No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Why a Feminist Theorist Studies Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 September 2009
Extract
What are the injustices of the world? What causes them? How might we mitigate them? Feminism needs empirical inquiry in all subfields to inform our understanding of the world and our normative reflections on it. Feminist theorists do not necessarily need to do it ourselves, but we do need it. Because we need empirical research, we need to be able to evaluate its methodology. In international relations, feminist scholars adopt and develop methods previously developed in other fields for nonfeminist questions. Feminist theorists need to evaluate this adoption and development by feminist IR in order to learn all we can and should from feminist IR scholarship.
- Type
- Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2009
References
REFERENCES
Ackerly, Brooke A., Stern, Maria, and True, Jacqui, eds. 2006. Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerly, Brooke A., and True, Jacqui. 2008. “An Intersectional Analysis of International Relations: Recasting the Discipline.” Politics & Gender 4 (March): 156–73.Google Scholar
Agathangelou, Anna M., and Turcotte, Heather. 2008. Review of Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, ed. Ackerly, Brooke, Stern, Maria, and True, Jacqui, 2006. Politics & Gender 4 (March): 184–87.Google Scholar
Caprioli, Mary. 2000. “Gendered Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 37 (1): 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprioli, Mary, Hudson, Valerie M., McDermott, Rose, Ballif-Spanvill, Bonnie, Emmett, Chad F., and Matthew Stearmer, S.. 2008. “The WomanStats Project Database: Advancing an Empirical Research Agenda.” On file with the author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhruvarajan, Vanaja, and Vickers, Jill, eds. 2002. Gender, Race, and Nation: A Global Perspective. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Caren, Alarcón, Norma, and Moallem, Minoo. 1999. Between Woman and Nation: Nationalisms, Transnational Feminisms, and the State. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1998. “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations between International Relations and Feminist Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 42 (1): 193–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, L. H. M. 2002. Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire between Asia and the West. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes, Amy, Petereson, Susan, and Tierney, Michael. 2007. The View from the Ivory Tower: Trip Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada. On file with the author.Google Scholar
McClintock, Anne. 1995. Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Conquest. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peterson, V. Spike. 1992. Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, V. Spike.. 2003. A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann. 1997. “You Just Don't Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 611–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann.. 2001. Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
True, Jacqui, and Mintrom, Michael. 2001. “Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming.” International Studies Quarterly 45 (1): 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar