feminist ir theory and quantitative methodology_a critical analysis - copie

Feminist IR Theory and QuantitativeMethodology: A Critical Analysis1

MARY CAPRIOLI

Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee

The purpose of this narrative is to build a bridge among feminist andtraditional worldviews within international relations (IR) scholarship. Inparticular, this essay renews Ann Tickner’s appeal for dialogue betweenfeminist and conventional IR scholars. Not only is there room for suchdialogue, but it is necessary. The most dogmatic scholars from eachworldview generate and perpetuate an artificial divide. The purpose ofthis essay is to provide an explanation and rationale for a small, butgrowing, body of research that incorporates elements of gender andsocial justice into conventional IR theory using various methodologies,including a quantitative approach.

Quantitative methodology and feminism are not mutually exclusive. So why dofeminists and why does feminism appear to define and defend feminist scholarshipbased on methodology? In so doing, feminists marginalize and devalue the appli-cability of quantitative research for furthering feminist goals and, ultimately, them-selves as well. Although Ann Tickner (2001) has offered a broad history of feministinquiry from liberal feminism to postmodernism, feminist international relations(IR) scholarship seems to have settled into a particular mode with a narrow def-inition based on methodology rather than on the contributions of the research.

Even though feminist quantitative IR research focuses on issues of social justice,particularly as it relates to women, such research is not considered by many fem-inists to be part of feminist IR scholarship. Indeed, many feminists (see, for ex-ample, Peterson 1992, 2002; Sylvester 1994; Kinsella 2003; Steans 2003) appear toreject feminist empiricist IR scholarship predominantly because of the methodol-ogy it uses. These feminists will be referred to in this essay as conventional fem-inists.

It is difficult to trace the history of exclusion of feminist IR empiricists. Empir-icism is not inconsistent with feminist inquiry. It can support an activist agenda in itscommitment to freedom, equality, and self-government (Dietz 1985), and it canfacilitate the rejection of hierarchical domination, the use of military force, andother forms of exploitation (Brock-Utne 1985). Despite these commonalities, fem-inist scholarship at some point became defined on the basis of two characteristics:‘‘an emphasis on women and a critical/interpretive epistemology’’ (Carpenter 2002:ftn.1; emphasis added). In turn, feminist quantitative IR research (for example, Ben-eria and Blank 1989; McGlen and Sarkees 1993; Caprioli 2000, 2003; Caprioli andBoyer 2001; Regan and Paskeviciute 2003) has been devalued in comparison as

1The author would like to thank Louise Olsson in the Department of Peace and Conflict Resolution at UppsalaUniversity for helping her see the need for this article.

r 2004 International Studies Review.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA,and9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UK.

International Studies Review (2004) 6, 253–269

‘‘scholarship that utilizes gender in analysis while lacking one or both other com-ponents of feminist theory’’ (Carpenter 2002:ftn. 1).

Ironically, by excluding quantitative feminist IR scholarship, conventional fem-inists are creating hierarchies within a field that is focused on rejecting and de-constructing hierarchies. Moreover, the rejection of such research seems to beaccentuated within the subfield of feminist IR scholars. Perhaps the heightenedantipathy toward feminist quantitative research has arisen because quantitativemethodology has gained such wide support within the general field of internationalrelations. The subfield of feminist IR scholarship might be considered the lastsafe haven within international relations for qualitative work. This rejection is notthe case for feminist Americanists, who are permitted greater flexibility in theirchoice of valid research tools. This flexibility does not preclude feminist Ameri-canists from using quantitative methods (see, for example, Welch and Comer 1975,2001; Welch and Hibbing 1992; Thomas 1994). Indeed, Sue Thomas was praisedfor measuring the impact of gender on behavior in national legislatures.

So as one who has been implicitly labeled insufficiently feminist, by definition, forusing quantitative methodology in the promotion of gender equality and socialjustice, the present author has written this narrative to justify the use of quantitativemethodology in the pursuit of feminist IR goals. Toward that end, this essay firsthighlights some broad feminist contributions to political science and to interna-tional relations. It then explores some critical errors that conventional feminist IRscholars seem to be making. Finally, it attempts to bridge the gap between feminismand international relations.

Feminist Contributions

Feminist theorists have played a crucial role in forcing scholars to recognize theirgender biases despite claims of scientific objectivity. The discipline of political sci-ence is riddled with sexist assumptions. For example, most political science un-dergraduates are taught at an introductory level that political science is aboutanswering the who, what, when, and how of political events (Lasswell 1936). Thistype of inquiry seems benign until you understand the assumptions. Harold Las-swell (1936) assumed that politicians have unusual needs for power and domi-nance, which is why they go into politics. Therefore, politics is about men (‘‘thewho’’) wanting power and dominance (‘‘the what’’) achieved through aggression(‘‘the how’’), all of which is historically linked with masculinity (Burguieres 1990).

Feminists have challenged the gendered assumption typified by Lasswell’s theoryof politics by highlighting how our current conceptions regarding politics and hu-man behavior are patterned on male behavior. Human political behavior is notuniversal but rather context-specific based on variables such as race, ethnicity, so-cioeconomic status, culture, and gender (see Skjelsbaek and Smith 2001). Put sim-ply, the study of politics and our understanding thereof is based on a masculinestereotype with masculine characteristics valued over feminine. Masculine charac-teristics are associated with competition, violence, intransigence, and territoriality,all of which are assumed to be personified by men, whereas feminine characteristicsare associated with interdependence and egalitarianism, which are assumed tobe personified by women (Miller 1988; White 1988; Welch and Hibbing 1992;Gidengil 1995). Feminists argue that the political world need not and, indeed,should not be constructed based on stereotypical masculine characteristics andcertainly cannot be completely understood using a male-centered analysis (seeTickner 1992, 2001).

This assumption of universality based on male experience and characteristics isfurther perpetuated in IR theories intended to explain how world politics works(see Tickner 1992, 2001). International relations scholarship focuses on war, and onconflict more generally, in order to predict, explain, and hopefully reduce the

Feminist IR Theory and Quantitative Methodology: A Critical Analysis254

number of conflicts and the severity of violence. Unfortunately, the genesis of tra-ditional IR theory can be traced to the Hobbesian description of the state of naturewherein distrust and fear are presumed to be the dominant emotions and forces forpolitical action. International relations feminists reject this state of nature mythbecause of its masculine assumptions as outlined above. Feminist IR theorists haveproclaimed the emperor naked, as in the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, byexplaining that if prediction and explanation are predicated on erroneous as-sumptions about the universality of human experience based on a masculine ster-eotype, IR scholars may just be building a proverbial house of cards.

Jousting with Windmills

Conventional feminist IR scholars misrepresent the field of international relationsin arguing that IR scholarship as popularly accepted excludes alternative expla-nations of state behavior, including feminist inquiry, that go beyond structural,state-focused models. Feminist IR theorists, among others, critique the IR field forits state-centric approach and argue that ‘‘a world of states situated in an anarchicalinternational system leaves little room for analyses of social relations, includinggender relations’’ (Tickner 2001:146). As a result, they appear to set up a straw manby refusing to recognize the variety within ‘‘conventional’’ IR research. Indeed, asJack Levy (2000) has observed, a significant shift to societal-level variables hasoccurred, partly in response to the decline in the systemic imperatives of the bipolarera. Certainly the democratic peace literature, particularly its normative explana-tion (Maoz and Russett 1993; Dixon 1994), among other lines of inquiry, recognizesthe role of social relations in explaining state behavior.

The normative explanation for the democratic peace thesis emphasizes the soci-etal level values of human rights, support for the rule of law, and peaceful conflictresolution in explaining the likelihood of interstate conflict. Furthermore, dyadictests of the democratic peace thesis rely ‘‘on an emerging theoretical frameworkthat may prove capable of incorporating the strengths of the currently predom-inant realist or neorealist research program, and moving beyond it’’ (Ray2000:311). In addition, theorizing and research in the field of ethnonationalismhas highlighted connections that domestic ethnic discrimination and violence havewith state behavior at the international level (Gurr and Harff 1994; Van Evera1997; Caprioli and Trumbore 2003a, 2003b).

Contrary to the argument that conventional IR theory excludes feminist inquiry,space exists within the field of international relations for feminist inquiry evenallowing for a state-centric focus, just as room exists for scholars interested inexploring the democratic peace and ethnonationalism. International relations fem-inists make the same mistake that they accuse IR scholars of making: narrowing thespace for various worldviews, thereby creating competition and a sense of exclusionamong the so-called others. If the role of ‘‘feminist theory is to explain women’ssubordination, or the unjustified asymmetry between women’s and men’s social andeconomic positions, and to seek prescriptions for ending it’’ (Tickner 2001:11),then feminist IR scholarship ought to allow for an explanation of how women’ssubordination or inequality has an impact on state behavior, assuming a state-centric focus, while at the same time challenging the predetermination of a struc-tural analysis. If domestic inequality does affect state behavior, or even perpetuatesthe existence of states, then policy prescriptions should be sought.

Feminists most consistently argue that improving the condition of women, chal-lenging gender-neutral assumptions that are really male-centric, highlighting thepernicious effects of gender hierarchy, and committing to social justice are criticaland necessary components of feminist international relations (see Peterson 2002).At the most basic level, feminist international relations challenges the assumptionthat theories are gender neutral (Pettman 2002); Christine Sylvester (2002a) has

MARY CAPRIOLI 255

argued that feminists generally begin with gender but that not all such scholars arefeminists first. Indeed, ‘‘some prefer starting with a recognizable IR topic andbringing to it new gender-highlighting questions’’ (Sylvester 2002b:181). The roleof feminist IR scholarship has also been identified as showing ‘‘how gender rela-tions of inequality act to exclude women from the business of foreign policymak-ing’’ (Tickner 1999:48). At issue is the question: might feminist IR scholarshipbenefit from moving beyond a focus on the exclusion of women toward a focus onthe impact of that exclusion on state behavior? Feminist and gendered scholarship,regardless of methodology, can further feminist goals by focusing on the role thatthe norms of inequality and dominance play in constructing the international po-litical world, including that of state behavior, rather than only on the bias inherentin male-centered inquiry and the unequal impact of state violence on women.

Creating False Dichotomies

Conventional feminists appear to make several errors in creating a dichotomy be-tween what is considered ‘‘feminist’’ research and what would be called quantitativeresearch. First, by maintaining that a dichotomy exists between methodologies,conventional IR feminists create and perpetuate a hierarchy. Second, conventionalIR feminists commit the same error they accuse IR scholars of making by limitingthe definition of legitimate scholarship based on methodology. Third, conventionalfeminists routinely accept the socially constructed belief in the superiority of quan-titative methodology rather than deconstructing this notion and accepting quan-titative methodology as one of many imperfect research tools.

There is little utility in constructing a divide if none exists. As Thomas Kuhn(1962) argues, common measures do exist across paradigms that provide a sharedbasis for theory. It seems overly pessimistic to accept Karl Popper’s ‘‘Myth ofFramework,’’ which postulates that ‘‘we are prisoners caught in the framework ofour theories, our expectations, our past experiences, our language, and that as aconsequence, we cannot communicate with or judge those working in terms of adifferent paradigm’’ (Neufeld 1995:44). Some feminists (for example, Tickner1996, 2001; Peterson 2002; Steans 2003) appear to embrace this ‘‘Myth of Frame-work’’ by accentuating the differences between the perspectives of feminist and IRtheorists based on their past experiences and languages and criticize IR theoristsfor their lack of communication with feminist IR scholars.

Ironically, the ‘‘Myth of Framework’’ shares a number of assumptions with Hob-bes’s description of the state of nature that feminists routinely reject. The ‘‘Myth ofFramework’’ assumes no middle groundFscholars are presumably entrenched intheir own worldviews without hope of compromise or the ability to understandothers’ worldviews. If this is the case, scholars are doomed to discussions with like-minded individuals rather than having a productive dialogue with those outside theirown worldview. Scholars who accept the ‘‘Myth of Framework’’ have essentially cre-ated a Tower of Babel in which they choose not to understand each other’s language.The acceptance of such a myth creates conflict and establishes a hierarchy withininternational relations scholarship even though conventional feminists theoreticallyseek to identify and eradicate conflict and hierarchy within society as a whole.

The purported language difference between feminist and IR scholars appears tobe methodological. In general, feminist IR scholars2 are skeptical of empiricist

2Feminists are not alone in questioning the suitability of applying statistical methods from the natural sciences tothe social sciences. ‘‘Often they argue that the interesting problems of politics are too complex to be reduced tomathematical equations even though it is exactly when dealing with complex problems that mathematics becomes anattractive substitute for ordinary language because it is in complex problems that errors in informal logic are most easily

made and the hardest to discover’’ (Bueno de Mesquita 2002:5; emphasis in original). This debate, however, isbeyond the scope of this essay.


methodologies and ‘‘have never been satisfied with the boundary constraints ofconventional IR’’ (Tickner 2001:2). As noted above, conventional international re-lations is defined on the basis of methodology as a commitment ‘‘to empiricism anddata-based methods of testing’’ (Tickner 2001:149). Ironically, some feminist IRscholars place boundary constraints on feminist IR scholarship by limiting its def-inition to a critical-interpretive methodology (see Carpenter 2003:ftn. 1). Ratherthan pushing methodological boundaries to expand the field and to promote in-clusiveness, conventional IR feminists appear to discriminate against quantitativeresearch. If conventional feminists are willing to embrace multicultural approachesto feminism, why restrict research tools? There would seem to be a lack of con-sistency between rhetoric and practice. Especially at the global level, there need notbe only one way to achieve feminist goals. Hence, conventional feminist IR scholarsmight benefit from participating in mainstream IR scholars’ evolving embrace ofmethodological pluralism and epistemological opportunism (Bueno de Mesquita2002; Chan 2002; Fearon and Wendt 2002).

One must assume that feminist IR scholars support the pursuit of research thatbroadens our understanding of international relations. Such a research agendamust include both evidence and logic (Bueno de Mesquita 2002; Chan 2002).Theorizing, case study evidence (specific details), and external validity (generality)are all necessary components of researchFonly through a combination of all threemodes of inquiry can we begin to gain confidence in our understanding. ‘‘And stillwe debate what seems to have been obvious to our predecessors: to gain under-standing, we need to integrate careful empirical analysis with the equally carefulapplication of the power of reason’’ (Bueno de Mesquita 2002:2). Different types ofscholarship ‘‘make different contributions that can be mutually beneficial, as whenhistorical studies isolate immediate causes that act as catalysts for the general ten-dencies identified in aggregate analyses’’ (Chan 2002:754).

Without logic and theory, the general tendencies identified through quantitativeanalysis are incomplete. ‘‘In the absence of guidance from such logic, the dataexercises degenerate into mindless fishing expeditions and are vulnerable to spu-rious interpretations’’ (Chan 2002:750). Most scholars concerned with gender cer-tainly owe a debt to Jean Bethke Elshtain (1987), Cynthia Enloe (1989), and AnnTickner (1992). These IR feminists shattered the publishing boundary for feministIR scholarship and tackled the difficult task of deconstructing IR theory, includingits founding myths, thereby creating the logic to guide feminist quantitative re-search. It is only through exposure to feminist literature that one can begin toscientifically question the sexist assumptions inherent in the dominant paradigms ofinternational relations.

Feminist theory is rife with testable hypotheses that can only strengthen feministIR scholarship by identifying false leads and logical errors or by identifying generaltendencies that deserve further inquiry. Without the solid body of feminist liter-ature that exists, quantitative feminist IR scholarship would be meaningless. Theexisting feminist literature based on critical-interpretive epistemologies forms therationale for quantitative testing. No one methodology is superior to the others. So,why create a dichotomy if none exists? All methodologies contribute to our knowl-edge, and, when put together like pieces of a puzzle, they offer a clearer picture.The idea is to build a bridge of knowledge, not parallel walls that are equallyinadequate in their understanding of one another and in explaining internationalrelations.

Further undermining the false dichotomization between positivist and inter-pretivist methodologies is the lack of proof that quantitative methodologies cannotchallenge established paradigms or, more important, that a critical-interpretiveepistemology is unbiased or more likely to uncover some truth that is supposedlyobscured by quantitative inquiry. Part of the rationale for the perpetuation of thedichotomy between methodologies and for the critique of quantitative methodology

MARY CAPRIOLI 257

as a valid type of feminist inquiry involves confusing theory and practice. On atheoretical level, quantitative research is idealized as value-free and objective, whichof course it is notFparticularly when applied to the social sciences. Feminists op-posed to quantitative methodologies imagine that other scholars necessarily assumesuch scholarship to be objective (see Brown 1988). Few social scientists using quan-titative methodologies, however, would suggest that this methodology is value-free,which is why so much emphasis is placed on defining measures. This procedureleaves room for debate and provides space for feminist inquiry. For example,feminists might wish to study the effect of varying definitions of democracyand of security on the democratic peace thesis, ultimately combining methodologiesto provide a more thorough understanding of the social matrix underlyingstate behavior.

The second aspect perpetuating the dichotomy between methodologies is in er-roneously identifying statistics as having an inherently masculine agenda. As EvelynHammonds and Helen Longina (1990) argue, feminists need to present a clearlyarticulated critique of quantitative methodology demonstrating its inherent mas-culinity. This association between statistics and masculinity is based on a line offeminist inquiry that exposes the association of masculinity with objectivity and thescientific method (Keller 1983:187). As a result, a certain prestige in and inherentbias toward using the scientific method arises precisely because the world is organ-ized hierarchically based on gender (Keller 1983:202). But this belief in the supe-riority of quantitative methods is socially constructed (Keller 1983; Hughes 1995).If more women were to use the scientific method, a different science might emerge(Keller 1983; Hooper 2001). It is unfortunate that some feminists feel the need tojustify conventional feminist epistemologies because of the apparent low status suchresearch has. As Sandra Harding (1987:1) has argued, no distinctive feministmethodology exists because each methodology can contribute to feminist goals.

Whether or not a traditional or feminist IR scholar runs the same statisticalanalysis, the numerical results should be identical. Although the history of statisticalmethods might be perceived as having had questionable motivations with its genesisrooted within a particular social, political, and economic context, this beginningdoes not invalidate knowledge gained from mathematics or render the mathemat-ics false (Hughes 1995). The math itself is not necessarily biased. The interpretationand the measurement used, however, are subject to debate. This fact does notreveal a flaw in the methodology but merely indicates that data are subject to theinterpretation of the scholar who must rely on theory to guide analysis.

It is true that often-used measures tend to be biased by the worldviews of thescholars who constructed them, and that those worldviews may or may not includeconsiderations of gender. By largely ignoring feminist empiricist scholarship, how-ever, conventional feminists are missing an opportunity to make an importantcontribution to IR scholarship in helping identify and critique the gendered as-sumptions that can affect measurement and the interpretation of results. For il-lustrative purposes in highlighting the importance of being precise in ourdefinitions and measurements, let us examine the democratic peace thesis andthe role of definitions. Feminists should join Ido Oren (1995) in debating howdemocracy should be defined. Is the concept of democracy normative or a de-scription of the type of government found in the dominant states of our sys-temFthose that cannot be characterized as autocratic or totalitarian? Or, perhaps,democracy should be based on political rights. Spencer Weart (1994:302), for ex-ample, labels a state a democracy ‘‘if the body of citizens with political rights in-cludes at least two-thirds of the adult males.’’ Notwithstanding the one-third ofadult males who are disenfranchised, this definition completely excludes womenfrom the analysis.

Feminists might also wish to question the following assumption: ‘‘Democraticnorms have become deeply entrenched, since many states have been democracies


for long periods and principles such as true universal suffrage have been put intopractice’’ (Maoz and Russett 1993:627). What exactly is true universal suffrage, andwhat are democratic norms if they exclude women’s social, economic, and politicalequality (see Caprioli forthcoming-b)? Equally shocking is the statement that ‘‘in ademocracy, the government rarely needs to use force to resolve conflicts; order canbe maintained without violent suppression’’ (Maoz and Russett 1993:630). Yet, de-mocracies routinely overlook social violence and often this violence is againstwomen (Broadbent 1993; Thomas 1993; Moon 1997; Caprioli 2003). By refusingto recognize quantitative methodologies as valid, feminists fail to offer a muchneeded critique and reconceptualization of current IR research such as that justdescribed. Feminists, in essence, are, then, not in a position to take advantage of theopportunity to directly engage the broader community of IR scholars.

Feminists offer no direct refutation of the statistics employed by IR scholars butrather of the supposed assumption of objectivity behind the methodology. Perhapsthis is because the statistical results themselves may be irrefutable given the def-initions used. Feminists argue that reality is constructed through words (Dworkin1974, 1979, 1987; Cohn 1987; MacKinnon 1987, 1989, 1993; Hartsock 1989; Po-vinelli 1991; Milliken and Sylvan 1996). Essentially, one can only communicateideas that the language allows. Statistics, however, is not analogous to language andis not restrictive. Controversy usually occurs over the rationales that are used forcoding and the interpretation of results. Definitions and predictions, however,should be open to debate, including consideration of the alternative that womenmay not matter in the current structure of the international arena given the realityof state power. Yet, even this conclusion creates space for feminist dialogue intheorizing about the characteristics that would need to be present for constructing adifferent world that includes gender equality.

So, quantitative methods could become one common approach to studying issuesimportant to feminists. Conventional feminists, thus, would benefit from continuingto explore how quantitative research can further their purposes. Data, such as thatprovided in the UN Statistical Yearbook, the UN Demographic Yearbook, the World Reporton Economics and Social Conditions, The World Tables, among others, are often used tofurther feminist goals. At the most basic level, IR feminists argue that the exclusionand subordination of women is a global problem. We know this fact based ondataFquantitatively derived data. Furthermore, international organizations rou-tinely build support for their policies, such as for micro-credit for women, based onstatistics. And though largely ignored, quantitative studies are sometimes cited ifthey support conventional feminist IR arguments. For example, a study by MarkTessler and Ina Warriner (1997) has been used to lend credence to the argumentthat ‘‘reducing unequal gender hierarchies could make a positive contribution topeace and social justice’’ (Tickner 2001:61).

A Response to the ‘‘Add Gender and Stir’’ Criticism

The derision with which many conventional feminists view feminist quantitativestudies persists to the detriment of both feminist and other types of IR scholarship.As Jan Jindy Pettman (2002) has argued, however, no single feminist position existsin international relations. One of the most common feminist critiques of feministquantitative research is that scholars cannot simply ‘‘add gender and stir’’ (Peterson2002; Steans 2003), for gender is not just one of many variables. Yet, gender is oneof many variables when we are discussing international issues, from human rightsto war. As Fred Halliday (1988) has observed, gender is not the core of internationalrelations or the key to understanding it. Such a position would grossly overstate thefeminist case. Gender may be an important explanatory and predictive componentbut it certainly is not the only one.

MARY CAPRIOLI 259

Such a critique only serves to undermine the feminist argument against a sci-entific methodology for the social sciences by questioning the scholarship of thosewho employ quantitative methodologies. One does not pull variables ‘‘out of theair’’ to put into a model, thereby ‘‘adding and stirring.’’ Variables are added tomodels if a theoretical justification for doing so exists:

the basic method of social science remains the same: make a conjecture aboutcausality; formulate that conjecture as an hypothesis, consistent with establishedtheory (and perhaps deduced from it, at least in part); specify the observableimplications of the hypothesis; test for whether those implications obtain in thereal world; and overall, ensure that one’s procedures are publicly known andreplicable. Relevant evidence has to be brought to bear on hypotheses generatedby theory for the theory to be meaningful. (Keohane 1998:196)

Peterson (2002:158) postulates that ‘‘as long as IR understands gender only as anempirical category (for example, how do women in the military affect the conductof war?), feminisms appear largely irrelevant to the discipline’s primary questionsand inquiry.’’ Yet, little evidence actually supports this contentionFunless one isarguing that gender is the only important category of analysis.

If researchers cannot add gender to an analysis, then they must necessarily use apurely female-centered analysis, even though the utility of using a purely female-centered analysis seems equally biased. Such research would merely be gender-centric based on women rather than men, and it would thereby provide an equallybiased account of international relations as those that are male-centric. Althoughone might speculate that having research done from the two opposing worldviewsmight more fully explain international relations, surely an integrated approachwould offer a more comprehensive analysis of world affairs.

Beyond a female-centric analysis, some scholars (for example, Carver 2002) ar-gue that feminist research must offer a critique of gender as a set of power relations.Gender categories, however, do exist and have very real implications for individ-uals, social relations, and international affairs. Critiquing the social construction ofgender is important, but it fails to provide new theories of international relations orto address the implications of gender for what happens in the world. Sylvester(2002a) has wondered aloud whether feminist research should be focused primarilyon critique, warning that feminists should avoid an exclusive focus on highlightinganomalies, for such a focus does not add to feminist IR theories.

Without measurement, no science of social behavior can exist (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2000). We infer the presence of gender discrimination, forexample, through empirically observable measures that indicate the extent of itspresence (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 2000). In social science, to measureany complex subject, we use indicators of concepts that are not directly observable.As Susan Gal (1991:175) argues ‘‘gender is better seen as a system of culturallyconstructed relations of power, produced and reproduced in interaction betweenand among men and women.’’ We know, for instance, that masculine and femininevalues are not inherent to each biological sex but are adopted behaviors (Goffman1976). Gender (masculine/feminine) and biological sex (men/women), however, areoften used interchangeably (see Carpenter 2002).

Although gender and sex have been conflated, one could argue that it is difficult,if not impossible, to identify social characteristics of women that are unique fromthose of gender-prescribed values and roles and from those of men (see Caprioli2000, 2003; Hooper 2001). The importance of discussing gender, however, is inunderstanding that it is considered a political means of domination with masculinecharacteristics valued over feminine (Humm 1990). This hierarchy based on gen-der leads to ‘‘social relations of domination and subordination’’ (Tickner 1992:128).Sex, therefore, is a meaningful category in feminist analysis because it helps us


understand the effects of the prevailing masculine/feminine stereotypes at all levels ofanalysis. In other words, sex becomes an indicator of gender and can be empiricallymeasured in keeping with the stated purpose of feminism, which involves furtheringthe cause of women as a biological sex and examining gender as a social construct.

Quantitative research can be used to analyze the significance of gender as long as(1) gender is recognized as socially constructed, (2) sociopolitical outcomes aredemonstrated to be a result of gender construction, and (3) ‘‘a convincing empiricalaccount of the ways in which the belief operated to constrain, enable, or consti-tute the outcomes in question’’ (Carpenter 2003:298) is provided. Therefore,quantitative gender analysis can meet Robert Keohane’s (1998:197) challenge tospecify propositions that are tested using systematically gathered evidence.

Quantitative Contributions Supporting Feminist Theories

Although many IR feminists claim ‘‘that positivist methodologies are inadequate forbuilding a body of knowledge that takes gender identity and hierarchical socialrelations as its central framework and that acknowledges the mutual constitution oftheory and practice’’ (Tickner 2002:196), quantitative IR scholars, some of whomwould consider themselves feminist, have begun to build just such a body ofknowledge, combining feminist and security studies. The following offers a briefsummary of the feminist implications of some of these quantitative internationalrelations studies. This discussion is not meant to be exhaustive but rather a rep-resentation of existing quantitative security studies that both add to and draw fromfeminist IR scholarship. Such a list needs to start with the literature on publicopinion, which might be considered one of the first quantitative feminist literatures,although it is not always focused on international studies.

Tessler and Warriner (1997) contribute to the dialogue between gender studiesand international relations with their empirical study analyzing survey data fromIsrael, Egypt, Palestine, and Kuwait. They test the extent to which sex and genderequality explain the variance in views about war and peace. They conclude that sexis not a significant predictor of attitudes about war but that the relation betweennorms of gender equality and attitudes toward international conflict is statisticallysignificant.

Mark Tessler, Jodi Nachtwey, and Audra Grant (1999) extended Tessler andWarriner’s (1997) study but focus exclusively on the relationship between sex andattitudes toward international conflict. This study includes more data from theoriginal countries and adds data for Jordan and Lebanon. The authors concludethat no statistically significant relationship exists between sex and attitudes towardinternational conflict in the Middle East. These conclusions differ from studies ofthe United States and Europe, which, although not uniform and not always sub-stantively significant, do find a statistically significant difference between the sup-port of men and women for the use of military force (for example, Fite, Genest, andWilcox 1990; Conover and Sapiro 1993; McGlen and Sarkees 1993; Wilcox, Ferrar,and Allsop 1993). Indeed, Clyde Wilcox, Laura Hewitt, and Dee Allsop’s (1996)findingsFlike those of Tessler, Nachtwey, and GrantFfind cross-national differ-ences in the link between sex and attitudes toward international conflict.

Monty Marshall and Donna Ramsey (1999) conducted one, if not the first,quantitative study of feminist international relations theories regarding state be-havior. The authors tested the feminist claim that issues of gender are important inpredicting the use of force during interstate disputes. They included gender em-powerment in their multiple regression, first to test whether gender equality helpedpredict state use of force, and second as a means of broadening our understandingof democracy within the democratic peace literature by using gender equality asone indicator of the entrenchment of democratic values. Although the authorsmake no strong causal inferences based on their analysis, they do find a robust

MARY CAPRIOLI 261

relationship between gender empowerment and the willingness of states to useforce. The authors further argue that the use of violence institutionalizes discrim-ination and inhibits further gender equality. Marshall and Ramsey (1999:32) con-clude ‘‘that gender theory and analysis may be successfully integrated withtraditional international relations theory and quantitative research methods.’’

Adding to the quantitative feminist IR literature, Caprioli (2000) applied feministtheory and drew upon the empirical findings of the public opinion surveys dis-cussed above to test the potential impact of domestic gender equality on statebehavior internationally. She used logistic regression to test the relationshipbetween several measures of women’s social, economic, and political equality andthe escalation of violence during militarized interstate disputes. Caprioli concludesthat higher levels of domestic gender equality result in less emphasis on militaryaction in settling international disputes.

Caprioli and Boyer (2001) extend Caprioli’s earlier work to assess the impact ofdomestic gender equality on state’s international crisis behavior. The authors pro-vide an empirically based descriptive analysis of the behavior of states with femaleleaders as primary decision makers during times of international crises. They thenuse logistic regression to test the relationship between domestic gender equalityand the level of violence exhibited during international crises, concluding that theseverity of violence in a crisis does decrease as domestic gender equality increases.

In a later study, Caprioli (2003) further tested the relationship between domesticgender equality and state behavior during militarized interstate disputes. In thispiece, she included an analysis relating gendered structural inequality to domesticnorms of violence. Using logistic regression to assess the role of domestic genderequality in predicting the likelihood of a state using force first during interstatedisputes permits a more rigorous test of the author’s earlier work by isolating theeffects of reciprocated violence. Caprioli concludes that higher levels of genderequality lower the level of state aggression during interstate disputes. In otherwords, states with higher levels of gender inequality are more likely to use force firstin interstate disputes.

Caprioli (forthcoming-a) extends her earlier findings relating gender equality tointerstate behavior to internal or domestic level conflict. In this research, the authorseriously considers the implications of feminist theories by providing an analysis ofstructural violence and the role of gender inequality and discrimination in nation-alist uprisings to assess this variable’s potential role in predicting intrastate violence.Caprioli uses logistic regression to examine the impact of gender inequality on thelikelihood of intrastate conflict and concludes that domestic gender equality re-duces the occurrence of intrastate violence. In other words, states characterized bygender inequality are more likely to experience intrastate conflict, confirming thebasic link between gender inequality and intrastate conflict.

Patrick Regan and Aida Paskeviciute (2003) extended the analysis of genderequality and state use of force internationally beyond the state level by focusing onwhether the gender distribution of political power at the societal level influencesthe willingness of the ruling elite to engage in interstate disputes. The authorsconclude that women’s access to the political arena helps predict the likelihood of astate engaging in interstate disputes and in war. The authors offer a policy pre-scription suggesting that support for family planning facilities can facilitate morepeaceful interstate relations.

To more closely examine some of the sexist assumptions within security studies,Caprioli (forthcoming-b) engaged in a large empirical study to examine whethernotions of security are gender neutral in creating the same political freedoms andhuman rights for men and women. More specifically, she was interested in testingwhether democracy and human rights positively relate to women’s security.This piece directly explored feminist IR theories regarding gender bias by exam-ining these universalist security assumptions, highlighting their gender bias, and


emphasizing the need to move beyond naıve assumptions of human security. Cap-rioli concluded that security norms are gender biased in that women lack securityacross all polity types and that this insecurity is not fully captured using typicalmeasures of human rights.

Focusing on sex rather than gender, Natalie Florea and her colleagues (2003)empirically tested feminist hypotheses regarding differences in negotiating stylesbetween men and women. The authors found that gender affected negotiating stylebased on evidence indicating that all-female groups behaved differently from all-male groups and that mixed gendered groups behaved differently from both singlesex groups. Women tended to negotiate by appealing to higher principles such asjustice or the consequences on participants (see also Gilligan 1982). Consider thedifference this type of negotiating style might make as more women gain politicalequality and become policymakers.

The studies discussed above further our understanding of the role that genderequality can play in predicting state behavior. Some of these studies have directpolicy implications concerning gender equality. Rather than making a case forgender equality based on issues of social justice (though that ought to be sufficient),these studies argue that discrimination and violence against women have implica-tions for the state. Indeed, this quantitative international relations literature leads toseveral conclusions:

(1) The mixed findings in the public opinion scholarship regarding sex andattitudes toward international conflict create a space for further feministtheorizing and demand further empirical analyses.

(2) Norms of gender equality seem to be associated with attitudes towardinternational conflict. Based on the public opinion literature, norms ofgender equality are better predictors of state behavior than is sex (Tesslerand Warriner 1997; Tessler, Nachtwey, and Grant 1999).

(3) Gender empowerment decreases states’ use of force internationally(Marshall and Ramsey 1999).

(4) Gender equality limits the escalation of violence during militarized in-terstate disputes (Caprioli 2000).

(5) Gender equality decreases the severity of violence during crisis (Caprioliand Boyer 2001).

(6) Gender equality reduces the likelihood that a state will use force first ininterstate disputes (Caprioli 2003).

(7) Gender equality reduces the occurrence of intrastate violence (Caprioliforthcoming-a).

(8) The greater the access of women to political power, the lower the like-lihood that a state will engage in interstate disputes and in war (Reganand Paskeviciute 2003).

(9) Security norms are gender biased, thus highlighting the need for policyprescriptions that address the differential impact of democracy and hu-man rights on women and men (Caprioli forthcoming-b).

(10) Women and men use different negotiating styles, potentially leading todifferent foreign policy outcomes (Florea et al. 2003).

Feminists’ Self-Reflection on Methodology

There does appear to be a tension among feministsFand some self-reflection re-garding the role that quantitative methodology can play in the examination ofworld politics. For example, Elshtain (1993:102) states that she is ‘‘not anti-empir-ical.’’ And Enloe (1989; see also 2001) does assess issues of causality in Bananas,Beaches, and Bases. In keeping with feminist methodology, however, perhaps it isbest to let the feminist IR scholars speak for themselves.

MARY CAPRIOLI 263

Below are several quotes from Tickner that highlight the dilemma for feminist IRscholars in accepting the validity of quantitative feminist scholarship:

I share the views of many contemporary feminists that developing causal expla-nations modeled on the natural sciences is inappropriate in the social sciences dueto the impossibility of separating human intentions and human interests from ourknowledge construction. But we must continue to strive for a deeper and moresystematic understanding of the political, social, and economic relations, includ-ing gender relations, which inform the behavior of states. (Tickner 1999:48)

Even though many IR feminists have rejected social scientific methodologies, theintroduction of feminist approaches into the discipline has also stimulated agrowing body of research on women in international politics that draws on thesemore conventional methodologies. . . . An important (and uncomfortable) ques-tion for many IR feminists is whether our tolerance (and celebration) of differ-ence can extend to this type of work. (Tickner 2002:197)

Nevertheless, I do think that IR feminists in postpositivist traditions should con-sider how to engage more seriously with the type of work [that adds women toexisting paradigms and research traditions]. . . . Since a basic assumption of post-positivist feminist IR has been the inadequacy of conventional methodologies forunderstanding the issues with which it is concerned, can (or should) we be trulytolerant when fundamental questions about epistemologies are at stake? (Tickner2002:197–198).

Tickner is not alone in trying to determine the costs and benefits of acceptingquantitative feminist research as feminist. Peterson (2002:159) echoes some ofTickner’s reflections:

there are good reasons for continuing to ‘‘ask feminist questions in IR.’’ It isimportant to remember that limited impact is not the same as no impact, and Ibelieve that IR needs feminist and other critical interventions. First, continuing towork ‘‘within IR’’ is important for the differences it already makes and will con-tinue to make. Not least among these is the availability of feminist IR (and othercritical studies) as an area of inquiry for students and an academic option forgraduates. In the absence of more transdisciplinary offerings and job placements,building crucial subfields directly benefits participants and indirectly promoteschanges in the mainstream.

Sylvester (2002b:181–182), although not discounting feminist quantitative liter-ature, points out that few feminist IR scholars choose to use quantitative method-ologies:

most feminists engaged with international relations share interest in ethnograph-ic and anthropological methods of analysis, with human geography replacinggeopolitics and bottom-up research transplanting abstractions. Quantitative anal-ysis, formal modeling, gamingFthere are few followers of these approaches inthe feminist corner of ‘‘our field.’’

This wrestling suggests that there may be hope that the differences amongquantitative feminist, traditional international relations, and feminist IR scholarscan be reduced. Of course, it is important that reducing such tension does notinvolve dismissing typical feminist methodologies as illegitimate. The argumentsraised herein have been intended to focus on the inconsistencies that result fromsome feminists’ refusals to recognize feminist quantitative scholarship. But there is,truly, no need to battle over analytical paradigms if all are useful (Fearon andWendt 2002). Quantitative feminist studies can provide an understanding of trends,whereas feminist methodologies provide a rich contextual analysis. Benefits and


costs attend to both types of analyses: the first offers generalizability with limiteddetail; the latter provides detail with limited applicability. Both draw upon the samefeminist theories.

Creating a Dialogue between Feminist and IR Scholars

We should learn from the research of feminist scholars to engage in a dialogue thatcan be understood. Carol Cohn (1987), for example, found that one could not beunderstood or taken seriously within the national security arena without using amasculine-gendered language. In other words, a common language is necessary tounderstand and be understood. This insight could be applied to feminist researchwithin international relations. Why not, as Charlotte Hooper (2001:10) suggests,make ‘‘strategic use of [expert jargon] to gain credibility for feminist arguments (orotherwise subvert it for feminist ends).’’ Little justification exists for abandoning theliberal empiricists who reason that ‘‘the problem of developing better knowledgelies not with the scientific method itself but with the biases in the ways in which ourtheories have been focused and developed’’ (Tickner 2001:13).

Building on existing feminist theoretical discourse, scholars need to analyze theeffects of inequality on the stateFspecifically state behavior internationally. In sodoing, quantitative feminists can address the question: ‘‘Does it make any differenceto states’ behavior that their foreign and security policies are so often legitimatedthrough appeals to various types of hegemonic masculinity?’’ (Tickner 2001:140).Indeed, aspects of this question have already been addressed in research (Caprioliand Boyer 2001; Caprioli 2003; Caprioli and Trumbore 2003a, 2003b) that bor-rows from the democratic peace literature to argue that domestic norms of violenceinherent in structural inequality transfer to the international arena just as domesticnorms of peaceful conflict resolution are said to do. These arguments concerningstructural inequality and societal violence add further depth to the establishedliterature that indicates the role of domestic political factors in predicting statebehavior in the international arena, thereby beginning to bridge the gap betweenfeminist and traditional IR scholarship.

An intriguing line of feminist research might involve combining methodologies toexplain why women are found to be less likely than men to support the use of force(Nincic and Nincic 2002) in some studies and not in others (Tessler, Nachtwey, andGrant 1999) and to quantitatively assess the impact of a divergent type of public opin-ion on state behavior. In other words, do states with the largest gender gaps regardingsupport for the use of force and with nominal political equality between the sexesbehave any differently internationally than do states not sharing these characteristics?

Another interesting line of quantitative feminist inquiry might examine thecomplexities involved in using a broader definition of security. As Tickner(1992:22) has argued, feminism envisages ‘‘a type of security that is global andmultidimensional with political, economic, and ecological facets that are as impor-tant as its military dimensions.’’ Thus, feminism, in opposition to realism, definessecurity as the elimination of all violence and unjust social relations and highlightsthe importance of cooperation and interdependence as well as stresses social con-cerns over military prowess. Such a definition might lead to the following hypoth-esis: Are states that emphasize the elimination of violence and unjust social relationsin their domestic and foreign policies more likely to cooperate international-lyFwith cooperation variously defined as involvement in international organiza-tions, adherence to international treaties (especially those focused on humanrights), willingness to end conflict through mediation, and so on? The possibilitiesare truly endless and can only add to our understanding of state behavior. Indeed,as was observed above, states with higher levels of gender equality are more likelyto support diplomacy and compromise (Tessler and Warriner 1997), exhibit lower

MARY CAPRIOLI 265

levels of violence when involved in international disputes (Caprioli 2000) and ininternational crises (Caprioli and Boyer 2001), and are less likely to use force firstduring international conflict (Caprioli 2003).

Feminist IR scholars need to guard against imposing their own limitations onfeminist IR scholarship, thereby creating an inhospitable environment for the studyof gender through their own challenge to ‘‘disciplinary boundaries and methodsthat, they believe, impose limitations on the kinds of questions that can be askedand the ways in which they can be answered’’ (Tickner 2001:146). Feminist IRinquiry is not incompatible with empirical inquiry and, as was suggested in theexamples above, can contribute to our knowledge about international relations inimportant ways.

Embracing Difference: Neofeminism

It is important that scholars agree to disagree and to continue to justify differentworldviews while at the same time accepting that scholarship based on multipleworldviews can enhance our capabilities for prediction and explanation. After all,IR scholars share a similar goal as the feminists in trying to understand the in-ternational arena. Feminist IR scholarship should include quantitative analyses andin the process facilitate building a diverse and more systematic research agenda. Inturn, perhaps feminist scholars could benefit from including quantitative analyses,even assuming that a bias toward quantitative methodology exists within main-stream IR scholarship, in order to speak with a voice that is understood by those notdefined as conventional feminist IR scholars.

It may be an appropriate time within the evolution of international relations tocreate a neofeminism that extends the scope of feminist IR scholarship and en-hances its explanatory capabilities in much the same way that neorealism extendedrealism without ignoring its basic tenets. Neofeminism would allow for an exam-ination of gender issues, women’s empowerment, and the role of gender and vi-olence at all levels of analysis, using all different types of methodologies.Neofeminist scholars might also choose to enhance women’s empowerment usingtraditional IR theories and focusing on the state. And neofeminist research wouldrecognize that complete models of conflict, for example, must include more than ananalysis of gender and that such inclusion does not constitute ‘‘adding gender andstirring’’ if built on solid feminist theory. Thus, neofeminist research would con-tinue to have a commitment to social justice and place an emphasis on women, butit would discard the additional requirement of having ‘‘a critical/interpretive epis-temology’’ (Carpenter 2002:ftn. 1) as too limiting, ultimately detrimental to thefeminist goal of promoting social justice, and biased in a way that is contrary tofeminist claims of inclusion.

Perhaps neofeminists would begin to bridge the artificial divide between con-ventional IR feminist scholars and IR scholars. As both Ray (2000) and Levy (2000)note, there seems to be a refocusing of IR scholarship away from the systemic levelof analysis in favor of societal and state-level factors. This shift may take us to as yetuncharted intellectual and theoretical spaces that need not exclude feminist inquiry.

References

BENERIA, LOURDES, AND REBECCA BLANK. (1989) Women and the Economics of Military Spending. InRocking the Ship of State: Towards a Feminist Peace Politics, edited by Adrienne Harris and YnestraKing. Boulder: Westview.

BROADBENT, EDWARD. (1993) Getting Rid of Male Bias. In Ours by Right: Women’s Rights as HumanRights, edited by Joanna Kerr. Atlantic Highlands, NY: Zed Books.

BROCK-UTNE, BIRGIT. (1985) Educating for Peace: A Feminist Perspective. New York: Pergamon.BROWN, SARAH. (1988) Feminism, International Theory, and International Relations of Gender In-

equality. Millennium 17:461–475.


BUENO DE MESQUITA, BRUCE. (2002) Domestic Politics and International Relations. International StudiesQuarterly 46:1–9.

BURGUIERES, MARY. (1990) Feminist Approaches to Peace: Another Step for Peace Studies. Millennium19:1–18.

CAPRIOLI, MARY. (2000) Gendered Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 37:51–68.CAPRIOLI, MARY. (2003) Gender Equality and State Aggression: The Impact of Domestic Gender

Equality on State First Use of Force. International Interactions 29(3):195–214.CAPRIOLI, MARY. (Forthcoming-a) Primed for Violence: The Role of Gender Inequality in Predicting

Internal Conflict. International Studies Quarterly.CAPRIOLI, MARY. (Forthcoming-b) Democracy and Human Rights versus Women’s Security: A Con-

tradiction? Security Dialogue.CAPRIOLI, MARY, AND MARK A. BOYER. (2001) Gender, Violence, and International Crisis. Journal of

Conflict Resolution 45:503–518.CAPRIOLI, MARY, AND PETER F. TRUMBORE. (2003a) Ethno-Inequality and International Violence:

Testing the International Impact of Domestic Behavior. Journal of Peace Research 40:5–23.CAPRIOLI, MARY, AND PETER F. TRUMBORE. (2003b) Hierarchies of Dominance: Identifying Rogue

States and Testing Their Interstate Conflict Behavior. European Journal of International Relations9:377–406.

CARPENTER, R. CHARLI. (2002) Gender Theory in World Politics: Contributions of a NonfeministStandpoint? International Studies Review 4(3):153–165.

CARPENTER, R. CHARLI. (2003) Stirring Gender into the Mainstream: Constructivism, Feminism, andthe Uses of IR Theory. International Studies Review 5:297–302.

CARVER, TERRELL. (2002) Men and IR/Men in IR. In Gendering the International, edited by LouizaOdysseos and Hakan Seckinelgin. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan.

CHAN, STEVE. (2002) On Different Types of International Relations Scholarship. Journal of PeaceResearch 39:747–756.

COHN, CAROL. (1987) Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals. Signs 12:687–718.CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON, AND VIRGINIA SAPIRO. (1993) Gender, Feminist Consciousness, and

War. American Journal of Political Science 37:1079–1099.DIETZ, MARY G. (1985) Citizenship with a Feminist Face: The Problem with Maternal Thinking.

Political Theory 13:19–35.DIXON, WILLIAM. (1994) Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict. American

Political Science Review 88:14–32.DWORKIN, ANDREA. (1974) Woman Hating. New York: Penguin.DWORKIN, ANDREA. (1979) Pornography. New York: Penguin.DWORKIN, ANDREA. (1987) Intercourse. New York: Free Press.ELSHTAIN, JEAN BETHKE. (1987) Women and War. New York: Basic Books.ELSHTAIN, JEAN BETHKE. (1993) Bringing It All Back Home, Again. In Global Voices: Dialogues in

International Relations, edited by James N. Rosenau. Boulder: Westview.ENLOE, CYNTHIA. (1989) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Relations.

London: Pandora.ENLOE, CYNTHIA. (2001) Interview with Professor Cynthia Enloe. Review of International Studies

27:649–666.FEARON, JAMES, AND ALEXANDER WENDT. (2002) Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View. In

Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons.London: Sage.

FITE, DAVID, MARC GENEST, AND CLYDE WILCOX. (1990) Gender Differences in Foreign Policy Atti-tudes. American Political Quarterly 18:492–513.

FLOREA, N. B., M. A. BOYER, S. W. BROWN, M. J. BUTLER, M. HERNANDEZ, K. WEIR, L. MENG, P. R.JOHNSON, H. J. MAYALL, AND C. LIMA. (2003) Negotiating from Mars to Venus. Simulation &Gaming 34:226–248.

FRANKFORT-NACHMIAS, CHAVA, AND DAVID NACHMIAS. (2000) Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 6thed. New York: Worth.

GAL, SUSAN. (1991) Between Speech and Silence: The Problematics of Research on Language andGender. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge, edited by Micaela di Leonardo. Los Angeles:University of California Press.

GIDENGIL, ELISABETH. (1995) Economic ManFSocial Woman? Comparative Political Studies 28:384–408.GILLIGAN, CAROL. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.GOFFMAN, ERVING. (1976) Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.

MARY CAPRIOLI 267

GURR, TED ROBERT, AND BARBARA HARFF. (1994) Ethnic Conflict in World Politics. Boulder: Westview.HALLIDAY, FRED. (1988) Hidden From International Relations: Women and the International Arena.

Millennium 17:419–428.HAMMONDS, EVELYN, AND HELEN E. LONGINA. (1990) Conflicts and Tensions in the Feminist Study of

Gender and Science. In Conflicts in Feminism, edited by Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller.New York: Routledge.

HARDING, SANDRA. (1987) Feminism and Methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.HARTSOCK, NANCY. (1989) Masculinity, Heroism, and the Making of War. In Rocking the Ship of State,

edited by Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King. Boulder: Westview.HOOPER, CHARLOTTE. (2001) Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics. New

York: Columbia University Press.HUGHES, DONNA M. (1995) Significant Differences: The Construction of Knowledge, Objectivity, and

Dominance. Women’s Studies International Forum 18:393–406.HUMM, MAGGIE. (1990) The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.KELLER, EVELYN FOX. (1983) Gender and Science. In Discovering Reality, edited by Sandra Harding

and Merrill B. Hintikka. Boston: D. Reidel.KEOHANE, ROBERT O. (1998) Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and

Feminist Theory. International Studies Quarterly 42:193–198.KINSELLA, HELEN. (2003) For a Careful Reading: The Conservativism of Gender Constructivism.

International Studies Review 5:294–297.KUHN, THOMAS S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.LASSWELL, HAROLD. (1936) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill.LEVY, JACK S. (2000) Reflections on the Scientific Study of War. In What Do We Know About War, edited

by John A. Vasquez. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.MACKINNON, CATHERINE A. (1987) Feminism Unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.MACKINNON, CATHERINE A. (1989) Toward A Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.MACKINNON, CATHERINE A. (1993) Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.MAOZ, ZEEV, AND BRUCE RUSSETT. (1993) Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace,

1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87:624–638.MARSHALL, MONTY G., AND DONNA RAMSEY. (1999) Gender Empowerment and the Willingness of

States to Use Force. Unpublished research paper, Center for Systemic Peace. Available at http://www.members.aol.com/CSPmgm/.

MCGLEN, NANCY E., AND MEREDITH REID SARKEES. (1993) Women in Foreign Policy: The Insiders. NewYork: Routledge.

MILLER, A. (1988) Gender and the Vote: 1984. In The Politics of the Gender Gap, edited by C. M. Mueller.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MILLIKEN, JENNIFER, AND DAVID SYLVAN. (1996) Soft Bodies, Hard Targets, and Chic Theories: USBombing Policy in Indochina. Millennium 25:321–359.

MOON, KATHARINE H. S. (1997) Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations. New York:Columbia University Press.

NEUFELD, MARK A. (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

NINCIC, MIROSLAV, AND DONNA J. NINCIC. (2002) Race, Gender, and War. Journal of Peace Research39:547–568.

OREN, IDO. (1995) The Subjectivity of the ‘‘Democratic’’ Peace: Changing U.S. Perceptions of ImperialGermany. International Security 20(2):147–184.

PETERSON, V. SPIKE. (1992) Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and Inter-national Relations. Millennium 21:183–206.

PETERSON, V. SPIKE. (2002) On The Cut(ting) Edge. In Critical Perspectives in InternationalStudies, edited by Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

PETTMAN, JAN JINDY. (2002) Critical Paradigms in International Studies: Bringing It All Back Home?In Critical Perspectives in International Studies, edited by Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

POVINELLI, ELIZABETH A. (1991) Organizing Women, Rhetoric, Economy, and Politics in Processamong Australian Aborigines. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in thePostmodern Era, edited by M. Di Leonardo. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

RAY, JAMES LEE. (2000) Democracy: On the Level(s), Does Democracy Correlate with Peace? In WhatDo We Know about War, edited by John A. Vasquez. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.


REGAN, PATRICK M., AND AIDA PASKEVICIUTE. (2003) Women’s Access to Politics and Peaceful States.Journal of Peace Research 40:287–302.

SKJELSBAEK, INGER, AND DAN SMITH, EDS. (2001) Gender, Peace and Conflict. London: Sage.STEANS, JILL. (2003) Engaging From the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the ‘‘Mainstream’’ of

International Relations. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5:428–454.SYLVESTER, CHRISTINE. (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.SYLVESTER, CHRISTINE. (2002a) Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.SYLVESTER, CHRISTINE. (2002b) ‘‘Progress’’ as Feminist International Relations. In Critical Perspectives

in International Studies, edited by Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.

TESSLER, MARK, AND INA WARRINER. (1997) Gender, Feminism, and Attitudes toward InternationalConflict. World Politics 49:250–281.

TESSLER, MARK, JODI NACHTWEY, AND AUDRA GRANT. (1999) Further Tests of the Women and PeaceHypothesis: Evidence from Cross-National Survey Research in the Middle East. InternationalStudies Quarterly 43:519–531.

THOMAS, DOROTHY Q. (1993) Holding Governments Accountable by Public Pressure. In Ours by Right:Women’s Rights as Human Rights, edited by Joanna Kerr. Atlantic Highlands, NY: Zed Books.

THOMAS, SUE. (1994) How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.TICKNER, J. ANN. (1992) Gender in International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press.TICKNER, J. ANN. (1996) You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and

IR Theorists. Working Paper No. 1996/6, Department of International Relations, AustralianNational University and National Library of Australia.

TICKNER, J. ANN. (1999) Searching for the Princess? Feminist Perspectives in International Relations.Harvard International Review (Fall):44–48.

TICKNER, J. ANN. (2001) Gendering World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.TICKNER, J. ANN. (2002) Feminist Theory and Gender Studies. In Critical Perspectives in International

Studies, edited by Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress.

VAN EVERA, STEPHEN. (1997) Nationalism and War. In Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: An InternationalSecurity Reader, edited by Michael E. Brown, Steven E. Miller, Owen R. Cote, and Sean M. Lynn-Jones. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WEART, SPENCER R. (1994) Peace among Democratic and Oligarchic Republics. Journal of Peace Re-search 31:299–316.

WELCH, SUE, AND JOHN COMER, EDS. (1975) Public Opinion: Its Formation, Measurement, and Impact. PaloAlto, CA: Mayfield.

WELCH, SUE, AND JOHN COMER. (2001) Quantitative Methods for Public Administration: Techniques andApplications. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.

WELCH, SUE, AND J. HIBBING. (1992) Financial Conditions, Gender, and Voting in American NationalElections. Journal of Politics 54:197–213.

WHITE, JACQUELYN W. (1988) Influence Tactics as a Function of Gender, Insult, and Goal. Sex Roles18:433–448.

WILCOX, CLYDE, J. FERRAR, AND DEE ALLSOP. (1993) Group Differences in Early Support for MilitaryAction in the Gulf. American Politics Quarterly 21:343–359.

WILCOX, CLYDE, LARA HEWITT, AND DEE ALLSOP. (1996) The Gender Gap in Attitudes toward the GulfWar: A Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Peace Research 33:67–82.

MARY CAPRIOLI 269

feminist ir theory and quantitative methodology_a critical analysis - copie

Documents