The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis

IF 1.1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences-RIMCIS Pub Date : 2019-07-30 DOI:10.17583/RIMCIS.2019.4134
M. Nadeem
{"title":"The Debate of Minimizing Subjectivity in Gender Studies: A Critical Analysis","authors":"M. Nadeem","doi":"10.17583/RIMCIS.2019.4134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The social sciences have always been contested on the philosophical and ethical grounds of producing scientific knowledge. Similarly, the standpoints of Gender studies are analytically linked to certain domains of reasoning for human behavior. It discusses social phenomena from a societal and cultural perspective, which raises questions for the scholars of this subject about the application of particular procedures for understanding realities guided by some ideologies (Söderlund & Madison, 2017). This article critically evaluates the theoretical debate on ways of upholding the objectivity in this discipline by minimizing the role of subjectivity in the construction of new knowledge. It is concluded that by adopting techniques such as bracketing, triangulation, reflexivity and various other theoretical stands mentioned by scholars, feminists, and social scientists, the struggle of producing objective systematic knowledge can be promoted in gender studies and other social sciences.","PeriodicalId":43006,"journal":{"name":"International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences-RIMCIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences-RIMCIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17583/RIMCIS.2019.4134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The social sciences have always been contested on the philosophical and ethical grounds of producing scientific knowledge. Similarly, the standpoints of Gender studies are analytically linked to certain domains of reasoning for human behavior. It discusses social phenomena from a societal and cultural perspective, which raises questions for the scholars of this subject about the application of particular procedures for understanding realities guided by some ideologies (Söderlund & Madison, 2017). This article critically evaluates the theoretical debate on ways of upholding the objectivity in this discipline by minimizing the role of subjectivity in the construction of new knowledge. It is concluded that by adopting techniques such as bracketing, triangulation, reflexivity and various other theoretical stands mentioned by scholars, feminists, and social scientists, the struggle of producing objective systematic knowledge can be promoted in gender studies and other social sciences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性别研究中主体性最小化之争:批判性分析
在产生科学知识的哲学和伦理基础上,社会科学一直存在争议。同样地,性别研究的观点在分析上与人类行为的某些推理领域联系在一起。它从社会和文化的角度讨论了社会现象,这为这一主题的学者提出了关于在某些意识形态指导下应用特定程序来理解现实的问题(Söderlund & Madison, 2017)。本文批判性地评价了通过最小化主体性在新知识建构中的作用来维护该学科客观性的理论争论。本文的结论是,通过采用学者、女权主义者和社会科学家提到的各种理论立场,如bracketing、triangulation、reflexivity等技术,可以促进性别研究和其他社会科学中产生客观系统知识的斗争。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
9
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Harmonization Between Humans and Animals Particularly the Balinese Dog Race in Bali Ethics And Social Procedures In Lontara Pappaseng As A Guideline And Philosophy Of Life Of Buginese Society In South Sulawesi Hindu Religious Ethics Values and Tolerance In Darmakaya's Gaguritan An Analysis of Differences in Online and Offline Learning at Mahardika Elementary School of Denpasar Humanist, Pluralist, and Dialogical Concepts in Hindu Theology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1