方法对比

	Queer Methodology	Feminist Standpoint Analysis
领域	Gender Studies	Gender Studies
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2010	1983
提出者	Kath Browne, Catherine J. Nash, Jack Halberstam	Nancy Hartsock, Dorothy Smith, Sandra Harding
类型	Critical anti-normative research methodology	Critical feminist epistemology and analytic framework
开创性文献	Browne, K., & Nash, C. J. (Eds.) (2010). Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. Ashgate, Surrey. ISBN: 9780754678434	Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. ISBN: 9780801497469
别名	Queer Methods, Queer Research Methodology	Standpoint Theory, Feminist Standpoint Epistemology, Standpoint Methodology
相关	4	4
摘要	Queer methodology is less a fixed technique than a critical stance toward research that disrupts taken-for-granted categories of sex, gender, and sexuality and resists the assumption that identities are stable, knowable, and countable. Articulated for the social sciences in Kath Browne and Catherine Nash's Queer Methods and Methodologies (2010) and prefigured in Jack Halberstam's notion of a 'scavenger' methodology, it asks not 'what is the right method?' but 'how does research itself reproduce normativity?' — and licenses researchers to borrow and combine methods rhizomatically in order to attend to fluidity, ambiguity, and the very production of the normal.	Feminist standpoint analysis is a critical epistemology and analytic strategy holding that all knowledge is socially situated, and that beginning inquiry from the everyday lives of marginalized people — historically women — yields a more complete and less distorted account of social reality than the supposedly neutral view from dominant positions. Developed by Nancy Hartsock, Dorothy Smith, and Sandra Harding in the 1980s, it argues that the marginalized see both the dominant order and its underside, and that this doubled vision, when methodically developed into an achieved standpoint, can ground a 'strong objectivity' superior to claims of value-free detachment.