Feminist Pedagogy

International Journal of Social Research Methodology
ISSN: 1364-5579 (Print) 1464-5300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20
Feminist pedagogy in the teaching of research

methods
LYNNE M. WEBB , KANDI L. WALKER & TAMARA S. BOLLIS
To cite this article: LYNNE M. WEBB , KANDI L. WALKER & TAMARA S. BOLLIS (2004) Feminist
pedagogy in the teaching of research methods, International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, 7:5, 415-428, DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119599
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119599
Published online: 23 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 443
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsrm20
Download by: [Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Universitätsbibliothek] Date: 22 January 2016, At: 10:56
INT. J. SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2004, VOL. 7, NO. 5, 415428
Feminist pedagogy in the teaching of research

methods
Downloaded by [Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Universitätsbibliothek] at 10:56 22 January 2016
LYNNE M. WEBB, KANDI L. WALKER and TAMARA S. BOLLIS
(Received 11 June 2002; accepted 11 March 2003)
The essay explicates a pedagogical methodology for teaching empirical research methods,
employing the principles of feminist pedagogy in the facilitation of research teams composed of a
teacher and multiple graduate students. The described pedagogy is consistent with six principles
of feminist pedagogy deduced from a meta-analysis of the extant US literature on feminist
pedagogy: reformation of the relationship between teacher and student, empowerment, building
community, privileging voice, respecting diversity of personal experience, and challenging
traditional views. The authors illuminate their pedagogy via a detailed description of one feminist
research group undertaking a large sample survey. The authors contend that the feminist research
group constitutes a practicum-style educational opportunity that represents a practical alternative
to the traditional classroom teaching of empirical research methods to graduate students.
US academic feminists have articulated the principles of feminist pedagogy

or a feminist methodology for teaching (Bright 1993). While definitions of
feminism vary (Weiler 1995, Arnold 2000), most authors would agree with
Bowker and Dunkins (1992: 261) description of the feminist perspective on
pedagogy as:
a way of being, knowing, and acting that intends empowerment rather than oppression by power;
validation of race, class, and gender as dynamics that create valued difference but not oppressive
hierarchy; and recognition of the meritorious complexities of various ideologies. In addition,
[feminism honours] the personal as a way of knowing, giving credence to thought, feelings, and
experience.
Lynne M. Webb (PhD, 1980, University of Oregon) is a Professor in the Department of Communication,
University of Arkansas, 417 Kimpel Hall, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA; tel: + 1 (479) 575 5956; fax: + 1
(479) 575 6734; e-mail: LynneWebb320@CS.com. She teaches a graduate seminar titled Issues of Race
and Gender in Interpersonal Communication, is a former member of the Affirmative Action Committee
of the National Communication Association as well as a former Chair of its Womens Caucus. Dr Webb
has served on the editorial board of Womens Studies in Communication. Her research interests include
family communication, male/female communication, as well as communication and ageing. Kandi L.
Walker (PhD, 1999, University of Denver) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Communication, University of Louisville, USA. Her research programme examines communication in
personal relationships. Tamara S. Bollis (MA, 1995, University of Memphis) is an Assistant Professor in
the Communication Department, Columbus State University, USA, and a member of the Womens
Studies Board of Directors at Columbus State University. Her research interests include interpersonal
communication, family communication, and womens studies. The authors presented an earlier version
of this essay at an annual meeting of the National Communication Association in Chicago, Illinois, USA,
on 20 November 1997.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology

ISSN 1364-5579 print/ISSN 1464-5300 online 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/1364557032000119599
416 LYNNE M. WEBB ET AL.
Given increased interest in issues at the intersection of research methods

and gender concerns (Bell 1999, Egharevba 2001, Ross 2001, Ruspini
2001), teachers may consider incorporating principles of feminism in both
the content and pedagogy of instruction in research methods.
The purpose of this paper is to explicate a feminist pedagogy employing
research groups, hereafter called feminist research groups, as a method-
ology for teaching graduate students empirical research methods. While

feminist principles have been suggested for application in educational
settings (e.g. Briskin 1990) and in teaching courses on feminist research
methodologies per se (e.g. Dever 1997) and while Weatherall (1999)
suggested feminist pedagogical principles as the basis for a reformation of
the traditional research methods course in psychology, the present authors
could locate no previously published work that explicated the feminist
research group as an educational tool. To this end, the present essay begins
with a detailed description of one feminist research group offered as an
exemplar. Next, we explicate the operation of the research group using Webb
et al.s (2002) six principles of feminist pedagogy (see Appendix 1). Lastly,
we discuss the challenges and advantages of the feminist research group.
The feminist research group
We advocate self-directed research teams who select their own topics,

theories, methods, instruments, analyses, and interpretations as a collective
via consensus. Further, we advocate the research group as a distinctly
pedagogical activity, i.e. the teacher bases the students grades in a course,
seminar, or research practicum on their performances as team members.
While the authors have facilitated several such research groups, for purposes
of this essay, one research group was selected to serve as exemplar and
discussed in detail.
During a fall semester, a teacher and three female MA students began a
feminist research group. As part of their assignment for an MA-level course,
the three students elected to conduct a joint research project rather than
complete independent projects. In addition to 90-minute group meetings,
students weekly attended a 3-hour class, completed approximately 75100
pages of assigned reading, and completed their research tasks. The group
continued into the subsequent spring semester when the students enrolled
in another graduate course taught by the same teacher. An additional female
MA student completing a graduate-level independent study course joined
the research team that semester.
Our group investigated the effect of perceived parental communication
on the self-esteem of young-adult US college students. In addition to
developing a path model, we collected and coded data from over 300
respondents, as well as selected analyses to test the model. The detailed
descriptions of the research group that appear in the balance of this essay
refer to this research group.
In the first two weekly meetings, the members selected the research
topic. The teacher refused to voice a topic preference; instead she repeated
her willingness to work with any reasonable research topic. After topic
FEMINIST PEDAGOGY 417
determination, each student selected a part of the literature review to

complete prior to the next meeting. Each subsequent meeting followed the
same agenda: first, each member of the group reported the outcome of her
endeavours during the previous week. Order of reports rotated from week to
week.
One might reasonably ask if weekly meetings were necessary. Could the
group have met every other week and been just as effective? Each meeting
lasted 90 minutes filling every minute with time-consuming activities such
as brainstorming and collaborative decision-making. Further, the group met
every week across two semesters for a total of 26 meetings. While much was
accomplished, we failed to complete data analyses as well as drafts of final
papers by the end of the school year. Thus, a case could be made for longer
or more frequent meetings; however, notions regarding appropriate work-
load for a three-credit graduate course limit the amount of time spent on a
class-related research project. Because collaborative learning is more time-
consuming that didactic teaching, we did not experience the immediate
gratification of finishing our work product quickly. However, we believe our
research group produced a superior end product. The additional work time
allowed for increased thoroughness, creativity, and risk-taking as well as the
development of long-lasting professional, collaborative relationships.
After each member reported, any decision relevant to the work
completed was articulated by whoever desired to do so, typically the teacher.
Each team member voiced pertinent thoughts, ideas, feelings, and/or
experiences regarding each decision. As recommended by Bowker and
Dunkin (1992), the teacher allowed the students to see her think by asking
aloud the questions she asked herself intrapersonally. After posing such
questions, she asked students for input in deciding the answers. We
employed various techniques to solve problems, including collective
brainstorming, sharing relevant personal experiences, and chaining ideal-
izations. We made final decisions by consensus.
Then, the teacher explained the next research task for the project (e.g.
selection of instruments). She solicited questions and comments during and
after the explanation. If the next task afforded methodological options, the
group discussed each option and employed group decision-making to select
among the options. Each student presented an opinion before a final
decision was made. Finally, the members broke the task into approximately
equal pieces; each selected a specific task for the week based on strengths,
abilities, and interests. Independent of the teacher, students often engaged
in task swapping, and reassignment to ensure equity of workload. For
example, one student, overloaded with work from other courses, asked a
team member to complete almost all of her tasks for a given week; however,
she reciprocated by completing almost double her workload the following
week.
Near the end of the semester, the students completed the standard class-
evaluation instrument employed at the university; it yielded both quantita-
tive and qualitative data. The qualitative data (i.e. short essay answers)
allowed the teacher to discover whether the students experienced empower-
ment, community, respect for diversity, etc. Additionally, the teacher
evaluated the students. As published in the syllabus and announced during
the first group meeting, students received an A if they consistently attended

meetings, participated in collaborative decision-making, fully completed
individual assignments on time, and produced high quality individual work.
Each student in this particular group earned an A. However, work of lesser
quality would have received a lesser grade.
Application of the principles of feminist pedagogy
A meta-analysis of recent US writing on feminist pedagogy yielded six

principles of feminist pedagogy (Webb et al. 2002); Appendix 1 provides a
brief explanation of the principles. Below we explicate how our research
group enacted these principles and thus served as a vehicle for teaching and
learning empirical research methods.
Reformation of the relationship between teacher and student
The teacher required each student, as well as herself, to take the lead on a
vital part of each segment of the research process (e.g. solicitation of
respondents). While students selected their segments of focus, they were not
permitted to either (a) not take part or (b) not lead the group. Thus, group
members shared the roles of knowledge expert and decision leader.
The teacher enacted the role of team member and only assumed the role
of advisor/consultant when imposing limits warranted by scientific conven-
tions (e.g. maintaining a consistent setting for data collection). In such
cases, the teacher explained the rationale, thus finding opportunities to
share knowledge about methodological techniques as well as the principles
and ethics of science. As suggested by Bowker and Dunkin (1992: 262), the
teacher acted as intermediary between student and topic rather than as
fountainhead of truth.
Who the participants are is central to how the session is organized.
Their knowledge of the topic is invited and validated. [The teachers]
knowledge of the research becomes part of a pool of knowledge and
experience we create together (Bell 1993: 109). For these reasons, the
group as a whole as well as individual members assumed roles and
responsibilities suited to their individual and unique talents as well as their
academic and professional goals. For example, one student with prior
experience in conducting empirical research volunteered to gather the
extant written instruments assessing self-esteem as well as the published
articles reporting validity and reliability testing on the instruments. In
contrast, students with less research experience chose to investigate less
challenging topics during the literature review (e.g. gender differences in
self-esteem).
Throughout the research process, the teacher openly discussed the
decision-making processes the team employed. The teacher presented
her facilitation behaviours as preferences from options; she acknowledged
her preferences as personal, based on her background and skills.
Further, the teacher posited the existence of many equally viable and valid
preferences. Thus, she overtly invited the students to think about how they
could improve the facilitation process in future research groups.
Students frequently asked questions related to both the facilitation
processes as well as the research procedures. They freely challenged
procedures accepted as common scientific practice. This questioning
process provided an opportunity to learn the why as well as the how of
research methods.
Empowerment
Empowerment was accomplished primarily via positive reinforcement, i.e.

praising one another for accomplishments, hard work and the quality of our
collective work product. Additionally, task assignments empowered stu-
dents. Each team member volunteered for tasks she completed prior to the
next meeting, thus empowering her participation. Because each member
contributed equally and continually, our collective vision functioned as
principle investigator. At some point, the group adopted an idea from each
member; at another point, each member came to favour the idea of another
member above her own because the favoured idea better represented our
collective vision.
Finally, acquiring knowledge about research methods empowered
students. One student, who had taken traditional courses in research
methods, reported the research process was demystified by participation in
the research group. Further, acquiring the language of science and convers-
ing regularly in this language empowered students. Thus, the research group
empowered students by educating their voices, enabling them to converse as
equals with practising academicians, and provided them with the tools to
join the scholarly conversation of the discipline.
Building community
As recommended by Bell (1993: 111), the team met with their chairs in a
circle and the instructor encouraged students to look at and speak to one
another and not just the facilitator. Similar to Parrys (1996: 50)
recommended expanded think-pair share technique, when a task required
concentrated thought, such as the development of theoretical definitions,
members of the group worked silently for 35 minutes thinking and writing.
After the allotted time, we shared and combined our ideas to develop the
groups collective articulation of our vision. Thus, each students individual
voice became part of the communal voice of the research team.
Because feminists value community and equality, building a trusting
environment in which all members are respected and have an equal
opportunity to participate is central (Schniedewind 1993: 18). Soon the
students adopted the teachers modelled behaviours of listening attentively
and providing validation for everyones contributions to the discussion. This
practice allowed novice researchers to feel comfortable asking for help as
well as routinely contributing ideas and suggestions. Our collective work
product soon contained unique contributions from each member. Thus, the
collegial communication environment helped build a sense of community,
and the work product itself constituted an obvious manifestation of that
community.
The feminist teacher is above all a role model of a leader. S/he has
helped members of the class develop a community, a sense of shared
purpose, a set of skills for accomplishing that purpose, and the leadership
skills so that teacher and student may jointly proceed on those tasks
(Shrewsbury 1993: 14). We developed our sense of shared purpose by
employing the language of community (e.g. reference to our project),
redirecting questions to the group that originally were directed to the
teacher, and saying at each decision point, How do we want to handle
this?thus necessitating collective decision-making and constituting
community.
Privileging the individual voice
At each meeting, team members reported on project-related activities and

accomplishments since the previous meeting. Thus, we heard each team
members voice at each meeting. Listening to each voice, week after week,
group members came to view each other and the self as projecting a voice of
authority on the research project. As advocated by Parry (1996: 50),
students spoke on major topics without interruption, to give voice to their
ideas and concerns. Additionally, the teacher asked each student to speak to
each proposed decision. Thus, team members gained the confidence to
challenge steps taken by the group.
The simple task of having each group member speak at each meeting,
both reporting accomplishments during the week as well as addressing each
decision made, seems a relatively simple solution to the challenging goal of
privileging the individual voice. However, in reality, this simple solution
worked quite effectively. We respected each members voice; no singular
members voice was respected to the exclusion of anothers voice.
Respect for diversity of personal experience
Members of our research team hailed from different educational, economic

and family backgrounds; ergo, our experiences were diverse. For example,
one team member had attended several universities; another was surviving
financially on a meagre assistantship; and one was living away from home for
the first time. We respected these differences and privileged each individual
voice of experience by carefully considering the input of each team member
on each point including logical analysis of personal experience. For
example, based on her experience, the member from a divorced family
suggested the addition of two variables in the path model; fellow team
members agreed to include the variables based on her expertise and well-
reasoned explanation. We developed a richer research product because we
had the benefit of numerous perspectives on each idea. Thus, our collective
vision grew from a diversity of ideas as well as our responses to this diversity
of experience.
Subramaniam and Wyers (1998) observed that traditional training in
science often requires women to trade their gender identity for the identity
of scientist. In contrast, one member described our research group as
liberating her from the image of the scientist as a man in a dark smoky
room facing a computer surrounded by stacks of old books. Instead, she

reported living as a researcher among a team of learner-colleagues with a
peer-leader whose experience helped to navigate the new terrain.
Challenging traditional views
Members of our research team constantly challenged the traditional views of

research, teaching, and learning as well as the expectations associated with
working in groups. As Turnbull (2000) noted, collaboration influences the
research process itself. Thoughtful and reasonable queries regarding
traditional, empirical research methods caused the teacher occasionally to
question the necessity of procedures that she learned by rote in her graduate
training.
As the research team was the first feminist collaboration for the students,
their experiences in the research group challenged their own notions of what
it means to be a student and what it means to have a teacher. For instance,
after a lively debate surrounding whether to employ the theoretical
framework of symbolic interactionism or social constructionism, the group
came to a standstill. Each member was able to articulate a strong case for her
opinions and, while open to others viewpoints, no ready consensus-solution
appeared. The students looked to the teacher for the answer. Insisting that
the group make the decision, the teacher recapitulated the arguments and
told the group to persevere instead of looking for an easy answer from the
teacher. The group reconvened and together created a collaborative
solution. This situation allowed the students to think critically about a
particularly vexing problem and to solve the problem as a collective.
Conclusions
Challenges to the described process
We enjoyed the advantage of committed and talented team members who

had no major personality clashes, despite their diverse backgrounds.
However, other groups may face complex challenges derivative from the
above-described method. In Appendix 2, we list several potential challenges
groups may face and suggest solutions consistent with the practices of
feminist pedagogy. Additionally, we were not burdened with the necessity of
producing a final work product within an academic semester or year, as
theses and dissertations can require. Further, the team functioned smoothly
with four and five members but teams may become unruly beyond this
number. Finally, while we do not recommend our team approach for use
with undergraduate students, we believe that graduate students may

ultimately be better teachers in undergraduate research methods classes,
having benefited from exposure to multiple perspectives regarding research
issues revealed in group discussions.
While the particular research team described in this essay was
composed of all females, the teacher has led research groups with a mix of
malefemale students as members. Violanti (1999) found males and

females view collaborative work similarly. Further, the authors believe that
a male teacher could follow this protocol and effectively lead a feminist
research group. We also believe the process and techniques we employed
could be enacted readily by a group containing any proportion of males
and/or females.
One especially difficult challenge to this type of research group is the
necessity of reframing the pedagogical goal of the research methods course.
The goal of the course changes from teaching students the various ways of
conducting research (e.g. when to conduct an experiment versus survey) to
teaching students how to overcome obstacles and solve problems encoun-
tered during the process of conducting research and to justify their choices
using the principles that underlie empirical research methodology, i.e. its
ontological and epistemological assumptions. To more fully accomplish this
goal, we employed a collaborative (versus directive) research group. To
expediently complete our research project, we would have had to talk less
and produce more via a more directive (versus cooperative) research group,
thus sacrificing the benefits described below.
Benefits of the described process
Several pragmatic benefits of a feminist research group improve the quality

of the research product:
(a) The weekly meetings keep researchers focused and productive, given the
social desirability of carrying ones weight in a peer work group.
(b) The collaborative decision-making process yields creative ideas as well
as sound decisions.
(c) In an information-rich environment where each member meaningfully
contributes to the final product, the researchers experience ownership in
the output and thus desire to produce a high quality product.
(d) Collaboration dually cultures students to work as independent as well as
collaborative researchers.
A major pedagogical benefit to a feminist research group is instruction

in constructive collaboration. As any cursory review of academic journals
indicates, sole authorship and research conducted by single scholars
continues. However, an increasing number of dyads, triads, and teams of
researchers co-author books and articles. Given the current publication
pressures in the academy, the multiple publication opportunities afforded by
collaboration serve the needs of novice researchers and their future students.
Instrumental benefits to the feminist research group include the production
of conference papers, publications, as well as continued lines of research.1
Publication pressures aside, collaboration offers intrinsic and compelling

rewards including superior work products, sounding boards for ideas,
suggestions for improvement, as well as the confirmation and validation of a
research community. Perhaps the major collegial benefit of a feminist research
group is the potential for the development of meaningful, long-term collegial
relationships.2 Students and teachers who work closely with one another and
respect one anothers socio-historical development challenge hierarchical

relations of schooling (Scering 1997: 66). The relational bonds that
developed in our group have sustained our collective research interests and
writing to this day, including the development of this essay.
Perhaps the most important benefit of the feminist research group is that
it offers the academy an alternative methodology for training the next
generation of researchers. As social science moves to increased co-
authorship, increased publication pressure, and increased extramural
funding to interdisciplinary teams, the need to train graduate students to
work collaboratively increases. The feminist research group offers pedagogy
for teaching students research methods per se as well as the skills to build
research communities that provide colleagues the opportunity to collaborate
on research projects.
Notes
1. The primary instrumental benefit of this research was a series of competitively accepted conference
papers and publications, including a prize-winning paper (Webb et al. 1998). We have subsequently
collected additional data and continue to work on publications that can be historically traced directly
to the work of the original research group described in this essay.
2. These bonds have enabled us (a) to carry on our professional relationships with the respect, trust,
and the mutual empowerment we gained via the initial research group and (b) to transition smoothly
from the teacherstudent relationships to colleagues. There relationships are among our strongest
and most rewarding professional associations.
References
Arnold, L.B. (2000) What is a feminist?: students descriptions. Women and Language, 23(2), 818.
Bell, E. (1999) The negotiation of a working role in organizational ethnography. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 2(1), 1737.
Bell, L. (1993) Hearing all our voices: applications of feminist pedagogy to conferences, speeches, and
panel presentations. Womens Studies Quarterly, 21(34), 107113.
Bowker, J.K. and Dunkin, P.R. (1992) Enacting feminism in the teaching of communication. In L.A.M.
Perry, L.H. Turner and H.M. Stern (eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Gender: The Links among
Communication, Language, and Gender (Albany: State University of New York Press).
Bright, C. (1993) Teaching feminist pedagogy: an undergraduate course. Womens Studies Quarterly,
21(34), 128132.
Briskin, L. (1990) Feminist Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning Liberation (Ottawa, ON: CRIAW/ICREF).
Chapman, E. (1997) Nurse education: a feminist approach. Nurse Education Today, 17, 209214.
Christie, A.A. (1997) Using e-mail within a classroom based on feminist pedagogy. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 30, 146176.
Dever, M. (1997) Exploring feminist research: a student-centered model. Feminist Teacher, 11(2),
91103.
Egharevba, I. (2001) Researching an-other minority ethnic community: reflections of a black female
researcher on the intersections of race, gender, and other power positions on the research process.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(3), 225241.

Foss, K.A. and Foss, S.K. (1994) Personal experience as evidence in feminist scholarship.Western Journal
of Communication, 58, 3943.
Foss, S.K. and Griffin, C.L. (1995) Beyond persuasion: a proposal for an invitational rhetoric.
Communication Monographs, 62, 218.
Gawelek, M.A., Mulqueen, M. and Tarule, J.M. (1994) Woman to women: understanding the needs of
our female students. In S.M. Deats and L.T. Lenker (eds) Gender and Academe: Feminist Pedagogy
and Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).

Gussman, D. and Hesford, W. (1992) A dialogical approach to teaching introductory womens studies.
Feminist Teacher, 6(3), 3239.
Lelwica, M. (1999) Liberating learning and deepening understanding: reflections of feminist
pedagogyas a student, as a teacher. Journal of Women and Religion, 17(1), 7985.
Middlecamp, C.H. and Subramaniam, B. (1999) What is feminist pedagogy? Useful ideas for teaching
chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 520525.
Novek, E.M. (1999) Service-learning is a feminist issue: transforming communication pedagogy.
Womens Studies in Communication, 22, 230240.
Parry, S.C. (1996) Feminist pedagogy and techniques for the changing classroom. Womens Studies
Quarterly, 24(34), 4554.
Ross, K. (2001) Political elites and the pragmatic paradigm: notes from a feminist researcherin the
field and out to lunch. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 155166.
Ruspini, E. (2001) The study of womens deprivation: how to reveal the gender dimension of poverty.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 101118.
Scanlon, J. (1993) Keeping our activist selves alive in the classroom: feminist pedagogy and political
activism. Feminist Teacher, 7(2), 814.
Scering, G.E. (1997) Themes of a critical/feminist pedagogy: teacher education for democracy. Journal
of Teacher Education, 48, 6268.
Schniedewind, N. (1993) Teaching feminist process in the 1990s. Womens Studies Quarterly, 21(34),
1730.
Shrewsbury, C.M. (1993) What is feminist pedagogy? Womens Studies Quarterly, 21(34), 815.
Stanovsky, D. (1997) Speaking as, speaking for, and speaking with: the pitfalls and possibilities of men
teaching feminism. Feminist Teacher, 11(1), 1019.
Subramaniam, B. and Wyer, M. (1998) Assimilating the culture of no culture in science: feminist
intervention in (de)mentoring graduate women. Feminist Teacher, 12(1), 1228.
Thompson, L. and Walker, A.J. (1995) The place of feminism in family studies. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 57, 847865.
Treichler, P.A. and Kramarae, C. (1983) Womens talk in the ivory tower. Communication Quarterly, 31,
118132.
Turnbull, A. (2000) Collaboration and censorship in the oral history interview. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 3(1), 1534.
Violanti, M.T. (1999) So you want to work together: strengths and limitations of collaborative research.
Communication Research Reports, 16, 376385.
Weatherall, A. (1999) Exploring a teaching/research nexus as a possible site for feminist methodological
innovation in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 199214.
Webb, L.M., Bollis-Pecci, T.S., Walker, K.L. and Reuter, T.P. (1998) Perceived parental communication
and young adults self esteem: changing associations across time. Top paper in communication
theory, presented at Southern States Communication Association, San Antonio, April.
Webb, L.M., Allen, M.W. and Walker, K.L. (2002) Feminist pedagogy: identifying principles. Academic
Education Quarterly, 6, 6772.
Weiler, K. (1988) Women Teaching for Change (New York: Bergin and Garvey).
Weiler, K. (1995) Revisioning feminist pedagogy. NWSA Journal, 7, 100106.
Woodbridge, L. (1994) The centrifugal classroom. In S.M. Deats and L.T. Lenker (eds) Gender and
Academe: Feminist Pedagogy and Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).
Appendix 1: Six principles of feminist pedagogy
Principle Explanation Foundational citations
1. Reformation of A feminist pedagogy offers the Bowker and Dunkin 1992, Bell
the professor professor and the students new 1993, Bright 1993, Shrewsbury
student relational roles. Individuals 1993, Foss and Griffin 1995,

relationship involved in the learning Christie 1997, Scering 1997,
experience share knowledge and Stanovsky 1997
thus enact the teaching role as
well as acquire knowledge and
thus enact the learner role
(Parry 1996).
2. Empowerment To empower a student is to Bright 1993, Shrewsbury 1993,
enact a participatory, Woodbridge 1994, Chapman
democratic process in which at 1997, Scering 1997,
least some power is shared Middlecamp and Subramaniam
(Shrewsbury 1993: 9). The 1999
professor can acknowledge
power as evaluator and grader,
while also redefining the
teaching role from knowledge
leader to activation of multiple
perspectives (Scering 1997: 66).
3. Building Collaborative learning assumes Treichler and Kramarae, 1983,
community that learning occurs through Bell 1993, Bright 1993,
relationships and dialogue Schniedewind 1993, Shrewsbury
(Gawelek et al. 1994: 182). 1993, Gawelek et al. 1994, Parry
Collaborating on tasks and 1996, Scering 1997, Novek 1999
projects . . . helps create a sense
of community (Parry 1996: 46),
especially when the collaborative
tasks and projects address the
specific needs of each collective
of students.
4. Privileging the Voice is the currency of the Gawelek et al. 1994, Parry 1996,
individual voice academyin lectures, writing, Middlecamp and Subramaniam
discussions, doctoral 1999
committees, and in faculty
meetings. If the only voice heard
is the instructors, the students
are deprived of a primary and
critical way of knowing
(Gawelek et al. 1994: 181).
5. Respect for Feminist pedagogy makes Weiler 1988, Bowker and
diversity of explicit that how we experience Dunkin 1992, Shrewsbury 1993,
personal and understand things is rooted Foss and Foss 1994, Parry 1996,
experience in our social position, based on a Chapman 1997, Scering 1997,
variety of factors, including Subramaniam and Wyer 1998,
gender, race, ethnicity, class, and Lelwica 1999
sexual preference (Parry 1996:
46). Feminist pedagogy affirms
the value of personal experience
as a central component of
learning (Parry 1996: 47).
Principle Explanation Foundational citations
6. Challenging Feminist pedagogy challenges Gussman and Hesford 1992,

traditional views traditional views of theory, Scanlon 1993, Shrewsbury 1993,
research, and teaching. For Scering 1997, Middlecamp and
instance, feminist instructors Subramaniam 1999
often challenge the origin of

ideas and theories, the positions
of the promoters, and the factors
influencing how knowledge
comes to exist in its present
form (Middlecamp and
Subramanian 1999).
Note. The six principles of pedagogy are from Webb et al. (2002).
Appendix 2: Potential problems and suggested solutions

to conducting a research group guided by principles of
feminist pedagogy
Reformation of the teacherstudent relationship
1. Problem: The student may act inappropriately in a collaborative research

team. Suggestion: The teacher could model appropriate behaviour. If the
student continues to behave inappropriately, the teacher can describe
appropriate behaviour in an individual conference with the student.
2. Problem: The student wants to do something outside the parameters of
the project. Suggestion: The teacher could bring the students idea to the
group and suggest that the group decide whether to retain or expand the
parameters of the project.
3. Problem: The student appears unable to contribute meaningfully to the
collaborative work product across the first two or three meetings.
Suggestion: The teacher may believe that the student is uncomfortable
with group work. In a private session, the teacher could explore with the
student potential motivations for the students behaviour, and offer
alternative assignments to replace the group project, including the
student completing an individual research project of his/her selection.
4. Problem: The students have few academic or research skills to bring to
the group. Suggestion: The teacher could assist the group in selecting a
project within the scope of the skills of its members or acknowledge that
the group will only achieve the first few steps of the project.
5. Problem: A student does not like how the group is progressing.
Suggestion: The group could decide the direction of the project and pace
at which they make subsequent decisions. The group collaboratively
decides the direction of the group.
6. Problem: The teacher wants to direct the group (e.g. not give up
traditional power as a teacher). Suggestions: (a) The teacher could
attempt the collaborative model for one or two meetings to ascertain if
he/she is able to engage in collaborative learning; (b) the teacher might

appoint a watch dog to signal him/her when the teacher directs rather
than collaborates with the group.
7. Problem: A student continues to think of the teacher in the traditional
role of directing the group (e.g. the teacher has the power). Suggestion:
The student could observe other group members making an equal
contribution and become persuaded that the group members share joint
power, i.e. the collaborative process changes students attitudes.
Empowerment
8. Problem: The teacher acknowledges and reinforces students behaviours

but students do not model the behaviour. Suggestion: The teacher could
state a positive affirmation and then ask the group the same affirmation in
the form of a question, i.e. Do you agree? After learning the script for
affirmation, the students may affirm one another without prompting.
9. Problem: No students volunteer for work assignments. Suggestion: The
teacher could remain silent. When the students become uncomfortable
with the silence, one of them will probably speak.
Building community
10. Problem: Students do not contribute equally. Suggestion: The teacher

might comment: It appears X has a light load and Y has a heavy load.
What can we do to even it out? The students probably will redistribute
assignments increasing equity or explain that the short-term inequality
will become equal in the long run.
11. Problem: The student misuses or misunderstands scientific language.
Suggestion: The teacher could correct the mistake during the group
meeting in a manner that allows the student to save face. If the student
repeats the mistake, he/she is asked to defend the statement and, if he/
she cannot, then the teacher again can correct his/her statement
according to the language of academic and scientific protocol. Repeated
corrections probably will persuade students to alter their language
usage (or endure repeated public correction).
Privileging the individual voice
12. Problem: A student does not want to participate in the discussion on a

specific decision. Suggestion: The group could allow each member to
abstain from comment during any specific discussion, but ask that the
student provide his/her input first during discussion on the next
decision.
13. Problem: The students direct their questions to the teacher. Suggestion:
The teacher could resist the urge to provide a quick answer and instead
redirect questions to the group for deliberation.
Respect for diversity
14. Problem: A student fails to respect another student who is different from
him/herself, perhaps making fun of the difference. Suggestion: The
teacher could make an observation acknowledging the behaviour and
then ask the group if they would prefer that the group allow or disallow
such comments, i.e. I see Karen is poking fun at Jacks lack of

sophistication in music. Do we want to permit this kind of comment
during our group meetings or do we want to agree not to allow such
talk? We all have strengths and weaknesses; if we allow such comments,
we will all be teased. Is everyone comfortable with that? The teacher
could then allow the group to decide.
15. Problem: A student announces that, now that he/she knows what is
involved, he/she does not like science and does not want to participate
in a research group. Suggestion: The teacher might ask the student to
develop an alternative, individual assignment.
Challenging traditional views
16. Problem: A student complains that the teacher is not really teaching,
meaning not lecturing. Suggestions: (a) The teacher could ask the group
if they would like lectures instead of group meetings (or in addition to
group meetings) and allow the group to decide future format; (b) the
teacher might offer to provide the individual student with specific
readings on research methods as well as to meet with him/her
individually to discuss the readings, either as a substitute for or in
addition to the group meetings. Alternatively, the teacher could offer to
have his/her research assistant meet with the student to discuss
supplementary readings.
17. Problem: A student expresses a preference for grading based on
individual work on tests, papers and projects. Suggestion: The teacher
could explain he/she is grading the students on individual contributions to
a collective work product and that students can earn diverse grades,
depending on their work effort and the quality of their individual work
products, i.e. drafts of individual sections of a literature review.

Feminist Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feminist Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

ISSN: 1364-5579 (Print) 1464-5300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20

Feminist pedagogy in the teaching of research

LYNNE M. WEBB , KANDI L. WALKER & TAMARA S. BOLLIS

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119599

Published online: 23 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 443

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Feminist pedagogy in the teaching of research

LYNNE M. WEBB, KANDI L. WALKER and TAMARA S. BOLLIS

(Received 11 June 2002; accepted 11 March 2003)

US academic feminists have articulated the principles of feminist pedagogy

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Given increased interest in issues at the intersection of research methods

ology for teaching graduate students empirical research methods. While

The feminist research group

We advocate self-directed research teams who select their own topics,

determination, each student selected a part of the literature review to

the first group meeting, students received an A if they consistently attended

Application of the principles of feminist pedagogy

A meta-analysis of recent US writing on feminist pedagogy yielded six

Reformation of the relationship between teacher and student

Empowerment was accomplished primarily via positive reinforcement, i.e.

Privileging the individual voice

At each meeting, team members reported on project-related activities and

Respect for diversity of personal experience

Members of our research team hailed from different educational, economic

room facing a computer surrounded by stacks of old books. Instead, she

Challenging traditional views

Members of our research team constantly challenged the traditional views of

Challenges to the described process

We enjoyed the advantage of committed and talented team members who

with undergraduate students, we believe that graduate students may

malefemale students as members. Violanti (1999) found males and

Benefits of the described process

Several pragmatic benefits of a feminist research group improve the quality

A major pedagogical benefit to a feminist research group is instruction

Publication pressures aside, collaboration offers intrinsic and compelling

respect one anothers socio-historical development challenge hierarchical

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(3), 225241.

and Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield).

Appendix 1: Six principles of feminist pedagogy

Principle Explanation Foundational citations

student relational roles. Individuals 1993, Foss and Griffin 1995,

Principle Explanation Foundational citations

6. Challenging Feminist pedagogy challenges Gussman and Hesford 1992,

often challenge the origin of

Appendix 2: Potential problems and suggested solutions

Reformation of the teacherstudent relationship

1. Problem: The student may act inappropriately in a collaborative research

he/she is able to engage in collaborative learning; (b) the teacher might

8. Problem: The teacher acknowledges and reinforces students behaviours

10. Problem: Students do not contribute equally. Suggestion: The teacher

Privileging the individual voice

12. Problem: A student does not want to participate in the discussion on a

Respect for diversity

such comments, i.e. I see Karen is poking fun at Jacks lack of

Challenging traditional views

You might also like