Response 1/21/2014

Is feminism a discipline/methodology or a set of perspectives? Both Sally L. Kitch (2007) and Patricia Sullivan & James E. Porter (1997) are cautious not to articulate feminism as a methodology. Kitch is content with discussing the feminist nature of transdisciplinarity (p. 129), and Sullivan & Porter carefully name “[f]eminist approaches to the research process” (p. 58). I sense that researchers might benefit from how they negotiate a definition of feminism in terms of methodology and disciplinarity.

A preliminary question to consider is whether or not gender is the core issue of the feminist research and to what extent. The waves of feminism have progressed from a focus on exclusion of women in the male dominant structures of power and knowledge (Spender, 1981) to “gendered” (Kitch, 2007, p. 131) study of “complex racial, class, sexual, and ethnic distinctions, hierarchies, and mechanisms of control that still structure human experience around the globe” (p. 131). Generally speaking, contemporary feminist researches are in for the complexity and situatedness of gender issues. These issues have encompassed so many fields and considerations that they seem to lose the urgency and freshness of such themes as gender equity. When a field is full blown, should it be time to draw boundaries to accentuate its disciplinary solidarity? Is it also a task for feminist researchers to balance an ever-lasting encroachment into all fields and ask the core issue question? Is it conceptually possible for feminism to finally consolidate as a discipline?

Perhaps a more relevant question is what feminism intends to do after it achieves its ultimate goal. Answers to this question may differ on whether to see feminism as a movement or as a knowledge domain. Kitch (2007) argues for creating “a new epistemology” (p. 131) that reshapes the conceptual, epistemological, and political structures of feminism. However, the way researchers frame their questions and methodologies reveal what seems to be an internal flaw. While feminism takes as its primary mission to critique male-dominated narratives, to describe the field of feminism in gendered (feminist) ways is equally detrimental. Take for example Kitch’s (2007) characterization of transdisciplinarity:

At its best, such transdisciplinarity carves out new territory, fills in gaps between existing knowledge domains, creates new intellectually coherent entities that both emerge from the fusion of fields and transcends them, and expands the opportunities for new knowledge to transform the actual conditions of women’s lives. (p. 131)

Please note the language that is definitely the opposite of masculine, but at the same time not as ambitious as the movement itself claims to be. Words and phrases like “carves out,” “fills in gaps,” “emerge from,” “the fusion,” “expands,” and “transforms” represent an image that is less than confident. Is it a conceptual sin for feminist researchers to phrase their mission claims in more vigorous terms? Does the discourse of feminism have to be masculine to be intellectually rigorous?

These two questions also bring up the issues of rigor in feminist methodology. While we are cautioned against foundational epistemologies (Sullivan & Porter, 1997), the feminist methodology has to answer the validity question. Sullivan and Porter’s heuristic of the praxis has definite value in terms of the implications of research methodology in everyday life, but it may have to explain a procedural question. As the 10,000-hour-rule article points out, experts have the experience that non-experts lack. For this reason, the heuristic may be a privilege of the experienced few in the academic community. In the heuristic system, the basic question of how to proceed in research is still a mystery.

The major concerns in feminism, including complexity, social constructiveness, praxis, transdisciplinarity, politics, etc., are valuable in their own terms. Yet, before articulating a set of intellectually coherent methodological systems, feminism will continue to remain a collection of significant perspectives that influence knowledge building.

But, are we satisfied with being a para-discipline that lacks a rigorous core and methodology? Speaking of creating maximal benefits as a result of research, would it be really beneficial for feminist researchers to refrain from making disciplinary claims but, instead, explore the endless opportunities of perspectives?

Note: I intended this response to approach feminism from the negative side for the purpose of better appreciating the contributions of feminism.