女权主义文献引用.doc

J. Ann Tickner, What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 2005), pp. 1-21 方法论问题 Methodological issues have constituted some of the deepest sources of misunderstanding between International Relations (IR) feminists and IR theorists working in social scientific frameworks. IR theorists have called upon feminists to frame their research questions in terms of testable hypotheses. Feminists have responded that their research questions cannot be answered using social science explanatory frameworks. Deep epistemological divisions about the construction and purpose of knowledge make bridging these methodological divides difficult. These epistemological standards lead feminists to very different methodological perspectives. Asking different questions from those typically asked in IR, many IR feminists have drawn on ethnographic, narrative, cross-cultural, and other methods that are rarely taught to students of IR, to answer them. While recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed since the questions we ask and the methods we use reflect our preoccupations as members of particular societies at particular times, Keohane urged scholars to seek to widen intersubjective agreement about important issues. He insisted that researchers must strive to be as objective as possible. Keohanes suggestions for a feminist research program using this conventional social scientific methodology have some similarities with what Sandra Harding terms feminist empiricism, an epistemology that argues that sexism and androcentricism in existing research are social biases correctable by stricter adherence to the existing methodological norms of scientific inquiry (Harding, 1986:24). While not an empiricist herself, Harding claims that feminist empiricism is appealing because it leaves unchallenged the existing methodological norms of science; this means that it would b