Suchergebnisse

Feminist Standpoint theory challenges the notion of conventional scientific practices that had excluded women from the inquiry and marginalize them in every aspect of knowledge benefits and construction. Amidst the prevalent controversies, standpoint theorists have proposed alternative knowledge construction with the theses of 'strong objectivity', 'situated knowledge', 'epistemic advantage', and 'power relations'. Feminist standpoint theory is claimed to be a successful methodology and the author support this argument based on the four reasons; the logic of discovery, insider-outsider position, study up, and methodological innovation. The author also put forwards the various challenges confronted by feminist standpoint theory and the justification given by the theorists. The cognitive, methodological, and epistemological interrogations toward this theory have widened its scope and adoption in social science research. The paper aims to suggest this analysis as the most suitable analytical and theoretical approach to do feminist inquiry which brings the understanding of feminist epistemologies as the most appropriate alternative approach of recent inquires against the dominant practices.

This article assumes a priori that feminist epistemology must necessarily imply the definition and application of a methodology that is capable of analysing knowledge from a situated perspective, making visible the restrictions of gender, class, ethnicity, and in summary, of the social location. Feminist Standpoint Theory (FST) set out by authors such as Sandra Harding, calls on those who have not had access to power and areas of decision-making to participate in the construction of knowledge and in the social construction of reality. In this article, we will claim for a need of a sociological investigation based on FST and provide some examples and evidence of the knowledge generated by women's voices building on the analysis of 10 doctoral theses. The methodology used is based on the analysis of the topics chosen by the thesis, the formulation of its objectives and the bibliography used. Likewise, we have developed a so-called "Harding test" grounded on her postulates, which has allowed us to assess the doctoral theses analysed and to reflect about the empirical contributions of the research, the feminist commitment and what the subject / object relationship should be in feminist epistemology.

In this work I provide a detailed description of Sandra Harding's feminist standpoint theory, which represents one of the three traditional approaches to feminist epistemology. I start by presenting the two main theses of the theory: the situated knowledge thesis and the thesis of epistemic privilege. In order to do that I extensively talk about the concept of partial perspectives and the concept of social location. Then, after the two main theses, I present Harding's strong objectivity proposal and, related to it, the interrelation between, on one hand, the scientific and epistemological norm of objectivity and, on the other hand, the social and political norm of diversity. In the discussion section I try to introduce some arguments regarding the importance of considering the concepts presented previously, in the context of very abstract disciplines such as the physical sciences. To that end, I consider two dimensions of the problem: firstly, the culture and social organization of science; secondly, the knowledge-producing practices of science. Both dimensions contribute to the way scientific knowledge is produced and thus to scientific knowledge itself. It is in this sense that I assert that the social location of knowers can affect the content of science. ; En este trabajo se proporciona una descripción detallada de la teoría del punto de vista de Sandra Harding, la cual representa uno de los tres enfoques tradicionales de la epistemología feminista. Empezaré introduciendo las perspectivas parciales y el concepto de la "social location", que me servirán para presentan las dos tesis principales de la teoría: la tesis del conocimiento situado y la tesis del privilegio epistémico. Luego presentaré el programa para una objetividad fuerte de Harding, y la interrelación entre objetividad —norma científica y epistemológica— y diversidad —norma social y política—. En la discusión se introducirán argumentos a favor de la importancia de considerar los conceptos presentados anteriormente dentro del contexto de las disciplinas abstractas como la física. Con ese fin, se considerarán dos dimensiones del problema: por un lado, la organización cultural y social de la ciencia y, por otro lado, las prácticas de producción de conocimiento. ; Departamento de Filosofía (Filosofía, Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Teoría e Historia de la Educación, Filosofía Moral, Estética y Teoría de las Artes) ; Máster en Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia

Historical and contemporary developments in feminist thinking on theory and method are considered. The critique of positivism is outlined, together with the affinity between feminist research and qualitative methods. Dilemmas are raised concerning: a false dualism between quantity and quality; ethical concerns; and writing in the personal. There are contradictory positions within the contemporary argument for methodological pluralism, such that it does not resolve tensions surrounding issues of women's experience and the warranting of interpretations. Epistemological debates involving feminism and post-modernism have created a changed intellectual landscape for reconsidering the link between qualitative research and standpoint theory. These raise issues of grounding, depth and evaluating knowledge by appeals to a notion of strong (or feminist) objectivity, together with the need to mitigate against appropriation of the `other'. Exemplars of qualitative feminist analysis are presented.

Sandra Harding opposes her version of feminist standpoint theory to traditional 'representationalist' or 'copy theories' of truth. Yet her critics maintain that Harding's standpoint theory retains an implicit representational epistemological framework that leaves space for global skepticism and pernicious relativism. Sharyn Clough and Shannon Sullivan argue that it is inconsistent for Harding to claim that (1) feminist standpoints will produce 'less false' theories than traditional androcentric scientific communities, and (2) that all perspectives (including the most socially privileged ones) are 'enabled and limited' by the social position from which they arise. Holding these two claims in tension with each other produces a problematic objectivist-relativist binary that undermines the emancipatory potential of Harding's theory, they claim. It will be argued in this paper that these critical evaluations of Harding's standpoint theory overlook the way in which Harding's 'less false' claim already rests on a firm commitment to situated knowledge rather than a representationalist theory of truth. Reading Harding's standpoint account through Bruno Latour's ontology of knowledge, I argue that the aim of a standpoint is not merely to produce 'alternative' representations alongside dominant ones; rather it is to create spaces of critical tension with dominant uncritically accepted scientific theory and practice. Standpoints provide critical accounts of how dominant forms of knowing have constructed and deployed knowledge spaces, and provide opportunities for reconfiguring those spaces in ways that are more democratic and less oppressive. Thus, such standpoint-based accounts are candidates for producing less false theories not because they represent a 'universal reality' more clearly but because they, unlike modern Western science, emerge from marginal social positions that are less likely to deny the situated and local nature of all knowledge claims.

This article presents feminist standpoint theory as an alternative epistemology for social work research—an alternative theory of what makes knowledge possible and how to get it—and discusses the outcomes and consequences of a research so transformed. Three issues raised by standpoint theory are used to refocus the questions of social work research: What is the base of the research? What is the purpose of the research? How does this project incorporate researchers' ref lexivity?