Eds.), Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed (pp. 188–192). Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender stereotypes and roles . Pacific Grove: Books/Cole.

Bator, J. (2001). Feminizm, postmodernizm, psychoanaliza. Filozoficzne dylematy feministek drugiej fali . Gdańsk: Słowo/obraz terytoria.

Bobako, M. (2010). Demokracja wobec róźnicy. Multikulturalizm i feminizm w perspektywie polityki uznania . Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.

Bógdał-Brzezińska, A. (2015). Postmodernizm. In R. Zięba, S. Bieleń, & J. Zając (Eds.), Teorie i podejścia badawcze w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych (pp. 217–239). Warsaw: Wydział Dziennikarstwa i Nauk Politycznych UW.

Butler, J. (1999). Bodies that matter. In J. Price & M. Shildrick (Eds.), Feminist theory and the body (pp. 235–245). New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. (2005). Subjects of sex/gender/desire. In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 145–153). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Chołuj, B. (2001). Women’s studies a gender studies. In A. Żylińska & A. Skrendo (Eds. and Introduction). Po przełomie: przełom wieku w kulturze – kultura po przełomie (pp. 51–61). Szczecin: Wydawnictwo.

Corrin, C. (1999). Feminist perspectives on politics . London: Longman.

Cudd, A. E., & Andreasen, R. O. (2005). Introduction. Part IV: Knowledge gendered? In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 173–175). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Czaputowicz, J. (2007). Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych. Krytyka i systematyzacja . Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

de Beauvoir, S. (1949). Le deuxième sexe, 1. Les faits and les mythes; 2. L’expérience vécue . Paris: Gallimard.

de Gouges, O. (1995). Mensch und Bürgerin “Die Rechte der Frau” . Introduction and commentarty by H. Schröder. Aachen: Ein-fach Verl.

Der Derian, J. (1987). On diplomacy: A genealogy of western estrangement . Oxford: Blackwell.

Derrida, J. (1972). Positions . Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

DuBois, B. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social science. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 105–116). London: Routledge.

Elsthain, J. (1987). Women and war . Brighton: Harvester Press.

Enloe, C. (2000). B ananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics . Updated edition. Berkley: University of California Press.

Enloe, C. (2007). Feminism. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty first century: An introduction (pp. 99–110). New York: Routledge.

Ferguson, K. E. (1993). The man question: Visions of subjectivity in feminist theory . Berkley: University of California Press.

Flax, J. (1987, Summer). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs, 21 (4), 621–643.

Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir . Paris: Gallimard.

Frankel, J. (1963). The making of foreign policy: An analysis of decision-making . London: Oxford University Press.

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique . New York: W.W. Norton.

Gable, S. (Ed.). (1999). The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism . London: Routledge.

Gardner, C. V. (2006). Historical dictionary of feminist philosophy . Lanham: The Scarecrow Press.

Gasztold, A. (2017). Teorie feministyczne w naukach o polityce. Kwartalnik Naukowy OAP UW “e-Politikon”, 22 , 138–165.

Gasztold, A. (2018). Krajowy Plan Działania na rzecz realizacji Agendy ONZ na rzecz kobiet, pokoju i bezpieczeństwa na lata 2018-2021 . Biuletyn RCB, 25. Retrieved September 1, 2019, from https://rcb.gov.pl/krajowy-plan-dzialania-na-rzecz-realizacji-agendy-onz-dotyczacej-kobiet-pokoju-i-bezpieczenstwa-na-lata-2018-2021/

Gasztold, A. (Ed.). (2019). Kwartalnik Naukowy OAP UW “e-Politikon”: Kobiety, Pokój, Bezpieczeństwo, 30 . Retrieved September 7, 2019, from http://oapuw.pl/e-politikon-nr-30-2019/

Giarratano, G. (2016). Woman-centeredness. In The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies . Oxford: Wiley. Online. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss433

Grosz, E. A. (1988). The in(ter)vention of feminist knowledges. In B. Caine, E. A. Grosz, & M. de Lepervanche (Eds.), Crossing boundaries: Feminism and the critique of knowledges (pp. 92–106). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward the corporeal feminism . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Habermas, J. (1985). Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne: zwölf Vorlesungen . Frankfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp.

Harding, S. (1986). The science questions in feminism . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism & methodology: Social science issues (pp. 1–14). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. (2005). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’? In A. E. Cudd & R. O. Andreasen (Eds.), Feminist theory: A philosophical anthology (pp. 218–236). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hartsock, N. (1979). Feminist theory and the development of revolutionary strategy. In Z. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism (pp. 56–77). New York: Monthly Press Review.

Hartsock, N. C. M. (2003). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 283–310). New York: Kluwer Academic.

Humm, M. (1989). The dictionary of feminist theory . Hemel Hempstead: Simon & Schuster.

Hyży, E. (2003). Kobieta, ciało, tożsamość: teorie podmiotu w filozofii feministycznej końca XX wieku . Cracow: Universitas.

Irigaray, L. (1974). Speculum de l’autre femme . Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Irigaray, L. (2003). Ce sexe qui n’en est pas un . Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.

Iwasiów, I. (2008). Gender dla średnio zaawansowanych. Wykłady szczecińskie (2nd ed.). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo W.A.B.

Jaggar, A. M., & Bordo, S. R. (Eds.). (1989). Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstruction of being and knowing . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Jagodzińska, A. (2010). Czy historia ma płeć? Gender, źródła i akulturacja Żydów w Królestwie Polskim. In J. Lisek (Ed.), Nieme dusze? Kobiety w kulturze jidysz (pp. 21–42). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.

Jagose, A. (2001). Queer theory: An introduction . New York: New York University Press.

Janis, I. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management . New York: The Free Press.

Klejdysz, N. (2019). Przebudzenie bogini. Religijne źródła feminizmu w tradycji judeochrześcijańskiej . Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.

Kołodziejczak, M. (2011). Politologia wobec feminizmu, feminizm wobec politologii. Przegląd Politologiczny, 2 , 7–18.

Kratochwil, F. (1989). Rules, norms and decisions: On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lendzion, K., & Kotowska-Wójcik, O. (2015). Waleczny duch kobiet. Społeczno-ekonomiczne aspekty ról kobiecych . Warsaw: UKSW.

Lentner, H. H. (1974). Foreign policy analysis: A comparative and conceptual approach . Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.

Light, M., & Halliday, F. (1994). Gender and international relations. In A. J. R. Groom & M. Light (Eds.), Contemporary international relations: A guide to theory (pp. 45–55). London: Pinter.

Linklater, A. (1992, Spring). The question of the next stage in international relations theory: A critical-theoretical point of view. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (1), 77–98.

Lolber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (Eds.). (1991). The social construction of gender . Newbury Park: Sage.

Longino, H. E. (1987). Can there be a feminist science? Hypatia, 2 (3), 51–64.

Maj, D., Marczewska-Rytko, M., & Pomarański, M. (2015). Feminizm . Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

Majcher, A. (2008). Szklany sufit w nauce? Płeć a trajektorie karier akademickich. Societas/Communitas, 2 (6), 183–198.

Mann, M. (2005). Incoherent empire . London: Verso.

Mazur, A. G. (2002). Theorizing feminist policy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Merz, F. (1979). Geschlechterunterschiede und ihre Entwicklung, Ergebnisse und Theorien der Psychologie (p. 9). Gӧttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.

Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli-Klein (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies (pp. 117–139). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Millman, M., & Kanter, R. M. (1975). Another voice feminist perspectives on social life and social science . New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16 (3), 6–18.

Musiał-Karg, M. (Ed.). (2009). Kobiety we współczesnej Europie. Rola i miejsce kobiet na rynku pracy, w polityce i w społeczeństwie . Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek.

NAP. (2018, October 22). National actions plan on women, peace and security 2018–2021 . Warsaw: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of National Defence, Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Government Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment. Retrieved September 7, 2019, from https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/305234fa-004d-454d-a2db-96751bcdb645:JCR

Nicolson, M. (1998). International relations: A concise introduction . Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender, society. Towards the new society . London: Temple Smith.

Onuf, N. (1989). World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations . Columbia: University of Southern Carolina Press.

Onuf, N. (2013). Making sense, making worlds: Constructivism in social theory and international relations . New York: Routledge.

Peeters, M. (2013). Gender – światowa norma polityczna i kulturowa. Narzędzie rozeznania, [Le Gender, une norme mondiale?: Pour un discernement] . Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sióstr Loretanek.

Peterson, V. S. (1992, Summer). Transgressing boundaries: Theories of knowledge, gender and international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (2), 184–190.

Peterson, V. S., & Sisson Runyan, A. (1999). Global gender issues (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Pietrzak, E. (2008). Wolność, równość, siostrzeństwo . Łódź: Wydawnictwo WSHE.

Polish Political Science Association. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2019, from http://ptnp.org.pl

Praktyka Teoretyczna . (2013). 4 (10). Retrieved May 4, 2017, from http://www.praktykateoretyczna.pl/numery/2013-2/pt-4102013/

Randall, V. (2010). Feminism. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theories and methods in political science (3rd ed., pp. 114–135). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Reinharz, S. (1979). On becoming a social scientist: From survey research ad participant observation to experimental analysis . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reiter, A. (2013). Płeć – język – kultura . Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Rosenau, P. M. (1990). Once again into the fray: International relations confronts the humanities. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19 (1), 83–110.

Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads and intrusion . Princeton: Princeton Press.

Rosicki, R. (2012). Public sphere and private sphere – masculinity and femininity. In I. Andruszkiewicz & A. Balczyńska-Kosman (Eds.), Some issues on women in political, media and socio-economic space (pp. 9–19). Poznań: WNPiD UAM.

Rosicki, R. (2013). Instrumentalisation and objectification of human sexuality. Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne, 1 , 281–292.

Rudaś-Grodzka, M., et al. (2014). Encyklopedia gender. Płeć w kulturze . Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca.

Siemieńska, R. (1990). Płeć, zawód, polityka: kobiety w życiu publicznym w Polsce . Warsaw: Uniwersytet Warszawski Instytut Socjologii.

Siemieńska, R. (1996). Kobiety: nowe wyzwania: starcie przeszłości z teraźniejszością . Warsaw: Instytut Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Siemieńska, R. (1999). Women and men in elite: Cross national study . Warsaw: Instytut Studiów Społecznych.

Skarżyński, R. (2014). Monizm i pluralizm w rozwoju dyscyplin nauki: politologia i pseudopolitologia. In R. Skarżyński (Ed.), Przedmiot poznania politologii. Podstawy dyscypliny nauki (pp. 9–48). Białystok: Temida 2.

Skocpol, T. (1984). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ślęczka, K. (1999). Feminizm. Ideologie i koncepcje współczesnego feminizmu . Katowice: Wydawnictwo “Książnica”.

Smith, S. (1995). The self-images of a discipline: A genealogy of international relations theory. In K. Booth & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theory today (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1990). Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist research process. In L. Stanley (Ed.), Feminist praxis: Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology (pp. 20–60). London: Routledge.

Steinbruner, J. (2002). The cybernetic theory of decision: New dimensions of political analysis . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stoller, R. J. (1968). Sex & gender: On the development of masculinity and feminity . New York: Science House.

Sylvester, C. (1994). Feminist theory and international relations in a post-modern era . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tickner, J. A. (2001). Gendering world politics . New York: Columbia University Press.

Tilly, C. (2006). Regimes and repertoires . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Titkow, A. (2007). Tożsamość polskich kobiet. Ciągłość – zmiana – kontekst . Warsaw: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.

Tormey, S., & Townshend, J. (2006). Key thinkers from critical theory to post-marxism . London: Sage.

True, J. (1996). Feminism. In S. Burchill, A. Linklater, et al. (Eds.), Theories of international relations (pp. 210–251). New York: Macmillan.

Verba, S. (1961). Assumptions of rationality and non-rationality in models of the international system. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy: Reader in research and theory (pp. 217–231). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Walker, R. B. J. (1988). One world, many worlds: Struggles for a just world peace . Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Walker, R. B. J. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as political theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Waśko-Owsiejczuk, E. (Ed.). (2018). Kobiety w polskich służbach mundurowych . Warsaw: Aspra JR.

Wawrowski, Ł. (2015). Politologia feministyczna: fanaberia czy konieczność. In D. Maj, M. Marczewska-Rytko, & M. Pomarański (Eds.), Feminizm (pp. 31–42). Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.

Weber, C. (2016). Queer international relations: Sovereignty, sexuality and the will to knowledge . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wharton, A. P. (2011). The sociology of gender: An introduction to theory and research . Oxford: Willey.

Włodkowska-Bagan, A., & Winiarczyk-Kossakowska, M. (2019). A report on women in polish political science. From diagnosis to cooperation . Warsaw: Maja Rynkowska Publishing House. Retrieved March 27, 2019, from http://www.kobietywpolitologii.pl/media/10027/a_report_on_women_in_polish_science.pdf

Wollstonecraft, M. (1891). A vindication of the rights of woman: With strictures on political and moral subjects . London: T. Fisher Unwin.

Woollacott, A. (1998). Women munitions makers, war, and citizenship. In L. A. Lorentzen & J. Turpin (Eds.), The women and war reader (pp. 126–131). New York: New York University Press.

Zięba, A. (2016). Płeć terroryzmu – wprowadzenie do zagadnienia. Kwartalnik Naukowy OAP UW “e-Politikon”, 20 , 25–49.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Aleksandra Gasztold

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Gasztold, A. (2020). The Theoretical Framework of Feminism. In: Feminist Perspectives on Terrorism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37234-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37234-7_2

Published : 02 April 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-37233-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-37234-7

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

8 Feminist Qualitative Research: Toward Transformation of Science and Society

Maureen C. McHugh, Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

• Published: 04 August 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Feminist research is described in terms of its purposes of knowledge about women’s lives, advocacy for women, analysis of gender oppression, and transformation of society. Feminist critiques of social science research are reviewed in relation to the development of methodological and epistemological positions. Feminist research is viewed as contributing to the transformation of science from empiricism to postmodernism. Reflexivity, collaboration, power analysis, and advocacy are discussed as common practices of feminist qualitative research. Several qualitative approaches to research are described in relation to feminist research goals, with illustrations of feminist research included. Validity and voice are identified as particular challenges in the conduct of feminist qualitative research. Intersectionality and double consciousness are reviewed as feminist contributions to transformation of science. Some emerging and innovative forms of feminist qualitative research are highlighted in relation to potential future directions.

What Is Feminist Research?

A starting principle of feminist research is that psychology should, at minimum, be nonsexist. Feminist scholars have identified numerous sexist biases in the existing psychological literature; psychological research is sexist to the extent that it incorporates stereotypic thinking about women or gender ( McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986 ). Sexist bias also refers to theories or research that do not have equal relevance to individuals of both sexes and to research in which greater attention or value is given to the life experiences of one sex ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). Research practices and methods that produce, promote, or privilege sex/gender inequalities are sexist and unacceptable.

Feminist research is research that is not only nonsexist, but also works actively for the benefit and advancement of women ( McHugh et al., 1986 ) and puts gender at the center of one’s inquiry. Specifically, feminist research examines the gendered context of women’s lives, exposes gender inequalities, empowers women, advocates for social change, and/or improves the status or material reality of women’s lives ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 1998 ; 2002 ). According to Letherby (2003) , feminist researchers have a “political commitment to produce useful knowledge that will make a difference in women’s lives through social and individual change” (p. 4). Feminist research is not research about women, but research for women; it is knowledge to be used in the transformation of sexist society ( Cook & Fonow, 1990 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 1998 ).

Feminist research cannot be fully identified by its focus on women or its focus on gender disparity, as sexist research may entail a similar focus. Furthermore, feminist research cannot be specified by any single approach to the discovery or creation of knowledge, and feminist research is not defined by any orthodox substantive position ( Jaggar, 2008a ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). However, feminist researchers share common perspectives. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) identified three shared concerns: giving voice to women’s lives and experiences, overcoming gender inequities at the personal and social level, and improving women’s opportunities and the quality of women’s lives. Hawkesworth (2006) argues for three similar commitments of feminist research: “to struggle against coercive hierarchies linked to gender (and other statuses); to revolt against practices, values and knowledge systems that subordinate and denigrate women; and to promote women’s freedom and empowerment” (p. 7). Jaggar (2008a) described feminist research as distinguished by its dedication to the value of gender justice and its “commitment to producing knowledge useful in opposing the many varieties of gender injustice” (p. ix). According to Jaggar (2008a) , feminist research can be uniquely identified by its dedication to the value of gender justice in knowledge and in the world. And the feminist commitment to women’s emancipation requires knowing the situations and circumstances of women’s lives; to determine what needs to be “criticized, challenged or changed,” feminists need valid knowledge of the oppressions and marginalization of women ( Code, 1995 , p. 20). Feminist research is an approach to research that seeks knowledge for the liberation and equality of women.

To what extent can research, qualitative or otherwise, contribute to feminist goals of transforming society toward gender equality? Some feminists have questioned the liberation potential of research and especially the possibility of traditional (i.e., experimental, quantitative, and objective) research to produce knowledge that will alleviate gender inequity and oppression (e.g., Hollway, 1989 ). Keller (1982) viewed feminism and science as in conflict, but argued that the exploration of the conflict between feminism and science could be both productive and transformative. Some feminists have specifically called for the transformation of science to incorporate feminist values (e.g., Wiley Okrulik, Thielen-Wilson, & Morton, 1989 ). Feminist researchers, in their quest to transform society, have argued for and contributed to the transformation of (social) science research. In this chapter, I identify the dimensions and characteristics of feminist research and examine research practices and methodological and epistemological positions in relation to feminist tenets. Feminist research is not viewed as a static entity, but as a transforming and transformative practice.

(Trained as a social psychologist, I identify as a feminist psychologist. I studied at the University of Pittsburgh, working with Dr. Irene Frieze. My first research study, conducted as an undergraduate student at Chatham College, a woman’s college in Pittsburgh, examined problem-solving performance of women students as impacted by context; students completed a series of mathematical word problems in an all-female or a mixed-sex group. Women students performed better in a single-sex context in what today might be considered a study of stereotype threat. I pursued an interest in sex differences in graduate school, and my doctoral dissertation examined the intrinsic motivation of women and men as a function of task feedback. Over the course of my career, I became increasingly critical of both the experimental method of research and the study of sex differences. My own epistemological and methodological path parallels the progression of feminist research as described here.)

Feminist Research as Corrective

Feminists challenged the neglect of women’s lives and experiences in existing social science research (e.g., Wallston, 1981 ; Weisstein, 2006. Feminists have criticized psychology (and other disciplines) both for not studying the lives and experiences of women and for the development of sexist research theory and practice ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). One contribution of feminist research has been to offer a corrective to traditional research that either neglected women or presented a stereotypic or biased view of women. For example, early feminist research identified experiences of women including widespread gender discrimination and violence against women ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ; Jaggar, 2008a ). As a corrective to research that neglects the study of women’s lives, feminist research has transformed the content of research in most disciplines. The expansion of feminist research over the past four decades has transformed knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). The transformation of psychological science was examined by a task force of the Society of Women in Psychology ( Eagly, Eaton, Rose, Riger, & McHugh, 2012 ). Eagly and the task force members documented the growth of published research on women and gender in the psychological literature and its movement from the periphery of the discipline toward its center. They concluded that research on women is now situated as a methodologically and theoretically diverse content area within contemporary psychological science. Yet, by their broad definition, psychology of women and gender articles accounted for few (4.0 percent from 1960 to 2009 and 4.3 percent from 2000 to 2009) of the articles in the prominent journals of psychology. And for most of the research that Eagly and her colleagues documented, researchers did not label their research as feminist nor did the research explicitly address feminist goals of gender equality or advocacy for women.

A second important contribution of feminist researchers and theorists has been their critical analysis of research and the production of knowledge. Feminists have criticized research that characterizes women as having deficits and critically examined asymmetrical and inequitable constructions of the cultural masculine over the cultural feminine ( Jaggar, 2008a ). Similarly, Geiger (1990) characterizes feminist research as challenging the androcentric (male-centered) construction of women’s lives, and Wiley (2000) notes that feminists question androcentric or sexist frameworks or assumptions that had been unchallenged. Pushing against that which is taken for granted, feminist inquiry probes absences, silences, omissions, and distortions and challenges commonsense understandings that are based on inadequate research. For example, feminists challenge conclusions about human behavior based on evidence taken from narrow (e.g., male, European-American, educated, and middle-class) samples of human populations ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Furthermore, feminists exposed the (gender) power dynamics that operate in many aspects of women’s lives, including in research, and have challenged existing explanatory accounts of women’s experiences ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). One goal of feminist research then is to attend to the power dynamics in the conduct of research, to expose invisible or concealed power dynamics. The demonstration that gender and other contextual variables can create bias in the scientific research of individuals, and that such bias exists in the science accepted as valid by scientific community, is an important contribution of feminism to science ( Rosser, 2008 ). Thus, one function of feminist research has been to call for the transformation/correction of science as a series of sexist and stereotypic depictions of women and of research that devalues women. Hawkesworth (2006) acknowledges the transformational character of feminist research as “interrogating accepted beliefs, challenging shared assumptions and reframing research questions” (p. 4).

(In 1975, I began teaching Psychology of Women, and I was keenly aware that there was very little research published on the experiences or concerns of women. As a member of Alice Eagly’s Task Force on the Feminist Transformation of Psychology, I agreed that there has been an explosion of research on women and gender over the past four decades, which Eagly et al. effectively document. However, I am ambivalent about the degree to which most of that research has improved the status or lives of women.)

Challenging Traditional Methods

The experimental approach has been critiqued as inauthentic, reductionistic, and removed from the social context in which behavior is embedded ( Bohan, 1993 ; Sherif, 1979 ). Others have exposed the laboratory experiment as a social context in which the (male) experimenter controls the situation, manipulates the independent variable, observes women as the “objects” of study, and evaluates and interprets their behavior based on his own perspective ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). From this critical perspective, the traditional psychological experiment is a replication of the power dynamics that operate in other social and institutional settings. The interests and concerns of the research subjects are subordinated to the interests of those of the researcher and theorist ( Unger, 1983 ). Feminists have argued that the controlled and artificial research situation may elicit more conventional behavior from participants, may inhibit self-disclosure, and may make the situation “unreal” to the participants ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). From this perspective, the experiment is not the preferred method of research.

Feminists challenged the pervasive androcentrism evidenced in empirical research. For example, in the 1980s, a task force of the Society for Women in Psychology examined the ways in which psychological research could be conducted in a nonsexist way ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). The task force’s guidelines ( McHugh et al., 1986 ) challenged traditional empirical psychology by examining the role that the values, biases, and assumptions of researchers have on all aspects of the research process. There is always a relationship of some kind between the scientist and the “object” of study since the scientist cannot absent himself from the world ( Hubbard, 1988 ). Selection of topics and questions, choice of methods, recruitment of participants, selection of audience, and the potential uses of research results all occur within a sociohistorical context that ultimately influences what we “know” about a topic or a group of people ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). The realization of the operation of sexist bias in science/psychology led some feminist researchers to question the value of the scientific method and to more carefully consider issues of methods, methodology, and epistemology. The study of gender raised the issue of how context and values challenge traditional conceptions of objectivity ( Rosser, 2008 ). The feminist challenge to the possibility of impartial knowledge and the recognition of the operation of values in science impacted the research conducted in some of the sciences ( Rosser, 2008 ; Schiebinger, 1999 ).

Feminists, including Hollway (1989) and Hubbard (1988) , provided a critique of the “context-stripping” and alleged objectivity of scientific research. According to Hubbard, the illusion that the scientist can observe the “object” of his inquiry as if in a vacuum gives the scientist the authority to “make facts.” She observed that science is made by a self-perpetuating group of chosen people; scientists obtain the education and credentials required and then follow established procedures to “make” science. The illusion of objectivity gives the scientist the power to name, describe, and structure reality and experience. The pretense that science is objective obscures the politics of research and its role in supporting a certain construction of reality. By pretending to be neutral, scientists often support the status quo. “By claiming to be objective and neutral, scientists align themselves with the powerful against the powerless” ( Hubbard, 1988 , p. 13). In terms of gender, male scientists’ alleged objectivity has given scientific validity to their mistaken contentions about women’s inferiority.

Feminist Epistemology

Prior to conducting research designed to address feminist goals, Harding (1987) advised feminists to understand the distinctions among methods, methodology, and epistemology. Others have similarly called for feminists to be aware of their epistemological positions and biases (e.g., Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; Unger, 1988 ). Methods are the concrete techniques for gathering evidence or data such as experiments, interviews, or surveys. Methodology is the study of methods, the philosophical position on how research should proceed. Epistemology is the most central issue for feminist research according to Harding (1987) , Stanley and Wise (1993) , and others. Epistemology involves the study of answers to the question: How can we know? Epistemology is a framework for specifying what constitutes knowledge and how we know it. An epistemological framework specifies not only what knowledge is and how to recognize it, but who are the knowers and by what means someone becomes a knower or expert ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Epistemological frameworks also outline the means by which competing knowledge claims are adjudicated ( Stanley & Wise, 1993 ). Harding (1986) identified three distinct feminist epistemological perspectives: empiricism, standpoint, and social construction. These epistemological perspectives are briefly reviewed here prior to a description of feminist qualitative research.

Feminist Empiricists

Feminist empiricism adopts the scientific method as the way to understand or know the world. Feminist empiricists believe in the scientific method for discovering reality; they assert that science is an approach that can provide value-neutral data and objective findings ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). Their position is consistent with the modernist perspective. The modernist perspective endorses adherence to a positivist-empiricist model, a model that privileges the scientific method of the natural sciences as the only valid route to knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). From this perspective, there is a single reality that can be known through the application of the methods of science, including repeated objective observations. Objectivity refers to a dispassionate, impartial, and disengaged position and is valued. Bias is acknowledged as impacting scientific research but is viewed as a distortion that can be eliminated or corrected ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). The Guidelines for Nonsexist Research provide examples of errors and biases in research that should be eliminated ( McHugh et al, 1986 ). Feminist empiricists attempt to produce a feminist science that, without androcentric bias, more accurately reflects the world ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). To varying degrees, many feminists continue to conduct empirical research based on approved scientific methods.

(As a graduate student, I co-chaired (with Irene Frieze) the Task Force to Establish Guidelines for Nonsexist Research in Psychology for Division 35 of the American Psychological Association (APA). We started the project as empiricists hoping to help eliminate sexist bias from psychological research, especially research on sex difference. This experience introduced me to the diverse positions taken by feminist scientists, and, in the process of addressing sexist bias in research, my own understanding of the limits of empirical research developed. I became increasingly critical of the scientific method even as I conducted a social psychological experiment involving some deception for my degree.)

Feminists have refuted “scientific” evidence that women are inherently different from and inferior to men. Feminist empiricists have employed the experimental methods of science to provide evidence for gender equality ( Deaux, 1984 ; McHugh & Cosgove, 2002 ). However, there is debate over the success of using science to refute sexism in science. Shields (1975) contended that research comparing men and women has never been value-free or neutral but rather has typically been used to justify the subordination of women. Alternatively, Deaux (1984) concluded that empirical evidence has been used to effectively change belief that differences between men and women are universal, stable, and significant, and Hyde (1986) endorsed the use of scientific and quantitative measures to debunk gender stereotypes. Eagly and her colleagues (2012) concluded that research on women and gender has transformed psychology over the past fifty years and has influenced public policy. However, McHugh and Cosgrove (2002) , among others, have questioned whether the tools of science are adequate for the feminist study of women and gender. Burman (1997) argued that by employing empirical methods, feminist empiricists help to maintain a commitment to existing methods that neglect, distort, or stereotype women.

The study of sex differences is central to feminist psychology ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ); arguments for the inclusion of women in social science research are based, in part, on the recognition that women have different experiences and perspectives. Critics, however, contend that research on sex differences typically leads to the devaluation and discrimination of women and confirms stereotypes (through biased methods) (e.g., Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990 ; 1994a ). MacKinnon (1990) argued that “A discourse of difference serves as ideology to neutralize, rationalize, and cover up disparities of power” (p. 213). Feminists have argued that interest in sex differences involves interest in justifying differential treatment of women and men and that there is a confirmation bias operating. Research that “finds” a sex difference is more likely to be published, publicized, and cited than is research refuting the existence of a difference between men and women (e.g., Epstein, 1988 ; Hyde, 1994 ; Kimball, 1995 ; Unger, 1998 ). Furthermore, research is often constructed to produce sex differences ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). For example, Kimball (1995) demonstrates how the research on sex differences in math ability has been carefully constructed to produce differences (i.e., the use of standardized tests administered to very large samples) and related research not demonstrating difference (i.e., classroom tests and research using smaller, more heterogeneous groups) is ignored.

Through the debate on the study of sex differences, feminists continued to recognize the politics of research. Increasingly, feminists recognized that research that supports the status quo and the view of women as less than men is more likely to be funded, conducted, published, and widely cited ( Epstein, 1988 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ; Unger, 1998 ). Sexist bias not only impacts the design and conduct of research but is apparent in the interpretation and distribution of the research results. Differences between women and men were typically labeled “sex differences.” This label implies that the demonstrated differences are essential (i.e., reside inside men and women) and are related to biology. Feminists argued that differences that were found were frequently due to prior experiences, gender roles, and/or the context and not to biology ( Deaux, 1984 ; Hyde, 1986 ; Unger, 1998 ). Others argued that the behavior seen as characteristic of women is actually the behavior evidenced by people with low power and status ( Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1994a ). Unger (1979) recommended that we use the term “gender” to avoid the biological connotation of the term “sex.” Despite this increasing sophistication in our understanding of gender as a function of context, roles, and power, gender differences continue to be constructed as essentialist ( Cosgrove, 2003 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Also, the research findings, even when they were published, did not impact the beliefs held by professionals or the general public about women and men and their performance on tasks. For example, despite the pattern of results across many studies ( Frieze, McHugh & Hanusa, 1982 ; Frieze, Whitley, Hanusa, & McHugh, 1982 ), people continued to believe that women attributed their failures to lack of ability and their success as due to luck.

(Early in my career, I studied sex differences in response to task performance success and failure. I gave subjects ambiguous tasks that had no right or wrong answers and gave them false feedback about their performance. Some subjects were given success feedback; others were told that they had failed. I then asked them how they explained their performance and about their expectancies for future performance. I abandoned this line of research when I realized that the debriefing I gave might not have been successful in erasing their emotional response to failing the experimental task. Others documented that women’s response to novel tasks revealed low expectancies for success, thus biasing our understanding of women’s (lack of) confidence. I did not want to contribute to individuals’ feelings of failure, or to stereotypic and invalid characterizations of women.)

The realization that the questions asked by male theorists and researchers reflect their position in the world challenged the assumptions of logical positivism—including objectivity and value neutrality. Feminist research and theory has been criticized as political and biased, even as these critics continued to view research conducted by men as scientific and objective. Some feminist psychologists came to see the connection between individuals’ status and identity in the world, the questions they were interested in, and their approaches to research. Thus, many feminist psychologists recognized that unexamined androcentric biases at both the epistemological and methodological levels resulted in women’s experiences being devalued, distorted, marginalized, and pathologized (e.g., Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ).

Feminist Standpoint Perspective

The feminist criticism of science as biased led to a recognition of the importance of perspective or standpoint. Some critics have contended that individuals who are outsiders to a culture or group are more likely than insiders to recognize cultural or group assumptions (e.g., Mayo, 1982 ). Feminism provoked some feminist scholars to recognize male bias and to view aspects of male-dominated society, including the practice of research, through an alternative lens. The realization that women and men might view the world differently, ask different questions, and use different methods to answer those questions led some feminists to adopt a standpoint position. Hartstock (1983) argued that women’s lives offered them a privileged vantage point on patriarchy and that such an epistemological perspective had liberatory value.

In the feminist standpoint perspective, women’s ways of knowing are considered to be different from and potentially superior to men’s ways of knowing ( Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986 ). As outsiders or marginalized individuals, women have a unique perspective on their own experience, on men, and on sociocultural patterns of domination and subordination ( Mayo, 1982 ; Westkoff, 1979 ). Like feminist empiricists, advocates of a feminist standpoint perspective typically accept the existence of a reality but recognize that one’s position within a social system impacts one’s understanding of that reality ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). A standpoint epistemological perspective argues that there are important research questions that originate in women’s lives that do not occur to researchers operating from the dominant androcentric frameworks of the disciplines ( Harding, 2008 ). Furthermore, standpoint theory has allowed some of us to recognize that traditional research has typically served the purpose of the researcher rather than the researched ( Letherby, 2003 ); the experiences of marginalized people are not viewed as a source of interesting or important questions. For example, research on motherhood and women’s experience of embodiment was not conducted prior to feminist influence on social science ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ).

Standpoint epistemology views the relationship between knowing and politics as central and examines how different types of sociopolitical arrangements impact the production of knowledge ( Harding, 2008 ). The answers to questions about women and other marginalized groups may originate in the lives of marginalized individuals but typically involve an analysis of the social and power relations of dominant and marginalized groups to answer. Feminist standpoint epistemology calls for a critical analysis of women’s experiences as described through women’s eyes ( Leavy, 2007 ). For example, DeVault (1990) documents the skills that women have developed from their work feeding their families, and Jaggar (2008b) examines women’s skills at reading emotion as having developed through their care-taking roles.

In an important contribution to feminist standpoint, Smith (1987) argued that social science knowledge systems are used as systems of control and that those who develop knowledge are typically separated from everyday life. She describes knowledge as controlled by an elite (i.e., racially and economically privileged men) who have no interest in or knowledge of the women who serve their needs. Smith (2008) notes that questions regarding women’s work originate in the consideration of women’s lives, which have historically not been examined. Consideration of women’s daily lives leads to the recognition that women are assigned the work that men do not want to complete and to the realization of the processes by which that work is devalued and trivialized. Such insights are not constructed by the elite and may have liberatory value for women.

In an early consideration of this perspective, Westkott (1979) recognized that feminist researchers were both insiders and outsiders to science and that this was a source of both insight and a form of self-criticism. Furthermore, Westkott argued that the concern with the relationship of scientist/observer to the target/object stereotypically represents the focus of women on relationships, whereas the detachment of the traditional researcher is consistent with a stereotypic masculine role. Similarly, Letherby (2003) commented that androcentric (male) epistemologies deny the importance of the personal and the experiential, whereas the feminist researcher often values the experiential, the personal, and the relational rather than the public and the abstract.

In feminist standpoint theory, knowledge is mediated by the individual’s particular position in a sociopolitical system at a particular point in time ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). In feminist standpoint perspectives, an oppressed individual can see through the ideologies and obfuscations of the oppressor class and more correctly “know” the world ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Recognition of a feminist standpoint raises the possibility of other standpoints, and Fine (1992) argued that a single woman’s or feminist standpoint was not plausible. Thus, race and class and other identities within the sociocultural system impact the individual’s understanding of the world.

In particular, black feminist theorists (e.g., Collins, 1989 ) have articulated the existence of a black feminist standpoint, arguing that the position of black women allows them to recognize the operation of both racism and sexism in the sociopolitical system. According to Collins (1989) , black women have experienced oppression and have developed an analysis of their experience separate from that offered by formal knowledge structures. The knowledge of black women is transmitted through alternatives like storytelling. Such knowledge has been invalidated by epistemological gatekeepers. Thus, black feminist standpoint theorists contend that at least some women have an ability referred to as “double visions” or “double consciousness” ( Brooks, 2007 ). Smith (1990) similarly recognized in women the ability to attend to localized activities oriented to maintenance of the family and, at the same time, to understand the male world of the marketplace and rationality. The narrative of hooks (2000) as a black child in Kentucky reveals a double consciousness with regard to her own community and the white world across the tracks.

Postmodern Perspectives on Research

The third epistemological position, the postmodern approach, challenges traditional conceptions of truth and reality. Postmodernists view the world and our understanding of the world as socially constructed and therefore challenge the possibility of scientists producing value-neutral knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; 2008 ). Postmodern scholars view attempts to discover the truth as an impossible project and equally reject grand narratives and the experimental method. From a postmodern perspective, life is multifaceted and fragmented, and a postmodern position challenges us to recognize that there are multiple meanings for an event and, especially, multiple perspectives on a person’s life. Postmodern approaches examine the social construction of concepts and theories and question whose interests are served by particular constructions ( Layton, 1998 ). Social constructionism requires a willingness to make explicit the implicit assumptions embedded in psychological concepts (e.g., identity, gender, objectivity, etc.). By doing so, social constructionists encourage researchers to recognize that the most dangerous assumptions are those we don’t know we’re making. From the postmodern position, all knowledge, including that derived from social science research, is socially produced and therefore can never be value free. Someone’s interests, however implicit, are always being served ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ).

The postmodern perspective emphasizes the relationship between knowledge and power. The postmodern perspective suggests that, rather than uncovering truths, the methods we use construct and produce knowledge and privilege certain views and discount or marginalize others ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ; Gergen, 2001 ; Hare-Musten & Maracek, 1994b). Social constructionists are less interested in the answer to research questions and more interested in the following: What are the questions? Who gets to asks the questions? Why are those methods used to examine those questions? Postmodern thought can open a new and more positive way of understanding and can contribute to the transformation of intellectual inquiry ( Gergen, 2001 ). Although some feminists have rejected the postmodern approach, Hare-Musten and Maracek (1994b) argued that interrogation of the tension between feminism and postmodern perspectives can be used to transform psychological research. The conduct of feminist research from within the postmodern approach involves conducting research in which women’s interests are served.

Postmodern feminists view empiricist and standpoint feminists as reverting to essentialist claims, viewing women as an identity. Cosgrove (2003) explains essentialism as viewing women as a group, as having a single point of view, or as sharing a trait (i.e., that women are caring). The standpoint position is that women have a shared perspective or a unique capacity (different from men’s) or voice; the standpoint position is viewed as problematic from a postmodern perspective. Brooks (2007) explains the problem of essentialism of feminist standpoint theory: “Beyond the difficulty of establishing that women, as a group, unlike men as a group, have a unique and exclusive capacity for accurately reading the complexities of social reality, it is equally problematic to reduce all women to a group” (p. 70). Thus, the essentialism inherent in empirical and standpoint positions does not acknowledge the diversity and complexity of women’s perspectives and voices and does not attend to the ways that gender is produced through socialization, context, roles, policies, and interactions. Cosgrove (2003) similarly explained that “the hegemony of the essentialist claim of women’s experience or voice has had the unfortunate effect of reinforcing normative gendered behavior” (p. 89). Essentialism that views gendered behaviors as universal, biological in origin, and/or residing within women as traits or inherent characteristics is essentially problematic.

Gergen (1988) explained the relationship of research methods to essentialism. The decontextualized approach to traditional research results in studying women apart from the circumstances of their lives. Social and cultural factors including discrimination, violence, sexism, and others’ stereotypes are eliminated from the view of the researcher. Subsequently, researchers are likely to attribute observed behavior as due to women’s traits or natural dispositions. Gergen concluded that research should be conducted without violating the social embeddedness of the participant.

(I met Lisa Cosgrove when I was a faculty member at Duquesne University in 1985, having recently completed my degree. She was completing her doctorate in clinical psychology at Duquesne; at Duquesne, she was trained in phenomenological psychology with a very strong background in philosophy of science. A few years after she had graduated and moved to Boston, we began collaborating. Both feminists, I had experience as an empiricist and she was trained as a clinician and a phenomenologist. We wrote a series of papers on feminist research, the study of gender and gender differences, and epistemological issues that are cited here and are the basis for this chapter. Discussions with Lisa led me to the adoption of a postmodern position in regards to feminist research.)

Implications for Feminist Qualitative Methods

I have briefly reviewed the feminist epistemological positions to illustrate alternative feminist positions and to trace transformations in the theory and conduct of feminist research and the development of feminist postmodernism. Equally important is the demonstration of how feminist criticism of logical positivist science relates to the development and use of qualitative research approaches. Feminist critiques of research led some psychologists to a loss of confidence in the scientific method; postmodern feminists object to the privileged status given to scientific researchers, especially the scientific method in the positivist tradition ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). Feminist critics argued that the experimental method, including its reductionism, the creation of an artificial context, the failure to understand the context of women’s lives, and the inherent inequality of psychological experiments is not a superior method for understanding the psychology of women. For example, McHugh, Koeske, and Frieze (1986) reviewed feminist arguments that context matters and that the methods of empiricism that decontextualize the individual may support oppressive status quo conditions. McHugh and her colleagues argued that the controlled and artificial research situation may elicit more conventional behavior from participants, may inhibit self-disclosure, and may make the situation “unreal” to the participants ( McHugh et al., 1986 ). The impetus for the adoption of alternative epistemological positions came, in part, from the criticism that the scientific method put the experimenter in the position of influencing, deceiving, manipulating, and/or interpreting “subjects.” Feminists working from a social constructionist perspective are interested in examining the implicit assumptions embedded in traditional psychological research and theory. For example, Unger (1979) acknowledged that our position regarding what constitutes knowledge is the basis for our choice of research methods and the usefulness of our research to advance women. Feminist researchers seek approaches to research that advance our understanding of women without committing essentialist errors or contributing to gender inequities.

The idea that women need to express themselves (i.e., find their own voice and speak for themselves), rather than have their experience interpreted, coded, or labeled by men, is consistent with feminist standpoint theory. Qualitative methods are preferred by many feminist psychologists because they allow marginalized groups, such as women of color, to have a voice and to impact the conduct of research. Feminists value the representation of marginalized groups and the use of subjective and qualitative approaches that allow such participants to speak about their own experiences. Postmodern feminists might argue that liberation or equality may be enacted or experienced when women resist patriarchal conceptualizations of their/our experience and grasp the power to speak for ourselves ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ).

Values of Feminist Research

In contrast to traditional research, feminist research has paid special attention to the role that the values, biases, and assumptions of the researcher has on all aspects of the research process. Selection of topics and questions, choice of methods, recruitment of participants, selection of the audience, and the potential uses of the research results are choices made within a sociohistorical context that ultimately influence what we “know” about a topic or a group of people (cf. Bleir, 1984 ; Harding 1986 ; Keller, 1985 ; Sherif, 1979 ). Feminist research recognizes that, as a result of unexamined androcentric biases at both the epistemological and methodological levels, women’s experiences have been neglected, marginalized, and devalued. Feminist scholars, recognizing that values play a formative role in research, believe that values should be made explicit and critically examined ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Feminist research is explicit in its ethical and political stance; feminist research seeks epistemic truth and social justice and challenges social bias as existing in some existing knowledge claims ( Jaggar, 2008a ).

Feminist researchers have explicated their value systems, realizing that an unbiased, objective position is not possible. Feminists are aware that the product cannot be separated from the process ( Kelly, 1986 ) and strive to conduct research in an open, collaborative, and nonexploitative way. The voice of the participants is often the focus of the research, but the researchers themselves are encouraged to reflect on and report their own related experiences and point of view ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ; Morawski, 1994 ).

Reflexivity

Feminists have questioned the possibility of and the preference for value-free or neutral research and the value of the detached, disengaged researcher who is objective in the conduct of research. Not only do we all and always have some relation to the subject under study, but a connection to or experience with the phenomena may actually be an asset. As Brooks and Hesse-Biber (2007) suggest, “rather than dismissing human emotions and subjectivities, unique lived experiences, and world views as contaminants or barriers in the quest for knowledge, we might embrace these elements to gain new insight and understandings or, in other words, new knowledge” (p. 14). The feminist epistemological perspective pays attention to personal experience, position, emotions, and worldview as influencing the conduct of research ( Brooks & Hesse-Biber, 2007 ). In feminist research, there is a realization that such connections cannot be removed, bracketed, or erased, but we do consider it important to reveal them. The researcher is expected to acknowledge her situated perspective, to reflect on and share how her life experiences might have influenced her choice of topics and questions.

In a related vein, Reinharz (1992) recommended that valid listening to the voices of others requires self-reflection on “who we are, and who we are in relation to those we study” (p. 15). Feminist research has frequently engaged in this process of questioning, referred to as “reflexivity.” The reflexive stance may involve critically examining the research process in an attempt to explicate the assumptions about gender (and other oppressive) relations that may underlie the research project ( Maynard, 1992 ). Incorporating reflexivity is a complex and multidimensional project, one that necessitates a constant vigilance with regard to the epistemic commitments that ground our research ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ).

In feminist research, a commonly used reflective approach is one in which the researcher provides an “intellectual autobiography” ( Stanley & Wise, 1993 ) tracing her interest in relationship with and approach to the questions and to the research participants. Ussher (1991) for example, traces her interest in women’s madness to her mother’s “mental illness,” thus eliminating the illusion that she is a detached or disinterested knower. Hollway (1989) also offers such an extended reflexive stance by deliberately and thoroughly examining how she made decisions and interpretations throughout her research on heterosexual relationships. Fine (1992) offers multiple examples of reflections on the research process, arguing that we should demystify the ways in which we select, use, and exploit respondents’ voices. Letherby (2003) provides an extended examination and analysis of feminist research issues by describing her own history and her experience conducting individual and collaborative research interviewing women who experienced infertility and childlessness.

(In this chapter, I have included some of my own biography as a feminist psychologist. I hope to share part of my own journey, starting as an enthusiastic empiricist, then becoming a critic of biases in research, to the adoption of a view of research as political. Having traced that journey, I recognize the potential contribution and the potential risks that exist in any research undertaken, and I appreciate the diversity of feminist positions in research. Currently, I view myself as encouraging feminist researchers to recognize the problems identified by postmodern critics and to realize the potential for a postmodern perspective to resolve issues and dilemmas in feminist research.)

Feminist researchers are cognizant of the impact of power on the research process. Jaggar (2008a) described feminist research as concerned with the complex relationship between social power (and inequalities in social power) and the production of knowledge. Part of the feminist critique of traditional research includes the power and authority of the researcher to construct and control the research process and product. In traditional science, the power of the researcher is connected to his position as an objective expert “knower” in relation to the uninformed and ignorant subject of his inquiry ( Hubbard, 1988 ). Similarly Smith (1987) and Collins (1989) have examined the power of the educated elite to ignore and invalidate the experiences and knowledge of women and other marginalized groups. Feminist researchers challenge this oppressive status hierarchy in a number of ways. Feminists challenge both the objectivity and the expertise/knowledge of the scientist and view women (or men) participants as knowing about their own experiences. Feminists more than nonfeminists see power as a socially mediated process as opposed to a personal characteristic and recognize the role of power in efforts to transform science and society ( Unger, 1988 ). Thus, feminist research recognizes the power inherent in the process of research and attempts to use that power to transform society. If the purpose of feminist research is to challenge or dismantle hierarchies of oppression, then it is crucial that the research process not duplicate or include power differentials. Yet it is difficult to dismantle the competitive and hierarchical power relations present across most contexts of our lives, including the research context.

An identifying aspect of feminist research is the recognition of power dilemmas in the research process ( Hesse-Biber, 2007b ). Consistent with this perspective, feminist research is based on a respect for the participants as equals and agents rather than subjects. In an attempt to dismantle power hierarchies, the feminist researcher is concerned with the relationships among the research team; feminist research teams are ideally nonhierarchical collaborations (discussed later). Another dilemma is how to interpret or represent the voices of the women respondents; researchers are cautioned not to tell their story, but, in the postmodern perspective, one’s own position always as part of the research process.

Collaboration

Based on critiques of the experimental method, feminist research has emphasized the need for a collaborative (rather than objectifying) focus. Feminist research seeks to establish nonhierarchical relations between researcher and respondent and to respect the experience and perspective of the participants ( Worrell & Etaugh, 1994 ). Feminist psychologists challenge the regulatory practices of traditional research by developing more explicitly collaborative practices (cf. Marks, 1993 ). Collaboration necessitates an egalitarian context from the inception of the research process to the distribution of results. For example, instead of conducting an outcome assessment of a battered women’s shelter based on the preferred outcomes suggested by agencies, researchers, or shelter staff (i.e., how many women have left their abusive relationships?), Maguire (2008) conducted participatory research with battered women examining a question they raised. As Lather (1991) notes, empowerment and empirical rigor are best realized through collaborative and participatory efforts.

Often, relationships among researchers and respondents, although referred to in the literature as partnerships, collaborations, or otherwise egalitarian relations, may be better characterized as ambivalent, guarded, or conflicted ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). Being committed to seeing things from the respondents’ position is a necessary aspect of feminist research, but it is also important to recognize our privileged position within our relationships with respondents and with co-workers. Often credentials and our status within the academy place us in a privileged position.

(Feminists idealize the collaborative approach, but I, like others, have experienced difficulties in some of my collaborations. Often, collaborations are not an experience of equality or sisterhood. Rather, differences in power, status, and experience can impact the collaborations, which may be more hierarchical than feminists might want. Feminist researchers may not recognize that they do not share the same epistemological perspectives. I also experienced differences in styles of working and writing as especially painful and problematic, in that class and worldview are incorporated in nonconscious ways.)

Research as Advocacy and Empowerment

Although I believe that feminist research should explicitly address issues of social injustice, the issue of doing research as advocacy is complex. It is impossible to know in advance how best to empower women and other marginalized groups. Indeed, many scholars have argued that researchers tend to position themselves as active emancipators and see participants as passive receivers of emancipation (e.g., Lather, 1991 ). Conducting and using research for advocacy requires the researcher to engage in critical reflection on his or her epistemic commitments. Feminists try to design studies that avoid objectifying participants and foster a particular kind of interaction. For example, participatory researchers work with communities to develop “knowledge” that can be useful in advocacy and provide the basis for system change. In terms of doing research with and for women, it is important to develop knowledge collaboratively and, whenever possible, share the knowledge with a wider audience. Often, empowerment is viewed as the process by which we allow or encourage respondents to speak for themselves or to find their voice. Certainly, teaching women to engage in speech or actions that are of our choosing is not empowering, but empowerment of other women is a complicated issue, as discussed below. Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995) suggest that, in feminist research, we speak for ourselves and create conditions under which others will speak.

Challenges to Feminist Research

An important contribution made by feminist researchers has been giving voice to women’s experiences. Davis (1994) suggests that the notion of voice resonates with feminists who hope that women’s practices and ways of knowing may be a source of empowerment and that speaking represents an end to the silencing and suppression of women in patriarchal culture. Many theorists have addressed the silencing of women, the ways in which the construction of knowledge by “experts” resulted in women’s voices not being heard, not being taken seriously, or questioned as not trustworthy. “Women’s testimony, women’s reports of their experiences, is as often discredited... from their testifying about violence and sexual assault through their experiential accounts of maladies, to their demonstrations of the androcentricity of physics” ( Code, 1995 , p. 26).

At first thought, it might appear that the metaphor of voice and the methods designed around it (i.e., the qualitative analysis of women’s narratives) have allowed feminist psychology to articulate women’s experiences. However, closer examination of this metaphor and the research methods used to support it argue for a more critical examination of research that attempts to give women voice ( Alcoff, 2008 ). The position that women can and must speak for women and/or that women can listen to each other differently than men has been challenged. Substituting a woman’s standpoint for an androcentric position privileges women’s way of way of being, speaking, viewing the world, and knowing, but the idea of women’s voice also essentializes femininity and can reify the constructs of men and women. Feminist theorists have cautioned that in our attempts to correct psychology’s androcentric perspective, we must avoid a position that essentializes masculinity and femininity ( Bohan, 1993 ; Cosgrove, 2003 ; Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1990 ) (i.e., one that views differences between men and women as universal and as originating or residing within men and women). Similarly, Davis (1994) questions whether the notion of voice is a useful one for feminist theory. Do women have voice (i.e., an “authentic” feminine self)? Does voice refer to “the psychological focus of femininity, the site of women’s subordination, or the authentic expression of what women really feel” (p. 355)? The use of the voice metaphor raises questions of essentialism. Is there such a thing as femininity, which can be discovered or uncovered?

Other feminists (e.g., Tavris, 1994 ) reminded us that women (and girls) do not speak the same in all situations, pointing out that there is more than a single “women’s voice” and that there is more than one way to hear the same story. Similarly, Gremmen (1994) questions whether authentic and false voices can be distinguished in the qualitative analysis of transcripts. Others have questioned whether women are speaking for themselves when their responses are reported, presented, organized, or otherwise produced by the researcher. The emancipatory potential of research is undermined when the researcher positions herself as an arbitrator of truth and knowledge or as a judge of what is or is not an authentic voice ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000 ).

There is great value in questioning who speaks for whom; indeed, who speaks may be more important than what is said (cf. Lather, 1991 ; 1992 ; Rappaport & Stewart, 1997 ). When we speak for women or about women’s experience, we may distort or silence women’s own voices ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000 ). Can we presume to know how to express the experiences of other women? The issues are further complicated when we attempt to “speak for others across the complexities of difference” ( Code, 1995 , p. 30); that is, speak for women who differ from us in terms of age, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, region, and other dimensions ( Alcoff, 2008 ). As feminist researchers, we might recognize the degree to which we have positioned ourselves as “universalizing spokesperson” and abandon that role, choosing instead the role of “cultural workers who do what they can to lift the barriers which prevent people from speaking for themselves” ( Lather, 1991 , p. 47).

Relinquishing the role of “universalizing spokesperson” requires a shift in how we conduct our research and in how we analyze our data. Marks (1993) encouraged us to reflect on the institutional power we have as researchers in order to avoid buying into the illusion of empowerment or democracy. To ensure that our hypotheses and questions are relevant, meaningful, and helpful to participants, we might ask participants to comment on, modify, add to, or even change the questions developed by the researcher. Standard research practice might include conducting a needs assessment and obtaining pilot data on the appropriateness of the focus, structure, and design of the research. The research process might begin with an opportunity for participants to voice their concerns and collaborate in the development of the research questions. In addition, Cosgrove and McHugh (2000) suggest that researchers adopt a cautious and reflective approach when editing participants’ narrative accounts. We need to acknowledge and attend to the fact that editing changes the voice(s) heard. The way in which we frame and present quotes may involve implicit assumptions about our interpretive authority; when we are not including the entire narrative, we need to include a rationale for and a detailed description of our editing choices. The question of “who can/should speak for whom engages with issues of power and the politics of knowledge that are especially delicate in present day feminist and other postcolonial contexts” ( Code, 1995 , p. 26).

Struggles for the “power to name” are continually played out in politics, the media, and in the academy. Specific words are needed to describe concepts that are important to people; without those words, it is very difficult to think about—and nearly impossible to talk about—objects, ideas, and situations. Feminists have provided words and concepts to describe the previously unspoken experiences of women and girls ( Smith, Johnston-Robledo, McHugh & Chrisler, 2010 ) including stalking, date rape, coercive sex, and intimate partner violence. Yet, our constructions and operational definitions of the phenomenon under study can also introduce limitations and distortions in women’s understanding of their own experiences ( McHugh, Livingston, & Frieze, 2008 ). When we give a woman a label for her experience and outline for her the particulars of the phenomenon, we direct her attention and memory and impact her own construction of her experiences. In this way, science has claimed the power to name reality and has sometimes challenged the credibility of women to articulate and name their own experiences. Postmodern feminists are attentive to the power of words and examine how language or discourse is used to frame women’s experience.

Traditionally, objectivity has been equated with quantitative measurement and logical positivist approaches to science and is valued as the path to truth and knowledge. Qualitative research and research rooted in standpoint and postmodern epistemologies are frequently seen as subjective and are devalued as such. Feminist and other postmodern critics of logical positivism argue that objectivity is an illusion that has contributed (illegitimately) to the power of science and scientists to make knowledge claims (e.g., Hubbard, 1988 ). The position of a disengaged or impartial researcher who studies others as objects, without investing in their well-being, or the outcomes of the research, has been rejected. Objectivity in this sense is not seen as a superior way to understand the world or the people in it. From a postmodern perspective, all knowledge involves a position or perspective that results in partial or situated knowledge. Furthermore, postmodern positions reject claims of grand theories and discoveries of some truth that exists “out there.” Knowledge is viewed as co-created or constructed in social interactions. Developing a theory of human behavior based on the study of a limited sample of people is viewed as inappropriate and universalizing. Some have exposed the issue of scientific objectivity as an elitist effort to exclude others from making meaning, a system by which all who are not trained to participate are devaluated and objectified ( Hubbard, 1988 ; Schewan, 2008 ).

Feminist qualitative research as described here has not sought universal truths about women but has increasingly been focused on particular communities of women (people), and the research is “judged” as useful in terms of its contribution to the improvement of women’s lives or to the (re)solution of a locally defined problem. Yet, some feminist theorists have grappled with the issue of validity claims. Is every interpretation or conclusion based on qualitative “data” equally valid? How can we know or evaluate our research as valid, if not objective? Questions of validity and credibility (which are sometimes discussed in terms of objectivity) remain unanswered or contested in regards to feminist qualitative research.

Schewan (2008) addresses the question of objectivity, asking “What is it about objectivity that helps to make a claim acceptable?” She argues that we do want our claims to be acceptable to some broader constituency. What do we have to do to establish such credibility? Schewan’s (2008) answer to these questions revolves around questions of trustworthiness. Her argument for an epistemological trustworthiness involves multiple dimensions of credibility including, for example, research that is critical, contextual, committed, and co-responsible; and practical, political, pluralist, and participatory. Furthermore, Schewan contends that trust is ultimately a product of community, and a basic question we might ask about our own research is in which (and how broad a) community would we look for consensus on the validity of our research? In which context do want to articulate our claims, and how might we be evaluated in that context. In participatory action research, the researcher typically would have the participants in the project provide feedback as to the accuracy, validity, and usefulness of the project “data.”

Similarly, Collins (2008) views community and connectedness as essential to establishing the validity of black feminist theory. She observes that in the African-American community new knowledge claims are not worked out in isolation, but in dialogue. An example of the dialogue for assessing the validity of black women’s concerns is the call-and-response interaction in African-American communities, including churches. Ideas are tested and evaluated in one’s own community, which is also the context in which people become human and are empowered. Black feminist thought emerges in the context of subjugated individuals. Each idea or form of knowledge involves a specific location from which to examine points of connection; each group speaks from its own unique standpoint and shares its own partial and situated knowledge. There are no claims to universal truth. Collins also notes that this approach to validation is distinctly different from scientific objectivity in that this dialogue involves community rather than individualism, speaking from the heart, and the integration of reason and emotion.

The feminist scientist may question objectivity but continue to return to the concept when designing a feminist science ( Keller, 1985 ). Haraway (2008) and Harding (2008) are searching for a broader form of validation of claims; they articulate their ideas for a successor science and a feminist version of objectivity. Coming from the epistemology of standpoint theory, Harding (2008) anticipates the emergence of a successor science that offers an acknowledged better and richer account of the world. In response to questions of how to maintain validity and reliability in research when objectivity is challenged, Harding (1991) proposed the solution of strong objectivity . Her idea of strong objectivity is based on the outsider perspective ( Mayo, 1982 ) or the double consciousness attributed to African Americans ( Collins, 1990 ). In Harding’s approach to validity, individuals at the margins of the institutions of knowledge may provide an outsider perspective on the conceptualization not evident to the insiders at the center. Harding argued that outsiders can bring awareness of the ways in which values, interests, and practices impact the production of knowledge. Harding argued that including the perspectives of the outsider or marginalized perspectives can strengthen the objectivity of science while retaining validity ( Rosser, 2008 ).

Haraway (2008) offers her vision of a usable doctrine of objectivity, embodied vision . Consistent with Collins (2008) and Schewan (2008) , Haraway’s ideas about validity relate to conversation and community; situated knowledge is about communities not individuals. Haraway proposes that our capacity for knowing involves embodied vision; that is, we are limited to partial and situated knowledge because our vision is limited by our body in a physical location. She contrasts this idea of situated and partial knowledge with the omnipotence and omnipresence of a male (god); thus, her conception of objectivity relates to where we are located in the world, as opposed to an objectivity that comes from being above the fray. Haraway recommended that we share our knowledge with others who occupy a different space to help construct a larger vision. Haraway calls for objectivity as positioned rationality , rational and fuller knowledge as a process of ongoing critical interpretations among a community of interpreters and (de)coders. In her vision, feminist objectivity would make for both surprises and irony (since we are not in charge of the world). As indicated here, feminist researchers employing qualitative and post-positivist methods continue to contend with the issue of validity. Current approaches emphasize knowledge as partial and situated (as opposed to universal truth) and the validity of knowledge as established through dialogue with participant communities.

Forms of Feminist Qualitative Research

In this section, I introduce a number of qualitative forms of research and examine them in relation to feminist goals for research. All possible forms of qualitative research are not introduced or described; the selection represents in part my own areas of interest or expertise. The forms of research addressed here can be undertaken from any feminist epistemological positions, and each of these is consistent with a postmodern perspective.

In-Depth Interviews

Interviewing is a valued method for feminist researchers, allowing them to gain insight into the lives and experiences of their respondents and potentially helping others to understand a group of women. Feminists are often concerned with experiences that are hidden, for example, the lives of marginalized women ( Geiger, 1990) . When the goal of the research is in-depth understanding, a smaller sample is used since the interviewer is interested in the process and meanings and not in the generalization of the findings ( Hesse-Biber, 2007 a ). In more unstructured interviews, the researcher exerts very little control over the process, letting the interview flow where the respondent goes.

Interviewing as a feminist research strategy is designed to get at the lived experience of the respondent ( Nelson, 1989 ). Often, a goal of interviewing is to have women express their ideas, insights, or experiences in their own words. According to Letherby (2003) , the method chosen in a feminist project should allow the voices of the respondents to be distinct and discernible. Feminist interviewing is conscious of the relationship between the researcher and the researched and of the ways that power operates in the interview and in the product of the project. Letherby (2003) describes variation in how much two-way conversation she engaged in, and she also describes the relationship between the researcher and respondent as dynamic and changing over time.

One feminist perspective on interviewing is that the researcher and the respondent co-construct meaning. Oakley (1981) espoused a participatory model that involves the researcher sharing aspects of her own biography with the researched. A more conversational and sharing approach invites intimacy. Oakley also sees this as a way to break down the power hierarchy. As an example, Parr (1998) traced her own development from a positivist researcher to a more feminist and grounded approach in her interviews of mature women who returned to education. Parr (1998) started with a barriers framework that she eventually abandoned when the respondents’ stories did not fit this framework: the women did not perceive themselves as experiencing barriers. Her subsequent analysis was rooted in the data, and the respondents influenced the research process. Importantly and unexpectedly, her participants gave more personal reasons for their reentry, and more than one-half of the women reported serious incidents or traumatic experiences as linked to their return to education. Parr (1998) reported that listening closely and paying attention to the women’s nonverbal behaviors helped her to hear what they were telling her about the links between trauma and education “once she allowed the women’s voices to be heard” (p. 100).

Narratives as Research

The use of narratives as research is compatible with a postmodern or social constructionist perspective. Narratives are the stories people tell about their lives. Narrative research focuses on the ways in which individuals choose to tell their stories, in relation to the frameworks or master narratives provided by the culture for organizing and describing life experiences ( Sarbin, 1986 ). Master narratives refer to the cultural frameworks that limit and structure the way that stories are told in order to support the status quo and the dominant groups’ perspective on reality. Gergen (2010) described her analysis of how women’s narratives differed from the cultural heroic myths of male narratives; she argued that women’s narratives were more embodied, and that in women’s narratives, love and achievement themes were interwoven. Story telling can be used, however, to disrupt or challenge accepted perceptions and master narratives. Stories are used to communicate experience, but they can also articulate ideology and can move people to action ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ).

A narrative approach can be employed to further feminist goals. Narratives have been discussed as an innovative feminist method ( Gergen, Chrisler, & LoCicero, 1999 ) designed to reveal cultural constructions. Recognizing, resisting, or deconstructing the master narratives that have been used to restrict or limit the experiences of women is one feminist form of narrative research ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ). Other examples of feminist narrative research are presented in Franz and Stewart’s (1994) edited volume of narratives, in which they explore the way in which narratives “create” a psychology of women. Thus, storytelling can lead to “ideological transformations and to political mobilization” ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 , p. xii). Storytelling is seen as a way of including women’s experience, of breaking the silence of women, and as a way of giving women a voice for the expression and analysis of their own experiences ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ). They argue that social transformative work is done through the telling of previously untold stories and through women’s naming and analyzing their own experience ( Romero & Stewart, 1999 ).

Narrative research reveals our desire to provide a unified and coherent story and to gloss over or ignore paradoxes, inconsistencies, and contradictions in women’s lives ( Cabello, 1999 ; Franz & Stewart, 1994 ). The challenge for feminist researchers is to find methods for including and representing dualities and contradictions present in women’s lives ( Cabello, 1999 ). Cabello (1999) describes the methodological challenge of including the incoherence and contradictions in narrative research. She also discusses the tensions between the researcher’s interpretation and the subject’s active participation in the telling and interpretation of her life story.

Discourse Analysis

The main goal of discourse analysis is to investigate how meanings are produced within narrative accounts (e.g., in conversations, newspapers, or interviews). Thus, the label discourse analysis does not describe a technique or a formula, but rather it describes a set of approaches that can be used when researchers work with texts ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Researchers who use a discourse analytic approach emphasize the constitutive function of language, and they address the ways in which power relations are reproduced in narrative accounts ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2004 ). A discourse analytic approach is grounded in the belief that meaning and knowledge are created by discourse; discourse analysts views language/discourse as constituting our experience. Based on the belief that all forms of discourse serve a function and have particular effects, and the research focus is on “how talk is constructed and what it achieves” ( Potter & Wetherell, 1996 , p. 164). The researcher cannot, simply by virtue of switching from a quantitative to a qualitative approach, uncover an experience or identity that exists prior to and distinct from human interaction. There are no true, real, or inner experiences or identities that somehow reside underneath the words a woman uses to describe that experience or identity. The paradigm shift from analyzing interview data to analyzing discourse involves a different perspective on the goals of research and what we can know ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ). It encourages us to examine the practices, technologies, and ideologies that allow for the experiences that we are investigating. This shift may help us focus on structural rather than individual change strategies.

In the conduct of discourse analysis, the researcher is explicitly interested in the sociopolitical context that creates particular discourses and discourages other constructions and linguistic practices ( Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1995 ). The implications of this epistemological shift for developing alternative methodologies can be seen in how interview-based data would be approached and analyzed. The researcher does not assume that she will discover some underlying truth about women’s essential nature or personality. Instead, the researcher is interested in identifying dominant and marginalized discourses and in addressing how women position themselves in the available discourses. As previously noted, rather than denying or trying to overcome the inconsistencies, contradictions, or ambivalence in women’s accounts of their experience, the researcher pursues these contradictions. This allows for a better understanding of how women might position themselves otherwise ( Burr, 1995 ; Hollway, 1989 ; Kitzinger, 1995 ; Potter & Wetherell, 1996 ). This social constructionist approach moves the researcher from the analysis of narratives as revealing inner subjectivity (i.e., of a woman’s story as revealing who she is) to an analysis of discourse as constituting subjectivity. Thus, the question shifts from “what does this account reveal about women’s underlying or true nature?” to “what does this account reveal about the dominant discourses to which women have been subjected?” and “what does this account reveal about discourses which have become marginalized?” The analysis of data is then carried out with a focus on the questions “when and how do women resist dominant discourses when those discourses cause them distress, and how might we allow for greater opportunities to position ourselves in alternative discourses?”

The implications for feminist research are dramatic and complex. If there is no method to “get to the bottom of things,” what does it mean to create a space for women to speak for themselves? A researcher using discourse analysis would understand meaning to be produced rather than revealed. An account of an individual’s experience is always located in a complex network of power relations ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Thus, in analyzing women’s accounts, a social constructionist approach applies an analysis of power. The interview, and analysis, is not about discovering “truths” but about identifying dominant and marginalized discourses. The analysis examines the degree and the ways in which individuals resist oppressive discourses. For example, a psychologist interested in the experience of motherhood would first recognize that the discourses of motherhood shape and confine one’s understanding of oneself as a mother and as not a mother ( Letherby, 2003 ). The analysis of the data on the experience of being a mother would be contextualized in terms of how discourses produce certain identities (e.g., “supermom,” mother as the primary care-giver, etc.) while marginalizing others ( Cosgrove, 1999 ).

Focus Groups

Wilkinson (1998) argues for the use of focus groups as a feminist method in that focus groups can meet the feminist goals of examining women’s behavior in naturalistic social contexts and in a way that shifts the power from the researcher to the participants. A focus group might be described as an informal discussion among a group of people, which is focused on a specific topic and is either observed or taped by the researcher ( Morgan & Krueger, 1993 ). Focus groups are typically facilitated by a trained moderator who fosters a comfortable environment. Kitzinger (1994) suggests that focus group interviews might be used as an effective method when gaining information from participants is difficult; that is, when people feel disenfranchised, unsafe, or reluctant to participate. Focus groups may be useful in mining subjugated knowledge or in giving a voice to members of marginalized groups or empowering clients ( Leavy, 2007 ; Morgan, 2004 ). Focus groups have been used to bridge a gap in perspective between the researcher and the informants ( Morgan, 2004 ). The communication in focus groups may be dynamic and create a sense of a “happening” ( Leavy, 2007 ). In successful focus groups, participants express or share some of their experiences with others using their own language and frameworks ( Leavy, 2007 ).

Focus groups avoid the artificiality of many psychological methods. Focus groups mimic the everyday experience of talking with friends, family, and others in our social networks. The focus group itself may be seen as a social context and, at the same time, as a parallel to the social context in which people typically operate. The group-based approach of nondirective interviewing allows the participants to identify, discuss, disagree about, and contextualize issues of importance to them ( Hennink, 2008 ). At times, the focus group may reveal the extent of consensus and diversity of opinion within groups ( Morgan, 2004 ). The group environment can provide rich data regarding complex behaviors and human interactions.

People establish and maintain relationships, engage in activities, and make decisions through daily interactions with other people. Focus groups may use these preexisting or naturally occurring groups, or may set up groups of people who do not know each other ( Wilkinson, 1998 ). For example, Press (1991) studied female friends talking about abortion by having them meet in one woman’s home to view and discuss an episode of a popular television show. The focus group can thus avoid artificiality by making naturalistic observations of the process of communication in everyday social interaction ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). More importantly, the focus group provides the opportunity to observe how people form opinions, influence each other, and generate meaning in the context of discussion with others ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). For feminists who see the self as relational or identity as constructed (e.g., Kitzinger, 1994 ), the focus group can be an ideal method. In focus groups, the influence of the researcher is minimized as women in the group speak for themselves and voice their own concerns and themes. Focus groups may also provide an opportunity to access the views of individuals who have been underrepresented in traditional methods ( Wilkinson, 1998 ). Focus groups may lead to consciousness raising or to the articulation of solutions to women’s problems ( Wilkinson, 1998 ; 1999 ). Focus groups may be a component of participatory action projects ( Morgan, 2004 ). The increased use of focus groups by social scientists over the past two decades argues for their usefulness as a qualitative method ( Morgan, 2004 ).

Feminist Phenomenological Approaches

A phenomenological approach emphasizes a (paradigm) shift from observed behaviors to the importance of an individual’s lived experience as the proper subject matter for psychology. Phenomenology is committed to the articulation of individuals’ experience as description and does not subscribe to hypothesis testing. Husserl (1970) argued that psychologists should use descriptive methods to try and capture the meaning of individuals’ experience; he emphasized the need for social scientists to investigate the personal, the life-world to capture the experiential nature of human experience. Criticizing psychology (and other social sciences) for its adherence to positivist methods, he challenged the subjective/objective distinction. ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Thus, a phenomenological approach is not just another method that might be employed by a feminist researcher, but an alternative approach to knowledge ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). Phenomenological research uses a descriptive method that attempts to capture the experiential meaning of human experience ( Nelson, 1989 ). Phenomenologically informed researchers do not test hypotheses but generate theory from the data (i.e., individuals’ experiences). This approach does not distinguish between objective and subjective methods but does privilege description over measurement and quantification ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). The phenomenological researcher does not subscribe to the goal of uncovering or discovering truths about the participants’ experience but has a commitment to articulating the lived experience of the participants and analyzing the sociopolitical context in which the experience occurs ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). For example, a research team could investigate the lived experience of being “at home.” The descriptive differences in men and women’s lived experience might be described without essentializing or reifying gender.

According to Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) , phenomenology shares the feminist commitment to creating a space to hear (women’s) stories. In phenomenologically grounded research, the researcher may examine the ways in which gender (along with race, class, and culture) plays a key role in shaping women’s experiences. Phenomenologists also share the feminist commitment to test theory against experience. Both feminists and phenomenologists recognize the limits of laboratory-based research, emphasize the importance of listening to individuals’ experiences, and appreciate the possibilities of a descriptive science ( Nelson, 1989 ). Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) suggest that some feminists would agree with the phenomenological perspective that relying, epistemologically and methodologically, on quantification and measurement to the exclusion of life-world description is a limited approach that produces alienated rather than emancipatory knowledge.

Both feminists and phenomenologists view research as an interaction or dialogue between the researcher and the participant ( Garko, 1999 ). The phenomenological approach emphasizes connections among self, world, and others and allows the researcher to hear women’s experiences as contextualized within the larger social order. Consistent with feminist research, a phenomenological perspective demands that we hear, describe, and try to articulate the meaning of women’s experiences, including stories that have been marginalized and/or silenced ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ).

Participatory Action Research

“Participatory research offers a way to openly demonstrate solidarity with oppressed and disempowered people through our work as researchers” ( Maguire, 2008 , p. 417). Maguire (1987 ; 2008 ) described participatory action research as involving investigation, education, and action. By involving ordinary people in the process of posing problems and solving them, participatory research can create solidarity and social action designed to radically change social reality, as opposed to other methods that describe or interpret reality ( Maguire, 2008 ). Goals of feminist research, including self-determination, emancipation, and personal and social transformation, are approached by working with oppressed people, not studying them ( Maguire, 2008 ). When working with a community group to address a problem they define, the traditional distinctions between knower and participant and between knowledge and action are dissolved ( Hall, 1979) .

In contrast to the traditional valuation of theoretical and pure science over applied science, participatory action research challenges the dichotomous view of applied versus theoretical research. In action research, theory is political and action has theoretical implications ( Hoshmand & O’Byrne, 1996 ; Reinharz, 1992 ). Hoshmand and O’Byrne (1996) view action research as consistent with postmodern and post-positivist revisions of science; action research takes an explicitly contextual focus and thus action researchers may be less likely to commit the “errors” of essentialism and universalism ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002 ). Participatory research is built on the (feminist) critique of positivist science, and the androcentrism of much of traditional social science research ( Maguire, 2008 ) and the emancipatory impact of participatory research is dependent on feminist analysis. Researchers should explicitly consider gender and patriarchy as important components of the project ( Maguire, 1987 ). A challenge for feminist researchers is to consider the operation of class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of oppression in the research agenda.

In addition to improving the lives of the participants, education and the development of critical consciousness is a component of participatory action research ( Maguire, 2008 ). The research process can assist the community members to develop skills in information gathering and use and in analysis. Perhaps more significantly, the community members may develop a critical understanding of social problems and underlying causes and possible ways to overcome them. By having ordinary people participate in the research, affirming and extending their knowledge about their own lives, participatory action research exposes and helps to dismantle the industry of knowledge production. Knowledge production and traditional research exclude ordinary people from meaningful participation in knowledge creation, intimidate marginalized groups through academic degrees and jargon, and dehumanize people as objects of research ( Maguire, 2008 ).

In this spirit of research designed to create critical consciousness (of the sexual double standard), McHugh and her students facilitated discussions in class and in focus groups of undergraduate students about their experience and observation of slut bashing and the walk of shame (McHugh, Sciarillo, Pearlson, & Watson, 2011; Sullivan & McHugh, 2009 ). Students shared their understanding and experience of who gets called a slut and why. In the discussion, many students recognized the operation of the sexual double standard and developed some understanding of how this impacted their own and other women’s expression of sexuality. This “research” emphasizes the students as experts on this topic, helps students develop critical consciousness, and documents the existence of the sexual double standard as common social practice, in contrast to quantitative research that does not confirm the existence of the sexual double standard ( Crawford & Popp, 2003 ).

In most social action research, the researchers design the research project to empower the individuals and communities with whom they work ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ). In participatory research, the shared agenda is set by the community; traditional research is based on the researcher’s agenda. The engagement and solidarity with participants is an important feature of participatory research, in contrast to the traditional objectivity and disengagement of the experimenter. For example, in contrast to traditional research (e.g., why battered women stay), Maguire (1987) reported on her participatory research with a group of battered women in Gallup, New Mexico. Maguire talked with former battered women in their kitchens, employing Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogue. The researcher and participants moved through a cycle of reflection and action; Maguire presented the women (in their own words) as they searched for how to move forward after living with violent men. These results are in contrast to the psychologizing and victim-blaming approaches often taken in research with women who experience intimate partner violence ( McHugh, 1993 ; McHugh, Livingston, & Frieze, 2008) . Fine (1992) also identified the victim-blaming interpretations made by researchers. In a critical examination of articles published in The Psychology of Women Quarterly, Fine documented that authors “psychologized the structural forces that construct women’s lives by offering internal explanations for social conditions, and through the promotion of individualistic change strategies, authors invited women to alter some aspect of self in order to transform social arrangements” (p. 6).

A variety of qualitative methods were described here with an emphasis on why and how each method might be used by feminist researchers. For each of the methods, feminist researchers with differing epistemological positions are likely to share certain concerns regarding the research: “attention to women’s voices, differences between and within groups of women, women’s contextual and concrete experiences, and researcher positionality” ( Leckenby & Hess-Biber, 2007 , p. 279). As feminist researchers, we might mine each approach for its liberatory potential.

Innovations in Feminist Research

Intersectionality.

Feminist analytic strategies have been used to challenge biological reductionism, demonstrating how race and gender hierarchies are produced and maintained ( Hawkesworth, 2006 , p. 207). Increasingly, feminists have realized that individuals’ experiences are influenced by both race and gender and by the intersection of various identities (intersectionality). Intersectionality is an innovative approach that applies an analytic lens to research on gender, racial, ethnic, class, age, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of disparities ( Dill & Zambrana, 2009 ). The approach of intersectionality analyzes the intersections of oppressions, recognizing that race, sexual orientation, social class, and other oppressed identities are socially constructed. Intersectionality challenges traditional approaches to the study of inequality that isolated each factor of oppression (e.g., race) and treated it as independent of other forms of oppression ( Dill & Zambrana 2009 ). Interpersonal interactions and institutional practices can create marginalization and subsequently constrain women of color and women marginalized by other identities. In response to such recognition, feminist scholars of color have coined the term “intersectionality” to refer to the complex interplay of social forces that produce particular women and men as members of particular classes, races, ethnicities, and nationalities ( Crenshaw, 1989 ). McCall (2005) has referred to intersectionality as the most important contribution of women’s studies; intersectionality challenges the dominant perspectives within multiple disciplines including psychology. Intersectionality recognizes the interrelatedness of racialization and gendering. The term “racing-gendering” highlights the interactions of racialization and gendering in the production of difference ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). The identities of women of color result from an amalgam of practices that construct them as Other. Such practices include silencing, excluding, marginalizing, stereotyping, and patronizing.

For example, in a study of congresswomen (103rd Congress), Hawkesworth (2006) found the narratives of congresswomen of color to be markedly different from the interview responses of white congresswomen. African-American congresswomen, especially, related experiences of insults, humiliation, frustration, and anger. Hawkesworth (2006) provides a series of examples to demonstrate that Congress was/is a race-gendered institution, that race-specific constructions of acting as a man and a woman are intertwined in daily interactions in that setting. She further relates the experiences of invisibility and subordination of black congresswomen to congressional action on welfare reform and concludes that the data indicate ongoing race-gendering in the institutional practices of Congress and in the interpersonal interactions among members of Congress.

Developing Consciousness

Consciousness raising (CR) was an important method of the second wave of feminism in the United States ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). Through group discussions, women recognized commonalities in their experiences that they had previously believed to be personal problems ( Brodsky, 1973 ). Such discussions had the potential to reveal aspects of sexism and patriarchy and led to the realization that the personal is political; that is, that the power imbalance between women and men and the way that society was structured along gender lines contributed to women’s experiences of distress (Hanish, 1970). Undertaken as political action, CR groups were later facilitated by psychologists and became a model for therapeutic women’s groups ( Brodsky, 1973 ). Consciousness raising groups are a form of participatory action research. Consciousness raising is a method for understanding and experiencing women’s experiences, and for understanding and resisting patriarchy. Consciousness-raising is an important contribution of feminism.

Double Consciousness

In an elaboration of consciousness raising, some theorists have discussed women’s double consciousness in relation to feminist standpoint theory. In one version of double consciousness, women, as a result of their subordinated position, have an awareness of their own daily lives and work (which are invisible to members of the dominant group), but they also have an understanding of the lives of the dominant group (Nielsen, 1989. Or, women scientists, by participating in science and yet experiencing the subordinated position of women, have a unique perspective as both an insider and an “other,” to examine the operation of sexist bias in science ( Rosser, 2008 ). Most frequently, double consciousness refers to the position of black feminist theorists that black women hold a unique position that allows them to understand the operation of both sexism and racism ( Collins, 1990 ; 2008 ). Collins argues that such consciousness, based on lived experience, involves both knowledge and wisdom and that such consciousness is essential to black women’s survival. Black women share their truth by way of storytelling or narrative, and the black community values their stories. The consciousness of black women is thus forged in connection with community. Collins (2008) suggests “the significance of a Black feminist epistemology may lie in its ability to enrich our understanding of how subordinate groups create knowledge that fosters both empowerment and social justice” ( Collins, 2008 , p. 256).

In an elaboration of double consciousness, feminist standpoint approaches have developed into a method, as well as an epistemological position ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ; Sandoval, 2000 ). Feminist standpoint as a method begins with the “collection and interrogation of competing claims about a single phenomenon” ( Hawkesworth, 2006 , p. 178). The method involves the contrast and analysis of competing situated (theoretical and value-laden) claims to understand the role theoretical presuppositions play in cognition. The feminist standpoint analysis may suggest ways to resolve seemingly intractable conflicts ( Hawkesworth, 2006 ). Hawkesworth (2006) illustrates the method with an analysis of multiple feminist positions on Affirmative Action.

Oppositional Consciousness

Authors and theorists from varied backgrounds and geographies have described and theorized a form of consciousness referred to as “oppositional consciousness.” The recognition and development of “oppositional consciousness” is considered both a social movement and a method ( Sandoval, 2000 ). As a method, cultural theorists aim to specify and reinforce particular forms of resistance to the dominant social hierarchy. “The methodology of the oppressed is a set of processes, procedures and technologies for de-colonizing the imagination” ( Sandoval, 2000 , p. 68). The theory and method of oppositional consciousness is a consciousness developed within women of color feminism ( Sandoval, 2000 , p. 180), where it has been employed as a methodology of the oppressed. The methodology of oppositional consciousness, as theorized by a racially diverse (US) coalition of women of color, demonstrates the procedures for achieving affinity and alliance across difference ( Sandoval, 2000 ). Through a series of dialogues, processes, meaning-making, deconstructions, and consciousness, people in search of emancipation from oppression voice, interrogate, and theorize their experiences, recognize (resist) ideologies and practices of oppression, and transcend differences to achieve an alliance, a coalition of consciousness that opposes oppression and transcends difference ( Sandoval, 2000 ).

Trans/Feminist Methodology

In a related approach, Pryse (2000) argued that the interdisciplinarity of women’s studies can contribute to the development of a “trans/feminist methodology.” Pryse (2000) contends that there is a special opportunity in the study of women’s studies scholars; faculty and students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds collaborate over questions regarding gender and its interconnections with race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, ability, and culture. Envisioning a hybrid or “trans” methodology is the challenge of interdisciplinary collaborations ( Friedman, 1998 ; Pryse, 2000 ). She examines interdisciplinarity as involving intellectual flexibility and engagement in cross-cultural analyses, both of which can be conducive to cross-cultural insight and may enhance receptivity to difference. Pryse is hopeful that the work of interdisciplinary teams can develop the transversal political perspective described by Yuval-Davis (1997) . Transversal political perspectives are contrasted with identity politics in which women from different classes, regions, nations, races, or ethnicities recognize and emphasize the differences in their material and political realities. In a transversal political perspective, women could “enter into a dialogue concerning their material and political realities without being required to assert their collective identity politics in such a way that they cannot move outside their ideological positioning” ( Pryse, 2000 , p. 106). Yuval-Davis (1997) described interactions of Palestinian and Israeli women who engaged in a dialogue that could be indicative of transversalism. Each member of the interaction remained rooted in her own identity, but shifted to a position that allowed an exchange with a women with another identity. This dialogue, labeled transversalism was contrasted with universalism. In transversalism, a bridge that can cross borders or differences is constructed, whereas universalism assumes homogeneity among women. In her vision, Pryse sees transversalism as a methodology that can allow feminist researchers to construct questions that emerge from women’s lives without committing the error of universalizing women and by remaining specific about the differences among women. Furthermore, the transversal approach can help researchers transcend disciplinary boundaries and methods. A transversal approach is consistent with a postmodern perspective in that multiple realities and partial truths are recognized and essentialism is avoided ( Pryse, 2000 ). The transversal viewpoint allows both difference and similarity to be simultaneously recognized and appreciated as we study women’s lives. This can be seen as a form of dialectic thinking, as opposed to the traditional tendency to engage in dichotomous thinking.

Dialectic Thinking

In a similar approach, Kimball argued that “The major goal of practicing double visions is to resist the choice of either similarities or differences as more true or politically valid than the other” ( Kimball, 1995 , p. 12). Kimball (1995) called for a rejection of simplistic dichotomous thinking (about gender) and for the practice of double visions with regard to feminist theory and research on gender. Kimball’s reference to double visions originates in the postmodern position that we can only have partial knowledge and that partial knowledge is, by definition, not fully accurate. Accordingly, Kimball is suggesting that we are not forced to choose between one piece of partial knowledge and another. Thus, we do not have to choose between evidence that women are caring and evidence that women are aggressive. One might chose a particular position in a certain context or prefer a given perspective on gender, but, as Kimball has noted, practicing double visions means that neither alternative is foreclosed; feminist psychologists would recognize the partiality of any perspective and respect theoretical diversity. This means that we should actively resist making a choice and instead maintain a tension between/among the alternative positions. The way forward for feminist research, according to Tuana (1992) , is to avoid dichotomous thinking and either/or choices. In terms of the sex/gender difference debate, this could mean that we recognize that men and women are both alike and different or are alike in some settings and different in others ( McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ).

Double visions, or a dialectic approach to sex/gender, describes the movement between or among positions as a sophisticated and theoretically grounded practice. Previously, the perspective of individuals who vacillated between denying gender differences and focusing on the common experiences of women may have been labeled as contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent, or confused. This is similar to the problem of either focusing on the differences among women or examining the common experience of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Privileging the dialectic perspective legitimizes our current confusion, giving us permission to hold contradictory, paradoxical, and fragmented perspectives on gender and women’s experiences.

Applying a postmodern or dialectic approach can help to resolve epistemological and theoretical debates. For example, feminists and family researchers have been engaged in an ongoing debate about intimate partner violence as battering (of women by their male partners) or as family violence (equally perpetrated by men and women) ( McHugh, Livingston, & Ford, 2005 ). A postmodern or dialectic approach allows us to recognize how issues of method, sample, and conceptualization have contributed to the debate and to realize that, in a postmodern world, there is not a single truth, but multiple, complex, and fragmented perspectives. Thus, women may contribute to family violence, and battering may be perpetrated mostly by men against female intimates ( McHugh et al., 2005 ).

Ferguson (1991) and Haraway (1985) recommend irony as a way to resolve the dichotomous tensions created by two (seemingly opposing) projects or perspectives. In irony, laughter dissuades us from premature closure and exposes both the truth and the non-truth of each perspective. Ferguson (1991) describes irony as “a way to keep oneself within a situation that resists resolution in order to act politically without pretending that resolution has come” (p. 338). Similarly, Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) have encouraged the use of satire to expose and challenge the limitations of the scientific method; irony and satire can contribute to the transformation of both science and society.

Feminist scholars have taken issue with dominant disciplinary approaches to knowledge production. Feminist researchers have asked a range of questions, examined and adopted varied epistemological positions, and employed diverse methods. While employing varied methods, feminist researchers share a commitment to promote women’s freedom, to examine/expose oppression based on gender (and other subordinated statuses), and to revolt against institutions, practices, and values that subordinate and denigrate women.

Feminists have a long tradition of challenging the theories, methods, and “truths” that traditional social scientists believe to be real, objective, and value-free. Feminists have posed a serious challenge to the alleged value neutrality of positivistic social science. In an attempt to transform social science, feminists have developed innovative ideas, methods, and critiques, some of which were reviewed here. Classic and emergent qualitative methods have been deployed in a variety of contexts as feminist researchers critique traditional methods and assumptions and struggle to conduct research that empowers women or improves their lives. The current chapter represents an attempt to help researchers understand the methodological and epistemological underpinning of feminist research, to reflect on their own choice of methods, and to practice feminist research by engaging in a nonhierarchical and collaborative process that leads to an understanding of some aspect of women’s lives and contributes to the transformation of society. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2007) have provided a guide to feminist research practice. In conclusion to their guide, Hesse-Biber (2007) characterized the research process as a “journey... where the personal and the political merge and multiple truths are discovered and voiced where there had been silence” (p. 348).

One possibility for the future is that increasing numbers of researchers will be exposed to the feminist critique of science and will contribute to the transformation of research by developing a postmodern or dialectical approach to research. According to a postmodern approach, the transformation of society begins with a transformation of our understanding of how and what we can know. Traditional approaches to knowledge constructed, confirmed, and constrained our understanding of gender and our ideas of what is possible. The postmodern position provides a powerful epistemological position for deconstructing rather than regulating gender ( Cosgrove, 2003 ). Thus, the transformation of science and research is an initial step toward the feminist transformation of gender and the dismantling of male dominance. Larner (1999) viewed the postmodern perspective as encouraging us to “think the unthought and ask questions unasked.”

However, changing the practices of science and social science so that we can better attend to issues of social injustice is neither an easy nor straightforward task. Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) note that quantitative methods continue to be privileged over qualitative in a variety of ways. In my own experience, despite the varied epistemological perspectives and the array of methodological approaches available, the majority of research reported in journals and textbooks continues to employ empirical and quantitative methods. When qualitative methods are employed, they tend to be the established classic approaches, like open-ended survey interview questions that are thematically coded. Furthermore, in a systematic review of the top undergraduate research methods texts of 2009, I observed that qualitative methods were not substantially described or discussed in most texts, and feminist critiques or research were not mentioned ( Eagly, Eaton, & McHugh, 2011 ). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2008) cite research and university culture as supporting the status quo and limiting the use of innovative and emergent methods. Funding sources may contribute to conservativism in science, and gatekeepers, such as journal editors, may also limit researchers’ willingness to engage in innovative feminist research.

Although she was writing in 1988, Morawski could be talking about today when she suggests that a new (US) conservatism is indicated by recent losses in Affirmative Action, challenges to reproductive rights, and legislation that negatively affects large numbers of American women. She notes that feminist progress is transforming traditional social science but may easily become or remain mired in such a climate. In response to such a societal impasse, Morawski considers some possibilities for feminist deconstruction and reconstruction. She recommends that we continue to be critical and reflective and that we not commit the same errors that we have identified, for example, essentialism. She encourages us to develop a vision of emancipation, to use our imagination, creativity, and irony to overcome our current impasse.

Future Directions

Satire and irony represent one approach to the future of feminist research. “Through the resources of irony, we can think both about how we do feminist theory, and about which notions of reality and truth make our theories possible” ( Ferguson, 1991 , p. 339). Irony is also recognized by Shotter and Logan (1988) as a requisite for feminist research as it attempts to resist patriarchal thinking and practices even as it produces meaning within the current patriarchal context. They see the feminist research project as developing new practices while still making use of resources that are part of the old. Shotter and Logan argue for a feminist alternative that would “allow a conversation within which the creative, formative power of talk could be put to use in reformulating, redistributing and redeveloping both people’s knowledge of themselves and their immediate circumstances, and the nature of their practical-historical relations to one another” (p. 82). Moving forward toward an egalitarian community requires a reflection and understanding of our immediate practical relationships to one another, a consideration of “in what voices we allow to speak, and which voices we take seriously” (p. 83).

One form of irony, farce, involves exaggerated versions of a phenomena resulting in both laughter and sometimes a new understanding of the issues involved. Taking an ironic approach can lead to a richer and more complex picture and necessitates a re-visioning of the epistemological and methodological frameworks that underlie psychological research and feminist theory ( Cosgrove & McHugh, 2008 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ). Although the empirical satiricism described by Cosgrove and McHugh (2008 ; McHugh & Cosgrove, 2002 ) is a quantitative method, qualitative methods based on irony and satire can certainly be developed within the participatory action or performative approaches.

(Whereas my younger colleagues may need to limit their research to methods that are acceptable to funding sources and journal editors, I realize that I am not limited by these factors. A decade preretirement, I am in a position to use emergent methods to conduct research that challenges existing ideas regarding women and gender or advocates for marginalized women. I am willing to rethink (again) my epistemological and ontological perspectives, to go beyond my disciplinary boundaries, and to engage in dialectic thinking and irony. Although I may not be successful in jumping publication hurdles, there are alternative methods for distributing or performing transformative knowledge. I hope to conduct participatory and performative research that is ironic, even farcical, to incite new knowledge).

Multidisciplinary collaborations can contribute to the adoption of new perspectives and methods that ignore or transgress boundaries set by traditional disciplines that have served to restrict or constrain our conceptions on how to conduct research. The interdisciplinary practice of women’s studies has contributed to innovations in feminist research practice. Through women’s studies and other multidisciplinary approaches, feminists from more conservative disciplines can be introduced to postmodern perspectives and other post-postmodern and emerging forms of research. Feminists can contribute to progress by affirming, approving, and applauding the attempts at methodological innovation employed by others.

For example, feminist psychology in the United States has not yet taken the “performative turn,” although feminist researchers from other disciplinary contexts have. Leavy (2008) characterized performance as an interdisciplinary methodological genre used in a variety of fields including sociology, health, and education. Performance can be viewed as a new epistemological stance that disrupts conventional ways of knowing ( Gray, 2003 ). In a performance, individuals act out, and the performance is experienced “in the moment.” Profound theoretical insight can occur to researcher and audience alike when we shift from the representation of reality in written records to the flow of performance. In performance, the actors and the audience help to make or co-create the meaning, and understanding involves an interaction among members of the cast and the audience ( Leavy, 2008 ). Audience members do not need special skills or training to understand or appreciate a performance, and different perspectives on the performance may result in different interpretations or insights. Thus, the knowing that results from a performance is different from the meaning constructed by the researcher in more traditional research. Leavy (2008) points out the relevance of performance to feminist perspectives that emphasize the embodied experience of women (e.g., Bardo, 1989 ). Leavy (2008) described arts-based methods as a hybrid of arts and science; she characterized performative methods as innovative, dynamic, holistic, creative, as involving reflection and problem solving.

An aspect of the performative turn is the emerging interest in research on the mundane, or the study of the everyday. Contemporary nonrepresentational theory calls us to study the flow of everyday practices in the present rather than constructing post hoc interpretations of past events. Profound theoretical insight and innovations in methods could result if we were to shift from the representation of reality to the flow of performance, if we were to take the mundane or everyday practices of women seriously ( Chrisler & McHugh, 2011 ). This philosophical position builds on the phenomenological approach, an approach Cosgrove and McHugh (2008) have recommended for integration into feminist methods. This approach is also consistent with the position taken by some feminists that women’s ways of being in the world (i.e., as emotional and connected beings) have validity and importance and should not be eliminated in the name of rationality and science.

As early as 1988, Aebischer marveled at the feminist transformation that social science had undergone, when it had become possible to intellectually study “aspects of everyday life and everyday people and to be taken seriously.” Even then, she recognized the study of personal experiences, intimate relationships, emotional reactions, and body experiences as a significant transition from one value system to another. Contemporary calls for the exploration of the everyday reveal the extent to which social science in the past had been focused on the unusual, the non-normative, or the pathological. Emphasis on the exceptional, on public domains, on cognition, and on achievements (of men) reflects the androcentric bias of social science. Furthermore, traditional approaches to research such as the experiment, the survey, and systematic observation are not conducive to the study of everyday routines and experiences. Women’s everyday experiences such as gossip ( McHugh & Hambaugh, 2010) , feeling at home ( McHugh, 1996 ), and street harassment ( Sullivan, Lord, & McHugh, 2010 ) have traditionally not been valued as significant topics. In some ways, the current emphasis on the study of everyday lives is a continuation or an extension of an angle of vision adopted primarily within sociology ( Scott, 2009 ). Perhaps what is more innovative is the development of new and emerging methods, including the performative, for the study of affect and the everyday.

The study of the everyday experiences and routines of women is just one example of the directions that future US feminist researchers may take as they shift away from the limitations of logical positivism and, with postmodern permission, strategically adopt multiple ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives. Removing the methodological shackles of positivism, modernism, and empiricism, we can exercise epistemological and methodological freedom and move toward feminist research that transforms science and society and liberates women.

(Writing this chapter has been challenging and has caused me to further reflect on myself as a feminist researcher. I have recognized the barriers that have impeded my research in the past decades. Some of these barriers are personal and others are more about the reception that I have received as a feminist researcher and a postmodern theorist. I have reaffirmed the importance to myself of intrinsic motivation and finding meaning in my work, as opposed to external recognition. Through writing this chapter, I have come to an appreciation of the value of research that I have conducted (for example, on the meaning of home and the positive aspects of gossip) and could continue to conduct that provides partial and situated knowledge and research that adopts an emergent research method. I am inspired to pursue more feminist research and to encourage my students to employ varied and more innovative feminist methods.)

Alcoff, L. ( 2008 ). The problem of speaking for others. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 484–495). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Aebischer, V. ( 1988 ). Knowledge as a result of conflicting intergroup relations. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 142–151). New York: New York University Press.

Belenky, M. F. , Clinchy, B. M. , Goldberger, N. J. , & Tarule, J. M. ( 1986 ). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind . New York: Basic Books.

Bohan, J. ( 1993 ). Regarding gender: Essentialism, constructionism and feminist psychology.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 17 , 5–21.

Brodsky, A. ( 1973 ). The consciousness-raising group as a model for therapy with women.   Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice , 10 (1), 24–29. doi: 10.1037/h0087537.

Brooks, A. ( 2007 ). Feminist Standpoint Epistemology: Building Knowledge and Empowerment Through Women’s Lived Experience. In S. N. Hess-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp 53–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brooks, A., & Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 ). An invitation to feminist research. In S. N. Hess-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bleir, R. ( 1984 ). Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women . New York: Pergamon.

Bardo, S. ( 1989 ). Feminism, postmodernism, and gender skepticism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 133–156). New York: Routledge.

Burman, E. ( 1997 ). Minding the gap: Positivism, psychology, and the politics of qualitative methods.   Journal of Social Issues , 53 (4), 785–801.

Burr, V. ( 1995 ). An introduction to social constructionism . New York: Routledge.

Cabello, R. ( 1999 ). Negotiating the life narrative: A dialogue with an African American social worker.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 309–322.

Chrisler, J. C. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2011 ). Feminist psychology in the US: Positions and perspectives. In A. Rutherford , R. Capdevila , V. Undurti , & I. Palmary (Eds.), Handbook of international feminisms: Perspectives on psychology, women, culture, and rights (pp. 37–58). New York: Springer.

Code, L. ( 1995 ). How do we know? Questions of methods in feminist practice. In S. Burt & L. Code (Eds.), Changing methods; Feminists transforming practice . (pp 13–44). Orchard Park, New York: Broadview Press.

Collins, P. H. ( 1989 ). The social construction of black feminist thought.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture , 14 , 745–773.

Collins, P. H. ( 1990 ). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment . New York: Routledge.

Collins, P. H. ( 2008 ). Black feminist epistemology. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 247–256). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Cook, J. A., & Fonow, M. M. ( 1990 ). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In J. M. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cosgrove, L. (March, 1999). Developing social action research for homeless women . Paper presented to the Association for Women in Psychology, Providence, RI.

Cosgrove, L. ( 2002 ). Resisting essentialism in feminist therapy theory: Some epistemological considerations.   Women & Therapy , 25 (1), 89–112.

Cosgrove, L. ( 2003 ). Feminism, postmodernism, and psychological research.   Hypatia , 18 (3), 85–112.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2000 ). Speaking for ourselves: Feminist methods and community psychology.   American Journal of Community Psychology , 28 , 815–838.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2002 ). Deconstructing the difference: Conceptualizing feminist research from within the postmodern. In L. Collins , M. Dunlap, & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 20– 36). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. ( 2008 ). A post-Newtonian, postmodern approach to science: New methods in social action research. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods . (pp. 73–86). New York: Guilford.

Crawford, M., & Popp, D. ( 2003 ). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research.   Journal of Sex Research , 40 (1), 13–26.

Crenshaw, K. ( 1989 ). De-marginalizing the intersection of race and sex; A Black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.   University of Chicago Legal Forum , 4 , 139–167.

Davis, K. ( 1994 ). What’s in a voice? Methods and metaphors.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 353–361.

Deaux, K. ( 1984 ). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender.   American Psychologist , 39 , 105–116.

DeVault, M. ( 1990 ). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis.   Social Problems , 37 , 96–116.

Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. ( 2009 ). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp 1–21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Eagly, A. , Eaton, A., & McHugh, M. C. (March, 2011 ). Feminist transformation of psychology. Invited panel: Feminist science track , Association for Women in Psychology, Philadelphia.

Eagly, A. H. , Eaton, A. , Rose, S. M. , Riger, S. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2012 ). Feminism and psychology: Analysis of a half-century of research on women and gender.   American Psychologist , 67 (3), 211–230.

Epstein, C. F. ( 1988 ). Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the social order . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ferguson, K. E. ( 1991 ). Interpretation and genealogy in feminism.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 16 (21), 322–339.

Fine, M. ( 1992 ). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fischer, C. T. , & Wertz, F. ( 1979 ). Empirical-phenomenological analyses of being criminally victimized. In A. Giorgi , R. Knowles , & D. L. Smith (Eds.), Existential phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 99–112). New York: Plenum Press.

Franz, C. E., & Stewart, A. J. ( 1994 ). Women creating lives: Identities, resilience, and resistance . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freire, P. ( 1970 ). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Continuum.

Friedman, S. ( 1998 ). Mappings: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of Encounter . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Frieze, I. H. , Whitley, B. E. , Hanusa, B. H. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 1982 ). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure.   Sex Roles , 9 (4), 333–343.

Frieze, I. H. , McHugh, M. C. , & Hanusa, B. (Eds.), ( 1982 ). Sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure: A current assessment. (Special Issue) Sex Roles , 8 (4).

Garko, M. ( 1999 ). Existential phenomenology and feminist research.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 , 176–175.

Geiger, S. ( 1990 ). What’s so feminist about doing women’s oral history.   Journal of Women’s History , 2 , 169–182.

Gergen, K. J. ( 2001 ). Psychological science in a postmodern world.   American Psychologist , 56 , 803–813.

Gergen, M. , Chrisler, J. C., & LoCicero, A. ( 1999 ). Innovative methods: Resources for research, publishing and teaching.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 431–456.

Gergen, M. M. ( 1988 ). Toward a feminist metatheory and methodology in the social sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 87–104). New York: New York University Press.

Gergen, M. M. ( 2010 ). Qualitative inquiry in gender studies. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds), Handbook of gender research in psychology. Volume 1 gender research in general and experimental psychology (pp. 103–131). NY: Springer.

Giorgi, A. ( 1985 ). Phenomenology and psychological research . Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Gray, R. ( 2003 ). Performing on and off the stage: The place(s) of performance in arts-based approaches to qualitative inquiry.   Qualitative Inquiry , 9 (2), 254–267.

Gremmen, I. ( 1994 ). Struggling at the crossroads.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 362–366.

Hall, B. ( 1979 ). Participatory research: Breaking the academic monopoly. In J. Niemi (Ed.), Viewpoints on adult education (pp. 43–69). Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

Hanish, C. ( 1969 ). The personal is political.   Feminist Revolution, March, pp 204–205.

Haraway, D. ( 1985 ). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism.   Socialist Review , 15 , 65–107.

Haraway, D. ( 2008 ). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 346–351). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Harding, S. ( 1986 ). The science question in feminism . Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. ( 1987 ). Feminism and Methodology . NY: Open University Press.

Harding, S. ( 1991 ). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. ( 2008 ). Borderlands epistemology. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 331–341). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. (Eds.), ( 1990 ). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. ( 1994 a). Asking the Right questions: Feminist psychology and sex differences.   Feminism and Psychology , 4 , 531–537.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. ( 1994 b). Feminism and postmodernism: Dilemmas and points of resistance.   Dulwich Centre Newsletter , 4 , 13–19.

Hare-Mustin, R . ( 1994 ). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy.   Family Process , 33 , 19–35.

Harstock, N. ( 1983 ). The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (eds), Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and philosophy of science (pp 283–310). Boston: D. Reidel.

Hawkesworth, M. ( 2006 ). Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hennink, M. M. ( 2008 ). Emergent issues in international focus group discussions. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 a ). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 b ). Putting it together: Feminist research praxis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 329–349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. L. (Eds.). ( 2007 ). Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 111–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Introduction: Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need for emergent methods within and across the disciplines. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press.

Hollway, W. ( 1989 ). Subjectivity and method in psychology: Gender, meaning and science . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hooks, b. ( 2000 ). Where we stand: Class matters . Routledge.

Hoshmand, L., & O’ Bryne, K. ( 1996 ). Reconsidering action research as a guiding metaphor for professional psychology.   Journal of Community Psychology , 24 , 185–200.

Hubbard, R. ( 1988 ). Some thoughts about the masculinity of the natural sciences. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp 1–16). New York: New York University Press.

Husserl, E. ( 1970 ). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology . ( D. Carr , Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Hyde, J. S. ( 1986 ). The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Hyde, J. ( 1994 ). Should psychologists study gender differences? Yes, with some guidelines.   Feminism and Psychology , 4 (4), 507–512.

Jaggar, A. ( 2008 a). Forward. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. vii–xi). Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers.

Jaggar, A. ( 2008 b). Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 378–391). Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers.

Keller, E. F. ( 1982 ). Science and gender.   Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 7 , 589–602.

Keller, E. F. ( 1985 ). Reflections on gender and science . New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Kelly, J. G. ( 1986 ). Content and process: An ecological view of the interdependence of practice and research.   American Journal of Community Psychology , 14 , 581–589.

Kimball, M. M. ( 1995 ). Feminist visions of gender similarities and differences . New York: Harrington Park Press.

Kitzinger, C. ( 1995 ). Introduction. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 1–9). London: Sage Publications.

Kitzinger, J. ( 1994 ). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants.   Sociology of Health and Illness , 16 , 103–121.

Larner, G. ( 1999 ). Derrida and the deconstruction of power as context and topic in therapy. In I. Parker (Ed.), Deconstructing psychotherapy . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lather, P. ( 1991 ). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern . New York: Routledge.

Lather, P. ( 1992 ). Postmodernism and the human sciences. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Postmodernism and psychology (pp. 88–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Layton, L. ( 1998 ). Who’s that girl? Who’s that boy? Clinical practice meets postmodern queer theory . Northvale, NJ: JaJ.J.son Aronson.

Leavy, P. ( 2007 ). Feminist postmodernism and poststructuralism. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice (pp. 83–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leavy, P. ( 2008 ). Performance based emergent methods. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 343–358). New York: The Guilford Press.

Leckenby, D., & Hesse-Biber, S. N. ( 2007 ). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Letherby, G. ( 2003 ). Feminist research in theory and practice . Philadelphia: Open University Press.

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.

Maguire, P. ( 1987 ). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach . Boston: University of Massachusetts Center.

Maguire, P. ( 2008 ). Feminist participatory research. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.) Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 417–432). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Marks, D. ( 1993 ). Case conference analysis and action research. In E. Burman and I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of texts in action (pp. 135– 154). New York: Routledge.

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.

Mayo, C. ( 1982 ). Training for positive marginality.   Applied Social Psychology Annual , 3 , 57–73.

McCall, L. ( 2005 ). The Complexity of Intersectionality.   Signs: Journal of women in Culture and Society , 30 (3), 1771–1800.

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. 54–68). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

McHugh, M. C. (March, 1996). The gendering of home . Paper presented to the Association for Women in Psychology, Portland, OR.

McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. ( 1998 ). Research for women. In D. Ashcraft (Ed.), The work of women (pp. 19–43). New York: Haworth Press.

McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. ( 2002 ). Gendered subjects in psychology: Dialectic and satirical positions. In L. Collins , M. Dunlap, & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 3–19). Greenwood Press.

McHugh, M. C. , & Cosgrove, L. ( 2004 ). Feminist research methods: Studying women and gender. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 155–182). New York: Praeger.

McHugh, M. C., & Hambaugh, J. L. ( 2010 ). Gender, language, and power. In J. C. Chrisler & D. M. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in social and applied psychology (vol. I, pp. 379–410). New York: Springer.

McHugh, M. C. , Koeske, R. D. , & Frieze, I. H. ( 1986 ). Issues to consider in conducting non-sexist psychology: A guide for researchers.   The American Psychologist , 41 (8), 879–890.

McHugh, M. C. , Livingston, N. A., & Ford, A. ( 2005 ). A postmodern approach to women’s use of violence: Developing multiple and complex conceptualizations.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 29 (3), 323–336.

McHugh, M. C. , Livingston, N., & Frieze, I. H. ( 2008 ). Intimate partner violence: Perspectives on research and intervention. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 555–589). Westport: Preager.

McHugh, M. C. , Sciarrillo, S. & Watson, B. ( 2012 ). Constructing women as sexy: Implications for coercive sexuality and rape. In D. Castaneda & M. Paludi (Eds.), An Essential Handbook of Women’s Sexuality , Praeger.

Morawski, J. ( 1988 ). Impasse in feminist thought. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 182–194). New York: New York University Press.

Morawski, J. ( 1994 ). Practicing feminism, reconstructing psychology: Notes on a liminal science . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Morgan, D. ( 2004 ). Focus groups. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 263–286) . New York: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, D., & Krueger, R. ( 1993 ). When to use focus groups and why. In D. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3–19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Nelson, J. L. ( 1989 ). Phenomenology as feminist methodology: Explicating interviews. In K. Carter and C. Spitzack (Eds.), Doing research on women’s communication: Perspectives on theory and method (pp. 221–241). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Oakley, A. ( 1981 ). Interviewing women: A contribution in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30–61) . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Parr, J. ( 1998 ). Theoretical voices and women’s own voices: The stories of mature women students. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research (pp. 87–102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. ( 1996 ). Discourse and psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior . London: Sage Publications.

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 Communication , 8 , 421–441.

Pryse, M. ( 2000 ). Trans/feminist methodology: Bridges to interdisciplinary thinking.   National Women’s Studies Journal , 12 , 105.

Rappaport, J., & Stewart, E. ( 1997 ). A look at critical psychology: Elaborating the questions. (301–317). In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 301–317. London: Sage Publications.

Reinharz, S. ( 1992 ). Feminist methods in social research . New York: Oxford University Press.

Romero, M., & Stewart, A. J. ( 1999 ). Introduction. In M. Romero & A. J. Stewart (Eds.), Women’s untold stories: Breaking silence, talking back, voicing complexity (pp. ix– xxi). New York: Routledge.

Rosser, S. ( 2008 ). Gender inclusion, contextual values, and strong objectivity: Emergent feminist methods for research in the sciences. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 53–72). New York: Guilford Press.

Sandoval, C. ( 2000 ). Methodology of the oppressed . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sarbin, T. R. (Ed.). ( 1986 ). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct . New York: Praeger.

Schewan, N. ( 2008 ). Epistemology resuscitated: Objectivity as trustworthiness. In A. Jaggar (Ed.), Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 401–413). Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Schiebinger, L. ( 1999 ). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scott, S. ( 2009 ). Making sense of everyday life . Maldin, MA: Polity Press.

Sherif, C. W. ( 1979 ). Bias in psychology. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 37–57). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Shields, S. A. ( 1975 ). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth.   American Psychologist , 30 , 739–754.

Shotter, J., & Logan, J. ( 1988 ). The pervasiveness of patriarchy: On finding a different voice. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 69–86). New York: New York University Press.

Smith, C. A. , Johnston-Robledo, I. , McHugh, M. C. , & Chrisler, J. C. ( 2010 ). The language of gender. In J. C. Chrisler & D. M. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in social and applied psychology (vol. I, pp. 361–378). New York: Springer.

Smith, D. ( 1987 ). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, D. ( 2008 ). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. In A. Jaggar (Ed.). Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader (pp. 39–43). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Smith, D. E. ( 1990 ). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge , Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. ( 1993 ). Breaking out again: Feminist ontology and epistemology . New York: Routledge.

Sullivan, H. , Lord, T. , & McHugh, M. C. ( 2010 ). Creeps and Casanovas: Experiences, explanations and effects of street harassment. In M. Paludi & F. Denmark (Eds.), Victims of sexual assault and abuse: Resources and responses for individuals and families (pp. 237–258). Westport: Praeger.

Sullivan, H., & McHugh, M. C. (March, 2009). Sluts and studs: Teaching the double standard . Paper presented to The Association for Women in Psychology, Newport, RI.

Tavris, C. ( 1994 ). Reply to Brown and Gilligan.   Feminism & Psychology , 4 , 350–352.

Tuana, N. ( 1992 ). The radical future of feminist empiricism.   Hypatia , 7 (1), 100–114.

Unger, R. ( 1983 ). Through the looking glass: No wonderland yet!   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 8 , 9–31.

Unger, R. ( 1988 ). Psychological, feminist and personal epistemology: Transcending contradictions. In M. M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 124–141). New York: New York University Press.

Unger, R. ( 1998 ). Resisting gender: Twenty five years of feminist psychology . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Unger, R. K. ( 1979 ). Female and male: Psychological perspectives . New York: Harper & Row.

Ussher, J. ( 1991 ). Women and madness: Misogyny or mental illness? London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Westkoff, M. ( 1979 ). Feminist criticism of the social science.   Harvard Educational Review , 49 (4), 422–430.

Wallston, B. S. ( 1981 ). What are the questions in psychology of women? A feminist approach to research.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 5 , 597–617.

Whitley, B. E. , McHugh M. C. , & Frieze, I. H. ( 1986 ). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attributions for success and failure. In J. S. Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wilkinson, S. (Ed.). ( 1986 ). Feminist social psychology . Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Wilkinson, S. ( 1998 ). Focus groups in feminist research: Power, interaction and co-construction of meaning.   Women’s Studies International , 21 (1), 111–125.

Wilkinson, S. ( 1999 ). Focus groups: A feminist method.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 23 (2), 221–244.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (Eds.). ( 1995 ). Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives . London: Sage Publications.

Wiley, A. ( 1990 ). Feminism in philosophy of science: Making sense of contingency and constraint. In M. Fricker & J. Hornsby (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy (pp. 166–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiley, A. , Okruhlik, K. , Thielen-Wilson, L. , & Morton, S. ( 1989 ). Feminist critiques of science: The epistemological and methodological literature.   Women’s Studies International Forum , 12 (3), 379–388.

Worrell, J. , & Etaugh, C. (Eds.). ( 1994 ). Transforming theory and research with women: Themes and variations.   Psychology of Women Quarterly , 18 (4), 433–440.

Yuval-Davis, N. ( 1997 ). Women, ethnicity, and empowerment: Towards transversal politics. In N. Yuval-Davis (Ed.), Gender and nation (pp. 116–133). London: Sage Publications.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 26, Issue 3
• Research made simple: an introduction to feminist research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Gillian Wilson
• School of Nursing and Midwifery , University of Hull , Hull , UK
• Correspondence to Gillian Wilson, University of Hull, Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK; gillian.wilson{at}hull.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2023-103749

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Writing an article for ‘Research Made Simple’ on feminist research may at first appear slightly oxymoronic, given that there is no agreed definition of feminist research, let alone a single definition of feminism. The literature that examines the historical and philosophical roots of feminism(s) and feminist research is vast, extends over several decades and reaches across an expanse of varying disciplines. Trying to navigate the literature can be daunting and may, at first, appear impenetrable to those new to feminist research.

There is no ‘How To’ in feminist research. Although feminists tend to share the same common goals, their interests, values and perspectives can be quite disparate. Depending on the philosophical position they hold, feminist researchers will draw on differing epistemologies (ways of knowing), ask different questions, be guided by different methodologies and employ different methods. Within the confines of space, this article will briefly outline some of the principles of feminist research. It will then turn to discuss three established epistemologies that can guide feminist research (although there are many others): feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint and feminist postmodernism.

What makes feminist research feminist?

Feminist research is grounded in a commitment to equality and social justice, and is cognisant of the gendered, historical and political processes involved in the production of knowledge. 1 It also strives to explore and illuminate the diversity of the experiences of women and other marginalised groups, thereby creating opportunities that increase awareness of how social hierarchies impact on and influence oppression. 2 Commenting on the differentiation between feminist and non-feminist research, Skeggs asserts that ‘feminist research begins from the premise that the nature of reality in western society is unequal and hierarchical’ Skeggs 3 p77; therefore, feminist research may also be viewed as having both academic and political concerns.

Reflexivity

The practice of reflexivity is considered a hallmark of feminist research. It invites the researcher to engage in a ‘disciplined self-reflection’ Wilkinson 9 p93. This includes consideration of the extent to which their research fulfils feminist principles. Reflexivity can be divided into three discrete forms: personal, functional and disciplinary. 9 Personal reflexivity invites the researcher to contemplate their role in the research and construction of knowledge by examining the ways in which their own values, beliefs, interests, emotions, biography and social location, have influenced the research process and the outcomes (personal reflexivity). 10 By stating their position rather than concealing it, feminist researchers use reflexivity to add context to their claims. Functional reflexivity pays attention to the influence that the chosen research tools and processes may have had on the research. Disciplinary reflexivity is about analysing the influence of approaching a topic from a specific disciplinary field.

Feminist empiricism

Feminist empiricism is underpinned by foundationalist principles that believes in a single true social reality with truth existing entirely independent of the knower (researcher). 8 Building on the premise that feminist researchers pay attention to how methods are used, feminist empiricist researchers set out to use androcentric positivist scientific methods ‘more appropriately’. 8 They argue that feminist principles can legitimately be applied to empirical inquiry if the masculine bias inherent in scientific research is removed. This is achieved through application of rigorous, objective, value-free scientific methods. Methods used include experimental, quasi-experimental and survey. Feminist empiricists employ traditional positivist methodology while being cognisant of the sex and gender biases. What makes the research endeavour feminist is the attentiveness in identifying potential sources of gendered bias. 11

Feminist standpoint

In a similar way to feminist empiricism, standpoint feminism—also known as ‘women’s experience epistemology’ Letherby 8 p44—holds firm the position that traditional science is androcentric and is therefore bad science. This is predicated on the belief that traditional science only produces masculine forms of knowledge thus excluding women’s perspectives and experiences. Feminist standpoint epistemology takes issue with the masculinised definition of women’s experience and argue it holds little relevance for women. Feminist standpoint epistemology therefore operates on the assumption that knowledge emanates from social position and foregrounds the voices of women and their experiences of oppression to generate knowledge about their lives that would otherwise have remained hidden. 12 Feminist standpoint epistemology maintains that women, as the oppressed or disadvantaged, may have an epistemological advantage over the dominant groups by virtue of their ability to understand their own experience and struggles against oppression, while also by being attuned to the experience and culture of their oppressors. 11 This gives women’s experience a valid basis for knowledge production that both reflects women’s oppression and resistance. 13

Feminist standpoint epistemology works on the premise that there is no single reality, 11 thus disrupting the empiricist notion that research must be objective and value-free. 12 To shed light on the experiences of the oppressed, feminist standpoint researchers use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to see the world through the eyes of their research participants and understand how their positions shape their experiences within the social world. In addition, the researchers are expected to engage in strong reflexivity and reflect on, and acknowledge in their writing, how their own attributes and social location may impact on interpretation of their data. 14

Feminist postmodernism

Feminist postmodernism is a branch of feminism that embraces feminist and postmodernist thought. Feminist postmodernists reject the notion of an objective truth and a single reality. They maintain that truths are relative, multiple, and dependent on social contexts. 15 The theory is marked by the rejection of the feminist ideology that seeks a single explanation for oppression of women. Feminist postmodernists argue that women experience oppression because of social and political marginalisation rather than their biological difference to men, concluding that gender is a social construct. 16

Feminist postmodernists eschew phallogocentric masculine thought (expressed through words and language) that leads to by binary opposition. They are particularly concerned with the man/woman dyad, but also other binary oppositions of race, gender and class. 17 Feminist postmodernist scholars believe that knowledge is constructed by language and that language gives meaning to everything—it does not portray reality, rather it constructs it. 11 A key feature of feminist postmodernist research is the attempt to deconstruct the binary opposition through reflecting on existing assumptions, questioning how ways of thinking have been socially constructed and challenging the taken-for-granted. 17

This article has provided a brief overview of feminist research. It should be considered more of a taster that introduces readers to the complex but fascinating world of feminist research. Readers who have developed an appetite for a more comprehensive examination are guided to a useful and accessible text on feminist theories and concepts in healthcare written by Kay Aranda. 1

• Western D ,
• Giacomini M
• Margaret Fonow M ,
• Wilkinson S
• Campbell R ,
• Wigginton B ,
• Lafrance MN
• Naples NA ,
• Hesse-Biber S

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Feminist Theory Archive

How to use this guide, about the feminist theory archive, the pembroke center, plan a visit, donating physical items to the feminist theory archive, search tools.

• Collections by Scholar
• Collections by Subject
• Future Donors
• Related Collections

Nancy L. Buc '65 Pembroke Center Archivist

On the Home tab, you can learn about the Feminist Theory Archive and the Pembroke Center, as well as how to get access to the archive's collections, how to donate physical items, and how to conduct further research.

The Collections by Scholar tab contains a list of all collections available for research arranged by the scholars last name. The list includes a description of each scholar and what you can find in their papers, as well as a link to the finding aid.

The Collections by Subject tab contains a list of key subjects arranged alphabetically with links to relevant finding aids.

The Related Collections tab highlights other collections at Brown University that have connections to those in the Feminist Theory Archive.   

*Photograph of Feminist Theory Archive donor, Hortense J. Spillers

Feminist theory  is discourse that attempts to explain the systemic causes and effects of inequality among the sexes including how factors such as race, class and sexuality affect these inequalities. Feminist theory arises from many domains of knowledge including the humanities, social and natural sciences. Key areas of focus within feminist theory include discrimination and exclusion, objectification, power and oppression, and the social construction of identity.

Established in 2003, the Feminist Theory Archive documents the work of influential feminist theorists and scholars of difference who have examined sex and gender at the center of theoretical study. Through their research, writing, teaching, and activism, these pioneering scholars have introduced questions about women and gender to a range of disciplines, and in doing so, have transformed and diversified the very meaning of “feminist” research. 

The Feminist Theory Archive gathers, catalogs, and preserves evidence of this groundbreaking work in order to make it accessible to future scholars and students at the  John Hay Library . 

Over 140 prominent feminist scholars have pledged their materials to this archive.  Click here for a list of donors who have already given material or have indicated their intent to donate in the future.   Click here for the Feminist Theory Archive finding aid .

The Feminist Theory Archive was established at Brown University in 2003 by Elizabeth Weed, Director of the Pembroke Center from 2000-2010. She, along with Joan Wallach Scott, Founding Director of the Pembroke Center from 1981-1985, and other supportive colleagues moved to document the work of influential feminist theorists who had transformed the landscape of higher education through their writing, teaching, institution building, and activism. Scholars such as Naomi  Schor , the Benjamin F. Barge Professor of French at Yale University, whose papers served as the seed collection for the archive, were first in their fields to approach their research through the lens of gender. As an example, Schor's academic background was in French Literature but she focused her research on subjects such as female fetishism, deconstruction in literature, the concept of details/ornamentation as gendered, and universalism in an era of identity politics and difference. Beginning in the 1960s,  Schor  then taught courses on these subjects and along with other groundbreaking feminist theorists, such as Judith Butler, Hortense Spillers, and Anne Fausto-Sterling, caused a paradigm shift in the way scholars and students studied all fields of higher education including English, History, Anthropology, and Biology, placing sex and gender at the center of theorectical study.

Upon Naomi Schor's untimely death in 2001, Elizabeth Weed, other leadership from the Pembroke Center, and Schor's family realized that  Schor  would have wanted her papers to go to Brown, where she had been the Nancy Duke Lewis Professor (1985-1989) - a position designated for a senior scholar in any discipline with significant scholarly interest in women’s studies. As a result, Weed and others conceptualized the idea to develop an archive for Schor's papers and for the papers of other feminist theorists at the Pembroke Center and to house the collections and provide access to them through the John Hay special collections library at Brown University.

Since 2003, the collection has grown and now includes the papers of theorists across disciplines including feminist theorists and other scholars of difference with specializations in queer theory, Black feminist theory, global feminisms and affect theory related to gender and sexuality studies.

The Feminist Theory Archive is curated by the Nancy L. Buc '65, Pembroke Center Archivist, who works in close collaboration with the Director of the Pembroke Center, the Pembroke Center Faculty Board, and colleagues from the John Hay Library to select appropriate collections for inclusion. The principles that guide curatorial decision making for the Feminist Theory Archive are that scholars be senior in their fields or on a trajectory towards senior leadership and are groundbreakers -- theorists who have transformed and diversified the very meaning of "feminist" research through their lives and scholarship.

As of 2017, the Feminist Theory Archive continues to grow and places special collecting focus on first generation feminist theorists and on the next generation of feminist theorists who studied under the "founding mothers" of the field.

The Pembroke Center at Brown University is an interdisciplinary research center that fosters critical scholarship on questions of gender and difference, broadly defined, in national and transnational contexts.  At the heart of the Center's research agenda is a questioning of what counts as foundational knowledge in a given discipline. This questioning of the production of knowledge is related, in turn, to the challenges that studies of "difference" present to the academy--gender studies; studies of race, ethnicity, multiculturalism; cross-cultural and postcolonial studies.

For more information, please visit our website .

Researchers can access collections of the Feminist Theory Archive by visiting the  John Hay Library , reviewing collections available for research , or by using the  Finding Aid  for the archive. Researchers can also search the Brown University Library catalog using the term: “Feminist Theory Archive.” 

There are no restrictions on access, except for specifically noted material within individual collections. Feminist Theory Archive collections can only be seen by prior appointment. Some materials may be stored off-site and cannot be produced on the same day on which they are requested. Researchers should contact [email protected] or  [email protected] to request items in advance of their visit. 

View the policies for using special collections at the John Hay Library.

The Pembroke Center is grateful to the many generous donors who contribute items to the Feminist Theory Archive. The archive has a distinct mission, scope, and policy. Please see the files listed below to learn more.

• Next: Collections by Scholar >>
• Last Updated: Mar 27, 2024 2:31 PM
• URL: https://libguides.brown.edu/FTA

Brown University Library  |  Providence, RI 02912  |  (401) 863-2165  |  Contact  |  Comments  |  Library Feedback  |  Site Map

Library Intranet

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Feminist Theory and Critical Theory: Unexplored Synergies

Although both feminist theory and critical theory focus on social and economic inequalities, and both have an agenda of promoting system change, these fields of inquiry have developed separately and seldom draw on each other’s work. This paper notes areas of common interest. It assesses the validity of critiques of feminist theory, such as claims that it focuses on privileged women and does not challenge existing hierarchical arrangements. Because these critiques do not accurately describe much of contemporary feminist scholarship, this paper argues that synergies between critical theory and feminist theory could and should be explored.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Feminist Theory

Jo Ann Arinder

Feminist theory falls under the umbrella of critical theory, which in general have the purpose of destabilizing systems of power and oppression. Feminist theory will be discussed here as a theory with a lower case ‘t’, however this is not meant to imply that it is not a Theory or cannot be used as one, only to acknowledge that for some it may be a sub-genre of Critical Theory, while for others it stands alone. According to Egbert and Sanden (2020), some scholars see critical paradigms as extensions of the interpretivist, but there is also an emphasis on oppression and lived experience grounded in subjectivist epistemology.

The purpose of using a feminist lens is to enable the discovery of how people interact within systems and possibly offer solutions to confront and eradicate oppressive systems and structures. Feminist theory considers the lived experience of any person/people, not just women, with an emphasis on oppression.  While there may not be a consensus on where feminist theory fits as a theory or paradigm, disruption of oppression is a core tenant of feminist work. As hooks (2000) states, “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression. I liked this definition because it does not imply that men were the enemy” (p. viii).

Previous Studies

Marxism and socialism are key components in the heritage.of feminist theory. The origins of feminist theory can be found in the 18th century with growth in the 1970s’ and 1980s’ equality movements. According to Burton (2014), feminist theory has its roots in Marxism but specifically looks to Engles’ (1884) work as one possible starting point. Burton (2014) notes that, “Origin of the Family and commentaries on it were central texts to the feminist movement in its early years because of the felt need to understand the origins and subsequent development of the subordination of the female sex” (p. 2). Work in feminist theory, including research regarding gender equality, is ongoing.

Gender equality continues to be an issue today, and research into gender equality in education is still moving feminist theory forward. For example, Pincock’s (2017) study discusses the impact of repressive norms on the education of girls in Tanzania. The author states that, “…considerations of what empowerment looks like in relation to one’s sexuality are particularly important in relation to schooling for teenage girls as a route to expanding their agency” (p. 909). This consideration can be extended to any oppressed group within an educational setting and is not an area of inquiry relegated to the oppression of only female students. For example, non-binary students face oppression within educational systems and even male students can face barriers, and students are often still led towards what are considered “gender appropriate” studies. This creates a system of oppression that requires active work to disrupt.

Looking at representation in the literature used in education is another area of inquiry in feminist research. For example, Earles (2017) focused on physical educational settings to explore relationships “between gendered literary characters and stories and the normative and marginal responses produced by children” (p. 369). In this research, Earles found evidence to support that a contradiction between the literature and children’s lived experiences exists. The author suggests that educators can help to continue the reduction of oppressive gender norms through careful selection of literature and spaces to allow learners opportunities for appropriate discussions about these inconsistencies.

In another study, Mackie (1999) explored incorporating feminist theory into evaluation research. Mackie was evaluating curriculum created for English language learners that recognized the dual realities of some students, also known as the intersectionality of identity, and concluded that this recognition empowered students. Mackie noted that valuing experience and identity created a potential for change on an individual and community level and “Feminist and other types of critical teaching and research provide needed balance to TESL and applied linguistics” (p. 571).Further, Bierema and Cseh (2003) used a feminist research framework to examine previously ignored structural inequalities that affect the lives of women working in the field of human resources.

Model of Feminist Theory

Figure 1 presents a model of feminist theory that begins with the belief that systems exist that oppress and work against individuals. The model then shows that oppression is based on intersecting identities that can create discrimination and exclusion. The model indicates the idea that, through knowledge and action, oppressive systems can be disrupted to support change and understanding.

The core concepts in feminist theory are sex, gender, race, discrimination, equality, difference, and choice. There are systems and structures in place that work against individuals based on these qualities and against equality and equity. Research in critical paradigms requires the belief that, through the exploration of these existing conditions in the current social order, truths can be revealed. More important, however, this exploration can simultaneously build awareness of oppressive systems and create spaces for diverse voices to speak for themselves (Egbert & Sanden, 2019).

Constructs 

Feminism is concerned with the constructs of intersectionality, dimensions of social life, social inequality, and social transformation. Through feminist research, lasting contributions have been made to understanding the complexities and changes in the gendered division of labor. Men and women should be politically, economically, and socially equal and this theory does not subscribe to differences or similarities between men, nor does it refer to excluding men or only furthering women’s causes. Feminist theory works to support change and understanding through acknowledging and disrupting power and oppression.

Proposition 

Feminist theory proposes that when power and oppression are acknowledged and disrupted, understanding, advocacy, and change can occur.

Using the Model

There are many potential ways to utilize this model in research and practice. First, teachers and students can consider what systems of power exist in their classroom, school, or district. They can question how these systems are working to create discrimination and exclusion. By considering existing social structures, they can acknowledge barriers and issues inherit to the system. Once these issues are acknowledged, they can be disrupted so that change and understanding can begin. This may manifest, for example, as considering how past colonialism has oppressed learners of English as a second or foreign language.

The use of feminist theory in the classroom can ensure that the classroom is created, in advance, to consider barriers to learning faced by learners due to sex, gender, difference, race, or ability. This can help to reduce oppression created by systemic issues. In the case of the English language classroom, learners may be facing oppression based on their native language or country of origin. Facing these barriers in and out of the classroom can affect learners’ access to education. Considering these barriers in planning and including efforts to mitigate the issues and barriers faced by learners is a use of feminist theory.

Feminist research is interested in disrupting systems of oppression or barriers created from these systems with a goal of creating change. All research can include feminist theory when the research adds to efforts to work against and advocate to eliminate the power and oppression that exists within systems or structures that, in particular, oppress women. An examination of education in general could be useful since education is a field typically dominated by women; however, women are not often in leadership roles in the field. In the same way, using feminist theory for an examination into the lack of people of color and male teachers represented in education might also be useful. Action research is another area that can use feminist theory. Action research is often conducted in the pursuit of establishing changes that are discovered during a project. Feminism and action research are both concerned with creating change, which makes them a natural pairing.

Pre-existing beliefs about what feminism means can make including it in classroom practice or research challenging. Understanding that feminism is about reducing oppression for everyone and sharing that definition can reduce this challenge. hooks (2000) said that, “A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behavior infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat”(p. 12). As Angela Davis noted during a speech at Western Washington University in 2017, “Everything is a feminist issue.” Feminist theory is about questioning existing structures and whether they are creating barriers for anyone. An interest in the reduction of barriers is feminist. Anyone can believe in the need to eliminate oppression and work as teachers or researchers to actively to disrupt systems of oppression.

Bierema, L. L., & Cseh, M. (2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework.  Human Resource Development Quarterly ,  14 (1), 5–26.

Burton, C. (2014).   Subordination: Feminism and social theory . Routledge.

Earles, J. (2017). Reading gender: A feminist, queer approach to children’s literature and children’s discursive agency.  Gender and Education, 29 (3), 369–388.

Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2019).  Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical components . Taylor & Francis.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics . South End Press.

Mackie, A. (1999). Possibilities for feminism in ESL education and research.  TESOL  Quarterly, 33 (3), 566-573.

Pincock, K. (2018). School, sexuality and problematic girlhoods: Reframing ‘empowerment’ discourse.  Third World Quarterly, 39 (5), 906-919.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 24.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Behavior Change Approaches in Digital Technology–Based Physical Rehabilitation Interventions Following Stroke: Scoping Review

Authors of this article:

• Helen J Gooch, BSc   ; 
• Kathryn A Jarvis, PhD   ; 
• Rachel C Stockley, PhD  

Stroke Research Team, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Helen J Gooch, BSc

Stroke Research Team

School of Nursing and Midwifery

University of Central Lancashire

BB247 Brook Building

Victoria Street

Preston, PR1 2HE

United Kingdom

Phone: 44 1772894956

Email: [email protected]

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) are increasingly used in physical stroke rehabilitation to support individuals in successfully engaging with the frequent, intensive, and lengthy activities required to optimize recovery. Despite this, little is known about behavior change within these interventions.

Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify if and how behavior change approaches (ie, theories, models, frameworks, and techniques to influence behavior) are incorporated within physical stroke rehabilitation interventions that include a DHT.

Methods: Databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched using keywords relating to behavior change, DHT, physical rehabilitation, and stroke. The results were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Sources were included if they reported a completed primary research study in which a behavior change approach could be identified within a physical stroke rehabilitation intervention that included a DHT. Data, including the study design, DHT used, and behavior change approaches, were charted. Specific behavior change techniques were coded to the behavior change technique taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1).

Results: From a total of 1973 identified sources, 103 (5%) studies were included for data charting. The most common reason for exclusion at full-text screening was the absence of an explicit approach to behavior change (165/245, 67%). Almost half (45/103, 44%) of the included studies were described as pilot or feasibility studies. Virtual reality was the most frequently identified DHT type (58/103, 56%), and almost two-thirds (65/103, 63%) of studies focused on upper limb rehabilitation. Only a limited number of studies (18/103, 17%) included a theory, model, or framework for behavior change. The most frequently used BCTTv1 clusters were feedback and monitoring (88/103, 85%), reward and threat (56/103, 54%), goals and planning (33/103, 32%), and shaping knowledge (33/103, 32%). Relationships between feedback and monitoring and reward and threat were identified using a relationship map, with prominent use of both of these clusters in interventions that included virtual reality.

Conclusions: Despite an assumption that DHTs can promote engagement in rehabilitation, this scoping review demonstrates that very few studies of physical stroke rehabilitation that include a DHT overtly used any form of behavior change approach. From those studies that did consider behavior change, most did not report a robust underpinning theory. Future development and research need to explicitly articulate how including DHTs within an intervention may support the behavior change required for optimal engagement in physical rehabilitation following stroke, as well as establish their effectiveness. This understanding is likely to support the realization of the transformative potential of DHTs in stroke rehabilitation.

Introduction

Digital health technologies (DHTs) comprise apps, programs, or software used in the health and social care systems [ 1 ]. They are considered to have almost unlimited potential to transform health care interventions and delivery and empower people to take a greater role in their own care and well-being [ 2 , 3 ].

Stroke is one of the leading causes of acquired disability worldwide, with around 12 million people experiencing a stroke each year [ 4 ]. Rehabilitation is a complex, multifaceted process [ 5 ] that facilitates those with health conditions and disabilities to participate in and gain independence in meaningful life roles [ 6 ]. It is considered an essential aspect of health care provision following a stroke [ 7 ] as a means to address poststroke impairments, which can involve motor, sensory, and cognitive functions. Changes in the ability to move due to impairment of both movement and sensory function are commonly experienced by people following a stroke [ 8 ] and are addressed by physical rehabilitation comprising regular, intensive practice and repetition of movements and tasks [ 9 , 10 ]. Conventional physical rehabilitation often struggles to deliver the intensity required to optimize recovery [ 11 ], and over recent years, there has been significant interest in the use of DHTs, such as virtual reality (VR), telerehabilitation, robotics, and activity monitors [ 12 - 16 ], to enhance and increase the intensity of rehabilitation. DHTs can provide a whole intervention or be used as a component of a wider intervention; the term DHT-based intervention has been used within this review to refer to both situations.

For many people who survive a stroke, rehabilitation requires individuals to engage in regular and frequent rehabilitative activities to achieve improvements in function and realize their optimal recovery. This necessitates adjustments to an individual’s behavior [ 17 ] over a sustained period of time. Changing behavior is a complex process and is underpinned by a variety of different theories, models, and frameworks [ 18 ], such as social cognitive theory [ 19 ] or the behavior change wheel framework [ 20 ]. Individual activities within a complex intervention that are designed to change behavior can be separated into replicable active components widely referred to as behavior change techniques (BCTs) [ 21 ]. Historically, labels applied to BCTs have lacked consensus, resulting in uncertainty and difficulty in comparing interventions. This has been addressed in the behavior change technique taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) [ 22 ], a classification system of 93 distinct BCTs clustered into 16 groups, which is a well-recognized tool to provide consistency with BCT reporting in interventions. DHTs provide an emerging opportunity to support the behavior change required within physical stroke rehabilitation interventions through facilitators that are embedded within the technology itself that aim to form, alter, or reinforce behaviors [ 23 ]. Understanding of this area is limited, with most literature exploring the use of DHTs to support behavior change focused on specific health-related behaviors such as physical activity or healthy eating [ 24 ] rather than as a core component of a type of rehabilitation intervention. Motivation is acknowledged to play an integral role in behavior change [ 25 ], and it is often assumed that DHTs provide motivation to engage with rehabilitation [ 26 ]. However, for this assumption to be realized, the DHTs must be able to support and deliver interventions that facilitate the vital changes in behavior needed to promote prolonged and sustained engagement in stroke rehabilitative activities. Imperative to this is understanding the theories, models, and frameworks that underpin interventions and the BCTs (active components) within the interventions [ 27 - 29 ]. The theories, models, and frameworks alongside the BCTs will be referred to hereinafter as approaches. Within the context of DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation interventions, approaches to behavior change warrant further investigation.

Aim and Objectives

This scoping review aimed to identify if and how behavior change approaches are incorporated within DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation interventions. Specifically, it sought to:

• Establish if behavior change theories, models, and frameworks, or BCTs, are described when reporting on DHT-based interventions that have been developed or evaluated for use in poststroke physical rehabilitation.
• Identify if behavior change theories, models, or frameworks underpin the interventions and which of these are being used.
• Identify if the BCTTv1 is being used to report BCTs within interventions.
• Determine which BCTs (based on the BCTTv1) can be identified within the interventions.
• Explore whether the type of technology influences the techniques used to change behaviors.

Review Methodology

A scoping review was completed and reported following established guidelines [ 30 , 31 ] and the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Multimedia Appendix 1 ) [ 32 ]. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework [ 33 ].

Eligibility Criteria

Any published sources that reported a completed primary research study in which a behavior change approach could be identified within a DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation intervention were included ( Multimedia Appendix 2 ). Physical rehabilitation comprised interventions that addressed an impairment, or sequela of impairment, of sensory function and pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions, or voice and speech, as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ 34 ]. Completed primary research included all types of studies, both quantitative and qualitative, and no minimum sample size or intervention length was set. The BCTTv1 [ 22 ] was used to support the identification of BCTs within the interventions.

Information Sources and Search Strategy

A systematic database search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, and AMED on March 21, 2023. The search was completed in collaboration with an information specialist who provided support with the development of the free text and thesaurus search terms, created the final search, adjusted the searches for the different databases, and ran the search. It consisted of 4 distinct search streams: behavior change, DHT, physical rehabilitation, and stroke, which were then combined ( Multimedia Appendix 3 ). Searches were restricted to the English language (due to review resources) and by date to search from 2001; the date restriction acknowledges the main time period of DHT growth [ 35 ], captures sources reported in systematic reviews of DHTs in stroke rehabilitation [ 12 - 16 ], and is reflected in other scoping literature exploring DHTs [ 24 ]. Additional sources were identified by hand searching, including scrutiny of the included source reference lists.

Selection of Sources of Evidence

The titles and abstracts of deduplicated sources from database searches and hand searches were independently screened by 2 reviewers, 1 of whom had completed the BCTTv1 web-based training package [ 36 ] to inform decisions made around the use of BCTs. Any conflicts were discussed, and if a consensus was not reached, the source was included for full-text screening. Attempts were made to locate a completed study publication from eligible conference abstracts, protocols, and trial registry entries. Full-text sources were screened independently by 2 reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Reasons for full-text exclusion were recorded. EndNote X9 software (Clarivate) and the Rayyan web tool software (Qatar Computing Research Institute) [ 37 ] were used to facilitate the source selection process.

Data Charting Process

A review-specific data charting tool was developed and initially piloted using 3 sources by 3 reviewers, and then further developed iteratively throughout the process [ 30 ]. Data charting was completed collectively by 2 reviewers. When several sources referred to a single study, these sources were grouped together for data charting, and if a source identified additional sources for further detail of the intervention (eg, a protocol or supplementary material), then this information was also used to support data charting.

The data charting tool was developed with reference to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist [ 27 ] and with a focus on the DHT-based intervention and behavior change approaches ( Multimedia Appendix 4 [ 14 , 38 - 40 ]). In the absence of a recognized predefined taxonomy for DHTs, the DHTs used in the sources were charted iteratively by the type of technology [ 41 ] from the information provided about the intervention. Over time, DHT categories emerged and were defined ( Multimedia Appendix 4 ). Discrete BCTs were identified from the intervention detail provided using the BCTTv1 [ 22 ] ( Multimedia Appendix 5 [ 42 ]). A pragmatic decision was made that the single reviewer who had completed the BCTTv1 web-based training package [ 36 ] would code the interventions to the BCTTv1. Any areas of uncertainty were discussed in detail among the review team.

Synthesis of Results

In accordance with the aims of a scoping review, formal assessments of methodological quality were not completed [ 30 , 31 ]. Findings were synthesized using descriptive statistics facilitated by SPSS Statistics 28.0.0.0 (IBM Corp) and Microsoft Excel (version 2208; Microsoft Corporation) and presented in text, table, and chart formats. The characteristics of the included sources, specifically participant numbers, age, and time since stroke, and intervention details, were summarized to provide contextual information for the review. Time since stroke was based on a published timeline framework [ 43 ], which describes the following phases: acute (1-7 days), early subacute (7 days to 3 months), late subacute (3-6 months), and chronic (greater than 6 months).

The behavior change theories, models, or frameworks underpinning the DHT-based interventions and sources where interventions had already been coded to the BCTTv1 were summarized. The use of individual BCTs, as coded by reviewers from intervention descriptions, was briefly summarized; however, the main focus of the BCT synthesis was completed by grouping the BCTs into the 16 BCTTv1 clusters, in order to provide an overview of their use across the sources and allow comparison with other reviews [ 44 , 45 ]. A cluster was only identified once per source, irrespective of the number of individual BCTs within that cluster. Relationships between BCTTv1 clusters and between DHT type and BCTTv1 clusters were descriptively explored. A relationship map was used to visually represent the strength of the connections between the BCTTv1 clusters, with a thicker line indicating that variables were more frequently reported together. No inferential statistical analysis was used.

From a total of 1973 sources screened, 357 full-text sources were assessed for eligibility, then after grouping sources that referred to a single study, 103 (5%) distinct sources were included in the review [ 46 - 148 ] ( Figure 1 ). Of the 245 sources excluded at full-text screening, 165 (67%) were excluded due to a lack of a behavior change approach.

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

All sources of evidence were studies and will be referred to as such hereinafter. The number of studies in this field has rapidly increased over time ( Figure 2 ), from a single study in 2004 to 8 in 2022, with a peak of 15 in 2021. The majority (86/103, 83%) [ 47 - 51 , 53 - 56 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 - 68 , 71 - 86 , 89 - 95 , 97 - 105 , 107 , 109 , 111 , 112 , 114 , 115 , 117 - 126 , 128 - 136 , 138 - 148 ] were published in the past 10 years. Most studies took place in North America (41/103, 40%) [ 46 - 49 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 60 , 64 - 67 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 74 , 76 - 78 , 80 , 85 - 88 , 92 , 93 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 108 - 110 , 126 - 129 , 137 , 138 , 141 , 142 , 145 ] and Europe (35/103, 34%) [ 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 68 , 71 , 79 , 81 - 84 , 89 , 111 , 113 - 125 , 132 , 136 , 140 , 143 , 146 , 147 ], with the remainder in Asia (16/103, 16%) [ 50 , 59 , 61 , 91 , 94 , 95 , 98 , 100 , 102 - 104 , 107 , 135 , 139 , 144 , 148 ], Australasia (9/103, 9%) [ 75 , 96 , 105 , 106 , 112 , 130 , 131 , 133 , 134 ], Africa (1/103, 1%) [ 90 ], and a single multicontinental study (1/103, 1%) [ 73 ]. Almost half (45/103, 44%) the studies are reported as feasibility or pilot studies [ 49 , 56 , 58 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 72 - 74 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 82 - 84 , 89 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 95 , 97 , 100 - 104 , 106 , 108 , 114 , 116 , 117 , 119 , 122 , 124 - 126 , 131 , 134 , 136 , 138 , 139 , 141 , 143 , 147 ]. Other study designs included randomized controlled trials (20/103, 19%) [ 50 , 51 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 75 , 80 , 85 , 86 , 91 , 107 , 109 , 112 , 128 - 130 , 137 , 144 , 146 , 148 ], single session investigations (19/103, 18%) [ 47 , 52 , 57 , 59 , 71 , 78 , 87 , 88 , 98 , 110 , 115 , 118 , 120 , 123 , 127 , 132 , 133 , 135 , 142 ], nonrandomized experimental designs (13/103, 13%) [ 53 - 55 , 62 , 63 , 67 , 81 , 94 , 96 , 99 , 105 , 113 , 145 ], case studies (4/103, 4%) [ 46 , 48 , 70 , 140 ], and realist evaluations (2/103, 2%) [ 111 , 121 ].

Participants

There were a total of 2825 participants in the 103 included studies. Studies tended to be small, with a median of 16 participants and a range of 1-188. Only half (55/103, 53%) the studies [ 46 - 48 , 50 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 61 , 64 , 67 , 69 - 72 , 78 , 79 , 82 , 87 , 88 , 92 , 93 , 95 - 99 , 101 , 102 , 105 , 106 , 108 , 111 - 121 , 123 - 127 , 134 , 138 - 140 , 142 , 143 , 145 , 147 ] reported the minimum and maximum age of participants, which ranged from 17 to 99 years. Over three-quarters (83/103, 81%; 2508 participants) of studies reported the time since the onset of stroke. Of these 83 studies, 1 (1%; 48 participants) study [ 91 ] was conducted in the acute phase, 14 (17%; 504 participants) studies [ 60 , 61 , 68 , 74 , 79 , 92 , 100 , 102 , 109 , 114 , 133 , 144 , 146 , 148 ] were conducted in the early subacute phase, 11 (13%; 316 participants) studies [ 59 , 65 , 66 , 72 , 75 , 76 , 81 , 104 , 107 , 121 , 134 ] were conducted in the late subacute phase, and 57 (69%; 1640 participants) studies [ 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 73 , 78 , 80 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 88 , 89 , 93 - 99 , 101 , 103 , 105 , 106 , 108 , 111 - 113 , 117 - 120 , 122 - 125 , 127 - 131 , 136 - 142 , 145 , 147 ] were conducted in the chronic phase [ 43 ].

Study Intervention

An overview of study intervention characteristics is provided ( Table 1 ). Interventions were focused on upper limb rehabilitation in almost two-thirds (65/103, 63%) of the studies [ 46 - 49 , 51 , 54 - 59 , 62 - 65 , 68 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 77 - 81 , 85 - 88 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 99 , 101 - 103 , 105 - 108 , 110 , 112 , 113 , 116 - 118 , 121 , 123 - 125 , 127 , 128 , 132 , 133 , 135 - 137 , 139 - 142 , 144 - 147 ]. Nearly all interventions (96/103, 93%) [ 46 - 80 , 84 - 94 , 96 - 117 , 119 - 121 , 124 - 148 ] were delivered to individual participants, with over half (62/103, 60%) [ 46 - 50 , 53 - 58 , 60 , 61 , 64 - 70 , 72 , 74 - 77 , 79 , 80 , 82 - 86 , 89 , 90 , 93 , 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 105 , 111 , 112 , 116 , 117 , 119 - 122 , 126 , 129 - 131 , 134 , 136 , 138 , 139 , 141 , 143 - 145 , 147 ] delivered fully or partly in the participant’s homes. Two-thirds (70/103, 68%) of studies [ 46 - 50 , 52 - 54 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 - 74 , 76 - 84 , 86 - 93 , 98 , 100 , 102 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 112 - 115 , 117 , 118 , 120 , 122 - 125 , 129 - 131 , 135 - 138 , 140 - 142 , 144 - 146 , 148 ] included partial or full supervision of the intervention, with this predominately being provided face-to-face (48/70, 69%) [ 46 , 47 , 52 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 67 , 68 , 71 , 73 , 78 , 81 - 84 , 86 - 89 , 91 , 92 , 98 , 100 , 102 , 104 , 108 , 109 , 112 - 115 , 117 , 118 , 120 , 122 - 125 , 135 - 137 , 140 , 142 , 144 - 146 , 148 ]. Interventions lasted between a single session and 26 weeks.

Of the 103 studies, over half (n=57, 55%) of the studies [ 46 , 47 , 51 - 54 , 57 , 61 , 63 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 75 - 78 , 81 , 84 - 86 , 88 - 91 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 100 , 102 - 104 , 106 , 109 , 112 , 114 , 115 , 123 - 126 , 129 , 130 , 132 , 133 , 135 - 138 , 140 , 143 - 147 ] included 1 type of DHT, 30 (29%) studies [ 48 , 49 , 55 , 56 , 58 - 60 , 62 , 64 , 69 , 83 , 92 , 94 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 105 , 107 , 108 , 110 , 111 , 113 , 116 , 118 , 121 , 122 , 127 , 128 , 139 , 142 ] included 2 types, and 16 (16%) studies [ 50 , 65 , 66 , 72 , 74 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 87 , 117 , 119 , 120 , 131 , 134 , 141 , 148 ] included 3 types. VR was the most frequently used DHT (58/103, 56%) [ 46 - 49 , 51 - 53 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 77 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 84 - 89 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 102 - 104 , 106 , 112 , 113 , 115 , 117 - 120 , 123 - 128 , 132 , 135 - 137 , 140 , 142 , 143 , 146 - 148 ] followed by apps (31/103, 30%) [ 50 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 64 - 66 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 79 , 82 , 83 , 94 , 97 , 99 , 101 , 105 , 108 , 111 , 114 , 116 , 119 - 122 , 131 , 134 , 139 , 141 ]. Further information on intervention characteristics with detail on associated citations is available ( Multimedia Appendix 6 [ 46 - 148 ]).

a F2F: face-to-face.

b DHT: digital health technology.

c VR: virtual reality.

Behavior Change Theories, Models, and Frameworks

Most studies (93/103, 90%) [ 46 - 49 , 51 - 62 , 64 - 73 , 75 - 89 , 91 - 93 , 96 - 106 , 108 - 115 , 117 - 137 , 139 , 140 , 142 - 148 ] endeavored to link the intervention to behavior change; however, in the majority of these studies (75/93, 81%) [ 46 , 51 - 56 , 58 - 62 , 64 - 69 , 71 - 73 , 75 , 77 - 89 , 91 - 93 , 96 , 97 , 99 - 101 , 103 - 106 , 108 , 110 , 112 , 114 , 115 , 117 - 120 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 128 , 131 - 137 , 139 , 140 , 142 - 144 , 146 - 148 ], this explanation was centered on the reporting of the techniques perceived to change behaviors without direct reference to use of the BCTTv1 or on the reporting of a component of the intervention or the whole of the intervention as motivating. These explanations lack detail on how or why this influences behavior change. Examples of this included “the app also provided performance feedback, allowing the user to compare their current performance against their score from the previous session” (Bhattacharjya et al [ 56 ]) and “games motivate patients to engage in enjoyable play behavior” (Cramer et al [ 66 ]). A limited number of studies (18/103, 17%) [ 47 - 49 , 57 , 70 , 76 , 98 , 102 , 109 , 111 , 113 , 121 , 122 , 125 , 126 , 129 , 130 , 145 ] articulated 1 or more theories, models, or frameworks of behavior change. While it is acknowledged that the BCTTv1 is a taxonomy framework rather than a theoretical framework, for the purpose of this review, it has been included as a framework for behavior change. A total of 13 different theories, models, or frameworks were identified within these 18 studies, with social cognitive theory being the most frequently reported (6/18, 33%) [ 76 , 109 , 111 , 121 , 129 , 130 ], followed by the behavior change technique taxonomy (4/18, 22%) [ 48 , 49 , 122 , 129 ], game design theory (3/18, 17%) [ 47 , 57 , 125 ], operant conditioning (3/18, 17%) [ 47 , 98 , 121 ], and self-determination theory (3/18, 17%) [ 48 , 49 , 126 ]. Further information on behavior change theories, models, and frameworks, with details on associated citations, is available ( Multimedia Appendix 7 [ 47 - 49 , 57 , 70 , 76 , 98 , 102 , 109 , 111 , 113 , 121 , 122 , 125 , 126 , 129 , 130 , 145 ].

Behavior Change Techniques

Despite 4 studies acknowledging the BCTTv1, explicit BCTTv1 codes were only reported in 2 studies (2/103, 2%) [ 48 , 122 ]. However, a third study (1/103, 1%) mapped the techniques used to change behavior directly to the transtheoretical model [ 145 ]. There was a median of 3 (range 1-14) individual BCTs coded per study, with a total of 383 BCTs across the 103 studies. The most frequently identified individual BCTs were feedback on behavior and nonspecific reward ( Multimedia Appendix 8 ).

There was also a median of 3 (range 1-8) BCTTv1 clusters per study, with a total of 288 clusters coded across the 103 studies. The most frequently used of the 16 possible clusters were feedback and monitoring (88/103, 85%) [ 46 - 60 , 62 - 69 , 71 - 74 , 76 , 78 - 80 , 82 - 92 , 94 - 106 , 108 - 113 , 116 , 117 , 119 - 129 , 134 - 146 , 148 ], reward and threat (56/103, 54%) [ 46 - 49 , 51 - 53 , 55 - 57 , 62 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 77 , 80 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 102 , 103 , 106 - 108 , 112 , 113 , 115 , 117 - 119 , 121 - 125 , 128 , 132 , 134 - 137 , 140 , 142 , 143 , 146 - 148 ], goals and planning (33/103, 32%) [ 49 , 58 , 60 , 65 - 68 , 70 , 72 , 74 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 83 , 90 , 91 , 93 , 94 , 97 , 100 , 109 , 111 , 112 , 121 , 122 , 126 , 129 , 130 , 134 , 138 , 141 , 145 ], and shaping knowledge (33/103, 32%) [ 46 , 48 , 50 , 53 - 56 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 64 - 72 , 74 , 75 , 86 , 94 , 97 , 101 - 103 , 108 , 111 , 113 , 114 , 120 , 129 - 131 , 139 - 141 ]. Other BCTTv1 clusters used were social support (24/103, 23%) [ 48 , 49 , 58 , 60 , 64 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 84 , 90 , 93 , 101 , 108 , 117 , 119 , 129 - 131 , 134 , 141 ], comparison of behavior (23/103, 22%) [ 46 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 60 , 61 , 64 - 66 , 74 , 75 , 81 , 86 , 101 , 104 , 111 , 114 , 118 , 122 , 123 , 125 , 131 , 139 ], associations (16/103, 15%) [ 58 , 60 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 75 , 80 , 83 , 87 , 90 , 110 , 120 , 131 , 133 , 139 , 144 ], repetition and substitution (6/103, 6%) [ 60 , 82 , 109 , 122 , 129 , 130 ], scheduled consequences (3/103, 3%) [ 47 , 80 , 88 ], natural consequences (2/103, 2%) [ 129 , 138 ], comparison of outcomes (2/103, 2%) [ 47 , 133 ], antecedents (1/103, 1%) [ 60 ], and self-belief (1/103, 1%) [ 70 ]. The clusters of regulation, identity, and covert learning were not identified. Within the context of the review, it was noted that the reward and threat cluster only included reward-based BCTs. A tabulated summary and graphical representation of the BCTTv1 clusters is available ( Multimedia Appendix 9 [ 46 - 148 ].

The exploration of clusters that were reported together in an intervention ( Figure 3 ) identified the strongest relationship between the clusters of feedback and monitoring and reward and threat. Clear links were also identified between feedback and monitoring and 4 other clusters: goals and planning, shaping knowledge, social support, and comparison of behavior, and between the shaping knowledge and comparison of behavior clusters.

Behavior Change Techniques and Digital Health Technology

The feedback and monitoring cluster was reported most frequently for all types of DHT ( Figure 4 ), with the greatest proportion of this cluster in robotics (11/25, 44%) [ 59 , 62 , 87 , 92 , 110 , 113 , 117 , 127 , 128 , 142 , 148 ], VR (52/148, 35%) [ 46 - 49 , 51 - 53 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 78 , 80 , 84 - 89 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 102 - 104 , 106 , 112 , 113 , 117 , 119 , 120 , 123 - 135 - 137 , 140 , 142 , 143 , 146 , 148 ], and sensors (17/48, 35%) [ 50 , 55 , 56 , 87 , 94 , 99 , 101 , 105 , 108 , 110 , 111 , 116 , 119 - 121 , 134 , 141 ]. Robotics and VR also often used the reward and threat cluster (9/25, 36% [ 62 , 92 , 107 , 113 , 117 , 118 , 128 , 142 , 148 ] and 48/148, 32% [ 46 - 49 , 51 - 53 , 57 , 62 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 77 , 80 , 81 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 102 , 103 , 106 , 112 , 113 , 115 , 117 - 119 , 123 - 125 , 128 , 132 , 135 - 137 , 140 , 142 , 143 , 146 - 148 ], respectively), while the goals and planning cluster was a dominant second cluster in activity monitors (13/53, 25%) [ 67 , 68 , 76 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 91 , 100 , 109 , 122 , 129 , 138 , 145 ].

Summary of Evidence

This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of approaches used to support changes in behavior in DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation interventions. Research in this field is in its infancy, with the predominance of studies in this review being described as pilot or feasibility studies with limited participants.

Despite using comprehensive behavior change search terms, only a limited number (103/1973, 6%) of screened sources were included. Over two-thirds of full-text sources were excluded as they did not describe or refer to any behavior change theories, models, or frameworks or BCTs, suggesting that in general, explicit behavior change approaches are not reported as being integral to DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation.

Only 18 (17%) of the 103 included studies articulated a theory, model, or framework to underpin the intervention, which aimed to change behavior, despite widely published recommendations about the importance of overt use of theory when developing, evaluating, and reporting interventions [ 27 , 29 ], including those related to behavior change [ 28 ]. The proportion of studies articulating a behavior change theory, model, or framework in this work is significantly lower than review findings in non-rehabilitation DHT-based interventions that have sought to influence specific behaviors such as physical activity or weight control [ 24 , 44 ]. These reviews have identified up to two-thirds of sources reporting a theory, model, or framework. However, our findings mirror the relative absence of behavior change theories, models, and frameworks in rehabilitation interventions more generally, irrespective of whether they use digital technology [ 149 ] or not [ 45 ], and it is widely recognized that the complex nature of rehabilitation often results in the essential characteristics of interventions being poorly defined [ 150 ]. Consistent with our findings in these other reviews, a variety of theories, models, and frameworks were found to underpin interventions, with social cognitive theory being the most frequently reported [ 24 , 44 , 45 , 149 ]. The explicit description of BCTs using the BCTTv1 within DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation interventions is also poorly reported (2%), despite a significant proportion of the sources being dated after the publication of the BCTTv1 in 2013 [ 22 ]. This lack of acknowledgment of behavior change approaches impedes the accumulation of knowledge within this field.

It is important that both the underpinning theory and BCTs are reported so the mechanisms by which the BCTs elicit change can be better understood [ 21 ]. The general assumption that the motivational and captivating aspects of DHTs will promote prolonged and repeated engagement with rehabilitative activities, in particular in those DHTs that incorporate game design [ 151 ], risks suboptimal outcomes for patients and wasted investment of time and money if the mechanisms by which the DHT elicits change are not considered.

When exploring which BCT clusters featured within the reviewed DHT-based interventions, the findings relating to the commonly used clusters of feedback and monitoring, goals and planning, and shaping knowledge are consistent with findings from DHT-based interventions to change a specific behavior [ 44 ] and non-DHT–based rehabilitation [ 45 ]. However, a novel finding in our review was the frequent identification of the reward and threat cluster, although it was noted that all techniques related to reward and none to threat. A large number of studies in this review used VR technology, which frequently incorporates gamified tasks or gameplay. Reward is an integral part of game design theory alongside feedback [ 152 ], and so it is perhaps unsurprising that the feedback and monitoring, and reward and threat clusters dominated and an association between these 2 clusters was seen.

Limitations

Rehabilitation is a process that comprises multiple behaviors and so exploring approaches to change behavior within this context was complicated. There were challenges in searching and screening sources for inclusion as few studies explicitly reported approaches to change behavior, and there is a similarity in the vocabulary used within behavior change and other theoretical approaches (eg, “feedback,” which is used within motor learning). Similarly, only a very small proportion of studies explicitly reported BCTs within interventions. The lack of clear reporting of behavior change introduces the risk that sources may be omitted during both the searching and screening process highlighting the difficulty of comprehensively reviewing this field of work. An inclusive approach to screening reduced the risk of erroneously excluding sources, but it is perhaps inevitable that the sources included reflect those studies that have reported a behavior change approach rather than all studies that have used one.

This lack of clear BCT reporting also posed challenges for intervention coding. The use of the BCTTv1 aimed to ensure the review used a generalizable nomenclature to describe BCTs, and the 1 reviewer who had completed BCTTv1 training coded all the interventions. It is acknowledged that decisions made in the application of the BCTTv1 within the context of the review will have introduced some subjectivity in intervention coding, which will ultimately influence the review findings. Although the coding process could have been made more robust by having a second reviewer trained in the BCTTv1 also code the interventions, regular and extensive discussions between all members of the review team took place with the aim of ensuring consistency with the coding process. Clear documentation as to how the BCTTv1 was used within this review ( Multimedia Appendix 5 ) supports transparency as to the decisions made and the reproducibility of the review.

The absence of a recognized predefined taxonomy for DHTs posed a challenge when categorizing the DHT interventions, acknowledging that the distinction between the categories used to present the results is open to interpretation. A description of how the reviewers interpreted these categories is provided ( Multimedia Appendix 4 ).

Implications for Research

Future studies aimed at developing and evaluating DHT-based rehabilitation interventions, including those relating to physical stroke rehabilitation, need to ensure there is explicit recognition and reporting of the specific approaches used to change behavior, articulating both the theory on which the intervention is based and how the intervention plans to deliver the change in behavior using universally recognized terminology. This should be reported as part of a program theory and potential mechanisms of action, which are key parts of developing and evaluating complex interventions [ 29 ]. This detailed reporting would further support an understanding of how changes in behavior could be best enabled by DHT-based rehabilitation interventions and how this contributes to changes in patient outcomes. It would also enable further evaluation of the optimal behavioral components of interventions, enabling patients to use and clinicians to deliver the most effective DHT-based rehabilitative interventions. More generally, as the use of DHTs expands, there is an urgent need for some form of taxonomy to categorize and clearly define the different types of DHTs to facilitate consistent reporting, replication, and comparison of DHT-based interventions.

This novel and original review is the first to explore if and how approaches to change behavior are incorporated within DHT-based physical stroke rehabilitation. It demonstrates that a minority of studies report using approaches to change behavior within this context, despite these changes in behavior being vital to meet the demands of rehabilitative activities. Those who do report behavior change often lack the underpinning detail as to how the DHT-based intervention will facilitate these changes. In order for DHT-based interventions to realize their potential within rehabilitation and their impact on patient outcomes, approaches to change behavior must be embedded in the intervention and appropriately reported.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Catherine Harris (Information Specialist, University of Central Lancashire) for her assistance in developing the search strategy and running the searches, and Rebekah Murray (Undergraduate Research Intern, University of Central Lancashire) for her support with aspects of the screening and data charting process.

This work was funded by a UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship (grant MR/T022434/1).

Data Availability

All data supporting this study are openly available from the University of Central Lancashire repository [ 153 ].

Authors' Contributions

RCS conceived the review focus and oversaw the work. HJG developed the review design and search strategy. HJG, KAJ, and RCS completed the screening of the identified sources. HJG and KAJ piloted the data charting tool. HJG completed the data charting, data analysis, and the initial manuscript draft. KAJ and RCS reviewed and made substantial contributions to the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Full search strategy as used in Medline.

Data charting tool.

Review-specific behavior change technique taxonomy coding decisions.

Intervention characteristics (with associated references).

Behavior change theories, models, and frameworks reported (with associated references).

Individual behavior change techniques coded.

Behavior change technique taxonomy clusters identified (with associated references).

• Evidence standards framework for digital health technologies. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2018. URL: https://tinyurl.com/mpmrwrwx [accessed 2022-01-25]
• Castle-Clark S. The NHS at 70: What will new technology mean for the NHS and its patients? Kings Fund. 2018. URL: https://tinyurl.com/44k9fmat [accessed 2024-04-05]
• Topel E. The Topol review: preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. Health Education England, NHS. 2019. URL: https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/ [accessed 2022-01-19]
• GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(10):795-820. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wade DT. What is rehabilitation? An empirical investigation leading to an evidence-based description. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(5):571-583. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rehabilitation. World Health Organisation. 2023. URL: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rehabilitation [accessed 2023-05-04]
• Grefkes C, Fink GR. Recovery from stroke: current concepts and future perspectives. Neurol Res Pract. 2020;2:17. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lawrence ES, Coshall C, Dundas R, Stewart J, Rudd AG, Howard R, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1279-1284. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• National clinical guideline for stroke for the United Kingdom and Ireland. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. 2023. URL: https://tinyurl.com/yxy6b9tp [accessed 2023-05-02]
• Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87987. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, Boyd L, Kimberley TJ, Schindler-Ivens SM, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90(10):1692-1698. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11(11):CD008349. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Laver KE, Adey-Wakeling Z, Crotty M, Lannin NA, George S, Sherrington C. Telerehabilitation services for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;1(1):CD010255. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lynch EA, Jones TM, Simpson DB, Fini NA, Kuys SS, Borschmann K, et al. Activity monitors for increasing physical activity in adult stroke survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):CD012543. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9(9):CD006876. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;10(10):CD006185. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jones F, Riazi A. Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(10):797-810. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Behaviour change: general approaches. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. UK. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2007. URL: https://tinyurl.com/yfthycch [accessed 2024-04-05]
• Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall; 1986.
• Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Carey RN, Connell LE, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, et al. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53(8):693-707. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, et al. The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46(1):81-95. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Oinas-Kukkonen H. A foundation for the study of behavior change support systems. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2012;17(6):1223-1235. [ CrossRef ]
• Taj F, Klein MCA, van Halteren A. Digital health behavior change technology: bibliometric and scoping review of two decades of research. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(12):e13311. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• West R, Michie S. A Guide to Development and Evaluation of Digital Behaviour Change Interventions in Healthcare. London. Silverback Publishing; 2016.
• Lewis GN, Rosie JA. Virtual reality games for movement rehabilitation in neurological conditions: how do we meet the needs and expectations of the users? Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1880-1886. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29(1):1-8. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141-146. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide, Australia. JBI; 2020. [ CrossRef ]
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gooch H, Stockley R, Jarvis K. Behaviour change approaches within digital health technology-based interventions in physical rehabilitation following stroke: a scoping review protocol Version 2 081122. OSF Registries. 2022. URL: https://osf.io/yjn5g [accessed 2022-11-15]
• ICF checklist. World Health Organisation. 2003. URL: https://tinyurl.com/5fz6krew [accessed 2022-01-19]
• Hillyer M. How has technology changed—and changed us—in the past 20 years? World Economic Forum. 2020. URL: https://tinyurl.com/5n74wsym [accessed 2023-10-18]
• Online training. BCT Taxonomy v1. 2022. URL: http://www.bct-taxonomy.com/ [accessed 2022-03-08]
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wadley M, Bradbury M, Stockley R. Virtual reality. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. URL: https://www.csp.org.uk/professional-clinical/digital-physiotherapy/virtual-reality [accessed 2024-03-29]
• Cambridge dictionary. Cambridge University Press and Assessment. URL: https://tinyurl.com/2f2mx6kz [accessed 2024-03-29]
• Weber LM, Stein J. The use of robots in stroke rehabilitation: A narrative review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2018;43(1):99-110. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• English C, Ceravolo MG, Dorsch S, Drummond A, Gandhi DB, Green JH, et al. Telehealth for rehabilitation and recovery after stroke: state of the evidence and future directions. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(5):487-493. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Taub E, Crago JE, Burgio LD, Groomes TE, Cook EW, DeLuca SC, et al. An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994;61(2):281-293. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, Ward NS, Wolf SL, Borschmann K, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):444-450. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Asbjørnsen RA, Smedsrød ML, Solberg Nes L, Wentzel J, Varsi C, Hjelmesæth J, et al. Persuasive system design principles and behavior change techniques to stimulate motivation and adherence in electronic health interventions to support weight loss maintenance: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e14265. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bayly J, Wakefield D, Hepgul N, Wilcock A, Higginson IJ, Maddocks M. Changing health behaviour with rehabilitation in thoracic cancer: a systematic review and synthesis. Psychooncology. 2018;27(7):1675-1694. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Alankus G, Proffitt R, Kelleher C, Engsberg J. Stroke therapy through motion-based games: a case study. ACM Trans Access Comput. 2011;4(1):1-35. [ CrossRef ]
• Alankus G, Kelleher C. Reducing compensatory motions in motion-based video games for stroke rehabilitation. Hum Comput Interact. 2015;30(3-4):232-262. [ CrossRef ]
• Allegue DR, Kairy D, Higgins J, Archambault PS, Michaud F, Miller W, et al. A personalized home-based rehabilitation program using exergames combined with a telerehabilitation app in a chronic stroke survivor: mixed methods case study. JMIR Serious Games. 2021;9(3):e26153. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Allegue DR, Higgins J, Sweet SN, Archambault PS, Michaud F, Miller W, et al. Rehabilitation of upper extremity by telerehabilitation combined with exergames in survivors of chronic stroke: preliminary findings from a feasibility clinical trial. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2022;9(2):e33745. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Asano M, Tai BC, Yeo FY, Yen SC, Tay A, Ng YS, et al. Home-based tele-rehabilitation presents comparable positive impact on self-reported functional outcomes as usual care: the Singapore Tele-technology Aided Rehabilitation in Stroke (STARS) randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2021;27(4):231-238. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ballester BR, Maier M, Mozo RMSS, Castañeda V, Duff A, Verschure PFMJ. Counteracting learned non-use in chronic stroke patients with reinforcement-induced movement therapy. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):74. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bardack A, Bhandari P, Doggett J, Epstein M, Gagliolo N, Graff S, et al. EMG biofeedback videogame system for the gait rehabilitation of hemiparetic individuals. Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. 2010. URL: https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/10082/CHIP.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed 2023-02-27]
• Bellomo RG, Paolucci T, Saggino A, Pezzi L, Bramanti A, Cimino V, et al. The WeReha Project for an innovative home-based exercise training in chronic stroke patients: a clinical study. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis. 2020;12:1179573520979866. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Benvenuti F, Stuart M, Cappena V, Gabella S, Corsi S, Taviani A, et al. Community-based exercise for upper limb paresis: a controlled trial with telerehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(7):611-620. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bhattacharjya S, Stafford MC, Cavuoto LA, Yang Z, Song C, Subryan H, et al. Harnessing smartphone technology and three dimensional printing to create a mobile rehabilitation system, mRehab: assessment of usability and consistency in measurement. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16(1):127. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bhattacharjya S, Cavuoto LA, Reilly B, Xu W, Subryan H, Langan J. Usability, usefulness, and acceptance of a novel, portable rehabilitation system (mRehab) using smartphone and 3D printing technology: mixed methods study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2021;8(1):e21312. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Burke JW, McNeill MDJ, Charles DK, Morrow PJ, Crosbie JH, McDonough SM. Optimising engagement for stroke rehabilitation using serious games. Vis Comput. 2009;25(12):1085-1099. [ CrossRef ]
• Burridge JH, Lee ACW, Turk R, Stokes M, Whitall J, Vaidyanathan R, et al. Telehealth, wearable sensors, and the internet: will they improve stroke outcomes through increased intensity of therapy, motivation, and adherence to rehabilitation programs? J Neurol Phys Ther. 2017;41(Suppl 3):S32-S38. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cai S, Wei X, Su E, Wu W, Zheng H, Xie L. Online compensation detecting for real-time reduction of compensatory motions during reaching: a pilot study with stroke survivors. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1):58. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chumbler NR, Quigley P, Li X, Morey M, Rose D, Sanford J, et al. Effects of telerehabilitation on physical function and disability for stroke patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke. 2012;43(8):2168-2174. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chung BPH, Chiang WKH, Lau H, Lau TFO, Lai CWK, Sit CSY, et al. Pilot study on comparisons between the effectiveness of mobile video-guided and paper-based home exercise programs on improving exercise adherence, self-efficacy for exercise and functional outcomes of patients with stroke with 3-month follow-up: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2020;40(1):63-73. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Colombo R, Pisano F, Mazzone A, Delconte C, Micera S, Carrozza MC, et al. Design strategies to improve patient motivation during robot-aided rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007;4:3. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Colomer C, Llorens R, Noé E, Alcañiz M. Effect of a mixed reality-based intervention on arm, hand, and finger function on chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):45. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Conroy SS, Harcum S, Keldsen L, Bever CT. Novel use of existing technology: a preliminary study of patient portal use for telerehabilitation. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28(5):380-388. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cramer SC, Dodakian L, Le V, See J, Augsburger R, McKenzie A, et al. Efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation vs in-clinic therapy for adults after stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(9):1079-1087. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cramer SC, Dodakian L, Le V, McKenzie A, See J, Augsburger R, et al. A feasibility study of expanded home-based telerehabilitation after stroke. Front Neurol. 2020;11:611453. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Danks KA, Roos MA, McCoy D, Reisman DS. A step activity monitoring program improves real world walking activity post stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(26):2233-2236. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Da-Silva RH, Moore SA, Rodgers H, Shaw L, Sutcliffe L, van Wijck F, et al. Wristband accelerometers to motivate arm exercises after Stroke (WAVES): a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33(8):1391-1403. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Deng H, Durfee WK, Nuckley DJ, Rheude BS, Severson AE, Skluzacek KM, et al. Complex versus simple ankle movement training in stroke using telerehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2012;92(2):197-209. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Deutsch JE, Maidan I, Dickstein R. Patient-centered integrated motor imagery delivered in the home with telerehabilitation to improve walking after stroke. Phys Ther. 2012;92(8):1065-1077. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dias P, Silva R, Amorim P, Lains J, Roque E, Pereira ISF, et al. Using virtual reality to increase motivation in poststroke rehabilitation. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2019;39(1):64-70. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dodakian L, McKenzie AL, Le V, See J, Pearson-Fuhrhop K, Quinlan EB, et al. A home-based telerehabilitation program for patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(10-11):923-933. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Dorsch AK, Thomas S, Xu X, Kaiser W, Dobkin BH, SIRRACT investigators. SIRRACT: an international randomized clinical trial of activity feedback during inpatient stroke rehabilitation enabled by wireless sensing. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(5):407-415. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Edwards D, Kumar S, Brinkman L, Ferreira IC, Esquenazi A, Nguyen T, et al. Telerehabilitation initiated early in post-stroke recovery: a feasibility study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2023;37(2-3):131-141. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Emmerson KB, Harding KE, Taylor NF. Home exercise programmes supported by video and automated reminders compared with standard paper-based home exercise programmes in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(8):1068-1077. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ezeugwu VE, Manns PJ. The feasibility and longitudinal effects of a home-based sedentary behavior change intervention after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(12):2540-2547. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fluet GG, Qiu Q, Patel J, Cronce A, Merians AS, Adamovich SV. Autonomous use of the home virtual rehabilitation system: a feasibility and pilot study. Games Health J. 2019;8(6):432-438. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Foreman MH, Engsberg JR. A virtual reality tool for measuring and shaping trunk compensation for persons with stroke: design and initial feasibility testing. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2019;6:2055668318823673. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Fusari G, Gibbs E, Hoskin L, Lawrence-Jones A, Dickens D, Crespo RF, et al. What is the feasibility and patient acceptability of a digital system for arm and hand rehabilitation after stroke? a mixed-methods, single-arm feasibility study of the 'OnTrack' intervention for hospital and home use. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e062042. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Gauthier LV, Nichols-Larsen DS, Uswatte G, Strahl N, Simeo M, Proffitt R, et al. Video game rehabilitation for outpatient stroke (VIGoROUS): a multi-site randomized controlled trial of in-home, self-managed, upper-extremity therapy. EClinicalMedicine. 2022;43:101239. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Goršič M, Cikajlo I, Goljar N, Novak D. A multisession evaluation of an adaptive competitive arm rehabilitation game. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):128. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Grau-Pellicer M, Lalanza JF, Jovell-Fernández E, Capdevila L. Impact of mHealth technology on adherence to healthy PA after stroke: a randomized study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(5):354-368. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guidetti S, Gustavsson M, Tham K, Andersson M, Fors U, Ytterberg C. F@ce: a team-based, person-centred intervention for rehabilitation after stroke supported by information and communication technology—a feasibility study. BMC Neurol. 2020;20(1):387. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Held JP, Ferrer B, Mainetti R, Steblin A, Hertler B, Moreno-Conde A, et al. Autonomous rehabilitation at stroke patients home for balance and gait: safety, usability and compliance of a virtual reality system. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54(4):545-553. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hernandez A, Bubyr L, Archambault PS, Higgins J, Levin MF, Kairy D. Virtual reality-based rehabilitation as a feasible and engaging tool for the management of chronic poststroke upper-extremity function recovery: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Serious Games. 2022;10(3):e37506. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hung NT, Paul V, Prakash P, Kovach T, Tacy G, Tomic G, et al. Wearable myoelectric interface enables high-dose, home-based training in severely impaired chronic stroke survivors. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021;8(9):1895-1905. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Johnson MJ, Shakya Y, Strachota E, Ahamed SI. Low-cost monitoring of patients during unsupervised robot/computer assisted motivating stroke rehabilitation. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2011;56(1):5-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Johnson MJ, Van der Loos HFM, Burgar CG, Shor P, Leifer LJ. Experimental results using force-feedback cueing in robot-assisted stroke therapy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(3):335-348. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Jonsdottir J, Baglio F, Gindri P, Isernia S, Castiglioni C, Gramigna C, et al. Virtual reality for motor and cognitive rehabilitation from clinic to home: a pilot feasibility and efficacy study for persons with chronic stroke. Front Neurol. 2021;12:601131. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kamwesiga JT, Eriksson GM, Tham K, Fors U, Ndiwalana A, von Koch L, et al. A feasibility study of a mobile phone supported family-centred ADL intervention, F@ce, after stroke in Uganda. Global Health. 2018;14(1):82. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kanai M, Izawa KP, Kobayashi M, Onishi A, Kubo H, Nozoe M, et al. Effect of accelerometer-based feedback on physical activity in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(8):1047-1056. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Keeling AB, Piitz M, Semrau JA, Hill MD, Scott SH, Dukelow SP. Robot Enhanced Stroke Therapy Optimizes Rehabilitation (RESTORE): a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):10. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kessler D, Anderson ND, Dawson DR. Occupational performance coaching for stroke survivors delivered via telerehabilitation using a single-case experimental design. Br J Occup Ther. 2021;84(8):488-496. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim DY, Kwon H, Nam KW, Lee Y, Kwon HM, Chung YS. Remote management of poststroke patients with a smartphone-based management system integrated in clinical care: prospective, nonrandomized, interventional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(2):e15377. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim J, Lee M, Kim Y, Eun SD, Yoon B. Feasibility of an individually tailored virtual reality program for improving upper motor functions and activities of daily living in chronic stroke survivors: a case series. Eur J Integr Med. 2016;8(5):731-737. [ CrossRef ]
• King M, Hijmans JM, Sampson M, Satherley J, Hale L. Home-based stroke rehabilitation using computer gaming. N Z J Physiother. 2012;40(3):128-134. [ FREE Full text ]
• Kringle EA, Setiawan IMA, Golias K, Parmanto B, Skidmore ER. Feasibility of an iterative rehabilitation intervention for stroke delivered remotely using mobile health technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(8):908-916. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kumar D, Sinha N, Dutta A, Lahiri U. Virtual reality-based balance training system augmented with operant conditioning paradigm. Biomed Eng Online. 2019;18(1):90. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Langan J, Bhattacharjya S, Subryan H, Xu W, Chen B, Li Z, et al. In-home rehabilitation using a smartphone app coupled with 3D printed functional objects: single-subject design study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(7):e19582. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lawrie S, Dong Y, Steins D, Xia Z, Esser P, Sun S, et al. Evaluation of a smartwatch-based intervention providing feedback of daily activity within a research-naive stroke ward: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:157. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lawson S, Tang Z, Feng J. Supporting stroke motor recovery through a mobile application: a pilot study. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71(3):7103350010p1-7103350010p5. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lee M, Pyun SB, Chung J, Kim J, Eun SD, Yoon BC. A further step to develop patient-friendly implementation strategies for virtual reality-based rehabilitation in patients with acute stroke. Phys Ther. 2016;96(10):1554-1564. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lee M, Son J, Kim J, Pyun SB, Eun SD, Yoon BC. Comparison of individualized virtual reality- and group-based rehabilitation in older adults with chronic stroke in community settings: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Eur J Integr Med. 2016;8(5):738-746. [ CrossRef ]
• Lee MM, Shin DC, Song CH. Canoe game-based virtual reality training to improve trunk postural stability, balance, and upper limb motor function in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28(7):2019-2024. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Levy T, Crotty M, Laver K, Lannin N, Killington M. Does the addition of concurrent visual feedback increase adherence to a home exercise program in people with stroke: a single-case series? BMC Res Notes. 2020;13(1):361. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lewis GN, Woods C, Rosie JA, McPherson KM. Virtual reality games for rehabilitation of people with stroke: perspectives from the users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(5):453-463. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Li X, Wang L, Miao S, Yue Z, Tang Z, Su L, et al. Sensorimotor rhythm-brain computer interface with audio-cue, motor observation and multisensory feedback for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: a controlled study. Front Neurosci. 2022;16:808830. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Lum PS, Taub E, Schwandt D, Postman M, Hardin P, Uswatte G. Automated Constraint-Induced Therapy Extension (AutoCITE) for movement deficits after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41(3A):249-258. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mansfield A, Wong JS, Bryce J, Brunton K, Inness EL, Knorr S, et al. Use of accelerometer-based feedback of walking activity for appraising progress with walking-related goals in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29(9):847-857. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Matarić MJ, Eriksson J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Winstein CJ. Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2007;4:5. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mawson S, Nasr N, Parker J, Davies R, Zheng H, Mountain G. A personalized self-management rehabilitation system with an intelligent shoe for stroke survivors: a realist evaluation. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;3(1):e1. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• McNulty PA, Thompson-Butel AG, Faux SG, Lin G, Katrak PH, Harris LR, et al. The efficacy of Wii-based Movement Therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in the chronic poststroke period: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke. 2015;10(8):1253-1260. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mihelj M, Novak D, Milavec M, Ziherl J, Olenšek A, Munih M. Virtual rehabilitation environment using principles of intrinsic motivation and game design. Presence: Teleop Virt Environ. 2012;21(1):1-15. [ CrossRef ]
• Mitchell C, Bowen A, Tyson S, Conroy P. A feasibility randomized controlled trial of ReaDySpeech for people with dysarthria after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(8):1037-1046. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Moan ME, Vonstad EK, Su X, Vereijken B, Solbjør M, Skjæret-Maroni N. Experiences of stroke survivors and clinicians with a fully immersive virtual reality treadmill exergame for stroke rehabilitation: a qualitative pilot study. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13:735251. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Mountain G, Wilson S, Eccleston C, Mawson S, Hammerton J, Ware T, et al. Developing and testing a telerehabilitation system for people following stroke: issues of usability. J Eng Des. 2010;21(2-3):223-236. [ CrossRef ]
• Nijenhuis SM, Prange GB, Amirabdollahian F, Sale P, Infarinato F, Nasr N, et al. Feasibility study into self-administered training at home using an arm and hand device with motivational gaming environment in chronic stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:89. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Novak D, Nagle A, Keller U, Riener R. Increasing motivation in robot-aided arm rehabilitation with competitive and cooperative gameplay. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Olafsdottir SA, Jonsdottir H, Bjartmarz I, Magnusson C, Caltenco H, Kytö M, et al. Feasibility of ActivABLES to promote home-based exercise and physical activity of community-dwelling stroke survivors with support from caregivers: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):562. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Olafsdottir SA, Jonsdottir H, Magnusson C, Caltenco H, Kytö M, Maye L, et al. Developing ActivABLES for community-dwelling stroke survivors using the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):463. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Parker J, Mawson S, Mountain G, Nasr N, Zheng H. Stroke patients' utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home: a multiple case study realistic evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:46. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Paul L, Wyke S, Brewster S, Sattar N, Gill JMR, Alexander G, et al. Increasing physical activity in stroke survivors using STARFISH, an interactive mobile phone application: a pilot study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2016;23(3):170-177. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pereira F, Badia SBI, Jorge C, Cameirão MS. The use of game modes to promote engagement and social involvement in multi-user serious games: a within-person randomized trial with stroke survivors. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):62. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Perez-Marcos D, Chevalley O, Schmidlin T, Garipelli G, Serino A, Vuadens P, et al. Increasing upper limb training intensity in chronic stroke using embodied virtual reality: a pilot study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):119. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Popović MD, Kostić MD, Rodić SZ, Konstantinović LM. Feedback-mediated upper extremities exercise: increasing patient motivation in poststroke rehabilitation. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:520374. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Proffitt R, Lange B. Feasibility of a customized, in-home, game-based stroke exercise program using the Microsoft Kinect® sensor. Int J Telerehabil. 2015;7(2):23-34. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rosati G, Oscari F, Reinkensmeyer DJ, Secoli R, Avanzini F, Spagnol S, et al. Improving robotics for neurorehabilitation: enhancing engagement, performance, and learning with auditory feedback. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975373. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rowe JB, Chan V, Ingemanson ML, Cramer SC, Wolbrecht ET, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Robotic assistance for training finger movement using a Hebbian model: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(8):769-780. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sakakibara BM, Lear SA, Barr SI, Goldsmith CH, Schneeberg A, Silverberg ND, et al. Telehealth coaching to improve self-management for secondary prevention after stroke: a randomized controlled trial of Stroke Coach. Int J Stroke. 2022;17(4):455-464. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Saywell NL, Vandal AC, Mudge S, Hale L, Brown P, Feigin V, et al. Telerehabilitation after stroke using readily available technology: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(1):88-97. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Scrivener K, Sewastenko J, Bouvier-Farrell A, MacDonald K, Van Rijn T, Tezak J, et al. Feasibility of a self-managed, video-guided exercise program for community-dwelling people with stroke. Stroke Res Treat. 2021;2021:5598100. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shah N, Amirabdollahian F, Basteris A. Designing motivational games for stroke rehabilitation. New Jersey. IEEE; 2014. Presented at: 7th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI); June 16-18, 2014;166-171; Costa da Caparica, Portugal. [ CrossRef ]
• Signal NEJ, McLaren R, Rashid U, Vandal A, King M, Almesfer F, et al. Haptic nudges increase affected upper limb movement during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: multiple-period randomized crossover study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(7):e17036. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Simpson DB, Bird ML, English C, Gall SL, Breslin M, Smith S, et al. "Connecting patients and therapists remotely using technology is feasible and facilitates exercise adherence after stroke". Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(2):93-102. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Song X, van de Ven SS, Chen S, Kang P, Gao Q, Jia J, et al. Proposal of a wearable multimodal sensing-based serious games approach for hand movement training after stroke. Front Physiol. 2022;13:811950. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Standen PJ, Threapleton K, Richardson A, Connell L, Brown DJ, Battersby S, et al. A low cost virtual reality system for home based rehabilitation of the arm following stroke: a randomised controlled feasibility trial. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(3):340-350. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Subramanian SK, Lourenço CB, Chilingaryan G, Sveistrup H, Levin MF. Arm motor recovery using a virtual reality intervention in chronic stroke: randomized control trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(1):13-23. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sullivan JE, Espe LE, Kelly AM, Veilbig LE, Kwasny MJ. Feasibility and outcomes of a community-based, pedometer-monitored walking program in chronic stroke: a pilot study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014;21(2):101-110. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Toh SFM, Gonzalez PC, Fong KNK. Usability of a wearable device for home-based upper limb telerehabilitation in persons with stroke: a mixed-methods study. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231153737. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Tsekleves E, Paraskevopoulos IT, Warland A, Kilbride C. Development and preliminary evaluation of a novel low cost VR-based upper limb stroke rehabilitation platform using Wii technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):413-422. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Uswatte G, Taub E, Lum P, Brennan D, Barman J, Bowman MH, et al. Tele-rehabilitation of upper-extremity hemiparesis after stroke: proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial of in-home Constraint-Induced Movement therapy. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2021;39(4):303-318. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Valdés BA, Van der Loos HFM. Biofeedback vs. game scores for reducing trunk compensation after stroke: a randomized crossover trial. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2018;25(2):96-113. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wairagkar M, McCrindle R, Robson H, Meteyard L, Sperrin M, Smith A, et al. MaLT—combined motor and language therapy tool for brain injury patients using kinect. Methods Inf Med. 2017;56(2):127-137. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wei WXJ, Fong KNK, Chung RCK, Cheung HKY, Chow ESL. "Remind-to-Move" for promoting upper extremity recovery using wearable devices in subacute stroke: a multi-center randomized controlled study. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(1):51-59. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Whitford M, Schearer E, Rowlett M. Effects of in home high dose accelerometer-based feedback on perceived and actual use in participants chronic post-stroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020;36(7):799-809. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Widmer M, Held JPO, Wittmann F, Valladares B, Lambercy O, Sturzenegger C, et al. Reward during arm training improves impairment and activity after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2022;36(2):140-150. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wittmann F, Held JP, Lambercy O, Starkey ML, Curt A, Höver R, et al. Self-directed arm therapy at home after stroke with a sensor-based virtual reality training system. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13(1):75. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yuan Z, Peng Y, Wang L, Song S, Chen S, Yang L, et al. Effect of BCI-controlled pedaling training system with multiple modalities of feedback on motor and cognitive function rehabilitation of early subacute stroke patients. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:2569-2577. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chong MS, Sit JWH, Karthikesu K, Chair SY. Effectiveness of technology-assisted cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;124:104087. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hart T, Dijkers MP, Whyte J, Turkstra LS, Zanca JM, Packel A, et al. A theory-driven system for the specification of rehabilitation treatments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(1):172-180. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". New York, NY, US. Association for Computing Machinery; 2011. Presented at: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments; September 28-30, 2011;9-15; Tampere, Finland. [ CrossRef ]
• Barrett N, Swain I, Gatzidis C, Mecheraoui C. The use and effect of video game design theory in the creation of game-based systems for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2016;3:2055668316643644. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Welcome to UCLanData. University of Central Lancashire. URL: https://uclandata.uclan.ac.uk/383/ [accessed 2024-03-29]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 15.05.23; peer-reviewed by M Broderick, G Sweeney, E Crayton, D Pogrebnoy; comments to author 11.10.23; revised version received 14.11.23; accepted 26.12.23; published 24.04.24.

©Helen J Gooch, Kathryn A Jarvis, Rachel C Stockley. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 24.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Pew Research Center will report on generations moving forward

Journalists, researchers and the public often look at society through the lens of generation, using terms like Millennial or Gen Z to describe groups of similarly aged people. This approach can help readers see themselves in the data and assess where we are and where we’re headed as a country.

Pew Research Center has been at the forefront of generational research over the years, telling the story of Millennials as they came of age politically and as they moved more firmly into adult life . In recent years, we’ve also been eager to learn about Gen Z as the leading edge of this generation moves into adulthood.

But generational research has become a crowded arena. The field has been flooded with content that’s often sold as research but is more like clickbait or marketing mythology. There’s also been a growing chorus of criticism about generational research and generational labels in particular.

Recently, as we were preparing to embark on a major research project related to Gen Z, we decided to take a step back and consider how we can study generations in a way that aligns with our values of accuracy, rigor and providing a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue.

A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations.

We set out on a yearlong process of assessing the landscape of generational research. We spoke with experts from outside Pew Research Center, including those who have been publicly critical of our generational analysis, to get their take on the pros and cons of this type of work. We invested in methodological testing to determine whether we could compare findings from our earlier telephone surveys to the online ones we’re conducting now. And we experimented with higher-level statistical analyses that would allow us to isolate the effect of generation.

What emerged from this process was a set of clear guidelines that will help frame our approach going forward. Many of these are principles we’ve always adhered to , but others will require us to change the way we’ve been doing things in recent years.

Here’s a short overview of how we’ll approach generational research in the future:

We’ll only do generational analysis when we have historical data that allows us to compare generations at similar stages of life. When comparing generations, it’s crucial to control for age. In other words, researchers need to look at each generation or age cohort at a similar point in the life cycle. (“Age cohort” is a fancy way of referring to a group of people who were born around the same time.)

When doing this kind of research, the question isn’t whether young adults today are different from middle-aged or older adults today. The question is whether young adults today are different from young adults at some specific point in the past.

To answer this question, it’s necessary to have data that’s been collected over a considerable amount of time – think decades. Standard surveys don’t allow for this type of analysis. We can look at differences across age groups, but we can’t compare age groups over time.

Another complication is that the surveys we conducted 20 or 30 years ago aren’t usually comparable enough to the surveys we’re doing today. Our earlier surveys were done over the phone, and we’ve since transitioned to our nationally representative online survey panel , the American Trends Panel . Our internal testing showed that on many topics, respondents answer questions differently depending on the way they’re being interviewed. So we can’t use most of our surveys from the late 1980s and early 2000s to compare Gen Z with Millennials and Gen Xers at a similar stage of life.

This means that most generational analysis we do will use datasets that have employed similar methodologies over a long period of time, such as surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau. A good example is our 2020 report on Millennial families , which used census data going back to the late 1960s. The report showed that Millennials are marrying and forming families at a much different pace than the generations that came before them.

Even when we have historical data, we will attempt to control for other factors beyond age in making generational comparisons. If we accept that there are real differences across generations, we’re basically saying that people who were born around the same time share certain attitudes or beliefs – and that their views have been influenced by external forces that uniquely shaped them during their formative years. Those forces may have been social changes, economic circumstances, technological advances or political movements.

When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

The tricky part is isolating those forces from events or circumstances that have affected all age groups, not just one generation. These are often called “period effects.” An example of a period effect is the Watergate scandal, which drove down trust in government among all age groups. Differences in trust across age groups in the wake of Watergate shouldn’t be attributed to the outsize impact that event had on one age group or another, because the change occurred across the board.

Changing demographics also may play a role in patterns that might at first seem like generational differences. We know that the United States has become more racially and ethnically diverse in recent decades, and that race and ethnicity are linked with certain key social and political views. When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

Controlling for these factors can involve complicated statistical analysis that helps determine whether the differences we see across age groups are indeed due to generation or not. This additional step adds rigor to the process. Unfortunately, it’s often absent from current discussions about Gen Z, Millennials and other generations.

When we can’t do generational analysis, we still see value in looking at differences by age and will do so where it makes sense. Age is one of the most common predictors of differences in attitudes and behaviors. And even if age gaps aren’t rooted in generational differences, they can still be illuminating. They help us understand how people across the age spectrum are responding to key trends, technological breakthroughs and historical events.

Each stage of life comes with a unique set of experiences. Young adults are often at the leading edge of changing attitudes on emerging social trends. Take views on same-sex marriage , for example, or attitudes about gender identity .

Many middle-aged adults, in turn, face the challenge of raising children while also providing care and support to their aging parents. And older adults have their own obstacles and opportunities. All of these stories – rooted in the life cycle, not in generations – are important and compelling, and we can tell them by analyzing our surveys at any given point in time.

When we do have the data to study groups of similarly aged people over time, we won’t always default to using the standard generational definitions and labels. While generational labels are simple and catchy, there are other ways to analyze age cohorts. For example, some observers have suggested grouping people by the decade in which they were born. This would create narrower cohorts in which the members may share more in common. People could also be grouped relative to their age during key historical events (such as the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic) or technological innovations (like the invention of the iPhone).

By choosing not to use the standard generational labels when they’re not appropriate, we can avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes or oversimplifying people’s complex lived experiences.

Existing generational definitions also may be too broad and arbitrary to capture differences that exist among narrower cohorts. A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations. The key is to pick a lens that’s most appropriate for the research question that’s being studied. If we’re looking at political views and how they’ve shifted over time, for example, we might group people together according to the first presidential election in which they were eligible to vote.

With these considerations in mind, our audiences should not expect to see a lot of new research coming out of Pew Research Center that uses the generational lens. We’ll only talk about generations when it adds value, advances important national debates and highlights meaningful societal trends.

• Age & Generations
• Demographic Research
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations
• Greatest Generation
• Methodological Research
• Millennials
• Silent Generation

Kim Parker is director of social trends research at Pew Research Center

How Teens and Parents Approach Screen Time

Who are you the art and science of measuring identity, u.s. centenarian population is projected to quadruple over the next 30 years, older workers are growing in number and earning higher wages, teens, social media and technology 2023, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy