Feminism and psychology: Critiques of methods and epistemology.

Abstract

Starting in the 1960s, many of the critiques of psychological science offered by feminist psychologists focused on its methods and epistemology. This article evaluates the current state of psychological science in relation to this feminist critique. The analysis relies on sources that include the PsycINFO database, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2010), and popular psychology methods textbooks. After situating the feminist critique within the late-20th-century shift of science from positivism to postpositivism, the inquiry examines feminists' claims of androcentric bias in (a) the underrepresentation of women as researchers and research participants and (b) researchers' practices in comparing women and men and describing their research findings. In most of these matters, psychology manifests considerable change in directions advocated by feminists. However, change is less apparent in relation to some feminists' criticisms of psychology's reliance on laboratory experimentation and quantitative methods. In fact, the analyses documented the rarity in high-citation journals of qualitative research that does not include quantification. Finally, the analysis frames feminist methodological critiques by a consideration of feminist epistemologies that challenge psychology's dominant postpositivism. Scrutiny of methods textbooks and journal content suggests that within psychological science, especially as practiced in the United States, these alternative epistemologies have not yet gained substantial influence.

Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity

“…Bem advocated for androgynous identities on the grounds that they yield flexibility in behavior that is not possible for persons with the more restrictive feminine or masculine identities (e.g., Bem and Lenney 1976). The approach also appealed to feminist psychologists because it presented an alternative to simple sex comparisons, a research tradition that met with early and continuing critiques (Hare-Mustin and Marecek 1988;Shields 1975; see Eagly and Riger 2014).…”

The Problem with the Phrase “Intersecting Identities”: LGBT Affirmative Therapy, Intersectionality, and Neoliberalism

“…From this perspective, this multicultural turn is a transformational, epistemic break from the positivist and post-positivist paradigms that dominate the discipline and that are characterized by essentialist and reductionist approaches to the study of cultural diversity, difference, and social inequality (Eagly and Riger 2014). The multicultural turn in applied psychology has catalyzed diversity-related institutional rubrics and policies, including the concept of Bmulticultural competency^ (Sue et al 1982(Sue et al , 1992.…”

Genetic and epigenetic factors underlying sex differences in the regulation of gene expression in the brain

“…In addition to being hormone-centric, studies on cognition and stress have historically tended to focus only on males (Beery and Zucker, 2011). There is growing concern that traditionally examination of sex differences has been inherently biased, and this could lead to the strengthening of existing stereotypes, thereby further increasing sex inequalities (Eagly and Riger, 2014). For example, small sex differences in the size/shape of the corpus callosum have been used to support the argument that sex differences are minimal and unreliable (Fitch et al, 1990).…”