In this article, as the question: What is the place of feminism in family studies? Scholars often take stock of their discipline. They search for what is there and what is missing, what concepts, theories, questions, and methods are at the center and margins, and what directions for future scholarship hold the most promise. Taking stock is an essential practice for feminist scholars who want to work at the center, yet retain the right to be critical, of their discipline. They need to know how they fit into the discipline as a whole. Family scholars who do not think of themselves as feminist ought to know how feminism shapes their discipline, and how their discipline accommodates and resists the contributions of feminism. Ten years ago, wrote a state of the article about feminism and family studies (Walker & Thompson, 1984). searched for evidence of feminism in family studies journals, coded articles as feminist or not feminist, and charted the progress of feminism with a tally. also considered whether feminism was compatible with positivist social science, A decade later, wanted to revisit feminism and family studies, but the landscape had changed so much that could not use the same markers to find our way. had to find new ways to approach the place of feminism in family studies. The field of family studies is changing, feminism is changing, and both of us, as scholars, are changing. are in the midst of a transformation. In the middle of such change, it is hard to find the place of feminism in family studies. In 1984, thought could chart the progress of feminism in family studies with categories, counting, and strong conclusions. A decade later, find it useful to think about challenges, contradictions, tensions, and themes. In the midst of transformation, cannot make straightforward statements about whether feminism is at the center or margins of family studies. Our answer depends on where stand, at a particular moment, and where look. Family studies is moving into an era in which many scholars recognize the contextualism of our knowledge (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993). Scholars who advocate a contextual approach emphasize diversity among families and consider how their knowledge of families is limited by their own values and context. As Doherty and his colleagues (1993) noted, feminism helped push family studies toward this postpositivist stance. They also noted that journals may be the last stronghold of positivism in family studies, the most resistant to change. At the same time, feminism is changing. It is opening up to a wide range of ways to be a feminist and to do feminist scholarship. The boundaries between scholarship that is feminist and scholarship that is not feminist are blurred, making it perilous to classify a given piece of work. The category of feminism changes historically, and what do to-make a feminist contribution to scholarship changes. Rapping (1994) noted that, at one time, feminists could talk of we and them. We meant a common feminist voice who spoke for the of and them meant a hostile and ignorant world. Those days are gone. It is no longer and them, and there is no common feminist voice about how to study and accomplish what is good for women, including women in families. Family studies and feminism are more diverse and inclusive in 1995 than they were a decade ago. Diversity and inclusiveness create new tensions in out discipline and make it difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions about the place of feminism in family studies. How, then, did go about analyzing the place of feminism in family studies for the present article? approached the question in a spirit of diversity and inclusion. Between the two of us, considered every article published in Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF), Family Relations (FR), and Journal of Family Issues (JFI) in the decade spanning 1984 to 1993. …
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 136 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.