Recently, there has been a marked growth of interest in research methods in geography. Stimulated in part by the epistemological questions raised by feminist and post-modem critiques of 'scientific' method, this interest took a severely practical turn when the Economic and Social Research Council required a taught component, including methods, to be part of all postgraduate training. This led to the development of courses on alternative methodological strategies in geography and, especially for human geographers, an interest in developing teaching about feminist methods. In this paper, I discuss some of the issues that may arise from the adoption of explicitly feminist approaches to geographical research. Recognition of the positionality of the researcher and her/his subjects and the relations of power between them, as Pile argued in a different context in his recent paper in this journal, raises important questions for geographers that we are just beginning to address.
[1]
S. Pile.
Practising interpretative geography
,
1991
.
[2]
L. McDowell,et al.
Towards an Understanding of the Gender Division of Urban Space
,
1983
.
[3]
S. Marston.
Who are ‘The People’?: Gender, Citizenship, and the Making of the American Nation
,
1990
.
[4]
J. Stacey.
Can there be a feminist ethnography
,
1988
.
[5]
J. Goldthorpe,et al.
Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain
,
1980
.
[6]
Janice Monk,et al.
ON NOT EXCLUDING HALF OF THE HUMAN IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY
,
1982
.
[7]
G. Pratt.
FEMINIST ANALYSES OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF URBAN LIFE
,
1990
.
[8]
Linda McDowell,et al.
Life without Father and Ford: The New Gender Order of Post-Fordism
,
1991
.
[9]
L. Bondi.
Gender and dichotomy
,
1992
.