Joumal of Advan^ Nurstng, 1993,18, 416-423

Feminist research: definitions,methodology/ methods and evaluationChnstine Webb BA MSc PhD SRN RSCN RNTProfessor of Nurstng, University of Manchester, Stopford Butldtng, Oxford Road,Manchester Ml 3 9PT, England

Accepted for publicahon 22 June 1992

WEBB C (1993) Journal of Advanced Nursing 18,416-423

Feminist research: definitions, methodology, methods and evaluationThe literature relating to femmist research both within and beyond nursing isreviewed in this paper Feminist research is located within a post-positivistparadigm, and vanous definitions are considered The distinctive methodologicalapproach of feminist research is discussed, and interviewing and ethnography areevaluated as suitable methods for use in feminist research Oakley's (1981) paperon interviewing women is subjeded to cnhcism A fmal sechon examinesattempts by three sets of vvnters to propose evaluation cntena for feministresearch The review concludes that a number of paradoxes and dilemmas mfemmist research have yet to be resolved

INTRODUCTION

Eight years have now passed smce the first discussion offemmist research methodology was pubbshed m a Bntishnursmg joumal (Webb 1984) Femmist approaches toresearch have developed enormously since then and it istherefore timely to update this review of the bterature,wbch indudes cnhques of some of the more influentialearly Bnhsh work, particularly Oakley's now dassic paperInterviewing women, a contradidion m terms' (Oakley1981)

Tbs review wiU consider defimtions of femmist research,before gomg on to examme methods used A general con-siderahon of methods wiU precede a discussion of mterview-mg and ethnography m particular Issues of vabdity andevaluatmg femmist research will be the final topics

WHAT IS FEMINIST RESEARCH?

Femmist research is based on a particular theory of knowl-edge, or epistemology, and it is from this that its method-ology and methods are denved (Campbell & Buntmg 1991)Methodology refers to 'a theory and analysis of howresearch does or should proceed' (Hardmg 1987), whereasmethods are ways of gathenng data Thus femmist researchIS not simply the study of women, nor is it enough that it is

done by women For McCormack (1981) it mvolves 'a setof pnnciples of mquiry a femmist philosophy of saence'

The cruaal dishnchon is that feminist research is camedout/or women Klem (1983) states

I de&ne research for women as research that tnes to takewomen's needs, mterests and expenences into account andaims at being instrumental in improving women's lives in oneway or anotber

For Wilkinson (1986) fermmst research is research onwomen and for women, 'giving pnonty to female expen-ence and developmg theory which is firmly situated m tbsexpenence' It therefore depends on the development of adifferent relationship between researcher and researchedfrom that in traditional approaches Wise (1987) takes tbspomt even further m statmg that femmist research shouldbe 'concemed with women's oppression' and should be'located within a model where the power imbalance(between researcher and researched) can be broken down'

Concemed with values

MacPherson (1983) also considers that there should be anessential focus on 'women's oppression and a concem for

416

Femtntst research

improving theu state' Femmist researdi should thereforebe 'eoneemed with values', should foeus on 'women-related researeh queshons', should analyse 'the eondition ofwomen's lives', and should be 'grounded m aetual expen-enees closely related to social change' In addihon, researchfindmgs should be made available to those who have takenpart m the research and to women in general, for unless thisIS done they have no possibility of using the findings mtheir personal lives

Perhaps the most comprehensive definition is mcorpor-ated witbn Bemhard's (1984) eight cntena for femimstresearch, wbch are that

1 the researcher is a woman,2 feminist methodology is used, including researcher-

subject mterachon, non-hierarchical research relation-ships, expressions of feebngs, and concem forvalues,

3 the research has the potential to help its subjects,4 the focus IS on the expenences of women,5 it IS a shidy of women,6 the words 'feminism' or 'femmist' are actually used,7 feminist bterature is cited, and8 the researeh is reported using non-sexist language

Using these cntena, Bemhard (1984) reviewed 90 nursmgresearch reports pubbshed in two 5-year penods in NurstngResearch She found no study meeting aU eight cntena, andfour or fewer cntena were fulfilled in 73 reports She con-dudes that little femimst researdi is being camed out mnursmg, or altemahvely that it is not bemg pubbshed

CAN MEN DO FEMINIST RESEARCH?

Harding (1987) defines feminist research as being done forwomen and from the perspechve of their expenences Shealso requires that

the inquirer her/himself must be placed in the same cnhcalplane as the overt subjective matter, thereby recovering theentire research process for scruhny

As long as this condition is fulfilled it is possible for men todo femimst researdi, m her view McCormack (1981) alsopoints out that research on women by women is notnecessanly feminist

However, most contnbutors to the debate dissentstrongly from this position For example, Mies (1983)states that

Women soaal saenhsts are better equipped to make a com-prehensive study of the exploited groups Men often do not

have the expenential knowledge, and therefore lack empathy,the ability for ldenh&cahon and because of this they also lacksoaal and soaological imagination

Kremer (1990) also exdudes men from bemg femmistresearehers She diseusses the evolution of Women'sStudies eourses m edueahonal mshtuhons, and notes that'new female spaees and meamngs and theu reeogmhon arehard-won' It has been diffieult to estabbsh sueh areas ofstudy as legitunate and vabd, and the mamtenanee of 'themtegnty and neeessity of women-only spaee is elementalto femimsm' If men were eonsidered able to do femimstreseareh there would be a danger of it beeommg 'yetanother diseourse m wbeh men speak to men aboutwomen', as has traditionally been the ease m soeial seienee

Not gender shidies

Evans (1990) shares tbs position, and argues that'Women's Studies' should eontmue to exist and not bereplaeed by 'Gender Studies' as has been the ease m someeducahonal settings She holds that it is essenhal to ensurea 'continued use of a term wbch maintams a focus onsexual difference' because 'it is not as if sexism and/orsexist understandmg had disappeared from the world oflearmng'

Tbs bebef is shared by Kremer (1990), who also thinksthat men who have an appreciation of femmist issueswould realize their incompatibility with femimst researchShe states

We cannot afiford to lose these (women's) spaees, these mean-mgs, this power, besides, no truly femmist man would try andcolonize these meamngs, for how could such an enterpnsepossibly be femmist?

The overwhelmmg majonty of wnters, therefore, takethe view that men caruiot take part in femmist researdi asresearehers However, because her defimhon of femimstresearch mvolves a focus on women's oppression, andbecause tbs oppression is by men. Wise (1987) takes thestance that men should be mcluded m femmist researdi assubjects of study

VALUES AND FEMINIST RESEARCH

Lather (1988) locates femimst research firmly withm thepost-positivism or post-modermsm debate Tbs debateemerges from a recogmtion of the 'madequaey of posihvistassumphons m the face of human eomplexity', and resultsm 'queshonmg of the lust for authontahve aeeounts'

417

C Webb

Post-modemists recognize that it is no longer possible for asingle methodology to be appropnate to study all topics,and call for a recogmtion of the limitahons of traditionalways of 'doing science' which accepts its limitations,acknowledging that 'ways of knowmg are inherentlyculture-bound and pjerspechval'

Post-modermsts, according to Lather (1988) favourchange-enhanang, advcKacy approaches to inquiry wbch'empower the researched and contnbute to the generahonof change-enhanang social theory' Femimst methodologyfits with tbs approach because of its emphasis on cntique ofwomen's traditional position m soaety, its call for researchrelationships to be non-berarcbcal, and its emphasis onbeing for women and being mtended to faabtate changeThus, fenumst research bke all post-modemist approachesshould be 'praxis-onented cntical and empowenngopenly committed to cntiqumg the status quo and buildinga more just society' (Lather 1988)

Vahie-neutral soaal saence

Hesse (1980) also believes that there is an mcreasmg rejec-hon of so-called value-neutral scKial science because it is 'atbest umealizable, and at worst self-deceptive, and is beingreplaced by soaal saences based on expliat ideologies'Femimsm would be mduded as one of these ideologies

These cnhques of tracbtional saentific approaches areparhcularly aimed at assumphons of objechvity and theseparahon of researcher and researched Du Bois (1983)accepts these cntiques, and claims that

feminist scholarship reveals a different animating assumption,that the knower and known are of the same universe, that theyare not separate (Emphasis m ongmal)

Post-positivism encompasses cnticjil tbeory, wbch hadits ongins m German philosophy and the work of Adomo(1976), Habennas (1976) and Bemstem (1983), amongothers Femmist and cnhcal approaches share manyassumphons, but they also have dishnct features by whichthey may be distinguished (Campbell & Bimhng 1991)Both focus on the emancipatory goals of research, theuse of a vanety of methods, the recogmtion that knowl-edge IS soaally constructed, and acknowledgement of tbeoppressive nature of soaal structures

However, cntical theonsts differ m that gender is not theircentral concem, tbey emphasize rahonality rather than sub-jedivity, they wnte pnnapally for other mtellectuals, andpower inequalities are mamtamed withm their researchteams Femimst theory, by contrast, places gencier centrally

witbn the research, respects and values feebngs and expen-ences, calls for a more equal partnership withm research, anddaims the importance of making femmist wntmgs accessibleto all, not just other intellectuals

RESEARCH METHODS IN FEMINISTRESEARCH

Femimst research methods emerge from the epistemologi-cal considerations and defimhons already discussed Aneclectic stance is generally taken, with researchers wishingto choose methods because tbey are most appropnate tothe topic under consideration, rather than daimmgpnvileged status for any particular method or methodsThe advantages of usmg mulhple tnangulation are alsohighlighted by Wilkinson (1986), who wntes as a femimstpsychologist However, several further requirementsemerge for femmist methods

Klein (1983) states that mtersubjectivity and promotingmteraction rather tban one-way commumcation withmresearch is important because

this will pennit the researcher constantly to compare her workwith her expenences as a woman and a scientist and to shareit with those researched, who then will add their opinions tothe research, which m tum nught change it again

Attention has already been drawn also to calls to makerelationsbps witbn research more equal and less berarchi-cal All these elements will increase the vulnerability of theresearcher, in the same way that research makes partiapantsvulnerable through disclosing their pnvate expenences andemohons

These were some of the key points made by Ann Oakley(1981), in a discussion of her expenences of interviewingwomen who were having babies Her work was a landmarkin wntmgs on research methods and has been influentialboth within and beyond femimst research Whilstadcnowledgmg its contnbution to the development offeminist research, however, recent wnters have madeimportant cntiasms of Oakley's paper

INTERVIEWING IN FEMINIST RESEARCH:CRITIQUES OF OAKLEY S WORK

Ribbens' (1989) discussion of Oakley's work emerges as aresult of her own study as a mother of other women whowere also mothers

Oakley (1981) states that her interviews involvedreaproaty between herself and her mterviewees m thatnot only did she ask questions of them, but tbey asked

418

Femtntst research

questions of her too She found it impossible to adhereto textbook recommendahons not to give her own views,and deaded to answer interviewees' queshons and givemformation where she could do so based on her ownexpenence

Ribbens (1989) questions whether this amounted toreciproaty, in that the majonty of Oakley's lnfomiahon-givmg was of a factual rather than personal nature Forexample, she was asked about infant feedmg and childdevelopment The extent to which Oakley made herselfvulnerable by revealmg aspects of herself was thereforevery limited, m Ribbens' view

Queshons are also posed about the effed of researcher-interviewee mteradion on the commumcahon processRibbens (1989) asks whether a researcher's contnbuhonmight interrupt an interviewee's tram of thought Moreimportantly, she considers that it may break the 'researchcontract' m which an interviewee expects to be askedquestions and not to receive lnformahon about theresearcher Tbs might cause confusmg expectahons m themmds of mterviewees, and lead them to expect a carmgresponse which is not possible withm the researchrelationship because of its limited durahon

Webb (1984) discusses how she shared her own expen-ences as a gynaecology patient with hysterectomy patients,and how this seemed to have a posihve effect and encouragerapport However, m a more recent interview study withelderly spinsters, shanng personal mformahon about herown health with parhcipants who had had a similar con-dition did not seem to be welcomed by the women, andWebb ceased to do tbs once its effect was realized Shespeculates that it was the different ages of the spmsterswhich led them to mterpret tbs shanng differently, whereasyounger hysterectomy patients were more similar m age tothe interviewer and seemed comfortable with what was said(Webb 1992)

One-sided relationship

Considerations such as these lead Ribbens (1989) to con-dude that a one-sided relahonship is inevitable, and thisview IS shared by Wise (1987) Researchers have a differentstatus from those researched They are usually more highlyeducated and so are more assertive and articulate Theyapproach potenhal parhapants and ask them to beinvolved m the project, and thus are m a different and morepowerful structural posihon

Ribbens (1989) also queshons whether formmg arelationsbp with a partiapant nnay limit the ability toreport adverse findmgs or to take adion when a problemanses, such as uncovenng the fact that a woman is abusmg

her children Wise (1987), too, draws attenhon to tbspomt, and says that a femimst approach should not pre-dude saying negahve thmgs about women where tbs isjudged to be appropnate

These cnhcisms add up, for Ribbens, to a paradox mwbch Oakley, at the same time as emphasizmg the import-ance of the presence of the researcher, seems also to thedenying it by insisting that power lnequalihes have beeneliminated Research inevitably mvolves some degree ofmequality and 'exploitahon' of mformants, because theresearcher takes 'their words away to be objechfied as anmterview transcnpt' These nsks may be all the greaterwhen multiple interviews take place over an extendedpenod than when they are smgle events

Some researchers attempt to overcome problems ofinequality by making available to parhcipants data m theform of interview transcnpts, research notes and the fmalreport Some talk about negotiatmg with parhcipants whatwill be included and what they may veto This is the sourceof another paradox for Ribbens (1989), because there is a

tension between wanting to get close and providmg anmterpretahon accountmg for women's bves in tbeir owntemis and providing a structural analysis

Theoretical discussions

In other words, researchers aim not simply to descnbewomen's expenences from their own perspectives, but alsoto develop theorehcal discussions of the area of research Inorder to do this it is necessary to go beyond mdividualreports and daily bfe expenences to examme the influenceof wider soaal structures Individual parhcipants may onlybe awcire of their own expenences and have a more limitedperspechve on social structures than researchers

Researchers cannot, therefore, reshid themselves tosimply reportmg the data without analysmg it If parha-pants do not agree with the theoretical interpretationoffered, this does not mean it is not a valid one — just astheir own and any other person's mterpretahon is valid forthem in the light of the mformation available to them at thehme In particular, women research participants may notthemselves be femimsts and therefore nught not agree witha femimst mterpretahon, but the latter may still be valid mits own terms (Ribbens 1989)

With regard to shanng data with parhapants, it is gener-ally conduded that this should be done to allow them tocheck the accuracy of the data but that researchers wouldnot necessanly do tbs with aU data, and would reserve the

419

C Webb

nght to make final deasions on what is and is not mdudedm reports (Lather 1986, Ribbens 1989)

Ribbens (1989) condudes that

All we can attempt is to face up to some of the paradoxes ashonestly and expbatly as we can Ultimately we have totake responsibibty for the deasions we make, rather thantrying to deny the power that we do have as researchers

Wise (1987) similarly calls on femmist researchers to'acknowledge power where it exists and leam to deal withit wisely as feminists'

The issue of power within a research relahonship andhow it can be considered m reportmg research will hetaken up again below in a discussion of vabdity m feministresearch

FEMINIST ETHNOGRAPHY?

A number of wnters consider that ethnography is parhcu-larly appropnate to feminist research (Klem 1983, Mies1983, Reinharz 1983, Stanley & Wise 1983) The reason forthis IS that the parhcipahon of the researcher in the everydaybves of those t)emg studies requires replaang the separationof researcher and researched with a relahonship whichdevelops over tune

However, for Stacey (1988) these very advantages openup the possibibty of greater nsks of exploitahon, tietrayaland abandonment of partiapants The process of domgethnography mevitably mvolves manipulation, betrayal,mauthenhcity and dissunibtude because ethnographersmay pretend to he naive when they are not, may concealfi-om a parhapant what another has said, and may m otherways misrepresent themselves m order to gam data orcheck what they have already heard fi-om another source

A further confbd expenenced by Stacey (1988) m herethnographic study m a community m Califomia, USA,was that on occasions she gamed data from people'stroubles For example, she descnbes how by attending afuneral she benefited from a tragedy

Finally, the danger that parhapants m an ethnographywill feel abandoned and let down when the researcherleaves the field may be even greater than when the mter-viewees feel deserted by an mterviewer who has enteredmto a comparahvely short relahonship with them

Issues of mequabhes of power and ownersbp of theproduct of the research are discussed by femmist ethnog-raphers just as they are discussed m relahcmsbp to mter-viewmg (Strathem 1987) Stacey condudes by notmg theneed to be aware of the possibibty that a 'delusion of allianre'

will replace the posihvist 'delusion of separateness' t)etweenethnographer and parhapants

RECONCEPTUALIZING VALIDITY ANDEVALUATING FEMINIST RESEARCH

Debates concemmg ngour and vabdity m feminist researchtake a similar form to those that have taken place over thelast few years m relation to quabtative researdi (see, forexample, Morse 1989) Some qualitative researchers takethe view that tradihonal defiruhons of concepts such asvalidity and rebabibty should be modified and adapted sothat they can be readily understood and accepted by thoseworbng with 'traditional' definitions used m positivistapproaches (Bnnk 1991) The latter mdude referees forgrant-giving t>odies and academic joumals, who are able tocontrol resources for research and gateways to pubbcation

Others take a contrary position and argue that, smcequalitahve research operates witbn a dififerent paradigm,there is no reason to rely on tradihonal concepts related tongour and validity On the contrary, qualitative approachesrequire new ways of conceptualizing and evaluahng ngour(Marshall 1986) This appears to t>e the majonty viewamong feminist researchers

Lather (1986) attempts to 'reconceptualize validitywitbn the context of openly ideological research', wbchmdudes cntical and feminist research She ofiFers a set ofguidelines by which validity may be evaluated and quotesCronbach's (1980) remmder that the process of validationIS aimed not at seekmg support for an mterpretation butrather at attemphng to falsify it

Lather (1986) calls for the use of 'data aedibility checks'based on a considerahon of tnangulation, constmd validity,face validity and catalyhc validity Tnangulation shouldmdude the use of multiple sources of data, methods andtheorehcal schemes and its incorporation witbn researchdesigns should lead to data trustworthmess in that both'counterpattems' and 'convergences' withm data can bechecked out Constmd validity can be evaluated by meansof reflexivity Tbs means that the researcher systematicallyreports how deasions were taken at all steps m the researdiprocess and how the researcher herself influenced thecontent and process of the research

Face vabdity is assessed by 'member checks', or havmgresearch parhapants 'recycle' the analysis and then refinmgit according to theu- reachons This latter point would notbe accepted by all femmist researchers, as was discussedearber, because the researcher has access to additional per-spechves beyond the immediate research and, m order tocarry out a stmctural analysis, would of necessity have togo beyond the immediate data The nohon of catalytic

420

Feminist research

Table 1 Checkbsts forevaluahng feminist research

reports summarized fromthree papers

Hall & Stevens (1991)

AdequacyRefiexivityCredibibtyRapportCoherenceComplexityConsensusRelevanceHonesty and mutualityNamingRelationabty

Acker etfl/ (1983)

Emancipatory goalAdequacy

of reconstructionm accounhng for mvestigatorin reveabng underlying socialrelations

Lather (1986)

TnanguiationConstruct validityCatalytic validityFace validity

validity relates to the change-promoting aims of feministresearch and involves evaluatmg whether the research hasbeen successful in stimulatmg change

Lather (1986) insists that post-modemist approaches,indudmg femmist research, must be based on 'ngor as wellas relevance' and that there is no place for 'rampant subjec-hvity' It IS therefore essenhal that feminist research isevaluated according to appropnate cntena of the kind shesuggests

Worthwhileness

Problems of vabdity are also addressed by Acker et al(1983) They are concemed to evaluate whether feministresearch is 'worthwhile' and 'adequate', rather than usingthe term 'vcilidity' Worthwhileness for them is similar toLather's 'catalytic validity' and is concemed with thedegree to which the emancipatory goal of the research isachieved Adequacy is assessed using tbee cntena whichare whether the voices of participants are heard m researchreports, whether the role of the mveshgator is theonzed aswell as that of those mveshgated (wbch is similar toLather's emphasis on the need for reflexivity), and whetherthe analysis reveals the social relahons which be behind thebves of those studied This last cntenon parallels Lather'spoint about structural analysis

Hall & Stevens (1991) also prefer the term 'adequacy' toencompass rebabibty and validity, pointing out that theseare dosely interconnected They bebeve that

Results are adequate if analytic interpretations fairly andaccurately reflect tbe phenomena that investigators claim torepresent

Like Lather (1986), they also emphasize the need tocheck that researchers have not simply venfied their ownpreconceptions

Evaluatmg the adequacy of research reports. Hall &Stevens (1991) bebeve, involves assessing the 'fidelity andauthenticity of findings' This is done by addressing theissues of refiexivity, or whether researchers have considered

tbeirown values, assumptions, charactenshcs, and mohvahonsto see how tbey affect tbeorehc (sic) framework, review of tbeliterature, design, tool construction, data collection, sampbng,and interpretahon of fmdmgs

Hall & Stevens (1991) remind us that eliminating 'bias' isimpossible and mappropnate in 'passionate scholarship'(Du Bois 1983) and that a reflexive approach is essential morder to

mcike explicit the participation of the researcher m the gener-ahon of knowledge, adding to the accuracy and relevance ofresults

Credibility

Credibility is evaluated by assessing whether partiapants'expenences have been faithfully represented, and Hall &Stevens' (1991) call for 'member validation' mirrorsLather's point about seekmg 'member checks' Takmg thisissue further, they also want to assess 'bebevabibty' ofaccounts in the eyes of other feminist researchers To ensurebebevabibty, researchers should ask other researchers tovenfy the comprehensiveness of bterature reviews, the'effectiveness' of data collection techmques, the 'compre-hensibibty' of descnphons, the 'mclusivity' of samples, imdthe logic of the arguments

The degree of rapport estabbshed between researchersand researched, the mtemal coherence or unity of the report,and the complexity of the analysis should be assessed,according to Hall & Stevens (1991) The latter point relates

4 2 1

C Webb

to how well the complex nature of participants' everydaybves and reality is reflected in the report Evidence of bothconsensus and divergenee should also be sought, and thereshould be a diseussion of negative cases «md altemativeexplanations

Femmist research should also demonstrate relevance,that IS, appropnateness and sigmficance, to women'sconcems and interests Researchers should show m theirreports how they have attempted to reduce powerinequalihes withm research relationships, a pomt that Hall& Stevens term 'honesty and mutuality' 'Nammg' isrequired, wbch parallels earlier calls for women's expen-ences to be reported m their own words There should alsobe evidence to 'relationabty', or collaborative worbngmethods with other scholars as well as those beingresearched

It IS obvious that research outeomes must fit with researehdefimtions and goals, and the three sets of authors quotedsuggest how the proeess of evaluatmg reports may betaekled Their reeommendations of points to eonsider whenevaluahng femmist research reports are summanzed mTable I They use similar concepts and, although theirtermmology vanes slightly, there is dear overlap m theareas they wish to evaluate

CONCLUSIONS

This review of the bterature on femimst researeh has eon-sidered defimtions, methodology, research methods, andestabbshing and evaluating ngour A shorthand defimtionperhaps could be pbased as 'research on women, by women,for women' What is distmctive about feminist method-ology IS its engagement with issues of eoneem particularlyto women and its acceptance of the use of a vanety ofmethods These methods are used m ways wbch attemptto reduce power mequabhes witbn researeh relahonsbps,to report women's expenences m their own terms whilstalso attemptmg a structural analysis of the condihons oftheir hves, and to mdude withm the analysis the role andinfluence of researchers themselves

Paradoxes and dilenunas

The review has ldenhfied a number of paradoxes anddilemmas facmg femmist researciiers The way forwardmust be to contmue to acknowledge tbese issues and toseek ways to resolve tbem tbat are consistent witb wbatMacPherson (1983) has called 'a new paradigm for nursingresearch'

ReferencesAdcerJ,BarryK &EsseveldJ (1983) Objectivity and tnith prob-

lems m domg fenumst research Women's Studies InternationalForum 6, 423-435

Adomo T W (1976) Soaology and empincal research In CnticalSoaology (QoTvner^onP ed), Penguin, New York, pp 258-276

Bemhard LA (1984) Fenumst research in nursing researchPoster session presented at The First Intemational Congresson Women's Health Issues, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Bemstem R (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism Saence,Hermeneutics and Praxis Umversity of Permsylvania PressPbladelphia

Brink J (1991) Issues of rehability and validity In QualitativeNursing Research A Contemporary Dialogue (Morse J ed), Sage,London

Campbell J C & Buntmg S (1991) Voices and paradigms per-spectives on cntical and femimst theory in nursmg Advances mNurstng Saence 13(3), 1-15

Cronbach L (1980) Validity on parole can we go strcught? NewDirections for Testing and Measurement 5, 99—108

Du BOIS B (1983) Passionate scholarship notes on values, know-mg and method in feminist scxnal science In Theones ofWomen's Studies (Bowles G & Klein R D eds), RKP, London,pp 105-116

Evans M (1990) The problem of gender for women's studiesWomen's Studtes Intemattonal Forum 13, 457-462

Habennas J (1976) Theory and practice m a scientific soaety InCnttcal Soaology (Connerton P ed), Penguin, New York,pp 330-347

Hall JM & Stevens PE (1991) Rigor m femimst researchAdvances in Nursing Saertce 13(3), 16-29

Harding S (ed) (1987) Feminism and Methodology OpenUmversity and Inciiana Umversity Press, Milton Keynes andIndiana

Hesse M (1980) Revolution and Reconstruction in the Philosophy ofScience Indiana Umversity Press, Bloomington, Indiana

Klein R D (1983) How to do what we want to do thoughtsabout femimst methodology In Theones of Women's Studies(Bowles G & Klem R D eds), RKP, London, pp 88-104

KremerB (1990) Leaming to say no keepmg feminist research forourselves Women's Studies International Forum 13,463-467

Lather P (1986) Research as praxis Harvard Educational Review56(3), 257-277

Lather P (1988) Femimst perspectives on empowenng researchmethodologies Women's Studtes Intemattonal Forum 11(6),569-581

McCormack T (1981) Gocxl theory or just theory? Toward afemimst philosophy of soaal saence Women's Studies Inter-national Quarterly 4(1), 1-12

MacPherson K.I (1983) Femimst methods a new paracbgm fornursing research Advances m Nursing Saence 5(1), 17-25

Marshall J (1986) Exploiting the expenence of women managerstowards ngour m quabtative methods In Feminist SoctalPsychology Developing Theory and Practtse (Wilkinson S ed),Open University Press, Milton Keynes

422

Femimst research

MiesM (1983) Towards a methodology for femmist research InTheones of Women's Shtdtes (Bowles G & Klein R D eds), RKP,London, pp 117-139

Morse J M (ed.) (1989) Qualttattve Nurstng Research A Contem-porary Dtabgue Sage, London

Oakley A (1981) Interviewing women a contradiction in termsIn Doing Feminist Research (Roberts H ed), RKP, London

RembarzS (1983) Exptenential analysis a contribution to femmistresearch In Theones of Women's Sttdtes (Bowles G & Klein R Deds), RKP, London, pp 162-191

Ribbens J (1989) Interviewmg — an 'unnatural situation'?Women's Studtes International Forum 12(6), 579-592

Stacey J (1988) Can there be a femmist ethnography? Women'sStudtes International Forum 11 , 21—27

Stanley L & Wise S (1983) Breaking Out Feminist Consaousnessand Femtntst Research RKP, London

Stratbem M (1987) An awkward relationship tbe case offemmism and anthropology Stgns 12(2), 276-292

Webb C (1984) Femmist metbodology m nursmg researchfoumal of Advanced Nurstng 9,249-256

Webb C (1992) Tbe bealtb of smgle never-mamed women m oldage Advances tn Nursing and Health 11(6), 3—29

Wilkinson S (ed) (1986) Femtntst Soaal Psychology DevebptngTheory and Practtce Open Umversity Press, Milton Keynes

Wise S (1987) A framework for discussmg ethical issues mfemmist research a review of tbe literature In Wnhng FemimstBiography 2 Ustng Ltfe Htstones (Gnfi&tbs V, Humm M ,O'Rourke R, Barsleer J, Poland F & Wise S eds), Shidies mSexual Pobtics No 19, Department of Soaology, Uruversityof Manchester, Manchester

423