《女权主义文献引用》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《女权主义文献引用（11页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、J. Ann Tickner, What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 1-21方法论问题Methodological issues have constituted some of the deepest sources of misunderstanding between Internat
2、ional Relations (IR) feminists and IR theorists working in social scientific frameworks.IR theorists have called upon feminists to frame their research questions in terms of testable hypotheses. Feminists have responded that their research questions cannot be answered using social science explanator
3、y frameworks. Deep epistemological divisions about the construction and purpose of knowledge make bridging these methodological divides difficult. These epistemological standards lead feminists to very different methodological perspectives. Asking different questions from those typically asked in IR
4、, many IR feminists have drawn on ethnographic, narrative, cross-cultural, and other methods that are rarely taught to students of IR, to answer them.While recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed since the questions we ask and the methods we use reflect our preoccupations as members of pa
5、rticular societies at particular times, Keohane urged scholars to seek to widen intersubjective agreement about important issues. He insisted that researchers must strive to be as objective as possible.Keohanes suggestions for a feminist research program using this conventional social scientific met
6、hodology have some similarities with what Sandra Harding terms feminist empiricism, an epistemology that argues that sexism and androcentricism in existing research are social biases correctable by stricter adherence to the existing methodological norms of scientific inquiry (Harding, 1986:24). Whil
7、e not an empiricist herself, Harding claims that feminist empiricism is appealing because it leaves unchallenged the existing methodological norms of science; this means that it would be more easily accepted in the broader social scientific community. IR feminists have used a variety of methods, mos
8、t of which would fall into methodological frameworks that have variously been described as post-positivist, reflectivist, or interpretivist.Feminists claim no single standard of methodological correctness or feminist way to carry out research (Reinharz, 1992:243), nor do they see it as desirable to
9、construct one.Feminist knowledge-building is an ongoing process, tentative and emergent; feminists frequently describe knowledge-building as emerging through conversation with texts, research subjects, or data (Reinharz, 1992:230).Many feminist scholars prefer to use the term epistemological perspec
10、tive rather than methodology to indicate the research goals and orientation of an ongoing project, the aim of which is to challenge and rethink what we mean by knowledge.Four methodological guidelines inform feminist research perspectives: a deep concern with which research questions get asked and w
11、hy; the goal of designing research that is useful to women (and also to men) and is both less biased and more universal than conventional research; the centrality of questions of reflexivity and the subjectivity of the researcher; and a commitment to knowledge as emancipation. I realize that not all
12、 these guidelines are unique to feminism.What is unique to feminism, however, is a commitment to asking feminist questions and building knowledge from womens lives-a commitment that, feminists believe, has wider implications that have the potential to transform existing knowledge frameworks.女权主义提出问题
13、和不同的方法论角度Most IR feminists have asked very different questions and used different methodological perspectives within which to provide their answers. While they may seek to understand state behavior, they do so in the context of asking why, in so many parts of the world, women remain so fundamentally
14、 disempowered in matters of foreign and military policy.For example, rather than speculate on the hypothetical question as to whether women might be more peaceful than men as foreign policymakers, IR feminists have focused on the more immediate problem as to why there are so few women in positions o
15、f power.5 Why have wars predominantly been fought by men and how do gendered structures of masculinity and femininity legitimate war and militarism for both women and men?16 Feminists have also investigated the problematic essentialized association of women with peace, an association that disempower
16、s both women and peace (Sylvester, 1987; Tickner, 2001:59). Rather than uncritically assume the state as a given unit of analysis, IR feminists have investigated the constitutive features of gendered states and their implications for the militarization of womens (and mens) lives (Peterson, 1992; Enloe, 2000).Feminist questions challenge the core assumptions of the discipline and deconstruct its central concepts; many of
