Keywords
fieldwork
engagement
feminist practice
reflectivity
How to Cite
Abstract
In this article the two authors problematize the moment of stabilization in doing fieldwork and writing ethnography from a feminist perspective. The paper begins with an introduction to the question: How do feminist science studies scholars reconcile a normative need to stabilize our research site to create knowledge within the shifting ground of “truth claims” that feminist practices acknowledge and document? The heart of the paper reflects on our experiences as feminist theorists, teachers, and ethnographers with vignettes from studies of high-risk pregnancies in the industrialized world, specifically the United States, and gender and everyday technologies in West Africa. Our goal is to theorize this instability in order to highlight the limits and benefits of working with consciousness and reflectivity in social contexts while challenging and enriching the vibrancy of our feminist theory and practice.
References
Agar, M. 1980. The Professional Stranger. New York.
Barbercheck, M. 2001. ,,Mixed Messages: Men and Women in Advertisements in Science.” in Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies, ed. M. Wyer et al. New York.
Bauchspies, W.K., J. Croissant, S.P. Restivo, 2006. Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Malden.
Biagioli, M. 1999. The Science Studies Reader. New York.
Bijker, W.E., T. P. Hughes, T.J. Pinch 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge.
Blizzard, D. 2007. Looking Within: The Sociocultural Construction of Fetoscopy. Cambridge.
Bowker, G.C., S.L. Star 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge.
Casper, M.J. 1998. The Making of the Unborn Patient a Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery. New Brunswick.
Cole, C.M., et al., eds. 2007. Africa After Gender? Bloomington.
Crasnow, S. 2013. ,,Feminist Philosophy of Science: Values and Objectivity.” Philosophy Compass 4: 413–423.
DeVault, M.L. 1999. Liberating Method: Feminism and Social Research. Philadelphia.
Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London.
Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Transl., ed. T.J. Trenn, R.K. Merton. Chicago.
Hale, C.R. 2006. ,,Activist Research vs. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology.” Cultural Anthropology 1: 96–120.
Harding, S.G. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca, NY.
Harding, S.G. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York.
Hess, D.J. 1997. Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York.
Landsman, G.H. 1998. ,,Reconstructing Motherhood in the Age of "Perfect" Babies: Mothers of Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.” Signs 1: 69–99.
Layne, L.L. 1998. ,,Introduction.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 1: 4–23.
Layne, L.L. 1999. ,,'I remember the day I shopped for your layette': Consumer Goods, Fetuses, and Feminism in the Context of Pregnancy Loss.” in Fetal Subjects, Feminists Positions, eds. L.M. Morgan, M.W. Michaels. Philadelphia.
Lazreg, M. 2005. ,,Decolonizing Feminism.” in African Gender Studies: A Reader, ed. O. Oyéwùmí. New York.
Nader, L. 1969. ,,Up the Anthropologist-Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” in Reinventing Anthropology, ed. D. Hymes. New York.
Nnaemeka, O. 2005. ,,Mapping African Feminisms.” in Readings in Gender in Africa, ed. A. Cornwall. Bloomington–Indianapolis.
Oyéwùmí, O. 2005. ,,Visualizing the Body: Western Theories and African Subjects.” in African Gender Studies: A Reader, ed. O. Oyéwùmí. New York.
Petchesky, R. 1987. ,,Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction.” in Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, and Medicine, ed. M. Stansworth. Minneapolis.
Rapp, R. 1999. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York.
Reinharz, S. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York.
Schumacher, J.A. 1989. Human Posture: The Nature of Inquiry. Albany.
Sismondo, S. 2008. ,,Science and Technology Studies and An Engaged Program.” in: The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman, Cambridge 2008.
Taylor, J.S. 1993. ,,The Public Fetus and the Family Car: From Abortion Politics to a Volvo Advertisement.” Science as Culture 4: 601–618.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford.
Wylie, A. 2004. ,,Why Standpoint Matters.” in The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies, ed. S. Harding. New York.
License
“Theoretical Practice” seeks to put into practice the idea of open access to knowledge and broadening the domain of the commons. It serves the development of science, thinking and critical reflection. The journal is published in open-access mode under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license (detail available here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Articles published in the journal may be freely distributed, stored, printed and utilized for academic and teaching purposes without restrictions.
They should not be, however, used for any commercial purposes or be reconstructed into derivative creations. Access to the journal may not be limited or offered for a fee by any third party.
Prospective authors are obliged to fill in, sign and send back the publishing contract compliant with the CC licencing. [PL.pdf, PL.doc, EN.pdf,EN.doc].
According to this contract, authors grant the journal a non-exclusive right to publish their work under the creative commons license (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) without any financial obligation on both sides of the contract.
Before submission authors should make sure that derivative materials they use are not protected by copyright preventing their non-commercial publication. Authors are responsible for any respective copyright violations.