Thorne S, Varcoe C
University of British Columbia School of Nursing, Vancouver, Canada.
Health Care Women Int. 1998 Nov-Dec;19(6):481-93. doi: 10.1080/073993398246052.
Awareness of the insufficient degree to which mainstream research has created useful knowledge about women's health has drawn many researchers to feminist methodologies. Such approaches tend to privilege qualitative designs, emancipatory objectives, and cooperative strategies. They challenge the notions of expert power, the appropriation of voice, and ownership of the research products. By uncovering the extent to which power inequities are embedded in our research traditions, including such issues as who conducts research, which questions are studied, and how they are studied, feminist critique can be a powerful tool toward stronger research with more socially relevant findings. However, taken to extremes, feminist methodological requirements can immobilize and discourage active inquiry. In this paper, we articulate major directives of a feminist stance, explain the extremes at which they become problematic, and propose responsive options for women's health researchers. We intend such analysis to overcome divisiveness and promote inclusiveness without sacrificing excellence in research and action.
主流研究在创造关于女性健康的有用知识方面存在不足,这一认识促使许多研究者采用女性主义方法论。这类方法往往侧重于质性设计、解放性目标和合作策略。它们挑战了专家权力、话语权的占有以及研究成果的所有权等观念。通过揭示权力不平等在我们研究传统中的嵌入程度,包括诸如谁进行研究、研究哪些问题以及如何研究等问题,女性主义批判可以成为一种强大工具,助力开展更具社会相关性发现的更强有力研究。然而,若走向极端,女性主义方法论要求可能会使积极探究陷入停滞并令人气馁。在本文中,我们阐述了女性主义立场的主要指导原则,解释了它们在何种极端情况下会出现问题,并为女性健康研究者提出了应对选项。我们希望这种分析能够克服分歧并促进包容性,同时不牺牲研究和行动的卓越性。