Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marriage and Family.
http://www.jstor.org
GenderandFamilies:FeministPerspectives
andFamilyResearch
con-
a codewordforwomen,genderis a cultural support research) can foster and perpetuatea
affectswomen,men,
structionthatprofoundly
betweenthem.(p. 104)
andrelationships knowledge-basedhierarchyin which the voices
and views of some participants(the researchers)
are valued more highly than those of the re-
searchedor in which the researchedmay be val-
OFFEMINIST
CHARACTERISTICS APPROACHES
TO ued only as objectsof study.
SCHOLARSHIP Reflexivityis notableas well in the self con-
sciousness of feminist researchersin relationto
Despite the varietyof feministtraditions(for ex- their researchparticipants.Feminists take issue
ample, Marxist feminism, radical lesbian femi- with the concept of the researcheras somehow
nism, neotraditionalistfeminism, Black femi- standingbeyondthe perimeterof the researchare-
nism),it is possibleto isolateseveralelementsthat na, apartfromthe researchframe.Insteadof con-
arecommonlycharacteristic of feministapproach- ceptualizingresearchas somethingdone to (or
es to scholarship.We discuss four of these: re- for) researchsubjects by an objective observer
flexivity,the centralityof practice,a focus on so- outside the researchsetting, feminists acknowl-
cial processes, and a critical stance toward edge that their orientations,actions, interpreta-
traditionalparadigmsand theories. tions, biases, andinterestswill becomeintegralto
the researchprocess and its outcomes, and they
seek to understandhow it happensas it is hap-
Reflexivityin Scholarship
peningduringthe processof theirresearch.
Reflexivity refers to a self-conscious reflection We makeno claim thatfeministscholarshipis
about the part one plays in the generationof the only place one finds self-criticalsensitivityin
knowledge(Gouldner,1970;Mills, 1959). One of the conductof scholarship.Indeed,it has been the
the hallmarksof reflexivityis recognitionby the searingcritiquesof the scholarshipof White,mid-
scholarthat he or she is an actor intimatelyin- dle-class feminists by women of color that has
volved in the generationof knowledge,ratherthan fostered an awarenessof what has been labeled
simply a recorderand reporterof what is seen "academic colonialism" (Collins, 1986). Aca-
outside oneself. Such a self-awarestance on the demic colonialismis a referenceto the potential
partof a researcherfosters a criticalapproachto for the academic researchenterpriseto exploit
epistemology.For example,reflexivitycalls into ratherthanto empowerthose who are the subject
questionthe notionthatobjectivityis the only ori- of study(BacaZinn & Dill, 1994). In responseto
entationa scholarmay legitimatelytake to his or suchcritiques,feministscholarshave attemptedto
her study. Thus, it opens the door to the recog- be more deliberatelyconscious of how scholarly
nition that subjectivitynot only is a valid and practicesaffect those whose lives are studiedand
valuableorientationto researchbut may also be a to attendto patternsof inclusion and exclusion.
necessary stance for good research.An example One of the implicationsfor family researchhas
of the impactof a researcher'sawarenessof self been to broadenthe base of researchwith families
on the researchprocess and productcomes from of color, as will be describedin a later section.
Stacey's(1990) ethnographyof two SiliconValley This has also renewedattentionto one of the cen-
familiesin which she describesher struggleswith tral characteristicsof feminist approaches,and
her own biases aboutevangelicalChristiangroups thatis an emphasison praxis.
as an impedimentto her ability to hear,see, in-
terpret,and reflect-in other words, conductac- The Centralityof Practice
curateresearchwith-her primaryrespondents.
Anotherhallmarkof reflexivityas a research Wood (1995) describes a "vibrantdialectic" in
orientationis the willingnessto engage in contin- feministscholarshipbetweentheorizingandprac-
uous self-criticism,that is, a conscious second tice, a dialecticaltensionthatarisesfromthe rec-
guessingof one's expertness,a questioningof the ognitionthat scholarshipaboutthe structuresand
traditionalpostureof the researcheras the "know- processesthatgive rise to inequalityis inherently
er," apartfrom and unrelatedto those whom he political.The knowledgegainedfromfeministre-
or she is studying.This kind of self-criticalori- searchmustbe appliednot solely in the reshaping
entation opens the doors to recognitionof the of theory but also in arenasof social change so
ways in which scholarsand the productsof their as to reshape existing social conditions toward
research(as well as the institutionalstructuresthat greaterequalityfor men and women. Some fem-
itivist trendsin social philosophy(Lemert,1999). underlinesthe concern that the canon is partial
Along with reflexivity,characteristicsof feminist and thatunderstandings of the natureof the phe-
researchpracticesinclude the conscious articula- nomena we study are incompleteand therefore
tion of values, awarenessof and attendanceto the need careful reassessment (Allen, 2000; Baca
sensibilitiesof researchparticipants,attentionto Zinn & Dill, 1994; Lemert).
the ethics of research,especiallythe linkagesbe- Fosteringthe critical stance towardthe social
tween the purposeof the basic researchand its science canonis the articulationof standpointthe-
applicationto humanneed and the groundingof ory. Standpointtheoryis succinctlyexpressedby
researchquestionsand insightsin humanexperi- Gubriumand Holstein (1990) in their aphorism,
ence (Reinharz,1992; Thompson,1992; Thomp- "truth= fact + perspective."That is, what is
son & Walker,1995). seen or experiencedas authenticandreal depends
Small(1995) considersfeministresearchas ac- upon one's standpoint,one's perspective(Hara-
tion researchandcomparesfeministmethodswith way, 1999). Acknowledgmentof the centralityof
three otherforms of action-orientedresearch.He gender to perspectiveand incorporationinto re-
notes particularlythe concernof feministresearch searchdesignsof the ideathatgendershapesone's
with advocacyon behalf of women (see Allen & realityare two of the signal contributionsof fem-
Baber,1992b).By contrast,in an extensivereview inist scholarshipto family researchover the past
of feminist methodsin social research,Reinharz decade.
(1992) notes that althoughfeminist researchis
concernedultimatelywith change in inequitable
GenderRoles and "DoingGender"
structures,not all feministresearchersareactivists
or advocates.Moreover,the earlierdebatesabout Two formulationsof the nature of gender are
whether qualitative or quantitativeapproaches dominant,the genderroles perspectiveandthe so-
were able not only to capturemore faithfullythe cial constructionistapproach.Stemmingfromrole
voices of researchparticipantsbut also to reflect theory and with linkages to structure-functional-
the values and orientationsof feminist scholars ism, the first approachtreats gender as a social
have been largely supersededby the publication role, characterizedby a distinctandwell integrat-
of Reinharz'sencyclopedicassessmentof the di- ed set of attitudesandbehaviors.Viewed as a so-
versity of researchtechniquesemployedby fem- cial role, genderis enactedor played out accord-
inist scholarsacrossthe social sciences.Reinharz ing to scripts that are carefully taught and
observes that feminist scholars work simulta- repeatedlyrehearseduntil behaviorgovernedby
neously from two vantagepoints-their discipli- one's genderrole scriptbecomes so naturalas to
nary methodologyplus the insightsof feminism. be seen as an integralpartof oneself-second na-
ture,as it were.
This taken-for-granted quality,the impercepti-
RethinkingReceivedParadigms ble slide from gender as role into gender as the
A fourthcharacteristicof feminist scholarshipis essence of the self, has given rise to critiquesof
the questioningof received disciplinarywisdom, the role approachto gender.The role perspective
includingprevailingepistemologies(Ferree,1990; encouragesthe social analystto ignorethe differ-
Thompson& Walker,1995). It is of concern to ence betweenthe sex of the personplayinga role
feminist scholars that the accepted canon has and the genderednature of the role, a critical
largely been producedin an academyheretofore omissionif the goal is to understandhow gender
dominatedby men and by masculinistideologies can shapeperspective,structuresocial action,and
aboutwhat is of importance.Scholarshipthathas expressculturalvalues.
been conductedoutsidea feministperspectivebe- Whengenderis conceptualizedas a role, wom-
comes suspect, given the understandingthat en and men are seen as enacting roles that are
knowledgeis a productof the producerand that separable,oftencomplementary, andnecessaryel-
values about what to study and how have been ements to the integrityof the social settings or
determinedby those in positionsof power,thatis, structuresin which the roles are embedded.The
predominantlyby men (Lemert, 1999; Wood, role perspectiveon gender,with an emphasison
1995). Moreover,the realizationthatthe worksof the content of roles and the processesby which
women and of men of color have largely been they are learnedand expressed,continuesto char-
ignoredand omittedfrom the acceptedbodies of acterizemuch contemporarywork on gender in
classic knowledgein the social sciencedisciplines families, perhapsfindingits fullest expressionin
implicit presumptionof symmetryin the ties of of the challengeposed by Collins' (1986) articu-
mutualobligationand expectation(the social re- lation of the matrixof dominationas the context
lationsin which social capitalinheres)may be in- out of which family life is constructed.That is,
appropriateand misleading.Blumbergand Cole- race, class, andgenderarerelationalcategoriesof
man's (1989) concept of net economic value, domination.To understandhow family life is
whichtakesinto accounta varietyof discountfac- structured,each mustbe studiedin relationto the
tors that enhanceor diminishthe value of wom- others,not alone. Studieshave emergedthatseek
en's contributions,is relevanthere.As with wom- the sourceof differencesin familypatternswithin
en's financialand humancapital,it is likely that the structuralmatrixformedby these three axes
women'sactivitiesin the generationof socialcap- of hierarchy(Baca Zinn, 1994;Dill, 1994;Glenn,
ital are subjectto discountingor devaluation(for 1992; Segura,1994).
example,women'sinformational channelsaredis- Finally, family scholars have contextualized
paragedas "meregossip"). It is likely thatwom- their researchon family relationshipsby recog-
en must expendor cash in relativelymore social nition of the myriadways in whichintimatefam-
capital than men in transactionsto accomplish ily interactionsare shapedby broadersocial cur-
similarends. It is likely thatmen will tend to un- rents, prevailingpower relations, and dominant
derinvestin social relationswith women,both in ideologies (Komter,1989; Mullings, 1994). Ex-
the family and the community,becauseof the de- amples include studies of men's decisions about
valuationor underestimation of the capitalvalue time allocation between work and parentroles
of such social relations.Finally, women may be (Berry& Rao, 1997;Daly, 1996),decisionsabout
as likely as men to devaluetheir social relations marriage timing and family formation (Adler,
with other women and to discountor underesti- 1997;Albrecht,Fossett,Cready,& Kiecolt, 1997;
mate the power and effectivenessof theirneigh- Koball, 1998), husband-to-wifeviolence (Mac-
borly ties with women to secure valued social millan& Gartner,1999),the use of money (Treas,
ends (Komter,1989). 1991), andhouseholddivisionof labor(Gallagher
& Smith, 1999;Hossain& Roopnarine,1993;Or-
buch & Eyster,1997).
Contextualizing FamilyRelationships
Sensitizingfamily scholarsto the importanceof
Attendingto Power Processes
placing their studiesof families withina broader
social contexthas been one of the most important Attendingto the importanceof processis one of
influencesof feminist perspectivesin family re- the sensitizinginfluencesof feminist scholarship
search.This has been reflectedin family scholar- in family research.Power processes, both overt
ship over the decadein severalways. First,there andcovert,havebeen an importantfocus of study.
is greatersensitivityto the inclusionof people of Kudson-Martinand Mahoney (1998) sought to
colorin studysamples.Theincreaseduse of large- identify maritalprocesses that foster equal mar-
scale nationalsamplesurveysrelevantto family- riages,which they definedas those in whicheach
relatedphenomena,such as the NationalSurvey partnerheld equal status,in which accommoda-
of Families and Households,that include suffi- tion in the relationshipwas mutual,in which at-
cient numbersof families of color to allow for tentionto the otherin the relationshipwas mutual,
both within-groupand cross-groupanalyses has and in which therewas mutualwell-beingof part-
facilitatedattentionto familiesof color.Likewise, ners.In equalmarriages,each spousehas roughly
smaller surveys and ethnographiesfocused on the same capacityto get the otherto cooperatein
specific ethnic family groupshave increasedun- attaininggoals and attendingto his or her needs,
derstandingof contextualinfluenceson families desires, and wants. Couples were selected for
(Murry& Brody, 1999). Moreover,the increased study who viewed themselves as having a mar-
emphasison ethnicdiversityacrossthe academic riage they characterizedas equal and who de-
curriculum,including the emergenceof courses scribedtheir roles as non-genderspecific. They
andtextsfocusedon familydiversity,has also fos- found,however,that despitethe couples' self-de-
tered, indeed necessitated,new researchon un- scriptions as egalitarian,gender inequalitywas
derrepresentedethnic groups (McAdoo, 1993; perpetuatedby subtle power processesthat were
Mindel,Habenstein,& Wright,1999; Pedraza& both visible and latent. Wives were more likely
Rumbaut,1996). than husbands to accommodatetheir partners'
Second,thereis recognitionof the importance needs or desiresand to speakof fittingtheirlives
Baptiste,D. A., (1986). The image of the black family public agenda (pp. 231-258). Newbury Park, CA:
portrayedby television: A critical comment.Mar- Sage.
riage and Family Review, 10, 41-65. Furstenberg, E E, Jr.,& Hughes,M. (1995). Socialcap-
Berry,J. 0., & Rao, J. M. (1997). Balancingemploy- ital and successfuldevelopmentamongat-riskyouth.
mentandfatherhood:A systemsperspective.Journal Journalof Marriageand the Family,57, 580-592.
of Family Issues, 18, 386-402. Gallagher,S. K., & Smith,C. (1999). Symbolictradi-
Blumberg,R. L., & Coleman,M. T. (1989). A theoret- tionalism and pragmaticegalitarianism:Contempo-
ical look at the genderbalanceof powerin the Amer- rary evangelicals,families, and gender.Genderand
ican couple. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 225-250. Society,13, 211-233.
Brodsky,A. E. (1996). Resilientsingle mothersin risky Gamson,W. (1999). Half-truthswithrealconsequences:
neighborhoods:Negative psychological sense of Journalism,research,and public policy. Contempo-
community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, rary Sociology,28, 23-26.
347-363. Garbarino,J., Dubrow,N., Kostelney,K., & Pardo,C.
Chafetz,J. C. (1991). The genderdivisionof laborand (1992). Childrenin danger. San Francisco:Jossey-
the reproductionof female disadvantage:Towardan Bass.
integratedtheory.In R. L. Blumberg(Ed.) Gender, Gelles, R. (1980). Violencein the family:A review of
family, and economy: The triple overlap (pp. 74-94). researchin the seventies.Journal of Marriageand
NewburyPark,CA: Sage. the Family,42, 873-886.
Cohen,T. E (1987). Remakingmen:Men'sexperiences Glenn, E. N. (1992). From servitudeto service work:
becomingand being husbandsand fathersand their Historicalcontinuitiesin the racial division of paid
implicationsfor reconceptualizing
men's lives. Jour- reproductivelabor.Signs:Journalof Womenin Cul-
nal of Family Issues, 8, 55-77. ture and Society,18, 1-43.
Coleman,J. S. (1988). Social capitalin the creationof Glenn, N. D. (1997). A critiqueof twenty family and
human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, marriageandthe familytextbooks.FamilyRelations,
S95-S 120. 46, 197-208.
Collins,P.H. (1986). Learningfromthe outsiderwithin: Gouldner,A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western
The sociological significance of black feminist sociology.New York:Basic Books.
thought. Social Forces, 33, 514-532. Gubrium,J. E, & Holstein,J. A. (1990). Whatisfamily?
Cowan,P.A., & Cowan,C. P. (1990). Becominga fam- MountainView, CA: Mayfield.
ily: Researchand intervention.In I. E. Sigel and G. Haraway,D. (1999). The cyborg manifestoand frac-
H. Brody (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biog- turedidentities.In C. Lemert(Ed.),Social theory(pp.
raphies of research projects. Vol. 1: Normal families 539-543). Boulder,CO: WestviewPress.
(pp. 1-52). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. Hare-Mustin,R. (1991). Sex, lies, and headaches:The
Daly, K. J. (1996). Spendingtime with the kids:Mean- problemis power. In T. J. Goodrich(Ed.), Women
and power: Perspectivesfor family therapy(pp. 63-
ing of family time for fathers.FamilyRelations,45,
466-476. 85). New York:Norton.
Heimer,C. A., & Staffen,L. R. (1995).Interdependence
Daly, M., & Wilson,M. (1988). Homicide.New York: andreintegrativesocialcontrol:Labelingandreform-
Aldine de Gruyter.
Dill, B. T. (1994). Fictivekin, papersons, and compad- ing "inappropriate" parentsin neonatalintensivecare
units.AmericanSociologicalReview,60, 635-654.
razgo:Womenof color and the strugglefor family Hertz, R. (1997). A typology of approachesto child
survival.In M. BacaZinn& B. T.Dill (Eds.),Women
care: The centerpieceof organizingfamily life for
of color in U.S. society (pp. 149-170). Philadelphia: dual-earnercouples. Journal of Family Issues, 18,
TempleUniversityPress. 355-385.
Dilworth-Anderson,P., Burton,L. M., & Turner,W. L. Hossain, Z., & Roopnarine,E L. (1993). Division of
(1993). The importanceof valuesin the studyof cul- householdlaborandchildcarein dualearnerAfrican-
turally diverse families. Family Relations, 42, 238- Americanfamilies with infants.Sex Roles, 29, 571-
242. 583.
Ferree,M. M. (1990). Beyond separatespheres:Femi- Hunter,A. G., Pearson,J. L., Ialongo,N. S., & Kellam,
nism and family research. Journal of Marriage and S. G. (1998). Parentingalone to multiplecaregivers:
the Family, 52, 866-884. Child care and parentingarrangements in black and
Fox, G. L. (2000). No time for innocence,no place for white urbanfamilies.FamilyRelations,47, 343-353.
innocents:Children'sexposureto extremeviolence. Jarrett,R. L. (1994). Living poor: Family life among
In G. L. Fox & M. L. Benson(Eds.),Families,crime, singleparent,AfricanAmericanwomen.SocialProb-
and criminal justice (pp. 163-181). London: JAI/El- lems, 41, 30-45.
sevier. Jarrett,R., Lamanna,M., Baker,P., Higginbotham,E.,
Fox, G. L., & Bruce, C. (1999). The anticipationof Rakowski,C., & Sprague,J. (1999, August).Evalu-
A profileof men'sconcerns.Jour-
single parenthood: ating Teaching:Does GenderMatter?Panelpresen-
nal of Family Issues, 20, 485-506. tationat the AmericanSociologicalAssociationmeet-
Fox, G. L., Von Bargen,J., & Jester,M. (1996). Man- ings, Chicago.
aging murder:Parentsas mediatorsof children'sex- Johnson,M. P. (1995). Patriarchalterrorismand com-
perience. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 732-757. mon couple violence:Two formsof violenceagainst
Furstenberg,E E, Jr.,Belzer,A., Davis, C., Levine, J. women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,
A., Morrow,K., & Washington,M. (1993). How fam- 283-294.
ilies manageriskandopportunityin dangerousneigh- Kellerman,A. L., Rivara,E P., Rushforth,N. B., Ban-
borhoods.In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociologyand the ton, J. G., Reay, D. T., Francisco,J. T., Locci, A. B.,
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of do- Treas,J. (1991). The commonpot or separatepurses?
mestic upheavalin late twentiethcenturyAmerica. A transactioncost interpretation. In R. L. Blumberg
New York:Basic Books. (Ed.), Gender,family, and economy:Thetripleover-
Straus,M. A., Hamby,S. L., Boney-McCoy,S., & Su- lap (pp. 211-224). NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
garman,D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics Walker,A. J. (1993). Teachingaboutrace, gender,and
scale (CTS2):Developmentand preliminarypsycho- class diversityin United Statesfamilies.FamilyRe-
metricdata.Journalof FamilyIssues, 17, 283-316. lations,42, 342-350.
Szinovacz,M. E., & Egley, L. C. (1995). Comparing West,C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doinggender.Gen-
one-partnerand couple dataon sensitivemaritalbe- der and Society,1 125-151.
haviors: The case of maritalviolence. Journal of Wood,J. T. (1995). Feministscholarshipand the study
Marriageand the Family,57, 995-1010. of relationships.Journalof Social and PersonalRe-
Thomson,E., & Brandreth,Y. (1995). Measuringfertil- lationships,12, 103-120.
ity demand.Demography,32, 81-96. Zelizer, V. A. (1989). The social meaningof money:
Thompson,L. (1992). Feministmethodologyfor family "Special monies." AmericanJournal of Sociology,
studies.Journalof Marriageand the Family,54, 3- 95, 342-377.
18. Zvonkovic, A. M., Schmiege, C. J., & Hall, L. D.
Thompson,L., & Walker,A. (1995). The place of fem- (1994). Influencestrategiesused when couplesmake
inism in family studies.Journalof Marriageand the work-familydecisionsand theirimportancefor mar-
Family,57, 847-865. ital satisfaction.FamilyRelations,43, 182-188.