Frameworks for Studying Women and Gender 255practices, and social institutions by which masculinity and
femininity are constituted? How are gender distinctions sus-
tained in particular social groups? How do they come to be
seen as natural and inevitable? Construing gender as a system
of social relations opens the way to considering gender in
relation to ethnicity, class, and other dimensions of social or-
ganization and hierarchy (Landrine, 1995; Reid, 1993).
Feminist Epistemology
Some feminist psychologists have explored epistemological
and methodological alternatives to conventional ways of pro-
ducing knowledge in psychology (Hare-Mustin & Marecek,
1990; Kimmel & Crawford, 2000; Morawski, 1994). Chief
among them are redefining objectivity; reflexively exploring
the investigator’s subjectivity and social position; attention to
power relations within the research process; and openness to
methodological pluralism.
Redefining Objectivity. Feminist commentary about
science has called into question the notion of objectivity, that
is, the possibility of knowledge uninfluenced by values
(Harding, 1986). All of us necessarily perceive, think, and
speak from a standpoint generated by our social location and
experience. The scientific method does not prevent an inves-
tigator from influencing the research process and its outcome.
From the time of Helen Thompson Woolley to the present,
feminists in psychology have questioned the assumption that
facts and values could be separated. As feminist critics re-
considered the research process, they uncovered the pro-
found effects of researchers’ standpoints at every stage from
formulating questions to designing studies to interpreting
data (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986).
Some feminists see knowledge production as a historical
process embedded in the particular situations of the partici-
pants in that process—the researchers and the researched.
Research practices, procedures, and outcomes are situated in
the social, political, economic, and ideological contexts of
their time. Thus, investigations can yield only a particular,
limited truth (Haraway, 1988). Jill Morawski (1994) offers a
thoughtful reconceptualization of objectivity, subjectivity,
and other constructs such as validity, reliability, and general-
ization. Rather than denying that human values and perspec-
tives influence the research process, many feminists strive to
discern and acknowledge their standpoint. For example, they
report who sponsors their research and who will benefit from
the findings (accountability), and they disclose their social
position, politics, and values (partiality).
Exploring Reflexivity and Subjectivity. Some femi-
nists have also advocated reflexivity (Wilkinson, 1988).
Reflexivity is a broad concept. It can refer to a researcher’s
disciplined reflection on how her identity and social location
influence her work. It can also refer to a critical analysis of
the relationships among researchers and participants. And, it
can refer to a critical perspective on the discipline of psy-
chology. We give examples of each kind of reflexivity in turn.
Personal reflexivity is a continuing process of reflection
on the part of the researcher about how her multiple identities
(her social class, gender, age, status, feminist stance, ethnic-
ity, and so on) influence her work. Psychology has long
denied that the social identity of researchers affects their
choice of research topics, theories, methods, and interpreta-
tion of research results. By contrast, in taking a reflexive
stance, a researcher acknowledges these connections, is will-
ing to explore them, and recognizes that she is not exempt
from the psychological processes she studies in others. For
example, Deborah Belle (1994) reflected on how her position
as a young, middle-class, white professional affected her re-
lationship with and understanding of the low-income white
and African American women she was interviewing. Ponder-
ing the similarities and differences between herself and her
respondents led Belle to insights about the limited utility of
conceiving of race and class merely as categories of individ-
ual difference, the complex significance of social networks
for poor women, and the inadequacy of equating poverty
with current household income.
Reflexivity also encompasses analysis of the social rela-
tionships among various participants in the research enter-
prise. Most researchers work in groups with differing levels of
experience and skill, and most work in the context of hierar-
chical institutions. These social configurations affect the
research process. Frances Grossman and her colleagues (2000)
explored how their needs for equality and intimacy affected
their research on adult women who had experienced childhood
sexual abuse. These needs affected both their understanding of
women’s accounts of abuse and their collaboration.
Reflexivity also refers to a critical stance toward the disci-
pline. Early second-wave theorists such as Naomi Weisstein
(1971) and Carolyn Sherif (1979) exemplify this critical
stance. This form of reflexivity continues to the present.
Richard Walsh-Bowers (1999), for example, has recently an-
alyzed some underlying assumptions of the APA publication
manual. Critically examining its implicit definitions of what
counts as research and the roles of researchers and partici-
pants, he discussed the manual’s function in socializing its
users into the culture of the discipline.Methodological Pluralism. Both first- and second-
wave feminists criticized psychology’s research methods.
With the second wave, however, has come a more fundamen-
tal criticism, not merely of flaws and biases in the application